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

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Do the ACO-FIA want to teach a lesson of some sort to Audi ?

I don't think they're unhappy with the current perception that Audi have "dun goofed," let me put it that way.

As for dropping diesel it's ... more of a potentially beneficial side effect [for the ACO] in my mind. Baretzky has stated more than once that there's a wealth of knowledge Audi could put back into a petrol engine but I think Audi have too much invested in diesels to drop it anytime soon.

[hcl123]

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?

Perplexed because you have the wrong assumption... "there is an ERS incentive" but the ERS doesn't propel the car down those long straights... they don't even need to be that long... only short to very short time and distances, after the corners...

Guess what is lacking to Audi ? ... straight speed isn't it ?

So lacks "fuel" not electric energy, and this not even with 8MJ or even 16MJ could be resolved.

So its clear why they chose 2MJ with 4 or 6 MJ class it would be even worst.

Originally Posted by TF110

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?

Again FIA/ACO stupid excuse if its their excuse... in 2013 Audi didn't use the incentive for "torque launch", their engine torque is more than enough to even beat the petrols with 3.6MJ additional after the corners... they used hybrid release for fuel economy, several Telemetry videos on ytube can ateste that.

Originally Posted by TF110

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.

They (Audi) knew about the incentive (ERS) long ago... only they never used it like a petrol, their engine alone was more than enough to beat that crap, they were kings of acceleration many times before 2014, and always after they were the only diesel in competition, even today if they wanted they could be kings of acceleration against petrols with double of ERS energy release compared with 2013...

Their problem is fuel flow.. THERE IS NO DOUBT... they can't go drag racing because they have long races, not short burst where you burn as much you can in a short time, *their problem is top speed and not even 16MJ could resolve that*.... more fuel flow can... and dramatically...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Just playing with the figures indicated in the motorsport-total.com article:

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.

That would mean a theoretical fuel consumption of 4.91 l/lap @LM for Porsche and Toyota (=68.3/13.9) and 4.11 l/lap @LM for Audi (=54.3/13.2). That would also mean a theoretical energy density of 28.39 MJ/l for petrol (=139.5 * 13.9 / 68.3) and 33.72 MJ/l for diesel (=138.7 * 13.2 / 54.3). On this basis, the theoretical fuel autonomy of the Rebellion R-One at LM would be 12.33 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 157.2).

Using the same figures to compute the theoretical stint length at Spa (based on the revised fuel allocation figures defined for that race), that leads to:
Toyota/Porsche: 24.36 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 79.6)
Audi: 23.15 laps (=54.3 * 33.72 / 79.1)
Rebellion R-One: 21.62 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 89.7)

This is indeed consistent with the stints covered by the various players at Spa.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by 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.

ummm... If they used that V6 in a petrol configuration perhaps not even 50kg less it would be, perhaps not even 30kg less... IIRC, about the V12, they (Audi) said exactly the same ... its not even 30Kg heavier had they chose a similar petrol...

Diesel as to be more heavy, because it has to be more robust to withstand the much higher BMEP ( pressures)... but i think the weight difference can be very easily accommodated. IF it were F1, were cars... ERR..NOT cars, Moto4s... are much smaller and light, it could be a problem.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ah!... they should even give it more displacement... 4.4L lol

Downsizing doesn't work that good with diesels because of stoichiometry of combustion... petrol is 14.7: 1, diesels is 22:1, meaning diesels must run much more leaner (why more economic) but the less the cylinder size the less fuel there is per rev or firing ... and diesel combustion is more affected by cylinder wall contact, usually in too little cylinders if more is injected to give it power, even larger the proportion that goes in "soot" (unburned, or partially burned particulates formation).

That is why i say the proper "fair" comparison concerning road cars, is compare a 1 to 1.2 liter petrol with a 2 liter TDI... 22/14.7 = 49.7% difference... a 2 liter petrol would only be a fair match but to a 2000*1.497 = 2.994 Diesel, a 3L diesel -> that is the fair match meaning, ~the same amount of fuel per firing.

Guess what be faster if pushed identically ? lol... and if they have identical fuel flows as they should as is fair( by energy calculations <2% diff) ?... Le Mans since 2006 proves this.

If the cars were Plugin electric Vehicles... then hybrid class ( the MJ electric) could be an argument, as they are is not.period

[hcl123]

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.

And you are right to be... they don't have the fuel flow to challenge in the big straights.

I think the dowforce package is consequence of that... for sure they did plenty of tests and simulations... very difficult to challenge in top speeds because of fuel handicap, but for sure they can challenge in corner speed, torque is something they have to spare, is not as much as affected by "down" loads or drags compared to a petrol... but something as to suffer, there isn't magic ... ( a catch 22)

The all thing was engineered with this idea i think, depends "how fast" they behave in those chicanes... they could have pretty decent lap times near the top... they could had with the " idea" engineer the thing for even more efficiency and less fuel waste because they know they wouldn't be running in front in 2014...in Silverstone they already had 1 less pit stop in 6 hours, now FIA/ACO spoiled that advantage that could mean a victory, they gave petrols 390% additional fuel tank than they gave diesels LOL -> if this isn't clumsy BIASED i don't know what it is...

[TF110]

1.5 seconds over a 3:25 lap is 0.7%. I dont see this ers incentive being such a huge factor. I think its a term made up to draw a reaction. Who coined this term anyway? Less than 1% difference between Petrol and Diesel is somehow bad? Where is the evidence coming from? At Spa are they formulating their calculations on the #3 car? It continuously did 24 lap stints with a couple 25's in there. That at least equals Toyota and Porsche. Late in the race the car turned respectable lap times, in the hands of Albuquerque and Bonanomi. Thats not Duval, Lotterer, Kristensen etc. The car was just ran a few weeks ago. Where was Rebellion at with their car that turned a wheel around the same time as the #3? 10 laps back. Audi #3 was 2 laps. I cant say that Audi is at such a huge disadvantage looking at the real life data from the races.

[hcl123]

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

LOL

Ban is honest .... but how about ban FIA/ACO, we supposed to have get ride of the types in WWII lol

The real *honest* without bans, is making hybrid "FREE", all energy comes from the fuel. period ... hybrid should be as much as you like *or can*, its an "efficiency" feature by as much you can recuperate ( thermic or dynamic).

And is not that decisive (hybrid)... it can have influence, but the principal factor is the engine, and the engine runs on fuel not electric. Other type of cars, more electric centered, then this discussion or analyses could make sense... now it makes very little to no sense... like FIA/ACO excuses for their notorious biased behavior concerning fuel types... if they don't want fuel diversity, just say so, save money for the competitors restraining from constant rule alterations, simply clumsy stupid excuses and regulations just can't hide the truth.

They want to "DECIDE" by decree what "science" and nature decided is best... a contra-natura FIA/ACO, cling on old fads and prejudices.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

1.5 seconds over a 3:25 lap is 0.7%. I dont see this ers incentive being such a huge factor. I think its a term made up to draw a reaction.

1.5 seconds is enough to put Audi almost 3 laps down in 24 hours. 1.5 s/lap * 400 laps = 600 s = 3 laps @ 3:20.

A difference in stint length (13 vs 14 laps) could add an additional lap.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Just playing with the figures indicated in the motorsport-total.com article:


That would mean a theoretical fuel consumption of 4.91 l/lap @LM for Porsche and Toyota (=68.3/13.9) and 4.11 l/lap @LM for Audi (=54.3/13.2). That would also mean a theoretical energy density of 28.39 MJ/l for petrol (=139.5 * 13.9 / 68.3) and 33.72 MJ/l for diesel (=138.7 * 13.2 / 54.3). On this basis, the theoretical fuel autonomy of the Rebellion R-One at LM would be 12.33 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 157.2).

Using the same figures to compute the theoretical stint length at Spa (based on the revised fuel allocation figures defined for that race), that leads to:
Toyota/Porsche: 24.36 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 79.6)
Audi: 23.15 laps (=54.3 * 33.72 / 79.1)
Rebellion R-One: 21.62 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 89.7)

This is indeed consistent with the stints covered by the various players at Spa.

BULL ... BIIIIIG BUUULL S****T lol

http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/index.html see classification Spa ... Audi #3 did 169 lap with 6 stops = 28.1 laps (toyota porsche ( 171/7= 24.4 )

Can you repeat the calculations with that ?

FIA/ACO *estimatives* ( and they are estimatives, nothing real, nothing more) are worst than that smelly steaming BIIIIIG pile...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

1.5 seconds is enough to put Audi almost 3 laps down in 24 hours. 1.5 s/lap * 400 laps = 600 s = 3 laps @ 3:20.

A difference in stint length (13 vs 14 laps) could add an additional lap.

So how did they achieve 24/25 lap stints at Spa then? Toyota did 25 maybe twice. More times 23/24 laps per stint. Just like the high downforce cars of #1, #2. So with a slightly slower pace they went a lap further. Isnt that what Toyota did last year at Le Mans?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by hcl123

http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/index.html see classification Spa ... Audi #3 did 169 lap with 6 stops = 28.1 laps (toyota porsche ( 171/7= 24.4 )

Sorry, but you are wrong 6 stops means 7 stints. 169 laps / 7 stints = 24.14 laps per stint.

Audi #3 did the following stints: 23 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps. Audi had to tuned down the engine during the last 2 stints to avoid a late splash and dash stop.

Porsche #14 did the following stints: 23 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps - 15 laps - 9 laps. The extra stop was the result of a puncture.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sorry, but you are wrong 6 stops means 7 stints. 169 laps / 7 stints = 24.14 laps per stint.

Audi #3 did the following stints: 23 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps. Audi had to tuned down the engine during the last 2 stints to avoid a late splash and dash stop.

Porsche #14 did the following stints: 23 laps - 24 laps - 24 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps - 25 laps - 15 laps - 9 laps. The extra stop was the result of a puncture.

ok... that is not important, what is important is difference for the competition

And we don't know what was left, and with much more experienced drivers, the same could be achieved with only 1 lap difference in 6 hours (~2 min at Spa by the pace)

But even so is too short, if we want to transpose to Le Mans... there is no reason for ACO to give petrols 390% more additional fuel tank.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Just playing with the figures indicated in the motorsport-total.com article:


That would mean a theoretical fuel consumption of 4.91 l/lap @LM for Porsche and Toyota (=68.3/13.9) and 4.11 l/lap @LM for Audi (=54.3/13.2). That would also mean a theoretical energy density of 28.39 MJ/l for petrol (=139.5 * 13.9 / 68.3) and 33.72 MJ/l for diesel (=138.7 * 13.2 / 54.3). On this basis, the theoretical fuel autonomy of the Rebellion R-One at LM would be 12.33 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 157.2).

Using the same figures to compute the theoretical stint length at Spa (based on the revised fuel allocation figures defined for that race), that leads to:
Toyota/Porsche: 24.36 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 79.6)
Audi: 23.15 laps (=54.3 * 33.72 / 79.1)
Rebellion R-One: 21.62 laps (=68.3 * 28.39 / 89.7)

This is indeed consistent with the stints covered by the various players at Spa.

Originally Posted by hcl123

BULL ... BIIIIIG BUUULL S****T lol

http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/index.html see classification Spa ... Audi #3 did 169 lap with 6 stops = 28.1 laps (toyota porsche ( 171/7= 24.4 )

Can you repeat the calculations with that ?

FIA/ACO *estimatives* ( and they are estimatives, nothing real, nothing more) are worst than that smelly steaming BIIIIIG pile...

The autonomy indicated above should be understood as being the minimum autonomy assuming that the maximum fuel allocation is fully exploited at each lap. Nothing prevents any competitor from consuming less than what is allowed, thereby increasing stint length.

This being said, the 13.2 laps/stint figure quoted by motorsport-total.com appears to be incorrect. Based on the information I have just been given access to, this actually corresponds to the minimum autonomy of a petrol LMP1-H running in the 2 MJ/lap ERS class.

[hcl123]

Exactly. That is why any calculation only makes sense if we account total tank capacity, and flows per hour, rest is bunk.

[ want to consume real low, go real slow... and any car any time can start a stint with much less fuel than the max capacity allowed, then making "energetic" calculations by the supposed consumption (MJ/L) real bunk ]

[TF110]

Originally Posted by hcl123

ok... that is not important, what is important is difference for the competition

And we don't know what was left, and with much more experienced drivers, the same could be achieved with only 1 lap difference in 6 hours (~2 min at Spa by the pace)

But even so is too short, if we want to transpose to Le Mans... there is no reason for ACO to give petrols 390% more additional fuel tank.

Thats a bit deceiving. Petrol has a 25.7% larger tank than diesel now. Thats the only thing that should be noted.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

So how did they achieve 24/25 lap stints at Spa then? Toyota did 25 maybe twice. More times 23/24 laps per stint.

Audi #3 mainly did 24 lap stints, whereas Porsche managed many 25 lap stints.

It is fairly straightforward to calculate the stint length for Le Mans.

Audi

• energy consumption in Spa: 79.1 MJ/lap
• stint length in Spa: 24 laps
• energy consumption in Le Mans: 138.7 MJ/lap
• stint length in Le Mans: 24 * 79.1 / 138.7 = 13.7 laps

Porsche:

• energy consumption in Spa: 79.6 MJ/lap
• stint length in Spa: 25 laps
• energy consumption in Le Mans: 139.5 MJ/lap
• stint length in Le Mans: 25 * 79.6 / 139.5 = 14.3 laps

[TF110]

Many? Porsche #14 (lead car) did three 25lap stints vs Audi's two 25lap stints. This with a brand new package only tested a week or two before the race, with the #3 crew, arguably the slowest of Audi's drivers. Audi aren't fooling me. Theyre in a position to win like usual.

[Articus]

I'm happy to be as optimistic as you because I'm rooting for a dogfight. Porsche will be the star in the early hours but the Audi-Toyota dogfight come sunday morning is what I'm sticking around for.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Many? Porsche #14 (lead car) did three 25lap stints vs Audi's two 25lap stints.

Yes, both Porsches together did 5 stints of 25 laps and only 3 stints of 24 laps.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Yes, both Porsches together did 5 stints of 25 laps and only 3 stints of 24 laps.

Youre comparing two LM spec cars vs. one. I only compared the leading Porsche to the LM spec Audi. That seems a little more fair to me We might see during the test day what kind of stints these cars can actually run, just might!

[JoestForEver]

One more thing coming into my mind, which force me to think of politics for 'ERS Incentive' here.
In the very early draft of 2014 Le Mans Prototype Regulation

The level of performance of the cars will be equivalent to that of the 2012 season....These regulations have been designed to ensure that the drivers
have to go flat out without having to adapt their driving and without having to manage a fuel consumption strategy.

And

This table (2014 Synthesis Table)enables each manufacturer to choose the option that best suits his project and his budget.

Well apparently the first one fails, and we shall consider what "suits his project and his budget" means based on two assumptions.
Assumption #1: The manufacturer's project maximizes his chance to win.
Assumption #2: The manufacturer has unlimited resources(compared with privateers) but limited patience.
Assumption #3: Given the same chance to win, he minimizes his cost.

Conclusion #1: The option suits his project is the option that can win.
Conclusion #2: The manufacturer will choose option that can win, regardless of budget.
Conclusion #3: If all options share the same opportunity to win, manufacturer chooses the most economic one, based on his endowment. Other wise see Conclusion #2.

Now, if all options from 2MJ to 8MJ theoretically are equal, they provide equal chances to win but manufacturers may choose differently depending on their expertise on ICE tech or ERS tech, which fundamentally decides expenditure.
If the ERS incentive is in place correctly in time. The chances of winning LM increases from 2MJ to 8MJ, then based on Conclusion #2, everyone will choose higher level of hybrid, which apparently is not the case.
The final conclusion would be that either Audi is stupid enough to intentionally choose a inherently worst-off solution, or Audi believes that EoT will make sure all classes share the same opportunity but then gets stabbed by ACO politics and Porsche/Toyota/Nissan behind in the very last moment, since modification to ERS is not allowed once your car is homologated.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by TF110

Youre comparing two LM spec cars vs. one. I only compared the leading Porsche to the LM spec Audi. That seems a little more fair to me We might see during the test day what kind of stints these cars can actually run, just might!

As both Porsche cars share the same statistics character, maneuvering with sampling doesn't change our conclusion here.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

One more thing coming into my mind, which force me to think of politics for 'ERS Incentive' here.
In the very early draft of 2014 Le Mans Prototype Regulation

And

Well apparently the first one fails, and we shall consider what "suits his project and his budget" means based on two assumptions.
Assumption #1: The manufacturer's project maximizes his chance to win.
Assumption #2: The manufacturer has unlimited resources(compared with privateers) but limited patience.
Assumption #3: Given the same chance to win, he minimizes his cost.

Conclusion #1: The option suits his project is the option that can win.
Conclusion #2: The manufacturer will choose option that can win, regardless of budget.
Conclusion #3: If all options share the same opportunity to win, manufacturer chooses the most economic one, based on his endowment. Other wise see Conclusion #2.

Now, if all options from 2MJ to 8MJ theoretically are equal, they provide equal chances to win but manufacturers may choose differently depending on their expertise on ICE tech or ERS tech, which fundamentally decides expenditure.
If the ERS incentive is in place correctly in time. The chances of winning LM increases from 2MJ to 8MJ, then based on Conclusion #2, everyone will choose higher level of hybrid, which apparently is not the case.
The final conclusion would be that either Audi is stupid enough to intentionally choose a inherently worst-off solution, or Audi believes that EoT will make sure all classes share the same opportunity but then gets stabbed by ACO politics and Porsche/Toyota/Nissan behind in the very last moment, since modification to ERS is not allowed once your car is homologated.

And that is very "frustrating" to say the least. It almost seems that Audi have been led into some sort of trap.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Articus

I'm happy to be as optimistic as you because I'm rooting for a dogfight. Porsche will be the star in the early hours but the Audi-Toyota dogfight come sunday morning is what I'm sticking around for.

Why would Porsche go out charging from the start? They have a somewhat fragile car. That seems to me to indicate that a conservative strategy based on trying to match Toyota and Audi's pace is far more prudent....and wise. Porsche are not stupid.