WEC 2020 Tech Regulations - Hypercar Regulations

[dren]

Posted today: https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/118

5.4 Engine
5.4.1 Engine is free except following restrictions:
• Only Petrol 4 stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.
• Engine cubic capacity is free
• Engine must not have more than two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
- Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
- The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine component must be
circular.
- Electromagnetic and hydraulic valve actuation systems are forbidden.
• Variable geometry devices are not allowed except for the engine of the make for parts that remain exactly as
homologated for the original engine.
5.4.2 The rear power train performance must be declared and homologated according to the procedure detailed in
Article 22.1 of these regulations.
The rear power train power must not exceed 508 kW.
For the 2020-2021 and the 2021-2022 championship seasons, the rear power train BSFC must stay above 235 g/kWh.
From the 2022-2023 championship season onwards, the rear power train BSFC must stay above 225 g/kWh.
5.4.3 For the 2020-2021 and the 2021-2022 championship seasons, fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) =
minimum(132.7 x N(rpm) / Nmax(rpm) ; 119.4) with Nmax the maximum rpm declared during the homologation of the
engine.
From the 2022-2023 championship season onwards, fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = minimum(127.0 x N(rpm)
/ Nmax(rpm) ; 114.3) with Nmax the maximum rpm declared during the homologation of the engine.
The mass of fuel used per stint must not exceed M (kg) defined by the Endurance Committee.
5.4.4 With the exception of incidental leakage through joints (either into or out of the system) all and only the air
entering the engine inlet must enter the combustion chambers.
5.5 MGU-K specification
In all cases, the MGU-K, as defined in the relevant column of the ERS table of appendix 2 of these regulations, must be
in conformity:
• either with the rules imposed to the MGU-K of the make;
• or entirely with the rest of these regulations.
5.6 MGU-K of the make
5.6.1 Conditions imposed on the MGU-K of the make:
Identical to the conditions imposed to the MGU-K in these regulations with the specificities listed in Articles 5.6.2, 5.6.3
and 5.6.4.
5.6.2 Origin of the MGU-K of the make
The MGU-K of the make is a series production MGU-K that meets the following conditions:
Règlement Technique LMP 2020 / 2020 LMP Technical Regulations
© FIA/ACO
22/106 CMSA / WMSC 05.12.2018
Publié le / Published on 05.12.2018
• At least 25 identical MGU-Ks identical to the ones destined for the series production car homologated for road use
equipped with this MGU-K must have been produced;
• One complete MGU-K is desposited with the FIA/ACO.
• At least 25 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are
produced by the end of the year of the first season this engine is competing in.
• At least 100 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are
produced by the end of the year of the second season this exact same MGU-K is competing in.
• The original MGU-K is homologated with FIA/ACO.
5.6.3 Modifications
No modifications are allowed.
5.6.4 Exceptions
The use of two MGU-K of the make connected each to one side of the front drivetrain is authorised.
The rotational speed of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The laminate thickness of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The MGU-K of the make is not subject to Article 5.19.
5.7 MGU-K
The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to a mechanical differential linked to the front wheels
of the car. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the front wheels.
The mechanical differential must have a unique and homologated ramp.
The rotational speed of the MGU-K may not exceed 25,000 rpm.
The electrical DC power of the MGU-K may not exceed 200 kW.
Electrical DC measurements will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.
The electrical DC energy released by the ERS system on the circuit of Le Mans may not exceed per lap E (MJ) = [0.36 x
track length (km)].
The electrical DC energy released by the ERS system on the other circuits may not exceed per lap E (MJ) = [0.50 x track
length (km)].
Electrical DC measurements will be used to monitor the maximum ERS Energy released.
The laminate thickness of the MGU-K may not be less than 0.1 mm.

[dren]

[jjn9128]

There's so much sensible stuff in these non-F1 regs, "what is not expressly permitted by the present regulations is prohibited." Would cut out so much guff out of the F1 regulations if it's actually policed. A lot of the drawings at the end are missing though

[bill shoe]

fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = minimum(132.7 x N(rpm) / Nmax(rpm)

Aarggg. As usual the rules only permit power to increase as a (rough) function of engine rpm; this effectively requires acceleration with multiple gears and forces the usual ramp-up step-down noise. I think this extreme traditionalism cost the WEC/FIA a chance to do something useful for racing. Tesla doesn't do this, Formula E doesn't do this, how much longer will hybrid cars be stuck with this? If it was really the most efficient way for hybrid cars to go racing then there would be no need for rules that force it to happen.

This is really the defining line between old-era car performance and new car-era car performance. OK, that's my "multiple gears" gripe for the year.

Have to confess I'm too lazy to look at other rules. What are aero regs?

[machin]

I’m really looking forward to seeing beautiful cars again at Le Mans (beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course...), but the thing for me with these new regs is it seems there is no area for technological competition; power is fixed, SFC is fixed, power curve is fixed, weight is fixed, weight distribution is fixed, aero coefficients are fixed... I’m sure it’ll be close racing, but really isn’t Le Mans meant to be a technological showcase? The best technology wins?

I know it’s difficult; the ACO want to provide a good close race.... but GTE was close this year; it wasn’t interesting to watch....

[jjn9128]

Have to confess I'm too lazy to look at other rules. What are aero regs?

Relatively interesting - to me anyway. They've limited both the minimum frontal area (1.8m*m) and the maximum area coefficients (5.2m*m on CzS with , 1.0m*m on CxS, with an efficiency of 4.0) for the full aero map, which is performed at the FIA/ACO wind tunnel, where as well as aero numbers the car has to satisfy blow-over tests. In my opinion this is along the lines of what F1 should be doing to control wakes, especially on the drag side. I would say that the max drag and efficiency seem pretty high and low for prototypes where I'd values closer to 0.7/0.8 and 6.5 respectively.

They are allowed front and rear adjustable aero (they've called it MAD - moveable aerodynamic device) which has 2 step positions and has to be driver activated. The MAD can only reduce lap-time by 1sec when both are activated.

The floor/diffuser template is basically as before, but the cars are back to 2m wide so the diffuser is a little wider. Then there's a template for the front splitter/wing. Beyond that bodywork is pretty free - it must fit inside 5m long. 3.15m wheelbase, 1.15m tall - so long as the driver's view isn't blocked and all the lights are in the correct positions.

It doesn't seem like there is a stipulation for likeness to road going vehicles as was initially touted - presumably to keep the privateers. The bodywork must go through homologation before use and they're allowed up to 5 jokers to change things per year.

[machin]

Cockpit size is now increased, and headlights must be at least 400mm above the reference plane... so they’re nods towards “real” GT cars... there was never going to be a way to force the cars to look like road cars, but by putting a strict limit on the aero coefficients there is now no longer any disadvantage of making the car look something like a road car, or a derivitive of one; that gives the manufacturer marketing department freedom to come up with some nicely styled cars (or some absolute dog-ugly thing!).

[dren]

It sounds like the regulations are very open for the ICE and MGUK if they are coming from a 'production' variant. They basically sidestep all of the regulations aside from power output.

[Pat Pending]

I'm confused about exactly what type of car these regulations cover;

The title of the thread refers to 'Hypercars', which made me think that it was about a new category for racing versions of road cars such as the AMG 1, McLaren Senna etc. However the title of the actual regulations (following the posted link) refers to "LMP" cars, and defines an LMP car as:

"1.1 ‘’LE MANS’’ Prototype – LMP
A closed automobile designed solely for speed races on circuits or closed courses." i.e. a bespoke race car.

Yet the engine regs (5.3.2) refer to "The engine of the make must be based on an original engine" and refers to the engines being " identical to the ones destined for the series production car homologated for road use
equipped with this engine", i.e. not a bespoke race engine.

Can anyone explain what's what?

[jjn9128]

I'm confused about exactly what type of car these regulations cover;

The title of the thread refers to 'Hypercars', which made me think that it was about a new category for racing versions of road cars such as the AMG 1, McLaren Senna etc. However the title of the actual regulations (following the posted link) refers to "LMP" cars, and defines an LMP car as:

"1.1 ‘’LE MANS’’ Prototype – LMP
A closed automobile designed solely for speed races on circuits or closed courses." i.e. a bespoke race car.

Yet the engine regs (5.3.2) refer to "The engine of the make must be based on an original engine" and refers to the engines being " identical to the ones destined for the series production car homologated for road use
equipped with this engine", i.e. not a bespoke race engine.

Can anyone explain what's what?

I think Machin explained it pretty well a few posts up - the idea of the aero restrictions is to allow OEMs to come in and design a more GT-esque body to more closely align to their road models and marketing, all while remaining proper prototype race-cars. It also allows privateers to race without having to guarantee manufacturing a car they could never afford to build. The aero-coefficient limits mean there is no longer an advantage to building something aerodynamically optimal, but aesthetically abhorrent (not that I think most of the P1 cars have been that bad looking, the last Audi and the byKolles spring to mind as the least visually appealing of the past decade).

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the car is called - if it's a P1 or a GT1 or a 'hypercar' as long as it's fast and affordable it could entice some OEM's back to the top tier in WEC - I'd love a P1 field with Toyota, Aston Martin, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren...etc maybe that's not realistic though.

[bill shoe]

Relatively interesting - to me anyway. They've limited both the minimum frontal area (1.8m*m) and the maximum area coefficients (5.2m*m on CzS with , 1.0m*m on CxS, with an efficiency of 4.0) for the full aero map, which is performed at the FIA/ACO wind tunnel, where as well as aero numbers the car has to satisfy blow-over tests. In my opinion this is along the lines of what F1 should be doing to control wakes, especially on the drag side. I would say that the max drag and efficiency seem pretty high and low for prototypes where I'd values closer to 0.7/0.8 and 6.5 respectively.

OK, that's interesting enough that I also looked up the regs. They are supposed to meet these aero criteria over a full range of front & rear ride heights, steer angle, roll, yaw. And it gets tested and homologated in an official wind tunnel.

So first of all, to maximize performance you need to design bodywork that is generally consistent over the full 5 degree-of-freedom aero map. If it's inconsistent then the variations must always go down (lower performance) from the criteria so the higher-performance areas are still within the rules. I think we could see strange new shapes and appendages on bodywork to reduce performance in some narrow part of the overall regime so that the rest of the regime can sneak closer to the performance limits.

Then an Engineer's mind drifts to how these rules can be gamed to increase real performance on-track. Not cheating, just doing a race Engineer's proper job. There are always imperfections and correlation issues with scale wind tunnels compared to reality. Generally an aerodynamicist spends much time trying to minimize these issues. Now they will have to think about how to take advantage of them.

Areas of Opportunity-

• Will scale testing be used or full-scale?

• What speeds will be used, especially if less than full-scale?

• Does testing occur at discreet static combinations of the 5 parameters (ride heights, etc.) or with a continuous dynamic flow of motion?

• Wind tunnel stingers to top of car and/or wheels are required in tunnels but not in reality.

• Speed variation of a real car on track is quite rapid, but speed variation of flow in a wind tunnel is slow or near-zero.

• Many many more.

The basic rules are not bad, in fact really in many ways they are much more rational than the bodywork-dimension regimes used to control aero in F1. But the fact that it's a new approach does open up the reality that people will need to figure new ways of sneaking around the edges.

[jjn9128]

OK, that's interesting enough that I also looked up the regs. They are supposed to meet these aero criteria over a full range of front & rear ride heights, steer angle, roll, yaw. And it gets tested and homologated in an official wind tunnel.

So first of all, to maximize performance you need to design bodywork that is generally consistent over the full 5 degree-of-freedom aero map. If it's inconsistent then the variations must always go down (lower performance) from the criteria so the higher-performance areas are still within the rules. I think we could see strange new shapes and appendages on bodywork to reduce performance in some narrow part of the overall regime so that the rest of the regime can sneak closer to the performance limits.

Then an Engineer's mind drifts to how these rules can be gamed to increase real performance on-track. Not cheating, just doing a race Engineer's proper job. There are always imperfections and correlation issues with scale wind tunnels compared to reality. Generally an aerodynamicist spends much time trying to minimize these issues. Now they will have to think about how to take advantage of them.

Areas of Opportunity-

• Will scale testing be used or full-scale?

• What speeds will be used, especially if less than full-scale?

• Does testing occur at discreet static combinations of the 5 parameters (ride heights, etc.) or with a continuous dynamic flow of motion?

• Wind tunnel stingers to top of car and/or wheels are required in tunnels but not in reality.

• Speed variation of a real car on track is quite rapid, but speed variation of flow in a wind tunnel is slow or near-zero.

• Many many more.

The basic rules are not bad, in fact really in many ways they are much more rational than the bodywork-dimension regimes used to control aero in F1. But the fact that it's a new approach does open up the reality that people will need to figure new ways of sneaking around the edges.

You want a consistent downforce regardless of these rules, aero inconsistency is one of the main thing drivers moan about.

Scale/Reynolds number...etc depends on the wind tunnel the ACO/FIA select. TMG, Sauber and both kitted for motorsport and can accommodate full scale, then there's Gene Haas' tunnel in the US, and a big one in France who's name I can't recall. I think model scale may be more likely so RUAG, Dallara, or some of the F1 wind tunnels could be considered. I think they'd want to avoid conflicts like TMG, BMW or the VWAG tunnels.

That said the wind tunnel test comes after the build and testing of the monocoque and after a build date for bodywork - so maybe they will be doing full scale testing. But it's also before the final CAD is approved... your guess is as good as mine

If it's model scale they will almost certainly perform the tests with constant motion, probably some static tests too to see how the different approaches fit - the thing about doing all the tests at 1 facility is that you baseline the aero results. They may not give exactly the same numbers as team's wind tunnels but it's at least a constant measure. I guess you could place a delegate in each facility - do some tests with bluff and streamline bodies and work out some correction factor to try and normalize results... is that more expensive than getting teams to ship cars to a single facility for test? I dunno.

[Maritimer]

I'm confused about exactly what type of car these regulations cover;

The title of the thread refers to 'Hypercars', which made me think that it was about a new category for racing versions of road cars such as the AMG 1, McLaren Senna etc. However the title of the actual regulations (following the posted link) refers to "LMP" cars, and defines an LMP car as:

"1.1 ‘’LE MANS’’ Prototype – LMP
A closed automobile designed solely for speed races on circuits or closed courses." i.e. a bespoke race car.

Yet the engine regs (5.3.2) refer to "The engine of the make must be based on an original engine" and refers to the engines being " identical to the ones destined for the series production car homologated for road use
equipped with this engine", i.e. not a bespoke race engine.

Can anyone explain what's what?

Think along the lines of the Toyota TS020 GT-One or the Mercedes CLK LM. Prototype cars that are loosely styled after road vehicles. The engine rules have also been clarified, a stock blocks and bespoke engines are allowed. Purpose built engines and motors will be more limited in their design aspects, no vvt or other things like that. Presumably they're trying to coerce the OEMs to use road going architecture by letting them keep any trick things that the road engine has (to a point).

[dren]

Can anyone explain what's what?

I added hypercar regulations to the title because they have been discussed as such (not officially by the FIA) for reasons others have posted. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

[marmer]

I wish the would just allow unlimited development cat just for the le man's 24 hours. Let manufacturers turn up with ridiculous cars going as fast as possible have a minimum entry of 1000hp
Any engine any fuel any layout

Edit - don't allow them to earn we've points though keep them separate from lmp1 but Allow them to take trophy at least man's only