Racecar Engineering is reporting that there are plans to change the rules of the LMP1 Class of the FIA World Endurance Championship to allow for the new generation of Formula 1 engines that will be introduced that year. This means that Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and PURE may all be able to find customers in sports car racing, and by the same token, there may be manufacturers who want to in sports car racing, who will leap on the opportunity to enter F1 with the same engine. The rules will increase maximum normally-aspirated engine capacity from 3.7-litres to 5-litres, but there will be restrictions on the fuel flow, which will force manufacturers to aim for more efficient engines. This might result in F1 teams using sports cars as test beds for their engines, which would be no bad thing for the WEC series.
Racecar Engineering says that the plans will be finalised in the next few days, with an announcement being made prior to the start of the Le Mans 24 Hours next Sunday.
..and Cosworth, no? Or is Cosworth already represented in the LMP1 class? Good news anyway, makes the venture more viable for PURE et al.
Cosworth is not developing an engine to these new ruleset Ryan
Isn’t this what they did back in the eighties which lead to the “Group C” category at LeMans? That gave us the Porsche 959/962′s, didn’t it? If I remember correctly, the pricing eventually drove Group C out of existence. Should be exciting at LeMans for a few years anyway. Do you attend the 24, Joe?
This gets a step towards Max Mosley’s idea of one engine used across multiple formulas and types of racing and I am sure that all of a sudden Ferrari, Mercedes perhaps in concert with McLaren and Red Bull in collaboration with Renault will have LMP1 cars. Not sure this will price the LMP1 cars out of existence like Group C, what it will do is make the engines much more reliable and map the best performance curves out of them more quickly, so they will reach a level of maturity they won’t have reached on Dyno and F1 races alone.
There is another benefit, that rookie/test driver’s will have a place to develop skills as a feeder towards F1, instead of competing with race drivers on Fridays for wheel time or doing GP2 for additional seasons. IE they can feedback experience with the engines that are of direct benefit to the F1 teams. Kind of cool if the old F1 “test teams” become a racing championship in the future under the guise of FIA World Endurance Championship!
If an engine can last 24 hours in anger, then it will do the required engine life for F1 and allow that to be extended further reducing costs for a season. I see this as a good thing. Fixes the testing issues (for engines), lack of race time issues (for drivers) and potentially reduces costs all in one go. Damn, common sense for once!
In fact the F1-equivalent 1991 engine rules effectively killed off Group C: the Porsche 962′s were eclipsed by a new generation of sports cars like Ross Brawn’s Jaguar XJR14 and the Jean Todt-run Peugeot 905Bs.
An earlier attempt to align F1 and Sports Prototypes in 1972 is covered in a wonderfully evocative contemporary documentary ‘The Speed Merchants’ (available on DVD), narrated by two of my heroes, Mario Andretti and Vic Elford. The film also features a young Helmut Marko, and describes the sudden end to his frontline career: in its way, this may offer some perspective on the apparently callous attitude of Red Bull Racing to its young drivers.
But it did no harm to F1
It sure didn’t – I was just trying to clear up a wee chronology issue. And as the sportscar world fell apart, Schumacher, Brawn and Todt transferred seamlessly to F1, so the significance was profound.
Enginewise, Cosworth must have learned a lot of what they needed to work up to the Benetton/Schumacher world championship in 94; Peugeot must have thought their engine was OK, but discovered it didn’t cut the mustard when they took it into F1 with McLaren; Mercedes learned their engine wasn’t OK and saved themselves Peugeot-style blushes by entering F1 with a badge-engineered Ilmor instead…
Speed Merchants is an amazing film. Some great footage as well with Ickx and Redman. Anyone who loves racing must see this film.
More like the C2 class was populated by slightly modified DFV’s – and they did quite nicely to boot. The 956/962C Porsche engines had no linage to F1 motors what so ever. The group C category was a reaction from the ACO to increasing speeds and the solution (as far as in their minds) was a fuel economy formula that was hoped would slow the cars down as they would have to drive to a ‘number’ instead of going flat out.
A funny thing happened to this plan however – the ACO didn’t anticipate the Robert Bosch company coming up with their Motronic engine control computer which allowed the Porsche’s to not only get better fuel economy then mandated, but actually achieve higher speeds then the target lap time that the ACO was looking for.
If it were not for the fact that Porsche decided to sell a boat load of 956′s the following year after introduction (the factory raced them the debut year exclusively) the ACO might have either banned the car or at least tried to strangle it with updated restrictions until 14 956′s arrived for the practice day and then that idea was quietly forgotten. The fact that quite a few 956′s were sold to French teams also worked to plan… Porsche isn’t stupid.
It’s an interesting fact that in 1983, the ACO was hoping that IMSA’s John Bishop’s order that Porsche could not run the 956 in IMSA due to safety issues (and Bishop’s anti Porsche bent) forced the factory to build the 962 and pop a single turbo on it. Shades of the 917 – Porsche ramped up production and turned them out like sausages to teams hungry to buy a turn key potential Le Mans winning car. Unlike Audi who refuse to sell P1 race cars to privateers (Reinhold is NOT a privateer) Porsche make a good living by servicing their clients racing wishes and good on them.
I’m looking forward to this F1 engine plan in sports cars if it goes forward; as long as they allow these engines enough room in the rules to be competitive with the diesels and hybrids. I have my doubts however as the ACO has a history of shooting itself in the foot with a shotgun in order to remove a wart…
With all due respect to Mr S, sometimes the comments are the most interesting thing. Thanks.
Seconded, that was very enlightening JV, thanks.
No the original Group C had nothing to do with F1, the 956 engine was similar to it’s predecessor, the 936. The TAG engine in the McLarens of the mid 80s might have been derived from there but the idea for that engine was from sportscars.
Group C was successful that it was eating into F1′s audience which forced Bernie to coax the FIA into changing the engine rules to the horrible 3.5L NA engines which killed off Group C.
What Markdartj said. The last time they did this, it was the end of top-line sportscar racing. Makes one suspicious.
Well that was how Bernie and Max pilloxed the old WSC up 20 years ago, wasn’t it? With manufacturers forced to make F1-spec motors then they might as well go the whole hog… and so ended a great era of sports car racing with the exodus to F1.
The ACO has very successfully carved its own niche in the past few years and should only get support from the FIA in its own right, not using its series to offer F1 engine builders a secondary revenue stream.
I’m afraid that the FIA’s history of using and abusing its other major series – lest they become more popular than F1 – means that they’re guilty until proven innocent as far as I’m concerned.
Yes but that was part of the deliberate plan to bring all formulae of racing under the FIA and to kill off any that were not FIA. Something that was later mostly reversed by the EU commission.
Last time they did something like that, it almost killed endurance racing and it defenetly killed group C, with manufacturers (peugeot, mercedes) leaving endurance for Formula one and no new manufacturers coming to endurance racing…
Fresh blood in the FIA.
Always had the feeling Max Mosley was the lawyer specialised in F1 and enjoying the limelight next to Bernie.
Jean Todt is not as public as both guys above however has a background from rallying, Sport Cars and F1 on (co)driver and management levels and in this changing world it might be just what the (motor) sports needed,
Just wonder what Bernie’s pick on this is, long time ago since I have seen him and Jean Todt together.
Nonetheless I would prefer cylinders and displacement above downsized Turbo’s.
Isn’t this Mosley’s original intent?
No, that was that that F1 should eventually become the only televised form of motor racing. Where a formula existed, they invented an FIA version, told the circuits they could only run the FIA version, then changed the formula rules to make it untenable. Bernie’s company ITC did the tv and formulae other than F1 suffered it all went to the EU courts several times, lawyers made lots of money.
Nice idea. I wonder if this might make McLaren reconsider it’s engine plans given they have cars in both categories?
Another terrible idea made by political muppets.
Can we please have engineers making engines they want to?
Nobody is foolish enough to take a F-1 engine to Le Mans. Nobody will use a F-1 engine in Le Mans. Just remember the Sportscar 3.5L regulation who nearly killed both the 24hours and the WSC twenty years ago…
As long as they don’t insist that LMP1 *must* use these engines, and they keep the variety sportscars are known and loved for. I don’t know the specifics but top prototypes were forced to use F1-style engines before and it practically killed off endurance racing for a decade.
A brilliant strategy. I am annoyed at myself fore I did not think of it first.
Wow, great news! I hope IndyCar also join the bandwagon (silly me) and then it will be likje the old days when the Cosworth DFV engine could win at Monaco, Le Mans and Indianapolis!
Group C was a fuel-restricted “formula” whose demise came when the FIA tried to attract more manufacturers to it by giving advantages to using F1-engines. Of course all privateers became instant also-rans but the manufacturers stopped their Gr.C programs when they found out just how much money they had to spend in F1 in the first place. This left endurance racing with no privateers and no manufacturers for three or four years.
Will history repeat itself? At least this time F1 engines are supposed to be cost-controlled and are also subject to fuel-restriction.
Yes but other engines are also allowed in LMS up to 5.0 Lit for normally aspirated.
Smart man, Jean Todt.
Everything is becoming more and even more political. Love it!
Never mind engines in sports cars. Haven’t you heard yet Joe?
Webber and Vettel were driving an illegal car but they get to keep their wins!!
Why do you reckon whitmarsh didn’t protest the result last week Joe?
Because it was not illegal. Nor is it illegal now.
I think that this is a crucial step for motor racing, if more parts (especially engines) can be used in different classes of racing it will help to draw back the large auto-makers. I can only hope that more series start to standardize parts to cut costs and make racing more open.
-TR
Great idea for the LMS series. Piggybacking on F1 where possible allows the series to build itself from near obscurity (from the non-racing world) at minimum cost. Well done to whoever decided that!
ANd without just taking it direct and losing the genuine feel of LMS or F1. Big!
A good move; cross-fertilization produces tremendous hybrid vigour, both series would benefit in the long run.
What about Cossie?
I wonder how John Judd feels about that!
The longer I follow racing the more I see things repeating the f1 engines at Le Mans concept is repeating the early 90s, the 5 liter limit repeats the formula that gave us the 917.
Also holes in the floor at Monaco got Tyrrel disqualified for a season a few years ago…
Le plus ce change…
Joe,
I’m surprised at your excitement over this news. Maybe you don’t like sports car racing? (though I believe you do) Group C was magnificent at the end of the 80s, then some mad manipulative French guy had the same brilliant idea you describe. This was the ruination of sportscar racing and, even though it’s good again now, it has never recovered to the same level of multi-manufacturer participation.
It’s an F1-centric theory and a lousy idea for sportscar fans and teams! Leave sportscar racing alone, it’s doing fine on its own.
Gareth
Was I excited?
well, you did suggest this was a good thing….
As said, last time this was foisted on us, it killed off Group C, probably the best era sportscar racing has ever seen. (nothing to do with Berni and co. getting worried about it becoming more popular than F1 at the time was it…)
Whatever happened to writing a set of tech regs, and letting engineers/teams/etc decide how they want to go about designing their cars?
people bemoan the lack of manufactures in racing now (compared to the past), well, with this kind of restriction added, where’s their motivation for entering?
this is the same issue with BTCC, if they all use the same engine what’s the point? My Honda (with the same engine) is faster than your Vaxuhall (with the same engine).
at this rate we might just as replace F1 cars with identical FPA’s, and sports cars with the same + bodywork, won’t that be fun?
Whilst it will give F1 engines another test-bed, the requirements of the two formulae are somewhat different, with F1 being a relative sprint compared to the 6, 12 and 24 hour races of the LMS discipline. Therefore one might speculate upon the differences between the two in terms of reliability. Whilst an F1 engine may just about last a full 24 hours in one stint, it is unlikely. Even the current multi race requirement will use design having been calculated upon duty cycles. I would guess the lubrication capacity cooling and filtering will be different if not the bearing surface sizes. Though to design the block to accommodate alternate big end sizes would waste weight where it is always needed to be as light as possible, so you could end up with two similar but different blocks (also heads etc)
However should this come to fruition it will be interesting to see how much faster the LMP1 cars can go than their F1 counterparts.
(Last year Ant Davidson said that the LMS were reduced by rule changes to about the same top speed as F1, so whether the difference will be allowed to be seen is another matter)
You can find similar arguments in computer micro architecture. I probably have a “best of” bookmarked, but simply another laziness of mine, however one of the few places with a clue is RealWorldTech. Kanter has a knack of explaining things intelligibly, and the discussion is pretty excellent also.
There’s some cool stuff out there rpaco, have a gander at it. I keep meaning to brush up and write a post how bitwise sort algos relate to cam timing, but keep chickening because, well, that’s your world, not mine. You’d probably enjoy some of Don Knuth’s writing. He’s been at The Art Of Computer Programming (TAOCP) for far longer than I’ve been alive, and he says he is not so hopeful he’ll finish it. There’s stuff in there for everyone, any level, allowing a basic numeracy. Oh, okay, he does stuff like cover a grad course in discrete math in a chapter. But the point is his style lets you in. Problems are graded on a log scale, top being Fermat strength!
Anyhow, since I am temporarily grounded, all these cool things are coming back to me in place of boring commerce. So I’m begging you for more thought on the engine side of things – please help me keep distracted!
Anyhow, very few free gains to be had, even with highly comparable stuff. The specific thing I was thinking about was pipeline depth for instructions. Basically how many instructions you send at once to the processor, but if you hit a complex branch, well that’s all backed up. Well, that was how INtel hit 4GHz. They tried to tweak that for years. Nope, no gain. Not so efficient for most tasks, so they back tracked. In fact they pretty much resurrected old ideas to work around this.
Oh, and they got a breakthrough on the silicon side, which truly puts them ahead, excellent article explains that, here: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT012707024759
The thing that intrigues me about the Tech regs here is that the teams must buffer the whole race telemetry from all channels and this must be available for the FIA to dump onto a laptop. Well that must be some laptop!
The ECU is a standard issue made by McLaren it is sealed by the FIA.
Ahh, well, you can put a pretty good SSD into a laptop, thousands of times for some things (databases) faster than a bit of what used to be called “spinning rust”. The bigger ones allow you to array two or more drives (see the top HP ones, which even have readable screens for semi- fogeys). So if one drive can take 500MB/s, possibly a multiple, and do 500 or more times the IOPS, well that’s close to what “big iron” did a few years ago.
My bud and I are in the market for some new kit. So we heard of this new Unisys (Burroughs Adding Machines + Sperry) box which can deal up 6 Terabytes of RAM to one OS image, and we wet our pants. Twice. Second time when we heard they want close to 8 grand per memory DIMM and you need 200 of those . . but we looked it up, and one firm of about no guys at all, takes down 4 Billion USD in revenue with just four of those, and is quoted on the HKSE. Obviously, we are not that league, but puts Bernie in his place, some 20 something punks with 4 expensive computers get a public quote, and BE does not . .
just said all that because we have been tripping out all week, thought to share!
Oh, and I think it was Andrew who took me to task about getting the multiples wrong on disk drives. I dissented, but think about this, big vendors ask 8 grand for a chip I can buy retail for 500 bucks . . Please Lord, may age and cynicism win over youth and beauty, just once!
Err, F1 again. Is the software totally checksummed as standard on those ECU’s?
Also, hey, I can write a closed system, let it talk to another system (APIs) and well, my sealed system will start to do as bidden . . .
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Some posters above don’t seem to be reading the the whole thing, F1 engines will NOT be compulsory in LMS. The non turbo/non supercharged types will be allowed up to 5 Litres (up from 3.7 Lit). They should sound pretty good.
Last time round, the engine requirements didn’t end up close enough (cough – Mclaren-Peugeot cough). But with F1 engines having to last so much longer these days, maybe it’ll work out this time. I can’t help feeling that even an engine built to last 4 grand prix might struggle over the vingt-quartre heures, tho’.
rpaco is correct. From the Racecar Engineering: “Specifically it has been made clear that the new generation of Formula 1 V6 engines could be installed…”
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/formula-1-powertrains-for-le-mans-in-2014/
The rules have been in the making since the first manufacturer meeting in July 2010. Even with the mentioned displacement limit, it seems that the main idea is still to kind of go back to what Group C regulations were with fuel allocations (Autosport article from March there would be different levels depending on the type of recovery systems on the car). So quite the opposite and F1 engine regs are not being mirrored, but apparently something has been recently made so that apapting an F1 engine would be more sensible solution.
With respect, I think we should wait for the announcement. Taking that article at face value, you could have a 5 litre turbocharged engine.
No, it is an either or equivalency formula.
True, and I realized that was probably the case. I was trying to make the point that the article, if read at face value, does not say that.
The same limit was reported by Autosport in March, and their source was a leaked FIA/ACO consultation document. Wasn’t mentioned though, that is it for all type of engines.
Back in the ’90′s sportscar racing adopted unsuitable 3.5l F1 sprint engines, the new generation of F1 engines are more in line with the route sportscar racing is already taking, i.e small displacement turbos. There are two other major differences, 1/ Engines with a capacity upto 5.0l will be allowed 2/ There will be a heavy focus of hybrids, much more so than F1. It should also be pointed out current petrol regs limte turbo engines to 2.0l and atmo ones at 3.4l, so the proposed 2014 regs will open up the class to a wider variety of engines. Regarding costs, one of the major discussion points has been how to attract privateers to the LMP1 class, when the regs are announced you will see plans have been put in place to allow privateers to be (relatively) competitive without the need to go down the F1 engine route or hybrids.
Weren´t there some unpleasant rumours last week about the V6 turbo engines to be delayed (or, as some suggested, even postponed) in F1, because the “smaller teams” should have complained about the bigger prices of the new engines? Obviously, Ecclestone doing his work again (as he did 30 years ago), embedded into the context of the CA trades going on at the moment, exploiting the smaller teams for his purposes because he knows the EC rules preventing him from intervening into technical issues. I only heard about Kaltenborn complaining, whereas Frank Williams was indifferent and Roos Brawn and Jean-Francois Caubet (of course) being strictly against a further delay. Does anybody know the latest regarding this struggle?
First, computer generated image of the PURE V6 is online:
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-image-of-the-new-pure-v-6-turbo-engine?artid=144284&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=F1&utm_source=twitter.com
Not quite on-topic, but the £10,000 prize for the first 100mph lap of the Isle of Man TT course by a zero-emissions bike has been won:
http://www.iomtt.com/News/2012/06/06/History-is-made-in-the-2012-SES-TT-Zero.aspx
All the top three achieved lap speeds over 100mph; when the race first started in 2009, only one bike broke 80mph.