Does the ACO need a new philosophy for LMP2 and GTE?

[Speed-King]

Based on some comments from the Spa 6hr weekend, it seems like the new LMH cars make their laptimes rather differently from the LMP2s and GTEs.

Here's what Kevin Estre had to say:

“They have more power than us and are faster on the straights,” he told Sportscar365.

“If they catch you in sector one or sector three, it’s no big issue. In sector two, if they don’t overtake us into Les Combes, we kind of push them up to turn nine.

“We are in their gearbox. In these technical parts, they don’t have an advantage to us with the Le Mans [low-downforce] kit and the weight they have now.

“GTE has always had a very good mechanical balance, but now that the weight from the LMP is closer to our weight, they don’t really gain in these corners. We are stuck behind.

“I think we’ll unfortunately see a lot more GTE cars blocking LMP cars just before [Les Combes] because if they don’t overtake us there, we’ll lose a lot of time which was not the case before.

“So I think it’s not great, but I spoke this morning to [LMP2 driver] Loic Duval and he said it’s going to be tough. He said, ‘we know you’re going to block us, so we’re going to be aggressive.”

Estre indicated that the top GTE drivers in both the Pro and Am classes are facing a significant time loss when they come up against amateur drivers in the LMP2 cars.

“This is even worse,” he said. “If a gentleman overtakes us, we lose one to 1.5 seconds on a lap. With the tight competition we have here normally you can’t afford to lose that.

“I think it’s going to be tough. You can also see that they fight more with the car, also Toyota for the speed they have in the corners. You can really see that they fight the cars more.

“Life is harder for them and the gap between all classes is smaller. It’s going to be a challenge.”

What I am wondering, is if the ACO/FIA need to reflect this different way of racing when it comes to the question of what they should do with regards to the next-generation of LMP2-cars and the question of what should happen to GT in WEC and at Le Mans.

If I understand things correctly, classes "making" their laptimes in different ways (i.e. some being faster on the straights, while others are faster in the corners, but slower on the straights ) can be a major cause of accidents. A beneficial class structure would see all cars similarily fast through the corners, so as to avoid scenarios such as the one outlined by Estre above, but with a clear separation in straightline speed. That way, passing between the classes should mostly happen on the straights, which is inherently safer than in the corners - especially if much of the passing there happens in the form of "dive-bomb" moves.

With the new LMH cars being bound to a fixed downforce to drag ratio and therefore relatively low on downforce, it seems to me that the other classes in the field should follow a similar philosophy, i.e. by being slower in the corners than what we have right now.

The easiest way to achieve this would be to limit downforce for LMP2 and GT-cars in the next ruleset, either by fixed downforce to drag ratios or by limiting the size of wings and splitters, etc.

While this should be relatively easily to achieve with regards to next-gen LMP2, this poses a real problem for the rumored introduction of GT3 as a replacement for GTE, since GT3-cars are by and at large also relatively high-downforce machines.

Would it be then wise for the ACO/FIA to either create a bespoke low-downforce GT-class of their own or to introduce SRO GT2 rather than GT3-cars? Or is GT3 bringing so much to the table in terms of involved manufacturers that the ACO should overlook the problems of interclass racing that will probably come up when LMHs and GT3s share the track?

What do you think - should the ACO impose the low-downforce approach that exists in LMH also to LMP2 and its future GT-class? Or should they simply let things play out with no regards to the dynamics of interclass racing and rather focus on making these classes most attractive to potential entrants, even if that means following the current high-downforce route?

[joeb]

Interesting thoughts here.

I am still quite confused about the next LMP2 ruleset. I know they are to be the basis for the LMdH cars, but I can't find any info on what the actual P2 chassis rules will be. I'm guessing similar to todays rules, but I haven't seen that listed and i think they are supposed to roll out in 2023?

The GT side of things could be wide open. GT3 seems like the safe and easy bet for the next "top" class in WEC and Le Mans, but will the ACO take it? I would be all for lowering downforce to reduce cornering speeds, but will that allow for a higher top end speed making the overtaking on the straights more difficult? I know GT2 hasn't been hugely successful thus far, but have they been racing with GT3's on track? If so, how do they compare?

[Bcarr6]

Originally Posted by joeb

Interesting thoughts here.

I am still quite confused about the next LMP2 ruleset. I know they are to be the basis for the LMdH cars, but I can't find any info on what the actual P2 chassis rules will be. I'm guessing similar to todays rules, but I haven't seen that listed and i think they are supposed to roll out in 2023?

The GT side of things could be wide open. GT3 seems like the safe and easy bet for the next "top" class in WEC and Le Mans, but will the ACO take it? I would be all for lowering downforce to reduce cornering speeds, but will that allow for a higher top end speed making the overtaking on the straights more difficult? I know GT2 hasn't been hugely successful thus far, but have they been racing with GT3's on track? If so, how do they compare?

GT2 has only been on track with GT3 a very few times, the best reference being a 2019 GT Sports Club meeting at Barcelona. The Audi R8 GT2 left the GT3 it was battling behind on the 2 straights, before getting hounded at every corner

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by joeb

I would be all for lowering downforce to reduce cornering speeds, but will that allow for a higher top end speed making the overtaking on the straights more difficult?

I think you could relatively easily engineer appropriate gaps in straight line speed by giving the higher classes a better power to weight ratio. So the new GT cars would either have to be relatively low powered (much like the current crop of GTE cars) or heavy.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I think you could relatively easily engineer appropriate gaps in straight line speed by giving the higher classes a better power to weight ratio. So the new GT cars would either have to be relatively low powered (much like the current crop of GTE cars) or heavy.

Less power would be preferable to too heavy, lower power outputs limits top speed only (VERY generally and assuming aero and handling is the same) but heavy can lower top speeds AND cornering speeds. I would say less power and less aero but the aero can help the corners so maybe more so less power than aero.

[canaglia]

gte is a class that reached its limit from years, it still exists only because ACO doesn't want to surrender to gt3 specs and because ferrari and porsche have still some customers in gtam, aside their work programs.
Do next lmp2 gen have to be designed in 4:1 ratio like hypercars?

[TF110]

I think this could be solved by letting the weight of hypercars come down to 950kg. Just make them the same weight as lmp2 but with more power. Cornering should be close. We will see. In GTE I think GT3 will eventually replace the class with some restrictions loosened.

[Akrapovic]

I like how we're trying to solve a problem they just created, that they already solved.

There is no reason for Hypercar to be as slow as they are. We have privately run customer LMP1s which are basically tarted up LMP2s which can run at 3:14 pace. Probably more if they really wanted to. There's no reason for Hypercar to be as slow as it is.

Speed up Hypercar
Put LMP2 back to it's previous speed
Optional: Add weight to GTE.

Done.

[broadrun96]

Place the blame where it should be, Aston Martin and their cancelled project that screwed everyone.

Glickenhaus could have used their Alfa engine, no slight to Pipo but engine partner would be a plus

Weight could have been reduced to start as wasn't the Valkyrie a heavy heavy car?

And for all of us, well those who wanted to believe, expectations would have been muted and no high hopes for the next ACO clusterf___

Yes, yes, screaming V12 in the woods at night, well watch old movies for that I think. Or historics racing

[blankfile]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Place the blame where it should be, Aston Martin and their cancelled project that screwed everyone.

Glickenhaus could have used their Alfa engine, no slight to Pipo but engine partner would be a plus

Weight could have been reduced to start as wasn't the Valkyrie a heavy heavy car?

And for all of us, well those who wanted to believe, expectations would have been muted and no high hopes for the next ACO clusterf___

Yes, yes, screaming V12 in the woods at night, well watch old movies for that I think. Or historics racing

Yeah aston screwed with the hypercar rules too much and we could have seen a alfa engine on the grid with cars that would have been faster than they are now

But for why the weight is high and power is quite lowish compared to the older rules is due to lmdh convergence. those cars incorporating their spec hybrid has moved their weight up and they cant get up to the power levels of the hypercar regs before convergence. so thats why we have a slowish top class. (still faster than 10 years ago though)

[tux]

Probably more likely to end up with LMH & then 50 Ligier/Oreca LMP3s tbh

[Adam43]

I’m not bothered. Cars in multi class racing achieving their lap times in different ways is just another challenge. You always get that a little if you have prototypes and GT. Just a question of how much. It’s a little more significant because the lap times are closer.

I’ve raced in a a series that has this a lot. Light and low powered and heavy and high powered. Often with different orders depending on track. Also raced in a a series that had big saloons and Caterhams in the same race. It was part of the sport.

It presents more of a challenge, but as lap times are closer there will be less lapping so less common.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

...it seems to me that the other classes in the field should follow a similar philosophy, i.e. by being slower in the corners than what we have right now.

What you're describing would be a positive change for P2 and GTE even regardless of the Hypercar situation. It would make for a better/closer racing, more spectacular cornering (more movement) and make cars more progressive/less edgy near the limit, hence more Am-friendly. Of course, a lot of the Am drivers will say a high downforce LMP is easier to drive than something like an old GT2, but that's until they go near the limit and enter Indianapolis backwards not knowing what the hell just happened.

This will also enable GT car manufacturers to up the power of their cars to at least resemble the output of the road going model. Remember when race cars were more powerful than their street-legal siblings?
I'd like to see something like GT4 on steroids as the top international GT class.

Secondly, after LMDh arrives there will be no need for LMP2, not in its current form. A no-name brand version of LMDh at a slight discount BoPed in a way that doesn't allow it to win overall? Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition. Especially when there's LMP3 that does mostly the same job at a fraction of the cost.

So why not take the LMP3, make it slightly faster while maintaining the costs? And just call it LMP or whatever, since P2/P3 nomenclature no longer makes sense without LMP1.

Originally Posted by blankfile

Yeah aston screwed with the hypercar rules too much and we could have seen a alfa engine on the grid with cars that would have been faster than they are now

Erm... no. A Valkyrie with its ridiculous aero and a huge power advantage would be waaaay faster than the current LMH. Even a road going car is said to be capable of beating LMP2 around a lap on street tires. The whole reason the 007 LMH lost its Alfa V6 was because the car needed a lot more power, which then became unnecessary, when Aston pulled out and the whole LMH concept was slowed down to be BoPed with DPi 2.0. This is why James Glickenhaus mentioned multiple times that the current V8 could potentially produce more power if needed. Because it was designed to compete with actual hypercars, not heavier versions of LMP2 with a facelift and some batteries designed to produce more PR than kilowatts.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Even a road going car is said to be capable of beating LMP2 around a lap on street tires.

I am not disagreeing, but am interested. Do you have a source for this claim, or better still a lap time

For many a year things in roads cars have been toned down for Le Mans. I remember back in the day having a tour of the McLaren F1 team factory (humble brag) and they explained how much power was taken out of the engine for the race car

[broadrun96]

Corvette used to run that in an ad during IMSA races

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS5gbTswWk

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Corvette used to run that in an ad during IMSA races

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS5gbTswWk

But that's after it lost like 150hp having been converted from GT1. This is what I consider the beginning of the current low power, high downforce era. The original C6.R had around 600hp vs 505hp of Z06, the homologation model.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I am not disagreeing, but am interested. Do you have a source for this claim, or better still a lap time

For many a year things in roads cars have been toned down for Le Mans. I remember back in the day having a tour of the McLaren F1 team factory (humble brag) and they explained how much power was taken out of the engine for the race car

The McLaren was a bit of an outlier, let's be honest, it was a complete game changer when it arrived and had no real peers at the time and had to be brought down to the level of competition.
Even in 2000s most of the GT1 cars had up to 150hp on top of what the road versions had. Even the Saleen S7.R gained power over the base S7.

As for the Valkyrie it was a claim from someone at the development team when the road going prototype first hit the track in public. I think they meant projected laptime based on the available performance data, not an actual recorded lap time. And I'm not sure which race track they meant, whether it was around Le Mans or elsewhere. At the time they tested around Silverstone. But it doesn't really matter if the claim was a little off in either direction. The road car has 1000hp from the V12 and then additional 160hp from the hybrid system, it's reported to weigh 1050-1100kg and has Newey's extreme aero concept that would be illegal in any racing series, not to mention active aero. Of course it's going to be more efficient than a bunch of cars designed around regulatory "boxes" that rule makers have been refining for decades with the sole goal of negating the specific performance advancements made by constructors. I remembered being very impressed by the bold claim purely because of the road tires part of it. There's little doubt it could run rings around an LMP on suitable slicks. It's real world "cheat car", like one of those special virtual concepts made to set 'Ring records in GranTurismo, except this one somehow got singed off for production.

So, say the non-hybrid race car would lose another 150-200hp for reliability, that's still 800-850hp, but it could also lose a couple of kilos, basically matching the GR010 (and likely the future LMDh cars) and have a passive aero setup that would still be way more efficient than the current LMH performance bracket. Why wouldn't it be quicker?

It's a huge loss we'll never see it racing at Le Mans. It's outrageous it would make history regardless of its results.

And while it sort of is Aston's fault there's no Alfa engine on the grid, it's certainly not Aston's fault the cars are "slow" (I don't believe they are anyway). In fact, the lower performance bar set by ACO and IMSA since AM's exodus would make it unfeasible for Valkyrie to partake, even if Stroll miraculously changed his mind now. They'd have to lose a third of the power and fit an air brake to comply. And the performance bar won't be changed much because IMSA already has too much invested in LMDh as it was envisaged. If they thought LMH cars were inherently slow, they'd invite them to Daytona 2023, but it looks like IMSA intends to take least a year to allow their OEMs to get their act together before facing LMH competition on home soil, if that ever happens at all.

PS: a DPi car is around 600hp and 930kg. Add the 40hp hybrid system it's very likely over a ton. Suddenly they're close to LMH weight, but with a power deficit, as they seem to intend to keep the current engines. Aero rules are the big unknown though.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Corvette used to run that in an ad during IMSA races

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS5gbTswWk

funny ad.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

The McLaren was a bit of an outlier, let's be honest, it was a complete game changer when it arrived and had no real peers at the time and had to be brought down to the level of competition.

Yep, but this kind of thing has been around for over 25 years now.

I think we’ve long realised that racing doesn’t necessarily require ultimate performance.

Thanks for the info on the Valkyrie. It was the road tyres bit that got me too.

I’d love to compare a lap. Perhaps when they are more out in the wild someone will have a go...

[blankfile]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Erm... no. A Valkyrie with its ridiculous aero and a huge power advantage would be waaaay faster than the current LMH.

I mean the original lmh ruleset before aston joined would also have been faster than the cars we have now.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by blankfile

I mean the original lmh ruleset before aston joined would also have been faster than the cars we have now.

Based on what? We know that the cars weren't supposed to be more powerful than 2021 LMH. I don't remember weight figures being discussed publicly. And based on the early concept drawings the aero/bodywork was supposed to be very GT-like. And then there's the 3:30 target, which I think was always the plan, wasn't it?

From what I understand, based on what little was publicly said, after Aston pulled out the LMH performance bar was brought back down to the originally planned levels.

[WyldStallion]

https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/...a-dtm/6512530/

An interesting article that fits this thread very well.

1. I agree with Ratel, I am not sure if a GT category is even needed in WEC/Le Mans 24H by the year 2024. GTE Pro can depart after 2022, GTE Am after 2023. I think LMH, LMDH, and LMP2 can fill a 48 car grid.

2. GTE AM could last through 2024 though.

3. Another idea is this...a limited particiation GT3 based GT-Am class for maybe 2 years in 2024, 2025, or even 2026 where only manufacturers who competed in GT since 2019 can compete in. So it would limit that to Chevy, Ford, BMW, Aston Martin, Ferrari, and Porsche.

[gert]

Interesting, maybe.

But don't forget that Ratel is looking for for the best interests of SRO in the first place, not for GT racing, the FIA, or the ACO.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by WyldStallion

https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/...a-dtm/6512530/

An interesting article that fits this thread very well.

1. I agree with Ratel, I am not sure if a GT category is even needed in WEC/Le Mans 24H by the year 2024. GTE Pro can depart after 2022, GTE Am after 2023. I think LMH, LMDH, and LMP2 can fill a 48 car grid.

2. GTE AM could last through 2024 though.

3. Another idea is this...a limited particiation GT3 based GT-Am class for maybe 2 years in 2024, 2025, or even 2026 where only manufacturers who competed in GT since 2019 can compete in. So it would limit that to Chevy, Ford, BMW, Aston Martin, Ferrari, and Porsche.

GT3 is happening. We're looking forward to customers racing our 004C GT3 in IMSA, The WEC, at Le Mans, in DTM and at The N24.

When 1,000,000 people went to Le Mans in 1967 there were Prototypes made by road car manufacturers, two Liter Prototypes made by road car manufactures and GT cars made by road car manufacturers. These same cars traveled across the pond and raced at Sebring and Daytona.

Racing got lost. It's now going to be found.

[Tique]

I recall a discussion between Zak Brown or Richard Dean with Graham that was discussed in the TWISC and in this discussion, they were wondering if LMP2 will still exist in the future.


Having the LMDh and the LMH slower, the GTE disappearing in the coming year and probably been replaced bythe GT3, we could have as class:
- LMDh / LMH
- LMP3
- GT3 Pro
- GT3 Pro Am


For a cost point of view it make sense as I beleive that the LMP3 are much cheaper to operate than the LMP2. ANd for a stratification point of view, the LMP3 should be quicker than the GT3 as they are already quicker than the GTE (it least in ELMS).

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by Tique

I recall a discussion between Zak Brown or Richard Dean with Graham that was discussed in the TWISC and in this discussion, they were wondering if LMP2 will still exist in the future.


Having the LMDh and the LMH slower, the GTE disappearing in the coming year and probably been replaced bythe GT3, we could have as class:
- LMDh / LMH
- LMP3
- GT3 Pro
- GT3 Pro Am


For a cost point of view it make sense as I beleive that the LMP3 are much cheaper to operate than the LMP2. ANd for a stratification point of view, the LMP3 should be quicker than the GT3 as they are already quicker than the GTE (it least in ELMS).

I think this is likely and that LMP3 will be a platform for small manufacturers who may also make road examples.