2008 ACO Technical Regulations

[jhansen]

Is this another "spirit of the rules" kind of thing?

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Which really means nothing right? So why introduce words that mean nothing?

Originally Posted by jhansen

Is this another "spirit of the rules" kind of thing?

BINGO . . . .

a/ "LE MANS" PROTOTYPE 1 ("LM"P1): open or closed (*) car, destined more especially to manufacturers.
b/ "LE MANS" PROTOTYPE 2 ("LM"P2): open or closed (*) car, destined more especially to privateers.

So what is the definition of 'manufacture'? Do private engineering companies or private Motorsports companies NOT manufactures and fit into privateers?

aka Penske

Or was that wording of 'manufacture' vs 'privateers' been defined?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

So I assume that Zytek, Courage/ORECA, Lola etc. are all going to be in P2 this year, since P1 is "réservé plus particulièrement aux constructeurs." Correct?

Oh come now. It does not say; specifically for. It says; more especially for. This is for those that say;There is no such thing as 'Spirit of the rules' so now it is written!


L.P.

[Fogelhund]

So, basically it states, we reserve the right not to homologate your car, even if it meets all the rules, because we might randomly decide it isn't in the class we want you in.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Anyway, it seems to me that, were you going to go with an homologated engine, the diesel would be the way to go from a power perspective.

But the LMP2 diesel rules limit what you can do: head cylinders, valves, pistons, connecting rods can not be modified.

So you can basically remove some excess weight on the block, change crankshaft to get max displacement + desired compression ratio, change valve timing with camshaft and add two stage turbo.

[gwyllion]

The ACO press release also contains some motivation.

Stability and opening are the keywords to the 2008 regulations:

• Those governing LM GT1 and LM GT2 remain identical to 2007;
• The performance of the petrol-engined LM P1 cars is brought closer to that of the LM P1 diesels;
• An obvious performance difference is maintained between LM P1 and LM P2 prototypes;
• The LM P2’s role as a vehicle for privateers is reinforced. To prevent entrants wasting money attempting to lighten their cars their weight has been increased by 50 kilos.

In a further attempt to reduce costs a series production engine (in contrast to those designed exclusively for racing) can be installed in LM P1 and LM P2 cars.
Opening up the race to bio fuels highlights the ACO’s concern with the protection of the environment, as well as its desire to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.
As a result petrol with 10% ethanol and bio diesel (BTL) will be allowed in 2008 in both LM P1 and LM P2.

source: http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans...D_2505_gb.html

[GTfour]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

So, basically it states, we reserve the right not to homologate your car, even if it meets all the rules, because we might randomly decide it isn't in the class we want you in.

Aah,the french...what's new?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I read the English translation, but I've seen better Babblefish translations, and we know the french wording is the rule.

Destined more Especially for Manufacturers.... meaning one day this class will be more for manufacturers than privateers, but not to the exclusion of privateers.

Destined more especially for privateers... meaning one day this class will be more for privateers than manufacturers, but not to the exclusion of manufacturers.

Which really means nothing right? So why introduce words that mean nothing?

It means very much! It also puts it in writing for those that say 'Spirit of the rules' no such thing it must be written or it horse manure. So now it is written in a way that will still allow a small boutique mfg in P-2 as long as they are not super dominant, or a Uber-privateer team or Semi-works team the chance at overall in P-1.

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

My French is alittle rusty, but in my reading:

1.1.1. – La catégorie « LE MANS » PROTOTYPE
comprend :
a. « LE MANS » PROTOTYPE 1 (« LM »P1) : voiture
ouverte ou fermée (*), réservé plus
particulièrement aux constructeurs.

My interpretation is "Reserved for participation of constructors" Not "Destin is the right English column is printed. .destined - headed or intending to head in a certain direction;


b. « LE MANS » PROTOTYPE 2 (« LM »P2) : voiture
ouverte ou fermée (*) réservé plus
particulièrement aux privées.
(*) Les voitures fermées doivent avoir un pare-brise, un toit

and "Reserved for participation of priveeters"

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

It means very much! It also puts it in writing for those that say 'Spirit of the rules' no such thing it must be written or it horse manure. So now it is written in a way that will still allow a small boutique mfg in P-2 as long as they are not super dominant, or a Uber-privateer team or Semi-works team the chance at overall in P-1.

I agree that's the intent of the rules as written. But their lack of clarity means essentially that they can't block manufacturers from P2 without blocking privateers from P1.

Really, they should have left the phrase out of P1.

[jhansen]

Why dance around it with intent? Intent is meaningless without a solid cast iron rule. Just spell it out and be done with it.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I agree that's the intent of the rules as written. But their lack of clarity means essentially that they can't block manufacturers from P2 without blocking privateers from P1.

Really, they should have left the phrase out of P1.

I agree that they should have just left the phrase out for P-1.


L.P.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Why dance around it with intent? Intent is meaningless without a solid cast iron rule. Just spell it out and be done with it.

Agreed, which is why I've been pedantic over what the words really say, and what they really mean. Let me caution again, that the english translation on these pages aren't necessarily reliable, as it is the french meaning that is the rule, if this can be called a rule.

If there is a specific intent, state it. The words themselves are currently meaningless, without further context. Spirit of the rules are useless, unless there is specific wording dealing with how those situations are dealt with. Like I've stated in other posts, the P1 wording is superfluous.

I understand the intention of the P2 wording, but I think it failed. I believe it specifically needs to state that the class is aimed at Privateers, and the ACO reserves the right to restrict Manufacturer backed whatever, chassis, motor/engine, entry, for no valid reason than it isn't what they want.

[johntt]

This is the way i see it:

LMP1 - Manufacturers + privateers who can afford to run manufacturer's cars (e.g. there were rumours of Charouz running a 908)

LMP2 - Privateers running customer cars made by manufacturers (i.e. Porsche RS Spyder, Acura ARX01a) or the Lola/Pesca-Saulnier/Oreca-Courage/Zytek/etc + Judd/AER/AIM/Zytek/etc combinations we see.

[ScuderiaV8]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I highly doubt you can squeeze 500+ bhp out of a 4 cilinder turbo diesel.

I was thinking more along the lines of taking the heads, pistons, connecting rods etc from the 4-cylinder engine and mounting them in a V8 block, thus giving a 4.4 V8. I've probably misunderstood the exact wording of that part of the regulations.

[Hammerdown]

If I've understood it correctly, the increase in restrictor size for GT1-homologated engines in P1 means the Aston V12 should be able to get up to around 650hp. Could be quite handy.

[paul-collins]

All the races organized under the Le Mans label in 2008 (Le Mans 24 Hours, the American Le Mans Series in the USA and the Le Mans Series in Europe) will comply with new specifications drawn up by the Automobile Club de l’Ouest..

http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans...D_2505_gb.html

So ACO is trying to rein in IMSA... pffft.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans...D_2505_gb.html

So ACO is trying to rein in IMSA... pffft.

Well IMSA will change the rules as they see fit. Kind of "In The Spirit" of the ACO rules

[paul-collins]

edited to add, I suppose the most important thing to take from this is, after a period of mostly stable rules, now is the time to enter into constant tinkering and change (again).

I also note that the ACO has decided to pretend that Stephane Ratel doesn't exist.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I also note that the ACO has decided to pretend that Stephane Ratel doesn't exist.

Who ?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by ScuderiaV8

I've probably misunderstood the exact wording of that part of the regulations.

There are indeed two ways to interpret the rule

Engine using head cylinders, valves, pistons, connecting
rods of a production engine. This engine must be used in a production car built in a quantity of at least 10 000 units per year. These pieces must not be modified.

This could mean:

• Race engine must be based on some parts from production engine. This production engine must be used in a car that is built >10000 / year.
• Race engine must be based on production engine and some parts of the donor engine can not be modified. The donor production engine must be used in a car that is built >10000 / year.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I also note that the ACO has decided to pretend that Stephane Ratel doesn't exist.

Why? FIA and ACO have their own GT1/GT2 rule set. They just happen to be almost identical.

Remember the ACO rules that prohibit Maserati MC12 from entering Le Mans, LMS, ALMS (without exception of IMSA).

ACO also added some performance penalties to slow GT1 down; e.g., Aston Martin is not allowed to use their special low drag nose.

[Fogelhund]

Regarding the application of these rules to the American Le Mans Series - IMSA is working with the ACO on the modifications necessary for the American Le Mans Series, and will be announcing before the end of the year.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Is this another "spirit of the rules" kind of thing?

We all know what it means, so do the manufacturers.

We've only seen a muddying of the waters as P1 vs P2 equivalency was too close for comfort.

By 2009 the regs will have eased Acura and, if they still wish to compete for overall wins, Porsche into P1.

The wording is more to warn Pescarolo, ORECA and co technology, particularly 'green' tech, will not be limited, so costs to develop a privateer chassis may rise.

They'll also potentially have to compete with manufacturer developed customer cars from Porsche, Aston etc.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Why dance around it with intent? Intent is meaningless without a solid cast iron rule. Just spell it out and be done with it.

Because someone will maintain Penske or Andretti Green are 'privateers'.

Fact is, if P2 cannot compete for overall wins, manufacturers will gravitate to P1 naturallly, and/or supply customer cars in P2. Dyson have run well in P2, but Penske are on a different level entirely.