2014 LMP Reg

[Sombrero]

http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/1/1 ... n_2014.pdf

page 6 : Note that a private entry can race with Hybrid LMP but a manufacturer can't race with non-Hybrid LMP...

From page 9 to page 15, you'll see that the aero isn't going to change that much.

page 14 : in fact, to adjust the front element during pitstop is easier than changing the whole front cover.

I saw two main reasons for the success of group C at the time.

a) a fine regulation.
b) a lot of competitive private entries (most of them with the affordable Porsche 956)

For (a) the 2014 reg onwards may be allright.
For (b) I doubt that a big manufacturer will put on the market a Porsche 956-like 2014 Hybrid-LMP.

[gato azul]

from the press release which Sombrero kindly posted:

Power of the cars controlled by a homologated fuel flow metre (efficiency)

[bhall]

Yeah, I mentioned that previously. On its own it makes sense, but it becomes a bit more vague when taken in context with everything else.

I eagerly await the full publication of the regulations. And, frankly, no matter how it shakes out, these rules are light-years more interesting than anything in F1 right now.

[mx_tifoso]

Wait, so the regulations based on fuel consumption have already been done in this type of racing?

Group C, spreading itself across a variety of series lasted a decade, living a parallel existence in America's IMSA GTP class, delivering mindwarp decibels in endurance racing across the world thanks to the regulations' focus on fuel consumption rather than engine capacity.

The Telegraph: Group C endurance racing - in the hot seat

Excuse my ignorance, I know extremely little about the Group C series. As unfortunate as that is.

Like no series before or since, these cars' greatest attributes – their 600bhp-plus V8s and V12s from just a few litres to seven, the astoundingly brave pilots with exotic names, their sophisticated ground effects and aerodynamics, their technological finesse...

[wesley123]

Indeed they have. And the 'formula' was so succesful it ended up ruining formula 1 since everyone joined the Group C and no one formula 1. Of course no one related to F1 liked that which resulted in the rule change for 1990/1991, which was the death of the Group C/GTP class.

If that rule change did not happen we would probably still be looking at the Group C class

[RacingManiac]

Group C cars in their haydays are really as advanced as the comparable era F1 car(and by the end of it, the 3.5L car were almost as fast also). The rule limits them to an x amount of fuel in a given race, no more if you used it up. I think they ended up converting to about 4-5MPG. I think the racing were good but they had the same issue as F1 sometimes with the cars going into fuel saving mode....

The new rule might not do that, since you don't actually have a fuel "limit", but it encourages you to make as much power as you can given a fix energy input rate. So it should encourage the upping of efficiency to convert as much of that into actual power....

[Nando]

I think we might see a new fresh era of Le Mans. An era which we will remember and not the 50/50 chance of winning when Audi ran by themselves or ran as disguised Bentley´s.

Hoping that it will go back to the 90´s where you had several manufacturers fighting for the win.
After 99 Le Mans died in my opinion.

anyway, this sounds very interesting!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101501

[machin]

I'm not really a big fan of performance balancing.. I want to see one set of rules and the car that can make the most of those rules should win... so for example why should the petrol engined be given more fuel than a diesel?... Well here's a different take on the petrol vs. diesel debate; if the fuel allocation were based on the total life cycle Carbon footprint of each type of fuel (I.e. inclusive of the production emissions), and the Diesels have the same 3.99 litres/lap that is currently proposed, then the petrol engines should be allocated 4.80 litres/lap to ensure the same carbon footprint for each type of car... as it turns out; not too far away from what the ACO are currently proposing...

Fuel Life cycle analysis data from: "Carbon and energy balances for a
range of biofuels options" Elsayed, MA, Matthews, R, Mortimer,
ND. Study for DTI URN 03/836 (petrol = 2600g CO2/litre , diesel = 3128g CO2/litre).

[langwadt]

Indeed they have. And the 'formula' was so succesful it ended up ruining formula 1 since everyone joined the Group C and no one formula 1. Of course no one related to F1 liked that which resulted in the rule change for 1990/1991, which was the death of the Group C/GTP class.

If that rule change did not happen we would probably still be looking at the Group C class

I had the impression that like many other classes (DTM?) it got so advanced thus so expensive that manufacturers start dropping out and it basically dies from it's own success, or the rules are changed to make it almost a spec series

[Sombrero]

Yes, it's true the use of very expensive F-1 3.5L engines drove away the spectators, the sponsors and the competitors.

But I guess also the shortened races format did'nt appeal to the sprint race fans and really bored the true endurance fan.