News

Ferrari Announces LMH Factory Program!

Discussion in 'Other Racing' started by chrixxx, Feb 24, 2021.

  1. william

    william F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    17,327
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles
    Ferrari is taking a different route than Porsche which goes LMdH with standard chassis; their cars will be cheaper.
    Probably Porsche wants to sell lots of them to private teams (mostly US), like they did with the 956/962.
    Ferrari's LMH approach with its own chassis will be more expensive, I expect, but give more technical freedom.

    LMdH cars will be eligible to race at Le Mans.
    It has to be seen if IMSA will allow LMH cars to run in its championship though ...
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Nembo1777

    Nembo1777 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 4, 2006
    7,328
    opposite lock
    Full Name:
    Marc Sonnery
    Fantastic!!!!:)

    Never thought I would see this, I will be there!
     
  4. lmpdesigner

    lmpdesigner Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 5, 2003
    2,097
    Atlanta Georgia
    Full Name:
    Brian Willis
    Ferrari will do a proper Lm Hypercar, like Toyota. That is-it will not be based on any road car chassis. It will be a 4 wheel drive, with hybrid system. About 300 hp front axle traction EV motor, about 750 hp ICE engine on rear axle. Brake regen, etc. So a proper car, not an LMd-h POS. Will not be street legal but maybe they would make a silhouette version that is street legal.

    Most likely Ferrai will run it as a factory/quasi factory program- probably thru Michelotto to begin with. I owuld expect they will make it available to customers after 1-2 years. So like a Ferrari 333Sp type program.

    All good. Ferrari needs to be at LeMans fighting for OA win. Give up the pointless F1 crap...
     
    635CSI, F140C, Devilsolsi and 2 others like this.
  5. william

    william F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    17,327
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles
    I don't know why you would call a LMDh car a POS, compared to a LMH. It's simply a different marketing strategy.
    Porsche and Audi must have thought about the benefits of using more standard components to have a cheaper car for private customers.
    I think they expect to be competitive, and sell cars in the States, whilst being allowed in WEC.

    With its Dalarra chassis, the 333SP was never run by Ferrari, so is no blueprint for a factory program.
    At the time, Ferrari went for a cheaper solution to attract private teams.

    "In addition to Ferrari, Peugeot, Toyota, Glickenhaus and ByKolles have also committed to the LMH regulations, while Porsche and Audi are set to develop LMDh prototypes, which will compete against LMH cars in WEC."

    https://www.grandprix247.com/2021/02/24/ferrari-to-return-to-le-mans-top-class-with-2023-hypercar-entry/
     
  6. maha

    maha Formula 3

    Mar 17, 2014
    1,905
    dinajpur, bangladesh
    Full Name:
    mahmud
    lmh wil be an excuse for making above 100 road-going homologated specials, i think..
     
    jpalmito and 9nb like this.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. lmpdesigner

    lmpdesigner Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 5, 2003
    2,097
    Atlanta Georgia
    Full Name:
    Brian Willis
    A lmd-h is a bad compromise. You have to use one of 4 chassis, from MTC, Dallara, etc. Nothing wrong but not really a bespoke, purpose built chassis then. And teh hybrid part of teh LMd-h program is a joke. Not really worth it. Basically a 45-60 hp booster motor installed in the bellhousing to add some grunt to teh rear axle. No four wheel drive, no real hybrid system, no regen, etc. So a poor concept/copy of what is a proper Lm hypercar, like what Toyota is doing. On this I kinda know a bit about, as I was contracted to design a LeMans hyper car for a customer. They shut the program down when the ACO added OEm production cars to the rules set and hence need to do B.O.P. to make the different sub classes all similar in performance. Customer will not do B.O.P. as it doesn't show any technical superiority for them. But I got pretty far down the road on the design. The ACO rules for a proper race based Hypercar are the best set of rules ever written for a race car. And the OEM rules/LMd-h rules are among the worst.



    I was referring the 333sp as an example of a CUSTOMER program, via Michelotto.
     
    jpalmito likes this.
  9. notsofast

    notsofast Karting

    Sep 29, 2009
    123
    I expect AF Corse to run these cars at first given their experience with endurance racing and Le Mans. They have some prototype experience with running an LMP2 car in the past.
     
    chrixxx likes this.
  10. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    6,503
    Because they´re a POS: standard chassis, simple engines...

    LMDh shouldn´t be allowed to be in the fight with LMH: after all, they´re cheaper, so why would anybody bother to buy LMHs then? ACO had to admit them just because at some point it seemed that it was going to be Formula Toyota again. Personally, back then I thought that LMHs were dead. But with Peugeot and now Ferrari they don´t need LMDhs at all.
     
    F140C and Doug23 like this.
  11. Daytonafan

    Daytonafan F1 Rookie

    Oct 18, 2003
    2,722
    Surrey, England
    Full Name:
    Matthew
    All true but without LMdH we would not have the prospect of the three most successful marques at Le Mans going head to head for overall honours for the first time in 2023. The prospect of factory backed (maybe full factory) Ferraris against Factory backed Porsches for overall honours at Le Mans for the first time in my lifetime (and I'm no spring chicken) has me really excited and probably a marketing dream for the ACO and FIA.
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. william

    william F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    17,327
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles
    I think LMdH will be adopted by more customer teams to replace LMP2; that's a large market!
    As for the difference of performances between LMdH and LMH, probably BoP will take care of that.
    It's quite indicative that Porsche and Audi, 2 major car constructors with huge prototype experience, have chosen LMdH for their return.
    They rarely get it wrong !!
     
    CottonCandy and Daytonafan like this.
  14. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    6,503
    Yes, but you get that a cheaper, simpler... worse car has the same chances of victory. Not fair. And it's not that Audi or Porsche can't afford a LMH.

    But I know that at that time the ACO didn't have enough LMHs, so it was a necessary evil.
     
    Doug23 likes this.
  15. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 12, 2005
    13,072
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro

    If it was anyone else other than Brian Willis - I would say calling the LMD a pos is not nice... but since he's likely involved in the design of these very cars... he knows.

    the 333SP was a quasi Factory program with Moretti at MoMo... but Micholotto ran the entire thing, but once the cars became less competitive Ferrari SPA did no do any more development. that is what led the 333 to be uncompetitive. it basically was stuck in 1995 - 1997 tech... had they diverted some resources I believe it could have been a Le Mans winner.... but Di Montezemolo wanted to win in F-1... and I think ultimately made the right decision.

    I like where WEC is going, and frankly, if IMSA does not adopt the full rule book they are stupid... there is no reason to separate sports car racing anymore... hving different rules drives up the cost and ultimately ruins the sport.
     
    tazz99, Nembo1777 and chrixxx like this.
  16. Devilsolsi

    Devilsolsi F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 1, 2007
    6,573
    MD
    Full Name:
    Alex
    I have a sneaking suspicion that trying to BoP Hypercar and LMDh into the same class isn't going to last very long. Similar to IMSA trying to balance DPi and P2 and eventually needing to split them anyway.
     
  17. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    14,126
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    The first top-line factory sports car program since 1973!
     
  18. F1tommy

    F1tommy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 15, 2007
    8,147
    Chicago USA
    Full Name:
    Tom Tanner
    Remember the Judd powered 333SP's. They were faster then the factory engine cars by 2001. But F1 was still good back than with normally aspirated V10's and worth the extra effort.

    This might be the last time Ferrari has a chance to get an ICE motor into prototype racing, but maybe not. I think the coming major Lithium shortages may put a monkey wrench into Europe's grand zero emissions plan around 2030-35 :)
     
  19. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 12, 2005
    13,072
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    Yep, I agree on the LIthium battery issue. China has the largest supply of natural lithium and Neodidium as well. the Judd 10's were nice but by then they were not Ferrari any more just a cobbled together kit car.... but still effective.
     
  20. lmpdesigner

    lmpdesigner Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 5, 2003
    2,097
    Atlanta Georgia
    Full Name:
    Brian Willis
    Thanks Tom. (Spiro.),

    I was a bit harsh calling LMd-h "POS". They are not. But they are in no way anywhere near what a properly done true Hybrid Hypercar, like what Toyota nd Peugeot are doing.

    When the ACO did their Hypercar rules number of year ago they were (and still are), in my opinion, the best set of rules ever written for a race car. Why do I say that?

    1.) The typical weigh a race series did (and still does) rules is to say: Car min weight is this, size is this etc. And then they control power by sating you can have a 6 liter 2 Valve NA engine or a 5 L 4 valve NA engne or a 3L turbo engine, but with only so much boost. And then they say the rear wing can only be so big, such a span, 2 element max, hanging only so high and so far behind rear wheel. Heck, in the LM-GTE rules I had to follow for the Ford NGT the ACO had whole regions of the car that were blocked off for any changes at all. Big rectangular no intrusion zones on the front and rear of car. Front splitter overhangs controlled, rear diffuser geometry controlled. Hell-LMP cars had a spec tunnel/diffuser shape everyone ran.

    2.) So the rules tried to control performance via physical restraints on the car. In the end it all got very complicated, messy and self defeating. The ACO did this to control performance and costs but the car mfgs spent huge amounts of money trying to get an extra 1 or 2 percent from the restricted designs. Lots of time with CFD, wind tunnel, etc. Plus engine tweaks every week. You were on the horizontal part of the price performance curve. A 1% improvement in performance added 5-10% to cost of car.

    3.) So what ACO did was to rewrite the rules so that instead of working to specific shapes or engine types they just told you the following (Initially-Rules did change some later): Run what ever engine you want-ICE, Diesel, turbocharged, gas turbine, steam engine, mouse on a wheel, etc. We don't car. But any engine can only make, at max, "X" hp, must have a certain energy consumption level (Joules per minute, joules per km, etc.) engine must have a minumum weight, and minimum Cg. So this allowed the mfg's to do what ever engine they wanted. If you were Ferrari then a nice V-12 4 valve NA engine, if you were Panoz a honking huge Ford 2 valve V8.

    4.) And then the ACO said-as far as aero goes instead of telling you what size and shape for teh wings, diffusers, splitters, etc you have complete freedom on design. But in the end the maximum lift coefficient times frontal aero of your car cannot exceed a value of 4. And the max drag coefficent times frontal area cannot be less than a value of 1. So this meant the cars L/D would be 4-1. How you got there was up to you. As they told me: "If your sponsor is MAck trucks and you have a shape like a truck, have at it. But you must obey the aero rules.)

    5.) And then to really make it cool they wanted to add an exclusion clause, via active aero. Yoou could have 1 or 2 active aero devices on your car like a DRS system, and you could use them x number of times per lap or per stint or per race. (TBD) THis would allow you to skirt around the aero limits but only now and then. How you used them and when would be up to you.

    6.) A porper Hybrid system was required. 4 wheel drive, 300 hp-ish front motor, 700=ish rear ICE motor for 1000 hp overall. So no slow cars! But with the front axle being driven by an electric motor that meant you could use brake regen on the front axle. And this opened up a whole new range of possibilities on the track.

    7.) As an example: Start of race, batteries are full. You approach thefirst chicane on Mulsanne. You break for the corner-but as batteries are still full you cannot use the regen energy from the front braking, so what you do here is use the rear wing DRS system to add a bunch of aero drag to the car (Air brake!) to help slow the car down. So driver goes very, very deep into the corner before braking. Great place to outbreak another. Then, as the laps go by and the batterys drain down you will know use the regen to recharge the batteries, then use that battery boost coming out of the corner to aid in corner exit speed. Or do you? Depends--Maybe you want to get by somebody under braking into the corner-so you use aero braking to help out break your competitor. But his strategy is different. He is using regen and plans on using that to accelerate out of corner faster than you.

    8.) Then there is the lift and cost strategy that hybrids can use. You use all of the cars power to accelerate out of teh corner, use it to hit a good top speed, and then you lift and coast for a bit, saving fuel and battery power but still keeping a good top speed. You use that to extend your stint length or conserve your power/energy when needed, such as if you are in a fender to fender race with someone.

    9.) So a true hybrid system gives you a completely new way of approaching racing the car around teh track. So many new options for driver and crew to try and use. Different strategies for different teams and different times on track will make for some very interstesing racing. FAr better than what you can do with a pure 2 wheel drive, non active aero ice engined car.

    10.) My guys and me did a huge amount of analysis and parametric studies into the whole Hybrid system and approach to racing and it became clear that it opened up a whole new way of racing. Really transformative.

    So what happened? The OEMS started complaining that they could not run a street car hypercar and expect to be competitive against these cars. Ferrari did studies on there latest Hypercars and said that they were pitifully slow aginst an ACO hypercar design. So they wanted the rules changed, or a second set of rules added that would allow Ferrari, Aston, Macca, etc to use their production cars. But to do this and let them be competitive meant they where given massive freedom on their OEM cars to be competitive but even thios wasn't enough to help the OEM's. So in the end the ACO said that they would be forced to use B.O.P. on all the cars to make them "equal". Well Toyota nearly dropped out when they heard this, my client did drop out as they have no interest in B.O.P. racing. They say why bother, if you do a better job on your car you only get penalized for it.

    And of course after changing the rules to accommodate the OEM's what did the OEM's do? Well not a single one said "Thanks, ACO, here is our OEM hyoeracr programthat will run at LeMAns". I was there, in PAris for that meeting. The ACO and FIA asked every person at that meeting if they were going to do a program.

    Toyota-Yes
    Glickenhaus-Yes
    ByKolles-Probably
    Me-Maybe but looks doubtful based on inclusion of BOP
    Ferrari-Nope
    Aston-Nope
    Macca-Nope
    Merc-Nope
    BMW-Nope
    Audi-Nope
    Porsche-Nope
    and on and on.

    The ACO was furious. They chnaged the rules to what the OEMs wanted and then not one of them-who for months were bitching and sceaming for the rules to be changed came fwd with a program. So the ACO gained not a single new entry and lost me and my customer. And this is why the ACO was forced into adding a third category to the list-that being the LMd-h class. Which will be cheaper but is not a real hybrid system, not at all a new visionin racing, not at all the gretatrules that had existed, etc. But maybe Audi and Porsce will do an Lm-Dh car-yet to see that. And Ford is very so-so on it.

    But Peugeot and Ferrari (and Toyota) have decided to go the ACO pure hypercar route. And good for them. And for Glickenhaus for sticking to it. He is the real hero as he is fightying some powerful OEMS. I hope he does well.

    Funny thing is I may wing up trying to get my customer back into it or get them to look at a customer Hypercar form Toyota, Peugeot or Ferrari. WHo knows!
     
    JackCongo, jpalmito, DeSoto and 3 others like this.
  21. william

    william F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    17,327
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles
    Thanks for taking the time to give us all these explanations.

    I read somewhere that an hybrid system would now only be optional on an LMH. Is that true or false?
     
  22. Devilsolsi

    Devilsolsi F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 1, 2007
    6,573
    MD
    Full Name:
    Alex
    Do you think the ACO had an opportunity to go back to their original plan when no one stepped up to do a street hypercar?

    Sadly now the category feels very much like a catch all for anything and everything. I really struggle to see BoP going very well with such a variety of machines. Hope I am wrong.

    I was really excited for the prototype convergence when it was announced at Daytona last year. That was when I thought it would be a common set of regulations. Now I kinda hope they don't go through with combining the categories. It is going to lead to endless bitching and a lot of cool cars that can't run to their true potential.
     
    Doug23 likes this.
  23. 444sp

    444sp Formula Junior

    Dec 18, 2016
    444
    What do you think, what engine will this car have?
     
  24. NürScud

    NürScud F1 Veteran

    Nov 3, 2012
    6,895
  25. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    6,503
    Is MGU-H allowed?

    For Ferrari it would be quite useful to reuse that stuff after all the cash they´ve spend on it in F1.
     
  26. william

    william F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    17,327
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles

    If they end up being subjected to BoP, and the ACO wants no more than a fixed power output, I can't see the point of using complex technology.
     
  27. jpalmito

    jpalmito F1 Rookie

    Jun 5, 2009
    2,742
    Le caylar (France)
    Full Name:
    mathieu Jeantet
    Most important question :
    Will the future Ferrari Hypercar be a looker ?;)
     
    9nb likes this.
  28. jpalmito

    jpalmito F1 Rookie

    Jun 5, 2009
    2,742
    Le caylar (France)
    Full Name:
    mathieu Jeantet
    Guess the brand new V6 3.0 TT they will introduce with the F171 launch in may.
     
    9nb likes this.

Share This Page