[WEC] LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules - now hypercar rules)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Im perplexed concerning Audi. They went 2mj after the ers-h didnt work to their liking. Then figured more fuel would be better than trying for 4mj with their flywheel? That seems like an iffy decision. If there IS a so called "ers incentive", what would be the reason behind choosing the lowest ers class?

Imo, its not like Audi are incapable of going to the next class up, 4mj, so what made them choose 2mj, if they and every other team knew there would be an "incentive" to doing more mj? Did they not know? I dont believe that if this incentive business is actually true in the first place. Say it is true, would they not tell every team? Of course they would, so then the only thing left to assume was timing of this. I know some say it was only presented to teams before the prologue. Then I recall there was something being mentioned in december. But what of Porsche's 'mj class' decision? If they were so late to decide, how is it unreasonable to assume Audi could have made a decision around this time?

My thoughts are instead of arguing over the fairness, we should look at the teams and their decisions and why. Im putting up two theories here. This is just my guess because I dont think they didnt know before too late about this incentive, or there is no incentive. So either Audi made a bad calculation, or they have just been unlucky. I think its more the latter.

According to Thomas Laudenbach's comments as reported by Andrew Cotton's in his latest article in the June 2014 issue of Racecar Engineering (see my post in the Audi thread), the decision to go for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option was made very early in the decision-making process, prior to Laudenbach's arrival, i.e. more than a year ago (Laudenbach joined Audi Sport some time before Sebring 2013).

Andrew Cotton also claims that the decision to abandon the ERS-H had no bearing on the hybrid class in which Audi are running. The ERS-H was apparently only going to be exploited to combat turbo-lag.

As regards the so-called "ERS incentive", there was and still is nothing in the rules in that respect. This provision was introduced as part of the EoT process which was only announced back in December 2013. So Audi did not know about this "ERS incentive" when they made the choice to go for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option.

It's however a bit surprising that Audi did not contemplate to keep their options open by testing different iterations of the hybrid system. Laudenbach is again reported to claim that they could have opted for the 4 MJ/lap ERS option instead.

[TF110]

Like I replied in the Audi thread, seems like the flywheel is the weak link in Audi's arsenal and in the hybrid group in general. If they had trouble doing 3.5mj last year yet still managed to go below 3:25 at Le Mans quite often, it suggests the diesel is stronger than what they lead on. I think everyone knows this though. I dont believe in the ers incentive thing btw. Just a what-if theory.

[gwyllion]

I don't agree with the flywheel being the weak link. The minimum weight is issue for Audi. It is too difficult to fit a big hybrid system and a heavy diesel engine.

[chernaudi]

I however don't get that the Audi diesel engine is "heavy" because, after all, that engine is lighter than the R8's engine (about 330lbs for the R8's engine), and the Porsche engine isn't exactly light because it's a turbocharged engine. And Toyota's engine is the heaviest of the V8s compared to like the Judd DB or the Zytek V8s (Toyota's V8 is almost 270-280lbs).

Biggest problem for Toyota and Porsche is that supercapacitors and battery's aren't exactly light. Biggest problem for Audi, though they may have a "heavy" engine, they do have a car that tends to be nose heavy.

[TF110]

Apparently its not on the level of the supercap nor the battery solution Porsche is using. At least, if they had trouble doing 3.5mj in 2013. So why is it Audi upsized the engine if its such a heavy unit? Didn't they claim weight savings on the engine side this year anyway? They do say its their lightest prototype yet. Why not downsize the engine and try for the 4mj with the flywheel instead would be my idea. They went another direction for a reason. Seems the reason is the flywheel is not worth the time and more fuel is.

On engine weight, Toyota says less than 100kg for last year, thats <220lbs.

[chernaudi]

I'd actually argue that Audi's biggest problem is aero. Their downforce gives them tons of cornering speed and excellent tire life. But it also took about 5-10km/h off their top speeds compared to last year at most circuits.

Toyota, even in sprint trim, shed a bit of downforce to get more top speed compared to the TS030. At Spa, things were more lopsided because of the full season Audis running HD while Toyota and Porsche were LD.

Things might level out in Audi's favor at other tracks where tire wear and cornering will be at a premium, but right now for speed circuits where top speed can be an advantage, they are at a disadvantage, not so much in pace, but they've got their speed advantage in the place that it's usually hardest to exploit to the full--the corners.

That being said, the LD Audi was driven basically by rookie drivers who were probably ordered to bring the car home in one piece if possible--probably goal #1 for everyone on the team--and it seems that Audi were experimenting with strategies to evaluate at the LM test day.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I however don't get that the Audi diesel engine is "heavy" because, after all, that engine is lighter than the R8's engine (about 330lbs for the R8's engine), and the Porsche engine isn't exactly light because it's a turbocharged engine. And Toyota's engine is the heaviest of the V8s compared to like the Judd DB or the Zytek V8s (Toyota's V8 is almost 270-280lbs).

Your weight estimates are completely off.

The Audi 3.6 V8 TFSI engine weighed 175 kg. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2519525

Last year's Toyota 3.4 V8 engine weighed 100 kg. See http://ms.toyota.co.jp/en/wec/hv.html

I would guess that the current Audi V6 TDI weighs at least 50 kg more than its petrol competitors.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'd actually argue that Audi's biggest problem is aero. Their downforce gives them tons of cornering speed and excellent tire life. But it also took about 5-10km/h off their top speeds compared to last year at most circuits.

This might be a result of the pre-season EoT adjustment. Perhaps Audi designed its aero packages with a certain engine power output in mind. Now the car has too much drag for the reduced power output.

I am still very pessimistic for Le Mans. With the current EoT only Porsche will be able to challenge Toyota, but Porsche will lack the reliability to win Le mans.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This might be a result of the pre-season EoT adjustment. Perhaps Audi designed its aero packages with a certain engine power output in mind. Now the car has too much drag for the reduced power output.

I am still very pessimistic for Le Mans. With the current EoT only Porsche will be able to challenge Toyota, but Porsche will lack the reliability to win Le mans.

I dont believe it. I think Audi will take some time to test their LM package and cut drag. They did pretty good in the 2nd half at Spa. Toyota has more time with the LM package, but Porsche have the most as its their only package. So Porsche could surprise, we'll see in a few weeks.

[JoestForEver]

I believe the volume rather than weight is the problem for flywheel. Unlike capacitor and battery packs to be located with flexibility, the flywheel storage has to be located beside the driver. With greater ERS option than 4 MJ, Audi needs a flywheel of larger diameter, causing problem in arranging ballast and therefore, handling.

Also packaging(i.e. volume)is the reason why its supplier Williams gives up flywheel KERS on F1. From what the broadcast shows, the ERS system now works exactly like F1-the energy recovered this lap is available next lap-requiring a much better energy density than pre-2014 era. You need to store 2/4/6/8MJ now rather than 500KJ in the past. They need to double the diameter of flywheel if storage capacity jumps from 500KJ to 2MJ.
Formula source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This might be a result of the pre-season EoT adjustment. Perhaps Audi designed its aero packages with a certain engine power output in mind. Now the car has too much drag for the reduced power output.

I am still very pessimistic for Le Mans. With the current EoT only Porsche will be able to challenge Toyota, but Porsche will lack the reliability to win Le mans.

I am reluctant to follow your pessimistic view for LM, but one has to admit that Audi's apparent lack of performance during the race at Spa compared to Porsche and Toyota tends to confirm your view.

Is that apparent gap of performance solely due to the current EoT and its ERS incentive provision ? I would hope not as this would mean that Audi have absolutely no chance to recover this year, unless the EoT is changed after LM. That would furthermore mean that there is potentially something inherently flawed in the whole EoT process.

I rather hope that Audi still have some more performance to produce out of their LM package to close that gap with Porsche and Toyota at LM. I would love to see a three-way battle between all three manufacturers. Is it unreasonable to hope this ?

[Deleted]

It would be the failure of EoT if it became the deciding factor in the performances of the cars.

Why couldn't we just follow Group C fuel limits?

[gwyllion]

Because there are two different fuel types (petrol and diesel) and five different ERS options (0 MJ to 8 MJ). If everybody would compete with the same fuel and the same hybrid size, there would be no need for an EoT process

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

I dont believe it. I think Audi will take some time to test their LM package and cut drag.

Sorry, but there is no magical way for Audi to drastically cut drag.

They cannot design and test (windtunnel + track) a new aero package in one month. The rear wing on the LM aero is already completely flat.

They cannot design a new monocoque with the legality bump like Porsche, to lower the cockpit.

They cannot change the fact that their big diesel engine requires more cooling (radiator + intercooler) than the petrol engines of their competitors.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sorry, but there is no magical way for Audi to drastically cut drag.

They cannot design and test (windtunnel + track) a new aero package in one month. The rear wing on the LM aero is already completely flat.

They cannot design a new monocoque with the legality bump like Porsche, to lower the cockpit.

They cannot change the fact that their big diesel engine requires more cooling (radiator + intercooler) than the petrol engines of their competitors.

How do you know the package was being run to its max? Just like Toyota ran 23 lap stints, then saw Porsche doing 24's so responded with their own? Thats not beyond Audi to change up the way they run their stint/speed ratio. I think youre giving up on them too soon. Is your mind made up the rules are unfair? Audi has had it for a better part of a decade with diesel. A few weeks removed with a brand new aero package wont win you a race. Looks to me like they were trying the car out rather than going for broke. But really, if they made a bad car thats their problem. I dont think the rules are to blame because they still have an advantage with diesel imo. And I dont think the car is flawed either. I just question why they chose 2mj and stick with a flywheel.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Because there are two different fuel types (petrol and diesel) and five different ERS options (0 MJ to 8 MJ). If everybody would compete with the same fuel and the same hybrid size, there would be no need for an EoT process

How about

Ban diesel
+25kg ballast for every hybrid MJ (0MJ = 0kg, 8MJ = 200kg)
Nothing else gets touched - not even fuel

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Chiana

How about

Ban diesel
+25kg ballast for every hybrid MJ (0MJ = 0kg, 8MJ = 200kg)
Nothing else gets touched - not even fuel

And then we got ourselves Formula One with fenders once ACO restricted the number of cylinders.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

And then we got ourselves Formula One with fenders once ACO restricted the number of cylinders.

How do you figure?

That would actually provide vair more verstatile class seeing as manufacturers weren't FORCED to go hybrid route, but choice was free as it currently is for privateers. And just adding weight to the cars is easy to explain, doesn't require tons of complicated math, doesn't need constant data logging and babysitting of manufacturers, doesn't need changing mid way season, and eliminates the fuel formula. And teams can still build the best car and hybrid system possible.

Yes banning diesel would result in one less free format but it's not like that type of fuel is allowed in any other category either (got deleted from ACO P2 after Mazda got bored). One can point out what's the point of different fuels anyway if they just end up being performance balanced. It's not like things like tyres are equalized.

Audi's had plenty of years to prove diesel and they've done so proudly, now time to move on.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by TF110

How do you know the package was being run to its max? Just like Toyota ran 23 lap stints, then saw Porsche doing 24's so responded with their own? Thats not beyond Audi to change up the way they run their stint/speed ratio. I think youre giving up on them too soon. Is your mind made up the rules are unfair? Audi has had it for a better part of a decade with diesel. A few weeks removed with a brand new aero package wont win you a race. Looks to me like they were trying the car out rather than going for broke. But really, if they made a bad car thats their problem. I dont think the rules are to blame because they still have an advantage with diesel imo. And I dont think the car is flawed either. I just question why they chose 2mj and stick with a flywheel.

Have to remind you with the calculation lots of people here have done though.

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Toyota Total race time: 21691.765sec
total pit time: 499.833s
total time on-track running=21191.932s
6MJ option average lap energy allocation: 79.6MJ/lap，so
0.642MJ/s=79.6MJ/lap*171laps/21191.932sec
that is 2312.284MJ/h
that is 71.3l/h, if 32.43MJ/L is the case.
Theoretically, a tank of petrol lasts 0.958h=57.4min=27.19laps (7.004km of Spa and 198.8kph average of #8)

Audi #1
Total race time: 21765.601sec
total pit time: 448.588s
total time on-track running=21317.013s
2MJ option average lap energy allocation: 79.1MJ/lap，so
0.634MJ/s=79.1MJ/lap*171laps/ 21765.601sec
that is 2284.277MJ/h
that is 64.89l/h, if 35.2MJ/L is the case.
Theoretically, a tank of diesel lasts 0.836h=50.2min=23.64laps (7.004km of Spa and 198.1kph average of #1)

Theoretically, Porsche/Toyota may stretch a 27 lap stint but it is not possible as the tires just won't hold. So I'm not surprised at all for their 24 lap stint. On the other hand, 23-lap stint is the limit diesel can achieve. It is because of fuel rather than tire that Audi pit. Consequently they double stint more.

Yet again it means nothing arguing about whether 2014 EoT is equal or not, regardless of where the opinion comes from so I'm not going to say anything more about it. Number speaks and personally I respect simulation a bit more.

Honestly, what I like it about the 2014-regs is that it makes exploring the rulebook fun even for funs like us. There's no more room for loophole-hunting and speculating as the rules have made performance predictable. Cool.

[MyNameIsNigel]

This is a repost of my post in the Audi thread:

Motorsport-total.com are reporting in this latest article that "ACO-FIA technical representatives" have declared at a press conference before the Spa race that Audi's deficit at LM resulting from their choice to opt for the lowest ERS option is expected to be in the range of 1.4 seconds per lap. That's a massive deficit:

Pro Megajoule weniger soll die Rundenzeit in Le Mans um rund eine halbe Sekunde ansteigen. So hatten es die Verantwortlichen in Aussicht gestellt. Für Audi würde sich somit im Vergleich zu Porsche und Toyota ein Rückstand von zwei Sekunden pro Umlauf an der Sarthe ergeben. Bei einer Pressekonferenz der Technikverantwortlichen von ACO und FIA am Freitag in Spa stellte man dar, dass Audi wegen des Dieseltriebwerkes sogar weniger Defizit hat. 1,4 Sekunden würde der R18 langsamer sein als die Konkurrenz.

It's further being reported that the ACO-FIA also declared that the theoretical stint length at LM should be 13 laps for all three manufacturers. According to motorsport-total.com, the actual figure would be 13.2 for Audi and 13.9 for Porsche and Toyota. If that happens to be true, Porsche and Toyota could possibly manage to increase the stint length to 14 laps, which is unlikely to be achievable by Audi and will translate into a further performance deficit over the entire race:

ACO und FIA stellten bei ihrem Vortrag dar, dass sowohl die Benziner als auch die Diesel-LMP1 von Audi beim Klassiker in Frankreich 13 Runden schaffen müssten. Dieser Wert ist allerdings interessant gerundet. Die Berechnungen ergeben für Porsche und Toyota eine Reichweite von 13,9 Runden pro Stint, für Audi nur 13,2 Umläufe. In der Praxis werden die Benziner mit Leichtigkeit 14 Runden fahren können, während Audi kaum eine Runde mehr schaffen wird. Dies führt über 24 Stunden dazu, dass die Audis zwei Stopps mehr machen müssen. Da sind mindestens zwei Minuten weg. Umgelegt auf eine Runde sind dies weitere 3,5 Zehntelsekunden Defizit.

All in all, Audi may indeed lose the equivalent of approximately 2 seconds per lap at LM. If these figures happen to be confirmed in practice, Audi will need a miracle to win LM this year...

I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com.

I can see their logic, they want to push the manufacturers into developing ever-more-efficient and higher-capacity hybrid systems that would eventually make their way into road cars. But the EoT incentive isn't really the best way to do that.

EDIT: Maybe they're considering introducing higher MJ classes later on in the regulations?

[Deleted]

I would like to know what ACO's calculations for lap time difference were if Audi had chose 8MJ. Because that time gap does sound like penalty for opting for smaller system, no matter what is being said of there not being differrence. And that is fundamentally wrong.

Somehow I also don't think the diesel-petrol balance had been this restrictive if two manufacturers were running diesel against one petrol manufacturer. Say diesel Audi and Porsche vs petrol Toyota.

Had Peugeot switched for petrol at some point, especially when AMR joined the show I'm sure the diesel had been dragged to pieces.

You know what, I kinda now hope Audi gets the upper hand if Porsche (or Rebellion) cannot do anything.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

I can see their logic, they want to push the manufacturers into developing ever-more-efficient and higher-capacity hybrid systems that would eventually make their way into road cars. But the EoT incentive isn't really the best way to do that.

EDIT: Maybe they're considering introducing higher MJ classes later on in the regulations?

While I understand the "logic" behind the "ERS incentive" which is supposed to push manufacturers to opt for "bigger" hybrid systems, I do not understand the logic behind the late introduction of this "ERS incentive" (as late as last December...) which has likely taken most by surprise - especially Audi - in the context of a promising and already complex new set of Technical Regulations that did not contain (and still don't) any explicit reference to any "ERS incentive".

Why would the ACO-FIA intentionally "distort" competition between three great manufacturers (and possibly one privateer team) by enforcing a rather "obscure" provision that basically amounts to putting one LMP1 player out of contention for a "fair" fight for victory (so it seems) ?

Do the ACO-FIA want to teach a lesson of some sort to Audi ? On which ground ? Is that a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to force Audi to drop diesel technology ?

All this is not a very "elegant" way (and I am carefully choosing my words) of approaching the matter. This sends the wrong message IMHO, both to potential new LMP1 entrants and to endurance fans.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Is that a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to force Audi to drop diesel technology ?

Terrible way to do so, however I wouldn't mind if it succeeded in that for next year. One less frustrating balancing act out of the way.

[Velociraptor]

Originally Posted by Chiana

How about

Ban diesel
+25kg ballast for every hybrid MJ (0MJ = 0kg, 8MJ = 200kg)
Nothing else gets touched - not even fuel

They would be wiser to ban petrol...

Afterall, this is endurance racing and they are after increased efficiency, which is diesel's forte.

It really is slightly ridicilous to be seeing diesel cars having shorter stints purely because of EoT.