A return to a fuel efficiency formula?

[JAG]

Although this story relates to F1, how likely do you think it is the ACO will return to a fuel efficiency formula, further improving it's green credentials?

Personally I'd like to see manufactuers push the limits of fuel efficiency in P1, while GT2 would be very interesting as restrictors could be ditched and we'd see which manufactuers have found the best performance/efficiency balance.

At the very least it would be interesting to see how a current P1 compares to a last generation Group C car in terms of fuel consumption.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83210

[The Badger]

I would like to see the the engine regs opened up , and the fuel formula re-introduced like in the group C days .

Some may agrue against that . In fact , my very first sportscar race at Brands in 86 , Joest had to stop in front of the finish line and let the RLR 962 do another lap , and finally claim 2nd place . I didnt like that but , I reckon the engineering has come a long way since then .

I dont like the way the engine rules are supposed to be going at all , stupid in my opinion .

[JAG]

I'd keep P1 engine regs as they are, small capacity 3.4l V8's and 2l turbos match well with the trends in road car engines.

I would however remove restrictors and replace them with a strict fuel allowance.

Whatever the allowance was in the Group C days, I think they should be looking at reducing that by 50% or more (is that even realistic?), taking into account hybrid systems.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by JAG

I'd keep P1 engine regs as they are, small capacity 3.4l V8's and 2l turbos match well with the trends in road car engines.

I would however remove restrictors and replace them with a strict fuel allowance.

Whatever the allowance was in the Group C days, I think they should be looking at reducing that by 50% or more (is that even realistic?), taking into account hybrid systems.

If the current weight minimums stayed in place I bet you would see lots of hybrid type systems coming into play.

[courageous]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Joest had to stop in front of the finish line and let the RLR 962 do another lap

Some careful rule wording would be needed to avoid that like "more than 3 consecutive very slow laps (ie 120% of cars best) & you must pit for repairs or penalty, next 3 laps must be quick (ie 105% of cars best)"

Don't handicap alternative fuel methods & don't do counter intuitive rules like "KERS energy can not be used to improve consumption", if bibutonal or hybrid cars can go further then good for them (so long as minimum weight is sufficiantly low that carrying a battery for more power is a trade off).

Really a shame that despite all the words said, every effort to explore an advantage here gets held back (and over the past few years it has mostly been private efforts trying to do it).

In fact, given that last point on private efforts - make the difference between LMP1 & LMP2 a really significant amount of fuel allowed, the choice is be fast & run for the overall or run frugal & go for class win (same car/engine rules, but LMP2 has say 80% of the LMP1 fuel).

For Le Mans itself, bring back the pre-qual weekend & so long as a car meets minimum targets in each; race places go to:
the fastest (single lap)
the most frugal (completes most laps without pitting)
the most reliable (completes most laps with no stops over 5 minutes)

[Purist]

The drivers hated the Group C, fuel conservation racing, and modern fans will NOT like the show that it produces, so that's just a no-go way of doing things.

Just to humor you, that would be a maximum of 230 litres (~60 gallons) of fuel for 1000km, if you went right at 50% of the final Group C allotment. Privateers can't afford to do the R&D to drop consumption b6 60%, and the top privateers will NOT settle for racing in the second class. For them, it's race for the overall, or they'll go somewhere else, period.

Also, with how much you'd have to back off in that P2 scenario, with the same engine but 80% of the fuel, you introduce an untenable situation, because then you're having to police how slow is too slow for safety reasons on a bloody constant basis, and that's NOT even remotely practical.

They should just leave the damn engine rules like they are right now for p1 and p2. Introduce new technology allowances within that framework. If you think the cars are too fast, do wholesdale aero/drag reductions, but leave power levels alone.

[courageous]

Oh, you may have misunderstood - any numbers I gave (and I am sure previous posters are the same) are random examples with no calculations or serious weight put behind them. The general idea is all I was throwing out there.

Drivers did and always will dislike fuel runs - you don't get into motorsport driving to do anything less than flat out (on the other hand, there are uber-nerds who would not dream of sitting on prat-perches without a strategy to plan).

Fans however, in this modern age (god I feel old just typing that) perhaps understand (and maybe even apreciate) the engineering side of things - with more information at their fingertips via the interweb & a generation of F1 fans who have had to learn how fuel strategy works

[Purist]

Dude, you forget, I live in the land where NASCAR is the only motorsport that exists to most of the population. If it doesn't look exciting on-track, they don't give a crap, and they won't care enough to bother looking it up online. There are quite a few Americans who take a lot of pride in their willful ignorance of anything that isn't spoon-fed to them. And they do NOT want anything new put in front of them that takes them out of their comfort zone; there are those who still think Lotus should have been kicked out of Indy when they showed up with something other than a roadster.

Even in Europe, do you honestly think most fans who watch racing take the time to look up the technicalities of the sport in any particular detail? Of course not. Racing is a diversion for most fans; it is supposed to be entertainment in their eyes, and as such, should require no real effort to understand or get enjoyment from it. How do you think 'modern" fans would react to a race run on the simple principle of an aggregate result? They wouldn't be happy, because they'd be confused, unless the guy who won overall was the one who crossed the line first.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by Purist

Even in Europe, do you honestly think most fans who watch racing take the time to look up the technicalities of the sport in any particular detail? Of course not. Racing is a diversion for most fans; it is supposed to be entertainment in their eyes, and as such, should require no real effort to understand or get enjoyment from it. How do you think 'modern" fans would react to a race run on the simple principle of an aggregate result? They wouldn't be happy, because they'd be confused, unless the guy who won overall was the one who crossed the line first.

Sad truth, that. We've entered a hugely dumbed-down society that wants all or nothing, right now. That isn't country-specific, either. It makes sportscar racing and its multi-class structure particularly difficult to describe to someone new. I think this is one reason Ratel thought WGT1 could be a success.

[Birddog07]

Mmm, Group C/GTP.

Maybe a modern formula that works well and is exciting can be thought up? If done right for prototypes than it could benefit manufactuers more aswell as giving privateers alittle more of an edge. Also you can't argue over all the different types of Group C/GTP's were around, don't find that variety and abundance in prototypes today.

[Purist]

IMSA GTP did NOT have the limit on fuel allotment; they were free to run flat-out in the races.

[Birddog07]

Whenever I think Group C, I think GTP aswell even though they had their differences. Alot of similarities, atleast on the outside.

[Purist]

Fair enough.

I'm guilty of the same, at least to some extent.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Purist

The drivers hated the Group C, fuel conservation racing, and modern fans will NOT like the show that it produces, so that's just a no-go way of doing things.

Just to humor you, that would be a maximum of 230 litres (~60 gallons) of fuel for 1000km, if you went right at 50% of the final Group C allotment. Privateers can't afford to do the R&D to drop consumption b6 60%, and the top privateers will NOT settle for racing in the second class. For them, it's race for the overall, or they'll go somewhere else, period.

Energy-flow limits would be a perfect alternative. As the rate of fuel-flow is restricted fuel-efficiency will be the key for success, but drivers could still push the car to its limits. Engines and energy recovery systems could be left entirely free and unregulated.

[ger80]

Wouldnt it be enough to reduce the fuel flow during refueling? So teams still would have the choice of going fast and have a long pit stop or going the fuel saving way. Also after the last stop everybody would go flat out.

[Justin Moran]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Energy-flow limits would be a perfect alternative. As the rate of fuel-flow is restricted fuel-efficiency will be the key for success, but drivers could still push the car to its limits. Engines and energy recovery systems could be left entirely free and unregulated.

and thats the problem, the "big" teams, even in the supposed privateer side of LMP2, would benefit hugely whilst the smaller teams would obviously lose out again, the proposal is to make it fairer in this modern age of technological acheivements by introducing a somewhat more level playing field.

I dont have the answer to that but I did love the Group C days obviously

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by C9/89

and thats the problem, the "big" teams, even in the supposed privateer side of LMP2, would benefit hugely whilst the smaller teams would obviously lose out again, the proposal is to make it fairer in this modern age of technological acheivements by introducing a somewhat more level playing field.

I dont have the answer to that but I did love the Group C days obviously

I'm sorry, but the aim for equalisation has really become a wide-spread disease in auto racing. I can't see the fairness in helping the outperformed teams. Since when is it a sin to your job better than others?

That equalisation disease made many series to become spec or at at least semi-spec. But did it improve the racing? Did it really make the sport more competitive? Did it really make the sport more attractive? I seriously doubt it.

[Justin Moran]

True enough statements my friend, Even back along when GpC ruled there were always those teams playing catch up, but it didnt really detract from the overall spectacle, did it?

So as you were, I guess i got caught up in this equalisation thing. My bad. (as they say )