The 2004 rules had aero changes designed to prevent blow overs. The mustachioed air inlet at the base of each prototype's nose is one of many alterations that worked successfully through 2007. Questions remain for 2008. (Photo: Marshall Pruett) » More Photos

Safety is another key topic for the ACO in their upcoming regulations. The first half of the 2008 saw repeated incidents of airborne prototypes—a rarity since the Piper sportscar aero studies of 2002 and the ensuing rule changes of 2004 specifically written to limit the likelihood of flight. Yet by the time Le Mans had concluded in June, YouTube clips of prototypes floating and somersaulting through the air were seemingly everywhere.

Mazda’s Lola left the ground at Sebring, a Courage-ORECA, Audi, and Creation flew at Monza, followed by a Peugeot in testing at Le Mans, and another Mazda-Lola in night practice at La Sarthe. A bit of a panic ensued, with heavy speculation that the ACO’s regulations for prototype aerodynamics had become outdated. While many of the flights had assignable causes unrelated to aerodynamics, Poissenot points out that escalating speeds are to blame, not an ageing aero rulebook.

“As you know, we have different causes for this accident between the ORECA, between the Peugeot, and others. The main thing is the performance of the cars…they are increasing and increasing. The rules have been made in 2004 and now this year we work with the FIA to avoid the cars from taking off, and we work on the yaw and the pitch and so on. [But] the difference between last year and this year is the performance of the car. And so we have to decide now to decrease the performance, the speed of the car, and to decrease the downforce of the car is very important. It's a decision we have to take now.

“But you know, [compared to] last year, all the cars, even GT2, are faster mostly from tires. We have had no problem [through] last year with the current rules – they are the same now for four years and we have no problem until this year. No accidents that are serious. We have only one specific example [of aerodynamics influencing an accident] with the Peugeot with it becoming sideways at 265kph.

Hybrid power like that announced by Zytek will be under heavy scrutiny in the short-term as the ACO works to learn about all of the safety and implementation factors to consider before fully embracing the technology. (Photo: Zytek) » More Photos

“The ORECA car, the failed the suspension was the problem and the car was flipped over the curbs. The same problem in the 24 Hours with the Kruse[-Schiller Mazda] LMP2 car with broken suspension that caused the crash. This was spectacular to look [at] on the TV, but the air is not [at] fault. This is not a problem of regulations.”

Still, the rules package to be announced in November is expected to include sweeping changes to reduce downforce while promoting stability in yaw—when a sportscar is at a sideways angle to oncoming air. Coupled with a lower performance ceiling—something closer to their 3:30 mark at Le Mans—the ACO expects for their prototypes to race more safely and inexpensively at La Sarthe and in the other global Le Mans series.

Another large but unanswered area in the ACO’s future rules package centers on Hybrid power, and most notably, the use of KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) to harness alternative energy sources for propulsion. Formula One has pushed hard to include KERS usage in 2009, but Poissenot prefers to take more time and wait for new technologies like the KERS or the ‘Flybrid’ systems to further evolve before openly embracing them in sportscar racing.

The first and most notable Hybrid project came with Zytek’s recent announcement of an LMP1 program in the ALMS with Corsa Motorsports. While Poissenot’s technical team welcomes the concept of Hybrid power, its implementation will currently be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

“In the short term, no, KERS will wait to be included before it is a [fully] accepted technology. We have had many discussions with some manufacturers involved in recovery energy. But it exists now for some manufacturers. Toyota Prius, they have this technology. So perhaps some manufacturer wants to show they are able to improve this technology for the road car. But, to be clear, we’re not sure we want [more than] one or two manufacturers with this now.

“It’s difficult -- especially for safety reasons. And for us for Formula One is proof of this. There are many safety problems. So we're thinking to have limited rules at the beginning. We want to be sure we are leading for safety with this new technology.”

The ACO has retained a unique four-class racing structure for some time, with the addition of a fifth—‘LMP Evo’ having been announced at La Sarthe last year. Amid speculation about the their possible loss of interest in ‘Evo, Plassart and Poissenot confirmed the concept was all but forgotten with looks of disinterest and dismissive gestures.

It’s more likely some of the changes planned for the stillborn Evo class will find their way into the upcoming closed-top LMP rule changes, Poissenot says. “We had some requests about Evo. It’s not so sure now. So, yes, we want to continue in this way for us to have a wider cockpit, wider windshield but also to improve the safety also. And the side protection. But, yes, we are going in this way. It's not so important, last year, for example.”

LMP Evo, thankfully, has been ditched. But expect some of the visual cues to make their way into the next round of closed-top P1 and P2 cars. (Photo: Racecar Engineering Magazine) » More Photos

“We already have four categories,” Plassart shared. “In this category you are able to make an open or a closed car. So we have to address all that. Already there are many possibilities of how to build a prototype car with open or closed tops. We have open and closed cars in LMP1 and in LMP2. That is good [enough].”

I came away with a feeling that the 2010 rules package will remain fluid up until days of the announcement in November. While the ACO’s #1 and #2 men both agree that a third LMP category isn’t needed, they’re still undecided on what the prototype of tomorrow (PoT?) should look like and to what levels they should perform.

On the surface, some of their Evo ideas ring of Daytona Prototype styling—a concept that would make Le Mans fans cringe. When Poissenot’s words are interpreted correctly, widening the drastically narrowed cockpits and windshields on the Peugeot, Lola, Epsilon-Euskadi, and Dome would likely result in vehicles that looked less like spaceships, and more like the Toyota’s, Nissan’s, and Jag’s at the end of the IMSA GTP era.

Provided the dimensions don’t grow beyond reason, (and I’m sure the ACO will be careful to avoid any visual similarity to Grand-Am’s products), the present shape and form of LMP cars won’t be a cause for concern.