2011 Endurance news

[Pandamasque]

2011 regs http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-LE-M ... S_628.html

[Tomba]

Despite interesting new rules being drawn up for Le Mans 2011, no one appears to talk about it here. Anyway, in short there will be major changes, including slashing the engine capacity to nearly half of what they are today, and the introduction or energy recovery systems, from brakes, engine power, engine heat, ...

The ACO wishes to give manufacturers the widest possible scope to use and develop such systems by putting a certain number of controls in place. Energy recovery systems will be allowed provided that they respect the following rules :


* Recovery and release systems of energy at each axle (front or rear) to be a free choice.
* Maximum quantity of energy released between two braking phases to be 500 kJ.
* Energy storage: by electrical or mechanical systems.
* Systems to be activated by the accelerator pedal only ('push to pass' buttons, e.g. KERS forbidden).
* Hybrid safety specifications to be drawn up by the ACO.
* Other means of energy recovery will be allowed: exhaust, engine heat, dampers, etc. provided that they respect the specifications drawn up by the ACO (safety considerations, banning of driver aids, evaluation of the increases provided by the systems, the reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions).
* Energy recovery systems using brakes must not be active during braking for curves (driver aids banned).
* Fuel tank capacity reduction: 2 litres less for both petrol and diesel-engined cars.
* Pit lane test obligatory for the cars in the hybrid category according to Article 1 / Definitions, Section 1.12 of the ACO LM P1 & LM P2 technical regulations, which stipulate that a car in this category must be able to cover the distance of the pit lane (400 metres) at a speed of 60 km/h using only the power generated by its hybrid system.

LM P1 & LM P2 PROTOTYPES

The new regulations follow the current evolution of the car in relation to the environment: namely, reduction in the power and overall performance of the engines.

2010 LM P1's eligible in 2011 provided that as announced two years ago, the cubic capacity of the LM P1 prototypes will be reduced. The 2011 regulations for the Le Mans 24 Hours, the ILMC, ALMS, LMS and the Asian Le Mans series have been revised to take into account the current economic situation and ensure a transition period. It gives the 2010 LM P1 prototypes an extra year with their performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 cars. The development of the current chassis will be frozen as at 31/12/2010.

* LM P2 "A Low Cost Formula" powered exclusively by production series engines with engine regulations close to those in LM GT2.
* Capped costs: that of an engine must not exceed 75,000 €, the sales price of a complete chassis with options without the engine will be 325,000 € maximum - 400,000 € for a complete car.
* Minimum engine life: The life of an engine between two revisions will be 30 hours in 2011, 40 hours in 2012 and 50 hours in 2013.

The current LM P2s can still race in 2011 on 3 conditions :

* 1. Installation of a new engine derived from a production series.
* 2. Chassis development frozen as at 31/12/2010.
* 3. Performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 models.


I wonder actually if the FIA is reading. There are a few lessons to draw from this in relation to Formula One regulations.

[Holm86]

I like how openminded they are on the hybrid/energy recovery systems.
Though i still think the reduction in engine size is a little bit too much cutting half the displacement....

[Ogami musashi]

note that lmp cars will have F1 like shark fins as a mean to prevent yaw induced airborne accidents.

[WhiteBlue]

Note that dual torque systems are desired. KERS has to work continually and not as a push to pass system. IMO that makes a lot more sense than the artificial F1 limitations. I hope F1 rules for 2013 to be announced soon will have the same style and will go AWKERS with dual torque.

[jwielage]

Note that dual torque systems are desired. KERS has to work continually and not as a push to pass system. IMO that makes a lot more sense than the artificial F1 limitations. I hope F1 rules for 2013 to be announced soon will have the same style and will go AWKERS with dual torque.

WhiteBlue, can you please explain this in terms that the laymen could better understand? What is a duel torque system, and how does this differ from F1 style KERS?

[WhiteBlue]

Sure. If you look at the F1 KERS you find that the electric motors can only be activated by a push button. A dual torque system would feed the power permanently from both sources, from the engine and from the battery and electric motor whenever the trottle pedal is pushed. The rate of electric torque would obviously depend of the actual stored amount of energy at a given moment. So the pedal activates two torque sources, hence dual torque.

It would be similar with braking. The generators would take torque from the wheels as the brakes dissipate energy. So the braking pedal will also apply two sources of negative torque to the wheels.

Obviously the way this is done must be by a common technology strictly controlled by the SECU or you would have traction control and ABS through the back door. The competitive advantage in dual torque systems would be the weight of the system versus the amount of energy that can be harvested. If you compare an all wheel KERS (AWKERS) system having two motor/generators with a conventional rear wheel system you need to increase the stored energy at least at the same rate as the additional weight of the system grows. If you achieve that you would have traction advantages and you would be saving fuel which would not bog the car down at the start.

[jwielage]

Sure. If you look at the F1 KERS you find that the electric motors can only be activated by a push button. A dual torque system would feed the power permanently from both sources, from the engine and from the battery and electric motor whenever the trottle pedal is pushed. The rate of electric torque would obviously depend of the actual stored amount of energy at a given moment. So the pedal activates two torque sources, hence dual torque.

It would be similar with braking. The generators would take torque from the wheels as the brakes dissipate energy. So the braking pedal will also apply two sources of negative torque to the wheels.

Obviously the way this is done must be by a common technology strictly controlled by the SECU or you would have traction control and ABS through the back door. The competitive advantage in dual torque systems would be the weight of the system versus the amount of energy that can be harvested. If you compare an all wheel KERS (AWKERS) system having two motor/generators with a conventional rear wheel system you need to increase the stored energy at least at the same rate as the additional weight of the system grows. If you achieve that you would have traction advantages and you would be saving fuel which would not bog the car down at the start.

Very good explaination. Thank you very much !

[Pandamasque]

The new regs seem fine on the whole, but I see 3 major problems.

- decrease in variety (no V12s or V10s allowed as far as I understand). That's a big loss for Le Mans.
- no independent racing engine manufacturers in P2. So basically the non-manufacturer class being the main market for AERs, Juds and Zyteks of this world is now taken away from them. These engine manufacturers are left to battle the multi-million works efforts in P1. Why not allow bespoke racing engines with same or even lower cost cap?
- energy recovery systems being the only way to go in P1 is bad. If ACO want to go road-car relevant they should realize that there are cons to Hybrid technology in road car too. I completely understand Audi and AMR demanding lower weight limit for non hybrid prototypes. ACO's response was "ok... in 2014". They must be joking. As a result we may see AMR concentrating on GT2 with the Vantage. I'm not sure what Audi are thinking about racing R18 with a significant disadvantage built into it.

In other news... there are changes to GT racing too:

CREATION OF THE GT ENDURANCE CATEGORY

In 2011, there will be no LM GT1 category for the following three major reasons:

Numerous date clashes on the event calendars.
Very small fields outside the Le Mans 24 Hours.
The current category is entirely sprint based.

This is why in agreement with the GT manufacturers the ACO has decided to create a GT Endurance category with a single set of regulations valid between 2011 and 2013. These regulations are based on the current GT2 cars complying with the 2009 ACO rules with the following modifications:
Steering wheel mounted paddle gearshifts allowed.
Only 1 evolution per year allowed.
2 evolutions per year will be allowed for new cars.
Measures will be taken to reduce top speeds without reducing overall power.

The GT Endurance category will be for one type of car but divided into two classes from 2011:
GT Endurance PRO: a professional category, cars and drivers free.
GT Endurance AM: cars over one year old and with a minimum of two drivers classified in the bronze or silver categories (defined under LM P2 LMS 2010 regulations).
The Michelin Green X Challenge will continue in the PROTOTYPES and GT classes.
Reduction in tyre consumption (as defined in 2009 and 2010 ACO Regulations)
Reduction in noise level decibels (From 112DB in 2010 to 110DB in 2011)

[wesley123]

Audi is starting to look like the Ferrari of the LMP, thinking the rules dont count to them and any rule that doesnt fit them is cried about. i loved audi with their R8 and R10, wich were challenges for them, bow it is just only about who can cry the loudest. Audi cant seem to take it that they are beaten on raw pace by the peugeots where they were always the only contestant, too bad. Instead of crying about the hybrids they should see it as a new challenge like they did with the diesel.

And with an weight advantage for non hybrid cars i do not see any gains for running expensive energy recovery systems. The hybrids should actually get an weight advantage, they are the future and teams should run it.

Overall i do not like the rules, like pandamasque said, there is no place anymore for AER, Judd and Zytek for example, these constructors cannot offer it to build an LMP1 engine, would be a big loss. And same for turbo's and diesels, ACO always wanted to reduce the Diesels advantage, now there is the chance and they do not take it, from what i have read NA engines could run V8 with up to 4(or 5 litres) Single turbo cars could run 3.5 io believe, bi turbo could run 2 or something like that, then you had diesels wich were somewhere in the 3 litres, with that Diesel will still be the way to go to win, those engines have incredible torque and it will stay that way leaving regular fueled cars without any chance, again.

[Pandamasque]

Audi is starting to look like the Ferrari of the LMP, thinking the rules dont count to them and any rule that doesnt fit them is cried about. i loved audi with their R8 and R10, wich were challenges for them, bow it is just only about who can cry the loudest. Audi cant seem to take it that they are beaten on raw pace by the peugeots where they were always the only contestant, too bad. Instead of crying about the hybrids they should see it as a new challenge like they did with the diesel.

And with an weight advantage for non hybrid cars i do not see any gains for running expensive energy recovery systems. The hybrids should actually get an weight advantage, they are the future and teams should run it.

You are wrong. You may believe that hybrids are THE future, that's fine. Some manufacturers may believe that too. Again that's fine. But it's against the basics of Le Mans racing to dictate what future is by the rules. That's what F1 does, and that exactly why its technical development lead it to some s*** so deep it won't get out in a hurry.
In road cars nobody will give you free weight dispensation for running a hybrid system. You'd have to compete with lighter cars that don't run it.

[RacingManiac]

Companies like AER or Zytek can still build engine for lower class cars, like much of these specialty company have always done, by building race prep version of production engine. The production rule means the engine has to be a road car derived engine, but the point of being a road going engine to a race motor is still not as simple as taking it out of a car and put in the back of a race car. Look at current Grand Am for the kind of work I am talking about, like DINAN or Roush that builds the Ford or BMW engines for Daytona Prototypes. They are still road car engines, build by race shops... In fact I think that might actually make the life of the likes of AER easier since it might lower the amount of work needed to be competitive, since much of the system might be designed and they can focus on making stuff competitive....

The demand of OEMs in Le Mans series is nothing new...it always has been an OEM driven series and ACO constantly talk to the companies to get them interested. Its smart in ACOs part in that it aligns it to the participants' interest so they can get commercial return from their racing endeavor, instead of the people who spend multi-millions to go racing on someone's whim....It sucks for the small teams, but then it always does....

[wesley123]

I jus saw this on mulsannes corner, thought i mention it

>>Over a month after the 24 Hours of Le Mans and we are still lacking definitive regulations for 2011. The Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings are held quarterly in order to discuss amongst the manufacturers and suppliers the direction of future regulations. The last TWG meeting was held June 30th. In the mean time, while we wait, this came our way. The minutes of the last Technical Working Group meeting. There seems to be precious little discussed regarding 2011 which leads one to believe that the Version 4 regulations will ultimately be released little changed.

One does wonder why the Renault F1 Team was one of the participants...

Discuss...


MINUTES OF THE LMP CONSTRUCTORS MEETING JUNE, 30th 2010

Participants:

Julian SOLE (Lola) / DUNLOP MOTORSPORT EU / Jean Felix BAZELIN (Dunlop) / Martin MUEHLMEIER (Audi) / Axel LOEFFLER (Audi) / Norbert SANTOS (Norma) / Guillem ROUX (Norma) / Alwin SPRINGER (Porsche) / Juergen KLAUKE (Porsche) / Adam CARTER (Wirth Research) / Christophe CHAPELAIN (NISMO?) / David FLOURY (Oreca) / Mike BLANCHET (Formula Le Mans) / Stan HALL (Judd) / Roger GRIFFITHS (HPD) / Aoki NORIO (?) / Mark ELLIS (AER) / George Howard CHAPPELL (AMR) / Jason HILL (AMR) / Bruno FAMIN (Peugeot) / Tim HOLLOWAY (Zytek) / Ian LOVETTE (Zytek) / RENAULT F1 TEAM / François SICARD (OAK Racing) / Serge GRISIN (Michelin)/ PESCAROLO SPORT / Scot E. ELKINS (ALMS).

Vincent BEAUMESNIL / Daniel PERDRIX / Denis CHEVRIER / Thierry BOUVET / Aurore LARDON.

Improvement of energy efficiency:

Is intended to be the base of future regulations (for at least 3 years)
The energy counted is the one externally supplied to the car.

• Weight of the car: only one minimum weight. This weight can be obtained with a car using a gasoline engine and without energy recovery system. Minimum weight proposed: 775 kg. General agreement for 775kg.
Could be reduced in relationship with evolutions of technologies.

• Power: limited by a maximum instantaneous amount of energy that can be used. The control will be made with a mandatory common box that will drive the injectors.
Precision and application of such equipment raised as being very challenging.

Other proposal: control could be achieved by allocation of fuel quantity. Such quantity for race refueling being directly linked to the amount of laps done and policed by ACO.

For electrical energy, instead of allocation, the control of the used energy seems presently the only possibility. It must be policed by ACO. They could lead to a particular category: experimental

Still need to find a solution for qualifying conditions.

• Type of engine: All types of engine apart from turbines, reactors and engines using Stirling cycle.
Confirmed

• Energies valid: these the potential energy of which can be clearly defined and usable. These fuels will be supplied always by the ACO to ensure the calorific power. Safety for the use of these energies should be guaranteed and necessary approvals should be obtained (hydrogen, gas, etc.). Regarding electric energy, it will be necessary also to quantify and control the potential energy. As a base: the maximum allocation would be equivalent to the energy of 1500 liters of petrol for 24H in Le Mans.

Present intention would be to decrease the quantity by 2% per year.

GPL or other particular gas or substances would be subject to the approval from administrations of the countries. They could also lead to the particular category: experimental

• Energy Recovery Systems: The number and the use are free. Possibility for using the 4 wheels to recover and release the energy, but the propulsion of the front wheels must be done only with the energy recovery systems. The driving aids are permitted. The amount of energy recovered, stored and used is free. Safety rules should be defined for each new system.
Confirmed / Safety will be treated as a crucial point.

• Efficiency of energy recovery systems: The System should be efficient enough to allow at least equal performance with a car without hybrid system.
Confirmed

• Transmission: free, but the combustion engine must only be connected to the rear wheels. Other proposal: Conventional engine should not be connected to the front wheels


Maintaining the level of performance over 3'30''on a lap at Le Mans:

Possibility to reduce the performance by:

• Changing the amount of energy allocated, Agreed as being efficient

• Modifying the aerodynamic of the cars. These modifications should not increase the drag in order to maintain a good efficiency.

Considering the orientation of the regulation (reduction of global energy), the trend will automatically go towards
this direction (ratio Load/Drag).

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations (bodywork at the front …)

• Reducing the size of the tires and increasing their lifetime. To be reevaluated after 2011 with a target which could reduce the size. In such objective, Tires manufactures emphasize the need to have from competitors some figures of reduction of down force to calibrate their researches.

Increase of lifetime is a lot more supported (cost, image and potential reduction of performance).

Agreement of tires manufacturers to produce tires with internal chip to allow automatic knowledge of the tyre used (operating at the exit of the pit lane).


Maintain open and closed cars :

Considering the orientation of the regulation (reduction of global energy), the trend will automatically go towards closed cars.

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations to make it mandatory.

Cockpit temperature could be decreased for safety reasons.


LMP2 2014

Improvement of energy efficiency:

• Weight of the car: 850 kg
More interest in maintaining 900 kg.

• Power: limited by a maximum instantaneous amount of energy that can be used. The control will be made with a mandatory common box that will drive the injectors. The amount of energy will be defined according to the engine capacity. Precision and application of such equipment raised as being very challenging. Other proposal: control could be achieved by allocation of fuel quantity. Such quantity for race refueling being directly linked to the amount of laps done and policed by ACO.

• Type of engine: production petrol engine.
Confirmed
Stability of regulations mentioned, and taken in account, as efficient to achieve cost reduction.

• Energy valid: one fuel only supplied by the organizer.
Confirmed

• Energy Recovery Systems: Forbidden.
Confirmed

• Transmission: on the rear wheels only, 6 gears maximum.
Confirmed


Level of Performance:

• Possibility to reduce the performance by changing the amount of energy allocated, Agreed as being efficient


Cost reduction:

• Engine operation: minimum 50 hours between 2 rebuilds (from 2013 included)
Confirmed

Proposed approach: 1 engine for complete LMS season (5 events) + 1 engine for Le Mans 24Hours.
Intended to apply specific bonus points for reliable engines.

• Limiting the number and type of tires. Agreement of tires manufacturers to produce tires with internal chip to allow automatic knowledge of the tyre
used (operating at the exit of the pit lane). Tests are on schedule by both manufacturers for LMGT2 cars at Silverstone event. General agreement to introduce next year a restriction of number of tyres per car and per race.

Quantities to be given in October meeting.


Maintain open and closed cars:

No intention of changes.

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations to make open cars mandatory for new models


LMP1 and LMP2 : Limitation of testing :

Idea from ACO to force competitors to participate to the series instead of doing ‘some pickings’. Many aspects make this limitation difficult to introduce (different countries (USA-Europe), different competitors, interest of test for financial aspect for some gentlemen drivers, cost of parts more important than circuit rent, number of red flags…).

The only proper way to achieve a rule could be from control of tyre usage. Tyres manufacturer should be
involved.

ACO expects some proposals to be done for next October meeting.


Others: 2011

Le Mans test day:

Must be mandatory for new teams, new cars and new drivers.

Must be mandatory for at least one car per brand.

Additional entry will be granted by the ACO in accordance with criteria of quality, history, …

Extension to 2 days has been discussed but not possible

Relationship Diesel/Petrol for next year:

Present situation taken into account by ACO with intention to introduce a sporting rule to limit difference of performance during a complete season (2% ?)

Engine oil recirculation:

ACO wait for some results of studies from competitors for next October meeting.

Engine air restrictors:

Should be communicated shortly

LMP2 prices:

ACO agrees to mandate 345.000€ as proper base for a complete car without engine

Article 5.5.3

Considered by some competitors as not being under proper control by ACO.

ACO takes into account with intention to reinforce this subject.

Hybrids:

The definition of possible recovery conditions will be defined shortly (level of lateral acceleration…)

Safety for future:

FIA studies for side intrusion resistance could be integrated in the future

A Bit interresting in the list is that Pescarolo Sport and the Renault F1 Team.
The new Pescarolo owner mentioned he had no intention to race the team, so why bothering joining the meeting? We might see an return with a brand new pescarolo car?
Also Renault is interresting, we know of the new owners of the team and their intention also to run in le mansthis year wich failed(I thought they were trying to buy pescarolo or something?).
Also good news in the meeting is HPD, wich i believe its running was unsure for 2011, already with the stopped running of the ARX-02, and i believed they cut the cost for running this year already drasticly.

Audi would run the R18 from 2011(if im correct), wich makes their intention with the R15 unsure, as it had 2 racing years. What i can think of those 2 years were a test with both cars being pretty much radical, we might expect an even more radical R18.

Also Peugeot will come with an new car next year, dont know what we can expect from that, hopefully something more surprising then the boring 908 wich was in no way interesting.

[wesley123]

Double post but, the first look of an 2011 LMP is shown, it is actually an Lola B11/60. They went back from closed top to open top(idk why), it has the big fin and apart from that it is simply an open top lola B10. And it is really good looking.

[Pandamasque]

According to Marshall Pruett it's due to the P2 cost cap and the fact that Coupes are more expensive. [ link ]

I'll just quote what I've posted elsewhere on this:

That's a shame. As someone who had no interest or understanding of sportscar racing just a few years ago, I can tell you that modern open top LMP cars look really awkward and take some getting used to. Some of them look like F1 cars with fenders, and now the fin makes it worse.
It looks like it was added in a hurry.

Meanwhile the Castrol-liveried Dyson Lola-Mazda is one of the best looking prototypes I've ever seen.