[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[Aysedasi]

2014 was a decent level of success, to be fair but it's certainly been quite a disappointment since then, with two years at Le Mans when they should have left Audi and Porsche and then Porsche alone - for dead.

[chernaudi]

Hard for me to believe that even if the Toyotas were healthy at Nurburgring that they still wouldn't be struggling.

Ironic thing is for all the complaining that Porsche did about the Toyota aero package, it sure hasn't slowed down Porsche post LM and even at LM they were fine on race pace.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Toyota LMP1 results:

2012: 3 wins in 6 races.
2013: 2 wins in 8 races.
2014: 5 wins in 8 races.
2015: no wins in 8 races.
2016: 1 win in 9 races.
2017: 2 wins in 5 races so far.

Total: 13 wins in 44 races so far (none at 24h Le Mans)

It's been better than their F1 program, but still not a success.

That's a 29% win ratio. I donno, but that to me is pretty 'successful'! Like Aysedasi said, in 2014 that was 'decent'. I'd call more than decent since they won the WEC double titles. But yes Le Mans still eludes them!

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Hard for me to believe that even if the Toyotas were healthy at Nurburgring that they still wouldn't be struggling.

Ironic thing is for all the complaining that Porsche did about the Toyota aero package, it sure hasn't slowed down Porsche post LM and even at LM they were fine on race pace.

So when they basically led the entire first stint, close to an hour, they were struggling?

[kvenom]

Lopez in trouble for next year. He's been dropped from FE and who knows what Toyota are doing.

[chernaudi]

Once the Porsche caught and passed the #7 Toyota, it was dead in the water, damage or not. I don't think that the #8 was setting the world on fire compared to the Porsches, either. They got caught out by Porsche's "sandbagging" (running LM kit) in early races and that give Porsche more time to develop their package.

Just watch some of the ALMS races from 2004 between the Champion Audi and Dyson Lolas. You'd think that the Lolas being LMP675 cars would be more agile, but the Dyson guys took so much downforce out of the cars that the heavier Audi R8s actually had a cornering and braking advantage, while the little Lolas were the top speed kings.

Outside of LM, more downforce is a big help, even it seems at the Tilkedromes if you have the power to use it. Biggest disadvantage that Toyota have is they can't really do a whole lot to address this since their bodykit was homologated as soon as they showed up with it at Silverstone.

IMO, that in retrospect was tactical blunder by TMG. Especially since the LM results didn't pan out as they hoped. And right now, you don't have to be hugely far off on single lap pace for it to be a big difference. Again, I go back to the ALMS days where Audi may've been only a few tenths of a second faster on single lap pace, but if you do that almost every lap, that snowballs.

[carbsmith]

I thought it was pretty clear that once the third car dropped out of contention at Le Mans Toyota's season was cooked.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Once the Porsche caught and passed the #7 Toyota, it was dead in the water, damage or not. I don't think that the #8 was setting the world on fire compared to the Porsches, either. They got caught out by Porsche's "sandbagging" (running LM kit) in early races and that give Porsche more time to develop their package.

Just watch some of the ALMS races from 2004 between the Champion Audi and Dyson Lolas. You'd think that the Lolas being LMP675 cars would be more agile, but the Dyson guys took so much downforce out of the cars that the heavier Audi R8s actually had a cornering and braking advantage, while the little Lolas were the top speed kings.

Outside of LM, more downforce is a big help, even it seems at the Tilkedromes if you have the power to use it. Biggest disadvantage that Toyota have is they can't really do a whole lot to address this since their bodykit was homologated as soon as they showed up with it at Silverstone.

IMO, that in retrospect was tactical blunder by TMG. Especially since the LM results didn't pan out as they hoped. And right now, you don't have to be hugely far off on single lap pace for it to be a big difference. Again, I go back to the ALMS days where Audi may've been only a few tenths of a second faster on single lap pace, but if you do that almost every lap, that snowballs.

The #7 Toyota had a damage issue at Nurburgring. That's why it's pace fell off, that's why Porsche passed it and pulled away. #8 car was not on the same pace as the #7 the entire weekend. Plus the issue with the car before the start took it out of contention immediately.

There is 4 races left to run. When those are done then you can say how bad they were this season. This is part of the problem with the wec running f1 tracks where it's all about downforce and not efficiency or high speed like Le Mans. And why bring up Audi in every post? They no longer have anything to do with the wec or Toyota or even Porsche.

[chernaudi]

One, history and when you bring up anything that's happened the past 20 years, Audi Sport will probably factor in, good or bad. They were, after all, the only constant presence. Would you rather me bring up Panoz, Cadillac, BMW or Grand Am cars?

Second, if you don't agree that this isn't an apples to apples comparison, maybe you should've brow beat Porsche into running their high downforce spec early. Or maybe blame the ACO for the bodykit limit that basically all but encouraged Porsche to not pull the trigger until after Le Mans.

Way I see it, Toyota wanted to get the early edge knowing Porsche's past philosophy of not running sprint bodywork until after Le Mans. That could've panned out if Toyota got more points out of LM in both drivers' and teams' championships than they did. Once their cars fell out of contention at LM, in terms of the titles, LM almost pretty much sealed their fate should Porsche go on a tear, which it seems that they have.

And let's also take a look at the next races on the schedule. COTA is a downforce track, especially sector 1. Even with it's nearly mile long front straight, Fuji is pretty much a downforce track. In that respect, it's actually similar to Paul Ricard where in 2015 Porsche (low downforce) and Audi (high downforce) ran similar lap times. Even Toyota ended up with little to choose between high and low downforce at the end of the day in the '15 Prologue.

Mind you, different specs have different strengths and weaknesses. But it seems that at times it makes little difference in lap times. Tire and fuel strategy could be different given different packages, but overall times seem similar. But it seemed at both Nurburgring and Mexico City that the Toyotas did lack consistency.

In qualifying, the Toyotas were almost able to match Porsche, but it seemed that come the race, they couldn't hang with Porsche on a lap for lap basis.

Is that aero? Possibly. It could also be hybrid deployment strategy as well, or tire choice or chassis set up.

I understand the point that you're trying to make with the other tracks once we get away from the North America swing should help Toyota a bit with their more point and squirt nature. But I'm not sure.

Last year, Toyota won Fuji and did well at Shanghai, both are point and squirt in nature and also highly abrasive on tires (Toyota double stinted their tires late at Shanghai in a strategy call that yielded pay dirt), but they were out of it at Bahrain, a low grip track that has some downforce sectors in spite of it's kinda bland lay out.

We can wait and see, but I can't help but to feel that Porsche has out foxed Toyota on the body kit tomfoolery that the ACO came up with.

[TF110]

Porsche didn't 'outfox' anyone, they just put more towards their HD kit than Toyota, thanks in part to timing and to having a budget size nearly 2-1. It's no wonder they have a higher downforce total when that's all the car was made for. But in terms of LM package, their car was nowhere close to Toyota's. So what Toyota did was make the HD version first but not most of it's resources were spent on that. They chose the LM package and it paid off, but unseen circumstances took them out of the big race. Porsche weren't clean there either so it's likely both took risks in getting the most out of the car but Porsche waited longer on it's HD package and has more money to spend on it. It's obvious this was going to be the case and people were saying it in the beginning of the year. That doesn't mean Toyota's done for especially when last year they were close at other races and the car wasn't nearly as good as it is now.

[chernaudi]

I don't call leading by one minute over the third place Porsche and Buemi being only a few seconds ahead before his problems as leaving Porsche behind after only a few hours of racing. As we saw this year, 1 minute's lead after only a few hours in isn't a big lead. Even a puncture and having to make an extra pit stop for that would've erased that and the Toyota crew would've had to have started over from scratch.

You also have to remember that the #8 Toyota barely won Silverstone and until Nurburgring the Toyota guys struggled in the pits compared to Porsche.

And you need to stop pinning everything on budgets. Toyota had the same opportunity to postpone their bodykit updates to after Le Mans, too. And last year they were able to develop their car more because of the freedom that the extra bodykit allowed them.

IMO, the irony of this whole situation sort of astounds me. For all the complaints that Porsche had about Toyota's aero package, that hasn't born out any fruit. Also, Toyota have plead poverty over costs, yet it seems that they're unhappy when development gets stymied when the ACO enact rules due to listening to them. TMG were one of the biggest proponents of the body kit limits. But then again, I think that hinged on the fact that they have their own private wind tunnel and F1 grade facilities.

Fact of the matter is that Toyota have always seemed to struggle, at least for a race or two, post LM when they try and to back to running a sprint body kit. It seems to maybe be a philosophy in thinking that lower downforce/less drag should help them at the point and squirt tracks where a higher top speed should help them in traffic. But if it hurts lap time, I have to ask, is it such a big help after all?

The big reason why TMG usually come on strong later in the season is their development of their cars. If anything good can be said of this situation (and previous ones) is that they don't give up on their current cars until basically the end of the season. VAG teams often trail off shortly after a race or two post LM to get ready for next year.

Of course, you do have to look at the long game. With no Porsche, all Toyota have to is be "good enough" to out run privateers next year. Which even if the privateer cars are sped up considerably or Toyota is pegged back, they'll probably still be good enough to easily beat them.

If Porsche can bet Toyota handily be being on average a few tenths of a second a lap faster right now, it should be easy for Toyota to be able to do the same. After all, it stands to reason that if Porsche's budget is 2:1 to Toyota's, then Toyota's is probably 10:1 compared to any likely LMP1 privateer. And you still have that whole factory team vs privateer team/factory developed car vs off the shelf customer car deal.

But right now, I feel that the onus is on TMG to find a way to make their car faster if they want to try and salvage something from a season that since LM has seemingly gone haywire.

[chernaudi]

Of course, what I said above does depend on where the performance gap to Porsche is, and what they're allowed to do about it. If it's aero, I'm not sure how much or what they're allowed to do since their aero kit is homologated.

I know that small changes are allowed to be made, but how many and their scope is unclear to me. If it's grip or hybrid deployment, hopefully they can find more there.

One thing that's seemed a bit odd is that even this year, it seems like Toyota are still a bit behind Porsche when it comes to hybrid power, be it actual power or deployment strategy. Even at LM this year, it did seem on some occasions that Porsche still had a slight edge on hybrid deployment.

[TF110]

The Toyota was leading by over a minute, comfortably. That's an advantage imo.

[chernaudi]

And advantage that could've been erased by a puncture or having to come into the pits to replace bodywork due to a puncture or collision. Their leading car was also threatened with a stop and go penalty for excessive track limits violations (as was one of the Porsches). So they were still taking risks to get to where they were.

I don't think that things were as comfortable as you're wanting to portray. They may've had the fastest car on track most of the race, but how often in racing does the absolute fastest car win? Not often. Even in the Audi era, it was rare that their absolute fastest car won. It was usually the fastest car with the least problems. Same when Peugeot won in '09.

Toyota lost the race basically as soon as the #8 went into the garage to get the front hybrid system fixed. They lost an extra 20-30 minutes over Porsche for the same repairs. That was sacrificing serviceability over performance. Porsche weren't that much slower but had a more serviceable car for when things did go wrong. That was also a factor in the other two cars' retirements.

Mind you, I'll still say that Porsche's complaints and criticism of the Toyota's aero package does seem rather hollow right now. If Toyota had such an advantage as Porsche claimed, wouldn't Toyota still have an edge over Porsche? Porsche's problem was sacrificing Silverstone and Spa for LM and post LM races.

I still think that Toyota were hoping to build up an edge at Silverstone, Spa and LM, and that their aero package would be good enough for the post LM races. But it hasn't worked out that way. And sadly for them, most of the blame for that can be placed at the foot of Toyota for the errors and issues at LM that were partly of their own making.

They should be glad that the other Porsche blew an engine late in the race and didn't score points, because in both championships, they'd really be screwed right now. At least they might have the chance to claw at least some of what they've lost back if they can sort out their car in the remaining races.

[chernaudi]

OK, enough with the bickering over this or that, since what happened has happened and unless someone invents a time machine, there's not much that can be done now.

I did read something interesting on another forum regarding finances, and I think that it's interesting that a point was brought up.

Most Japanese companies run to a different fiscal year than most North American or European companies do. Fiscal year for most Japanese companies runs from April to March. Most everyone else does like Sept. to August or Oct. to Sept.

The 2018/19 WEC schedule does, be it by coincidence or maybe by design, align with the Japanese fiscal year. Could that be another way to trying to goad Toyota into staying around for another season?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And advantage that could've been erased by a puncture or having to come into the pits to replace bodywork due to a puncture or collision. Their leading car was also threatened with a stop and go penalty for excessive track limits violations (as was one of the Porsches). So they were still taking risks to get to where they were.

I don't think that things were as comfortable as you're wanting to portray. They may've had the fastest car on track most of the race, but how often in racing does the absolute fastest car win? Not often. Even in the Audi era, it was rare that their absolute fastest car won. It was usually the fastest car with the least problems. Same when Peugeot won in '09.

Toyota lost the race basically as soon as the #8 went into the garage to get the front hybrid system fixed. They lost an extra 20-30 minutes over Porsche for the same repairs. That was sacrificing serviceability over performance. Porsche weren't that much slower but had a more serviceable car for when things did go wrong. That was also a factor in the other two cars' retirements.

Mind you, I'll still say that Porsche's complaints and criticism of the Toyota's aero package does seem rather hollow right now. If Toyota had such an advantage as Porsche claimed, wouldn't Toyota still have an edge over Porsche? Porsche's problem was sacrificing Silverstone and Spa for LM and post LM races.

I still think that Toyota were hoping to build up an edge at Silverstone, Spa and LM, and that their aero package would be good enough for the post LM races. But it hasn't worked out that way. And sadly for them, most of the blame for that can be placed at the foot of Toyota for the errors and issues at LM that were partly of their own making.

They should be glad that the other Porsche blew an engine late in the race and didn't score points, because in both championships, they'd really be screwed right now. At least they might have the chance to claw at least some of what they've lost back if they can sort out their car in the remaining races.

You're changing the subject. I said they had an advantage while you said they didn't. Now you're saying leading by over a minute isn't important.

Even though there were numerous yellows and a long slow zone in the first 2 hours to repair barriers, they still had a huge lead. During the day/start the leading Porsche was almost as fast in the higher heat, but the night came and Toyota pulled away. When the final (#8) Toyota left got fixed, it was faster than both Porsche's. Le Mans is in the past, why are you bringing that up?

[Aysedasi]

I don't want to be rude guys, but this to-ing and fro-ing is getting a bit dull.... Time to move on from Le Mans (I've had to, so everyone else should!).

[bobec]

Originally Posted by TF110

Porsche didn't 'outfox' anyone, they just put more towards their HD kit than Toyota, thanks in part to timing and to having a budget size nearly 2-1. It's no wonder they have a higher downforce total when that's all the car was made for. But in terms of LM package, their car was nowhere close to Toyota's.

Oh come one, Toyota's advantage was nooooowhere near as was expected. Not to mention the Toyota is a much newer car, and as has been discussed, though fast, obviously it was not designed to be tough or serviceable enough for a 24 hour race. Lets' stop turning stuff on its head.

[chernaudi]

And yet no one has responded to my fiscal year vs WEC schedule comment. Be it falling that way due to coincidence or was planned, it's never the less uncanny that things fell that way.

[Akrapovic]

I don't think it's particularly meaningful. The company I work isn't even a fraction of the size of Toyota, but I suppose it's pretty large in the grand scheme of things. But even my company doesn't see financial years as proper book ends to things. Projects often spread over the start and end of a financial year, and it just means it goes over multiple.

[chernaudi]

I think it can mean something here if that's how TMC and TMG do their budget allocations. It can also mean something if other European car makers do things the other way as I mentioned.

When Audi Sport pulled out, the decision was made in advance it seems of the end of their fiscal year, with only enough money and other resources allocated to keep things going until the end of the WEC season. It's likely that Porsche have the same conditions going now until the end of the season.

I find it odd on the surface that the ACO have done their schedule that way, but it could be that this could be what the ACO have in mind. It does make a bit more sense than some of the things they've done in recent memory.

[GasperG]

What don't you understand? They made such a schedule so LeMans is the last race in season. Because after LeMans no body gave a **** about WEC.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I think it can mean something here if that's how TMC and TMG do their budget allocations. It can also mean something if other European car makers do things the other way as I mentioned.

That only works if the finance department are short sighted. £100m a year (for easy maths) was previously just £60m + £40m. Same figures still apply, just another page on the spreadsheet.

More realistic reason is to use Le Mans as a big event. IMSA has it right - they start with big events and end with big events. They have Watkins Glen as a big event in the middle, but I'd say that's no where near as big and popular as Sebring and Petit. It's awesome, no doubt, but the start and end events are where the big popularity is.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by bobec

Oh come one, Toyota's advantage was nooooowhere near as was expected. Not to mention the Toyota is a much newer car, and as has been discussed, though fast, obviously it was not designed to be tough or serviceable enough for a 24 hour race. Lets' stop turning stuff on its head.

Porsche and Toyota had issues with their cars. Porsche didn't change their battery on the #2, Toyota did on the #8. That difference is the gap between them in terms of time on the road. I can't recall if it was a necessary change or if the battery was changed as a precaution. But without that, both the #2 and the #8 spend nearly the same amount of time in the garage.

I don't see what the fiscal year has to do with their budget. They decide in October each year what they do. They did this last year when we were talking about 3 cars or 2 for Le Mans.

[AoB Special Stage]

TMG said it was a precaution.

[gert]

Davidson will be replaced by Sarrazin for Austin.

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...stin-wec-round
http://www.endurance-info.com/fr/cot...-gazoo-racing/

The reason given is "for personal reasons"