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

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by canaglia

honestly it's unlikely to expect anything that different from current dpi bodyshape style for lmdh

Exactly this is clickbait BS.

[BrentJackson]

Now that the rules have been set up, we have to watch to see how the world's governments handle the serious economic problems that Coronavirus is invariably going to cause. Europe (and Canada and Australia) seems to be handling Coronavirus reasonably well, but Japan isn't doing all that hot and the United States....yeah, let's just not go there.

If its handled well, you might be able to get a couple of these rules sets to actually happen. But the idea of multi-million-dollar major programs in the post-Coronavirus world is gonna be hard to justify, so the ACO (and IMSA) had best get on a plan to make it possible for the likes of Glickenhaus and ByKolles and small makers who might want to go racing (think Koenigsegg or others like them) to do so in LMDh - they may be just about all you can get for fields.

And if its handled badly....yeah, be prepared to start tearing up rulebooks and saying "if you want to race it, we'll make work." Because that may be all the options they have.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by canaglia

honestly it's unlikely to expect anything that different from current dpi bodyshape style for lmdh

Originally Posted by Napolis

Exactly this is clickbait BS.

Maybe the interpretation of Auto hebdo is closer than to an LMDH

[canaglia]

base lmp2 + "branded" nose following acura and nissan dpi philosophy vs. a complete rework/update of the base lmp2 like cadillac dpi. Don't expect nothing else actually.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by canaglia

base lmp2 + "branded" nose following acura and nissan dpi philosophy vs. a complete rework/update of the base lmp2 like cadillac dpi. Don't expect nothing else actually.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2020/05/15/glickenhaus-raises-questions-over-lmdh-performance-and-affordability/

[truebeliever]

Originally Posted by BrentJackson

Now that the rules have been set up, we have to watch to see how the world's governments handle the serious economic problems that Coronavirus is invariably going to cause. Europe (and Canada and Australia) seems to be handling Coronavirus reasonably well, but Japan isn't doing all that hot and the United States....yeah, let's just not go there.

If its handled well, you might be able to get a couple of these rules sets to actually happen. But the idea of multi-million-dollar major programs in the post-Coronavirus world is gonna be hard to justify, so the ACO (and IMSA) had best get on a plan to make it possible for the likes of Glickenhaus and ByKolles and small makers who might want to go racing (think Koenigsegg or others like them) to do so in LMDh - they may be just about all you can get for fields.

And if its handled badly....yeah, be prepared to start tearing up rulebooks and saying "if you want to race it, we'll make work." Because that may be all the options they have.

Exactly! I agree 100% with you.

However, you seem not to have factored in the arrogant and ostrich and lack of common sense syndrome of the ACO, which now seems to have spread to IMSA also! Maybe that rolled along on the back of the virus?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Napolis

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2020/05/15/glickenhaus-raises-questions-over-lmdh-performance-and-affordability/

Thanks for that link, and interesting comments on the proposed tire compounds

The LMDh cars, in contrast, appear to be closer to how DPIs/LMP2 have always been designed and engineered. Sure, they are relatively quick, but our simulations show that, unlike our car and Toyota’s, there is no way they will be able to run 3:30 laps at Le Mans during a race or faster for qualifying on the currently planned tire compounds.

Current LMP2 cars can already run sub 3:30 laps, I think 3:24 in 2018. So if the next gen dpi's/LMDh are going to have more power, can the lap times really be that hampered by tire compounds?

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by joeb

Thanks for that link, and interesting comments on the proposed tire compounds



Current LMP2 cars can already run sub 3:30 laps, I think 3:24 in 2018. So if the next gen dpi's/LMDh are going to have more power, can the lap times really be that hampered by tire compounds?

They can. Tire compounds are interesting. There is a PC/Green push to make them last longer. Three stints maybe even for the whole race.

We shall see but so far we stand by our estimates...

[Mike E]

Hey guys, do you remember when we used to talk about GT convergence? Whatever happened to that?

PS: please don't reply on this thread

[canaglia]

the higher power output and the better acceleration due hybrid boost will compensate the extra 100kg, guess lmdh would be able to run 2-3s faster than actual lmp2 most of all because of further aero development and michelin as tyres supplier.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by canaglia

the higher power output and the better acceleration due hybrid boost will compensate the extra 100kg, guess lmdh would be able to run 2-3s faster than actual lmp2 most of all because of further aero development and michelin as tyres supplier.

Unlike others we have actually raced with 50 RWD Hybrid. It's extra R ear weight basis is offal, it's running costs were high. It's low end boost wasn't worth it on a high revving turbo engine. Unlike others we have actual tire compound data to simulate.

[Mike E]

I just had another look at the LMDh announcement from 7 May and this stood out:
'Only mainstream automotive manufacturers (associated with one of the four chassis constructors) can homologate a LMDh car'.
I mean, maybe there will be no appetite for a privateer to put a car together, but to actually prohibit it? Do these guys ever learn?

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by Mike E

I just had another look at the LMDh announcement from 7 May and this stood out:
'Only mainstream automotive manufacturers (associated with one of the four chassis constructors) can homologate a LMDh car'.
I mean, maybe there will be no appetite for a privateer to put a car together, but to actually prohibit it? Do these guys ever learn?

Their statement and others they regularly make are clearly illegal and in clear violation of anti trust laws.

[broadrun96]

It's their series, they get to make the rules.

[chernaudi]

They do as they please as long as they're not breaking Federal Law in the US or International Law.

You do have to remember that NASCAR being closely associated with ISC until Jim France merged both companies and taking ISC back private before hand was criticized by some as at best being a conflict of interest, and being barely legal under US anti-trust laws at worst (granted, there was/still is SMI (now Speedway Motorsports LLC since it too went back private and off the stock market), Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Dover being owned by Dover Motorsports/Dover Downs and Casino and Pocono owned by the Mattioli family from day one).

But as Broadrun says, if they're not breaking any laws, IMSA and the ACO are privately held organizations, and they can do damn near whatever they want within the letter of the law, morally or ethically right or wrong, for better or worse.

Granted, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right, as hinted above.

Hell, the FIA, NASCAR/IMSA and the ACO seem to have little regard for what one or the other do until an OEM pitches or backs an idea as far as the road racing racket goes. And this can be seen by how the FIA cares very little about what NASCAR/IMSA and the ACO do, and the only direct involvement the FIA has aside from some logistical assistance is giving the ACO their blessing to use their trademarked "World Championship" phrase as part of the WEC's title. Otherwise, the WEC is just a somewhat amped up ILMC. After all, almost everyone in charge of the day to day operations of the WEC are ACO people, not anyone from the FIA.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

They do as they please as long as they're not breaking Federal Law in the US or International Law.

You do have to remember that NASCAR being closely associated with ISC until Jim France merged both companies and taking ISC back private before hand was criticized by some as at best being a conflict of interest, and being barely legal under US anti-trust laws at worst (granted, there was/still is SMI (now Speedway Motorsports LLC since it too went back private and off the stock market), Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Dover being owned by Dover Motorsports/Dover Downs and Casino and Pocono owned by the Mattioli family from day one).

But as Broadrun says, if they're not breaking any laws, IMSA and the ACO are privately held organizations, and they can do damn near whatever they want within the letter of the law, morally or ethically right or wrong, for better or worse.

Granted, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right, as hinted above.

Hell, the FIA, NASCAR/IMSA and the ACO seem to have little regard for what one or the other do until an OEM pitches or backs an idea as far as the road racing racket goes. And this can be seen by how the FIA cares very little about what NASCAR/IMSA and the ACO do, and the only direct involvement the FIA has aside from some logistical assistance is giving the ACO their blessing to use their trademarked "World Championship" phrase as part of the WEC's title. Otherwise, the WEC is just a somewhat amped up ILMC. After all, almost everyone in charge of the day to day operations of the WEC are ACO people, not anyone from the FIA.

The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize."
I would love to hear a legal argument that their only allowing "mainstream Manufacturers " is "reasonable" and not monopolization and clear illegal "restraint of interstate trade."
I would also love to hear a legal argument as to how IMSA''s excluding non mainstream manufacturers wouldn't be illegal under French law.
Restrictive agreements and practices are prohibited under the French Commercial Code (FCC), if their purpose is to prevent, restrict or distort competition in a relevant market (or if the agreements or practices could have such an effect) (Article L420-1 and following, FCC). This prohibition can result in an administrative fine, criminal liability and civil damages.
This prohibition applies in particular to written or tacit agreements, and concerted practices, which:
Restrict access to a market or other undertakings' freedom to compete.

[chernaudi]

If that's the case, then how are the ACO getting away with as some have called it here a "cartel" system for LMP2 where you have only four (in actual effect three) chassis makers and only one engine maker (Gibson) involved? If as you said that's not really allowed under French or US law, then how are the ACO and IMSA getting away with it? Either it's legal or it's not, though it depends on the wording of the law.

And mind you, I'm not in favor of the quasi spec nature of LMP2 or DPI as it is now. If someone is, depending on the situation, brave enough or even stupid enough to build their own car like SMP did and WR used to, then let them. If it meets the cost cap and is theoretically for sale to others, let them. If it fails, that's the market's response to it.

Hell, LMP2 right now actually shows the failings of what the ACO (seemingly) intended. Oreca built the best mouse trap, no one is allowed to make any measurable improvements and the ACO won't implement BOP (though it's allowed in the rules in black and white), and you have pretty damn close to an Oreca spec series. And instead of competition driving price down, Oreca is basically charging max price under the cost cap.

But then again, under US law it's a criminal felony to hold fake giveaways on You Tube, but the feds, the state gov'ts and Google let people get away with it. So if that's allowed to happen for whatever reason, do you think that the feds, state governments, the EU, or Interpol will give a crap about a racing series where it does seem that they're (albeit barely) skirting by the letter of the law?

[CTD]

To be quite honest I do not see how they breach any laws as long as the prerequisite work is done correctly.
Putting it a bit basic, they are a company hosting a product (the race series). If they deem they want to put parts of their setup up for licitation to find a single or few suppliers, then there is nothing wrong about that.
I would even believe that they could do this without a licitation and just choose which ever supplier they desire.
When it comes to it, it is not that different than single tire suppliers as we have seen in years or even in F1 where you have a single source ECU supplier.

I do not agree with the choices of ACO and IMSA, but I do see their point in limiting the amount of chassis suppliers to ensure a more healthy market. What I REALLY do not agree with is to limit entrance based on someone being a "major" manufacture.

[S griffin]

I'm sure they have got the rules in place to make it work. They are right to do it. I am sure they can find some people to help run the series, especially if they want the series to survive. It's vital they find something to help keep the series running. I just hope they keep the variety and keep the series unique, as there is a place for it.

I am ready to see how the rules work. Let's hope teams don't quit. Otherwise it could be tough times ahead

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If that's the case, then how are the ACO getting away with as some have called it here a "cartel" system for LMP2 where you have only four (in actual effect three) chassis makers and only one engine maker (Gibson) involved? If as you said that's not really allowed under French or US law, then how are the ACO and IMSA getting away with it? Either it's legal or it's not, though it depends on the wording of the law.

And mind you, I'm not in favor of the quasi spec nature of LMP2 or DPI as it is now. If someone is, depending on the situation, brave enough or even stupid enough to build their own car like SMP did and WR used to, then let them. If it meets the cost cap and is theoretically for sale to others, let them. If it fails, that's the market's response to it.

Hell, LMP2 right now actually shows the failings of what the ACO (seemingly) intended. Oreca built the best mouse trap, no one is allowed to make any measurable improvements and the ACO won't implement BOP (though it's allowed in the rules in black and white), and you have pretty damn close to an Oreca spec series. And instead of competition driving price down, Oreca is basically charging max price under the cost cap.

But then again, under US law it's a criminal felony to hold fake giveaways on You Tube, but the feds, the state gov'ts and Google let people get away with it. So if that's allowed to happen for whatever reason, do you think that the feds, state governments, the EU, or Interpol will give a crap about a racing series where it does seem that they're (albeit barely) skirting by the letter of the law?

No question that some who break the law get away with it.
It's also fair to say that some are better than others at making those who do pay the price for their behavior:

Ben McLannahan FT New York JUNE 16 2016 Print this page 8.
HSBC has drawn a line under a long legal battle in the US by agreeing to pay a record $1.6bn to resolve a class action case stemming from its acquisition of Household International, the subprime group.

The bank said on Thursday that a US unit, HSBC Finance — formerly known as Household — would incur a pre-tax charge in the second quarter of about $585m, having agreed to pay $1.575bn to bring an end to a suit filed 14 years ago. According to the suit, Household and three of its senior executives made a series of misleading statements about lending practices and the state of the company’s books...

The settlement is the largest ever paid by a bank to shareholders... It is also the largest settlement in a case that was actually taken to trial.

“The mills of justice grind slowly, but sometimes they do grind exceedingly fine,” said James Glickenhaus of Glickenhaus & Co, a Wall Street money manager, and one of three lead plaintiffs.

[truebeliever]

Originally Posted by Mike E

I just had another look at the LMDh announcement from 7 May and this stood out:
'Only mainstream automotive manufacturers (associated with one of the four chassis constructors) can homologate a LMDh car'.
I mean, maybe there will be no appetite for a privateer to put a car together, but to actually prohibit it? Do these guys ever learn?

You have been around long enough, to know the clear and obvious answer to your own question!

NO!!! THEY DO NOT EVER LEARN!!!

[Mike E]

Has any announcement been made about how BoP will work in LMH/LMDh? Will it be an automated system like they use in GTE?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Has any announcement been made about how BoP will work in LMH/LMDh? Will it be an automated system like they use in GTE?

I thought that the GTE system was 'automated' for regular races only and at Le Mans 'whatever goes' applied

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I thought that the GTE system was 'automated' for regular races only and at Le Mans 'whoever the ACO wants to win this years race' applied

Edited for accuracy!

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Edited for accuracy!

Having anniversary for "marque's first appearance" or "marque's first win" boosts the chances quite a bit, too