WhiteBlue wrote: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 wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
>>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...
MINUTES OF THE LMP CONSTRUCTORS MEETING JUNE, 30th 2010
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.
• 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.
• 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.
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.
Stability of regulations mentioned, and taken in account, as efficient to achieve cost reduction.
• Energy valid: one fuel only supplied by the organizer.
• Energy Recovery Systems: Forbidden.
• Transmission: on the rear wheels only, 6 gears maximum.
Level of Performance:
• Possibility to reduce the performance by changing the amount of energy allocated, Agreed as being efficient
• Engine operation: minimum 50 hours between 2 rebuilds (from 2013 included)
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
ACO expects some proposals to be done for next October meeting.
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
ACO agrees to mandate 345.000€ as proper base for a complete car without engine
Considered by some competitors as not being under proper control by ACO.
ACO takes into account with intention to reinforce this subject.
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests