IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

02-06-2018, 07:44 PM

#1 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.
You bastards better NEVER complain about loss of fan popularity!
You bastards better NEVER complain about reduced entry fields!
---------------------
What's the lesson here? Doing too good of a job – even when the series agrees it was 100 percent legal – isn't acceptable within the constructs of a championship that relies on BoP.

Thursday, 01 February 2018
By Marshall Pruett / Images by LePage, Galstad, Levitt/LAT

5.7k Shares
The decision by IMSA's technical department to award a stop-plus-five-minute penalty to the class-leading Land Motorsport Audi R8 LMS GT3 will be remembered as one of the bolder calls made at the Rolex 24 at Daytona.

Having spent a fair amount of time speaking with the series, team and manufacturer since the ruling was made, the complexities involved are remarkable.
As much as I loathe IMSA's use of Balance of Performance for its WeatherTech SportsCar Championship series, in this instance, I'm comfortable saying the spirit behind the call was correct – it fit the framework of BoP, which every entrant accepts as part of competing in the series.
But the penalty also exposed an oversight in IMSA's rulebook, which brought into question whether an actual, printed violation occurred.
WHAT HAPPENED
At 12:13 a.m., Land driver Jeffrey Schmidt was ordered to pit lane to sit for five minutes as a result of the No.29 Audi spending an insufficient amount of time on pit lane while refueling. It might be the first example where fast pit stops, in a professional series where no minimum time limits are imposed for pit stops, were met with a stiff penalty.

THE PROCESS
To understand the issue, a glimpse into IMSA's choice to use BoP as a method to equalize each class is required. Many fans are familiar with BoP in the context of how it applies to the cars in Prototype, GT Le Mans, and in this instance, GT Daytona.
Using GTD as a reference, the low and wide Lamborghini Huracan GT3, with its big V10 engine, competes against the comparatively narrow and tall Porsche 911 GT3 R with its smaller flat-six engine. Both cars cut through the air with differing efficiency, make different levels of horsepower and torque, and weigh different amounts.
Through BoP, IMSA uses a variety of data to try and equalize the on-track performance of Lamborghini and Porsche – and all other GTD cars – through adding or removing weight, aerodynamic settings, through air restrictors that give or take away power, through rev limits, and for the turbocharged cars from Acura, BMW, and Ferrari, boost is increased or decreased in an attempt to give each model an equal chance at winning.

If one model starts to perform outside its demonstrated capabilities – say, one model goes exceptionally faster in the race than it did in qualifying – the series has reserved the right, in its rulebook, to award a non-compliance penalty based on performing better than its BoP should allow.

As the penalty to the No.29 was applied, it was a rare BoP violation that had nothing to do with Land's Audi and its on-track performance. The speed of delivering fuel into the R8's 91-liter fuel cell during the first five pit stops was the instigator.

In its effort to balance the three classes on pit lane, IMSA takes live telemetry from the cars to gauge fuel consumption figures as the vehicles race around each track. Using the Lamborghini and Porsche again, if the Huracan's V10 consumes more fuel each lap than the 911 GT3 R's flat-six, IMSA would adjust the BoP tables to allow the Lamborghini to carry more fuel on board in its fuel cell.

And since it has a bigger fuel cell to fill, more fuel would be required to fill the Huracan at each stop than the Porsche, which would leave the Lamborghini sitting stationary longer than the Porsche, and that would be a clear disadvantage.

__________________
Keystone Motor Club (Founded 2012)... Free car show Every 3rd Saturday, newsletter is
https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/e...-car-club.html
Keystone Facebook ...click: "Keystone Motor Car Club"

Port Richey Rod Run at Coast Buick GMC Coming May 25 2024
https://carstoshow.com/registerevent.aspx?eventid=99114

50's Diner US19.... A Florida Attraction.
1730 US-19, Holiday Fl 34691 click: https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/t...-racing.html CHRA sanctioned cruise-in.
Cruise-In; Free; Every Saturday 5-8PM plus 10% off the whole menu to cruisers

All Cars Every 2nd Saturday Free Breakfast: Since 2015 and more. click: https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/e...ast-tampa.html

Tampa Racing.com covers the Tampa car scene and supports many fund raisers, worthy causes and events that enrich our community. We hope you enjoy them all.
What do I do? ---- on-site *Aftermarket* spring/suspension installations --- on-site impact wrenching---street lowering with your own stock springs...........True Bi-xenon HID projector headlight conversions........ Much more at Bob's Garage!
https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/b...ontact-us.html
https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/b...e-senor-honda/

Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 08:18 PM.

Reply Like

02-06-2018, 07:46 PM

#2 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

Part 2 IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

To try and balance the refueling process on the stopwatch, IMSA makes use of refueling flow restrictors. Like an air restrictor that allows more or less air into an engine's combustion chamber, the refueling restrictors are placed in the hose that connects from the large refueling tanks to each car. For cars with smaller fuel cells, refueling restrictors with smaller openings – to slow the fueling process – are mandated by IMSA.

For cars with bigger cells to fill, restrictors with wider openings – to speed up the process – are specified.
Although it isn't an exact science where every car takes precisely the same time to fill, IMSA's refueling BoP efforts are intended to level out any obvious refueling time advantages or disadvantages across the various models.

With the refueling restrictor sizes for each model issued in the pre-race BoP technical bulletin, teams install the hose restrictor, which is inspected by IMSA, and then the hose/restrictor is sealed by the series to prevent tampering.

TRACKING
Like the live performance data streaming during a race from each car to IMSA's computers, the series also places a sensor in each refueling tank to measure the amount of fuel it contains and the speed that fuel enters the car.

By starting with a known amount of fuel in the refueling tank at the beginning of the race, IMSA's live level sensor reports back in an instant with how much fuel went into the car at each stop, and how long it took for the fuel volume to change.

As an example during a stop, IMSA will see a change from 300 liters to 250 liters, know that 50 liters went into the car, and the data system will also calculate the time it took for the decrease from 300 to 250 to happen. If the flow rate is clearly faster than the number IMSA has calculated for each model, alarms will be raised.

Keep in mind that while IMSA goes to great lengths to apply BoP to refueling speeds with the fueling equipment on pit lane, if a car has a fuel cell that has been optimized to receive that fuel faster than other cars, the flow rate will increase.

Just as reducing aerodynamic drag will improve top speed, reducing blockages in the car's fuel cell will improve its refueling speed. It's an age-old practice carried out by teams in every series where refueling takes place. And some teams are better at it than others.

Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 07:59 PM.

Reply Like

02-06-2018, 07:48 PM

#3 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

Part 3: IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

THE LAND SCENARIO
With the No.29 Land car, IMSA saw figures coming from the refueling tank that said it was taking less time to fill the car than was anticipated. Beyond the refueling flow rate trigger, teams had been informed by IMSA that it had an expectation for each GTD car to sit still for approximately 40 seconds during a full refueling stop.

After the same faster-than-expected phenomenon occurred at the first five stops, which gave the Audi a one lap and 80-second lead over second place, IMSA acted and applied the aforementioned stop-plus-five-minute penalty, which effectively ended its race.

"To measure refueling times, each entrant's autonomous fuel tank is fitted with a mandated IMSA fuel level sensor and refueling restrictor, which are inspected and sealed prior to the race," IMSA competition VP Simon Hodgson said in a statement after the penalty was handed down.

"During a standard in-race data review, IMSA observed a consistent and beneficial variance of the No. 29 car's refueling times compared to the GTD class average. Based on IMSA's current and past event refueling data, this was deemed to be unacceptable. The entrant was informed of IMSA's position and a penalty was administered."

With almost everyone outside IMSA's tech team oblivious to the reason behind the penalty when it was announced, the first inkling that it was related to the refueling tank came from pit lane.

"It means our refueling time is shorter than [IMSA] calculated," Land told IMSA Radio. "We are every time a bit quicker, but we follow the regulations. We are fine. IMSA has a calculated refueling time for our class, it's around 40 seconds, but we did nothing out of the regulations, but we are quicker than the calculated time so we are penalized five minutes."

A quick look at the timing and scoring information prior to the penalty shows the No.29 was, without question, the fastest GTD car from the time it crossed the pit-in beacon to when it crossed the pit-out beacon.

Using the GTD race-winning No.11 GRT Grasser Lamborghini (above) as the control, its first seven pit stops took between 1m27.3s and 1m33.1s. This accounts for driving the length of pit lane at 37.3mph, stopping, refueling and possibly changing tires and a driver, and then driving away and out at the same 37.3mph limit.

As Land reiterated, the refueling portion is, by IMSA's decree, expected to consume approximately 40 seconds of the overall time on pit lane.
The No.29, on its first seven visits, took between 1m13.0s to 1m22.7s. Even the Audi's slowest stop was almost five seconds faster than the best the winning Lamborghini could manage. Multiplied over those seven stops, the Land entry was killing the competition every time it drove away from its pit stall.

Other entries dipped into that sub-1m20s range, but only on rare occasion. In the case of Land Motorsport, its pit stops were significantly and consistently faster than the other GTD competitors, which was the exception, and IMSA took notice. After serving the penalty, and dealing with different issues, the No.29 Audi rallied to place seventh in class, three laps behind the GRT Huracan.

BUT WAS IT CORRECT?
Where the conversation takes an interesting twist is in the point raised during the race by Audi Sport.

Using the statement from IMSA's Hodgson, the series did not declare the No.29 had used an illegal refueling flow restrictor to achieve its faster-than-expected refueling speeds. To reinforce that notion, Land also said the correct 29.0mm restrictor was installed, Hodgson said each tank's restrictor was inspected and then sealed, which ensured compliance.

From both statements, we know that restrictor tampering was not the source of the infraction. It leaves the short refueling process as the main culprit, and that's where Audi zeroed in on a tough question for IMSA to answer.

If 40 seconds is the approximate time teams are meant to spend refueling, and taking less than 40 seconds on a regular basis is considered a violation, where in the rulebook – the one that so tightly governs every aspect of IMSA competition – does that 40-second rule exist? As Audi and Land rightfully argued, it can't be found in the rulebook because it isn't documented in print. "It's an unwritten goal," an IMSA spokesperson told RACER.

It's tricky situation to consider. Where the 29.0mm metal refueling restrictor is a hard, specific piece that can be measured and complied with by the Land team, the same can't be said for IMSA's verbal '40 second' rule. It begs the question of, if a rule isn't written, how can a team be in violation of IMSA's rulebook?

In a follow-up exchange, the same IMSA representative elaborated on their original statement.
"This penalty was called due to the unexpected observed performance of the fuel flow rates," they said. "And IMSA applied an appropriate penalty per the Sporting Regulations."

No one is questioning the speed advantage Land used to its benefit during those early pit stops. But it is worth asking if and when verbal rules should be considered valid when intricate rules are written into existence for use by each team and the series itself to govern its events. When teams can be penalized FOR BREACHING UNWRITTEN RULES, the outrage expressed by Audi and Land is easier to understand.

THE ACTUAL RULES
Although the specific '40-second/fuel flow rate' infraction does not exist in IMSA's rulebook, the series did cite the two rule numbers that allowed it to penalize the No.29 entry.

As supplied to RACER by IMSA, the first is Rule 2.1 from the BoP section: "In order to maintain competitive equivalency between Cars within each class and between classes, IMSA may, at its discretion, utilize an adjustment method during each season (BoP)."

The second, which is a catch-all, is found in 2.7: "...manipulates the performance, or displays a level of performance above or below the expected result in any Session may be penalized to the full extent listed in Art. 57."
Rule 2.7 is how IMSA opened the door to hit the Land Audi with its penalty. But it also relies on the same undefined 'expected results' phrasing that is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 08:06 PM.

Reply Like

02-06-2018, 07:49 PM

#4 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

Part 4: IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

Adding to the confusion, looking at Article 57, IMSA's table for penalties, there is nothing listed for a refueling-related performance advantage. Frankly, there's nothing even close to it, nor will you find a stop-plus-five-minute penalty for anything other than turning extra laps during a red flag or after the checkered flag has waved.

There is, however, the all-powerful Rule 1.1 in Art. 57, which gives IMSA the freedom to penalize however it deems necessary:
"Except when the Race Director/Supervisory Officials determine there to be extenuating circumstances, these standard minimum penalties are assessed for the RULES violations listed in the table below."

We'll assume the refueling speed advantage was deemed an 'extenuating circumstance.' The matter of the rulebook and all the bulletins that followed leading up to the race failing to contain the '40-second/refueling speed' rule is still an issue.

BUT HOW?
How exactly did the Land Audi out-perform the entire GTD class, and the other Audi R8 LMS GT3 fielded by Magnus Racing, in the Rolex 24 pits? And was it done legally?

Let's start with the question of compliance.
After the race, IMSA announced all cars, including the No.29, passed technical inspection. The fuel cells in the No.29 Audi and the No.44 Magnus Audi were also impounded and inspected by IMSA to search for irregularities and illegalities. None were found.

"[The No. 29's fuel cell] was inspected and it cleared tech," the IMSA spokesperson confirmed.
Land's refueling tank, IMSA-mandated refueling restrictor, and the fuel cell inside its car that received the fuel was, with absolutely clarity and confirmation by the series, legal from start to finish at the Rolex 24. How, then, was a performance advantage created?

Through intensive work by the team, and painstaking efforts to try different internal fuel cell configurations that were tested and tested until the optimal arrangement was found, the team came up with the perfect fuel flow conditions inside the Audi's fuel bladder.

Although the maximum fuel capacity on board the Audi was set at 91 liters by IMSA for the race, every fuel cell in every WeatherTech Championship car can hold more fuel than the maximum allowed by the series. It's the same in every racing series, to be honest.

Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 08:39 PM.

Reply Like

02-06-2018, 07:51 PM

#5 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

Part 5: IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.

If the Audi has a fuel cell capable of holding 100 liters, and IMSA decrees 91 liters as the R8's maximum for the event, teams like Land and Magnus would rely on a few popular choices to fill the cell with objects that take away the extra nine liters of capacity. Some use hard plastic balls, which displace a certain volume, and others use blocks that can be molded in different shapes.
Think of it like filling a 12-ounce glass with ice cubes. Without the cubes, the glass will hold all 12 ounces from a can of soda. Fill the glass with ice cubes, and you'd be lucky to get six ounces into the glass. The same principle applies here with inserting items into a fuel cell to comply with the maximum fuel allowed.

If, by chance, a team like Land used blocks that were positioned in specific, tested places in the cell, and had shapes that provided the least amount of turbulence – drag – when the fuel started flowing in from the refueling hose, the cell would reach its 91-liter maximum faster than the other cars.

It's a basic case of working with the R8's fuel cell to come up with the fastest way to 'pour' fuel into the car, akin to finding the perfect locations for those ice cubes to get the soda into the glass long before everyone else. Land's efforts produced refueling times said to be in the 35-second range, and with the team also placing a heavy emphasis on completing its tire changes faster than ever, time was shaved there as well.

The final component that led to the minimal time spent on pit lane during those early stops came from the byproduct of rocket-fast tire changes. With the team able to pull the air jack and drop the car sooner than most of its rivals, the Audi sat lower to the ground, which helped increase refueling speeds due to the use of gravity.

Combined, the Land team aced every phase of its pit stops, and it was plain for IMSA to see. So how did the team manage to comply with the 40-second/fuel rate expectations after the penalty? An easy solution was floated: The refueler would stay connected to the car for 40 seconds at each stop. THAT REQUEST, TO MY SURPRISE WAS DENIED!

To avoid running afoul of the fuel flow issue, the Land team would need to slow its refueling rate, and despite lacking real-time data to aid in this venture, the person controlling the refueling tank's shutoff valve – commonly referred to as the 'dead man' valve – had to change the practice of pulling the lever to open maximum flow into the hose, to partially closing the valve – throttling down the flow rate manually. It was an imprecise method, but it worked. No further penalties were given.

Although the Audi and all of IMSA's homologated cars have schematics that detail aspects of how the fuel cell must be assembled, IMSA's rulebook for the GTD class does not provide instructions on where those balls or blocks must be placed. It is, as Land found, open for interpretation and exploitation.

Reportedly, the Magnus Audi team did not make the same efforts as Land to optimize its fuel cell, and took somewhere between two and three seconds longer per stop to fill the No. 44 R8. It points to one team within the German brand's IMSA customer base finding an open area to maximize.

Per Rule 9.13.3, the GTD rules say "Entrants may use blocks or balls to achieve maximum fuel cell capacity." The only written warning covers efforts to cheat the IMSA-mandated fuel capacity set for each race: "Any device, system, or procedure designed to increase, even temporarily, the total fuel storage capacity beyond the maximum is prohibited."

And that's where the story comes to an end.

NEXT STEPS
The cell was LEGAL, the tank and restrictor were LEGAL, and through some nebulous wording, Land's crafty work was TURNED FROM A NEARLY TWO-LAP LEAD TO A DEFICIT OF TWO LAPS or more in an instant. If only hard rules existed to facilitate the penalty that was given.

Moving forward, I would not be surprised if the BoP tables for the next round at Sebring, and all rounds afterwards, carry written refueling time targets for teams to use as official rulebook compliance items.

I would also expect a highly definitive fuel cell configuration document to be produced by IMSA or Audi to make sure a Land-style flow advantage becomes impossible to achieve after Daytona.

What's the lesson here? DOING TOO GOOD OF A JOB – even when the series agrees it was 100 percent legal – isn't acceptable within the constructs of a championship that relies on BoP.

Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 08:16 PM.

Reply Like

03-02-2018, 11:11 AM

#6 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

[h=2]IMSA implements minimum refueling times[/h] Thursday, 01 March 2018

Marshall Pruett / Image by Levitt/LAT

951 Shares

IMSA has implemented minimum full-tank refueling times for each of its three WeatherTech SportsCar Championship classes starting at the March 17 Mobil 1 Twelve hours of Sebring.

The expected reaction comes in the wake of Land Motorsports' disputed refueling time penalty during January's Rolex 24 At Daytona where, despite a lack of published minimum refueling times in any of its official documents, the series penalized Land's class-leading No.29 Audi R8 LMS GT3 for filling its tank between four and five seconds faster than the rest of the GTD competitors.

With the March 1 Technical Bulletin from IMSA, a new pre-race standard has been set where minimum times will be published and used as a clear standard for all teams to follow.

For Sebring, the GTD minimum will be 40 seconds,
in GT Le Mans it will be 34 seconds,
and in Prototype, refueling an empty tank must take no less than 30 seconds

Reply Like

03-17-2018, 08:02 AM

#7 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

[h=2]IMSA places refueling restrictor sizing on teams[/h] Thursday, 15 March 2018

Marshall Pruett / Image by Levitt/LAT

337 Shares
IMSA's WeatherTech SportsCar Championship teams are now responsible for choosing their own refueling hose restrictors. The change in policy comes in the wake of the series' post-Daytona decision to mandate a minimum refueling time to fill an empty tank in each of its three classes. Starting this weekend, GTD cars must take a minimum of 40 seconds, GTLM entries have a minimum of 34 seconds to meet, and Prototypes were given a minimum of 30 seconds.

Under the previous system, IMSA's technical department dictated the hose restrictor sizes for each model of car in the WeatherTech Championship, and the practice was done to equalize the time required to fill fuel cells of varying capacities. With a shift to the new minimum-time approach after the Rolex 24 At Daytona, where the Land Motorsport Audi R8 LMS GT3 was penalized for being five to six seconds faster per refill, the series has gone one step further to place the expectation on each team to find the correct hose restrictor that will ensure the minimum refueling times are met.
"This is something we tested at the shop to find the correct restrictor for Sebring," Mazda Team Joest technical director Ralf Juttner told RACER. "But there are small changes we must make now that we are here. The distance from the refueling system to the car is greater than what was used at Daytona; the pit wall is wider, so we must use longer refueling hoses. So this will require some adjustment on the restrictor."
After completing whatever fuel flow testing is needed to find the correct refueling rate to meet the minimums, WeatherTech Championship teams must declare the restrictor size to IMSA on Friday. Refueling hoses will be sealed afterward, locking the restrictor in place.

Reply Like

06-18-2018, 04:45 PM

#8 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

no specific exclusion of additional parts, but after 24 hours, screw the team anyway

LM24: Winning G-Drive LMP2 disqualified after fuel rig investigation

Image by Nikolaz Godet/LAT

589 sharessharetweetemail

By: Graham Goodwin 5 hours ago The LMP2 class-winning No. 26 G-Drive Racing ORECA 07 Gibson has been disqualified from the 24 Hours of Le Mans after a post-race inspection found an additional part had been inserted into the ‘dead man’s handle’ element of the fueling rig which inspectors concluded had been designed to defeat the purpose of the mandated fuel fill restrictor.That led to the TDS Racing team being able to fuel the No. 26 car (and the No. 28 ORECA, which has also been excluded), faster than the other cars in the heavily regulated LMP2 class.

LM24: Post-race penalty costs Ford fourth place in GTE Pro

The team’s defense did not deny the inclusion of the additional component. Instead it fielded an argument that there was no specific exclusion of additional parts, a view rejected by the race stewards who excluded the cars from the results under both Technical and Sporting RegulationsFirst-time winners Roman Rusinov, Andrea Pizzitola and Jean-Eric Vergne therefore lose their win to the No. 36 Signatech Alpine A470 Gibson of Nicholas Lapierre, Andre Negrao and Pierre Thiriet
(pictured below).

Image by Sam Bloxham/LAT

Moving up to a provisional second place is the Np. 39 Graff/SO24 ORECA 07 Gibson of Vincent Capillaire, Jonathan Hirschi and Tristan Gommendy and inheriting third is the No. 32 United Autosports Ligier JS P217 of Will Owen, Hugo de Sadeleer and Juan Pablo Montoya.

Reply Like

06-18-2018, 04:58 PM

#9 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

The last time at Daytona, IMSA timed the cars and held you in the pits if your crew was "too fast".

Then IMSA changed the rules.
----------------------
At LM24 didn't they time it? didn't IMSA notice anything......or did they just chuckle to themselves all through the race?
--------------

If it's not in the rule book, IMSA can always decide who they want to win after the race is over.
-----------------

Reply Like

06-18-2018, 05:23 PM

#10 (permalink)

senor honda

Registered

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 94,633

Likes: 449

Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts

Proposed 2020 ‘LMP1’ regulations presented at Le Mans

76 sharessharetweetemail

By: Stephen Kilbey June 15, 2018 5:16 AM The Automobile Club De L’Ouest revealed a detailed framework for the proposed 2020 ‘LMP1’ regulations for the FIA World Endurance Championship (and therefore the Le Mans 24 Hours) today at the Circuit de la Sarthe.From 2020 onward, the top class (its name still has yet to be decided) will feature prototype-based cars with styling designed to ensure highly visible relevance to the brand fielding each car, the categories of car mentioned as examples being “super cars, luxury GTs, hypercars and concept cars.”All of them will be four-wheel drive, with a hybrid KERS system operating on the front axle and a common ECU with homologated software. Any manufacturer hybrid system must be available to privateer teams at an accessible cost.The engine architecture will be free, allowing both normally aspirated and turbocharged engines of either small or large capacities. They will, however, feature a fixed maximum performance target of 700 horsepower, with an additional 271hp from the hybrid system.

On the aero side, the ACO states that “dimensions and aerodynamic rules are set in order to provide enough freedom for the brand design and are relevant with the dimensions/ proportions of a top-class GT car.”Mobile aero devices will be accepted for this, and downforce and drag will be fixed, with only one set of bodywork per season to be homologated.The target lap time for these new top class cars at Le Mans will be a 3m20s. Toyota’s pole lap for this year’s race was 3m15.377s.These new regulations, subject to approval, will be fixed for five years, from 2020 to 2024, with a focus on cost control. FIA WEC CEO Gerard Neveu told RACER that the target is 25-30 million euros [$29-$35m] for a program per season — touted as roughly a quarter of the budget of the current LMP1 hybrid programs — and that he expects aspirant privateer teams to be able to compete alongside manufacturers in the class, especially with the potential for customer programs.“When you speak about budgets of 20-25 million, there are many business models possible. When you do a joint venture and use some partners. We have seen (in the past) top privateer teams making joint ventures with manufacturers or major sponsors.”Neveu said multiple manufacturers have expressed interest, having been involved in conversations throughout the “long process” in developing the regulations.

IMSA Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring (Image by Michael Levitt/LAT)

U.S. sports car sanctioning body IMSA was also part of the process, and although no decisions to make this new platform global have been taken yet, IMSA President Scott Atherton told RACER that making the regulations universal is a target.“Whether or not we can all work together to make this a universal or global solution is still to be determined,” he said. “That remains the goal for sure and we are here meeting actively, and in dialogue, with that and a number of other things in mind. We are here in force with that as the mission.”The key gap here, he explained, is budget rather than the general philosophy of the proposed regulations. But, Atherton added, “our optimism remains strong that over the next few months we can work to close that gap.”Neveu echoed Atherton’s desire for a universal set of regulations across the WEC and IMSA.“Clearly we would like to see a global platform, with cars eligible in IMSA and the WEC,” he told RACER. “I think that with most of the things we presented today, we are very close. But we try to reduce the budget a little more. There will be a working session in the next month before the final details are presented. IMSA is around the table still, so it must be positive.“Our job now is to try and provide a platform that is exactly like GTE, because that works really well; we are sharing regulations, we have some partners that are not racing in IMSA and they have Corvette, which is not racing in the WEC, but healthy grids in both.”Further into the future, the ACO also teased a hydrogen fuel cell category from 2024 onward, athough at present there are very few details of how this will work or how it would be integrated into the FIA WEC and Le Mans 24 Hours. ACO technical director Vincent Beaumesnil simply said that those details were “coming soon.”“We continue to drive automotive research and defend our beliefs. Hydrogen is the future of zero-emission mobility,” said ACO President Pierre Fillon. “This is not just a statement of intent: we already set up a panel of experts and are working hand-in-hand with manufacturers. We are focused on practical research so that we are ready for 2024 and the introduction of a hydrogen class at the Le Ma