[WEC] 2018-2019 WEC Super Season

[Akrapovic]

I think he means he didn't want to derail the thread.

But if Mike isn't willing to derail it, I'll happily do it. So how about those DPis?

[Bentley03]

EOT for LMP1's has been revised ahead of Silverstone...

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2018/0...lverstone.html

[TzeiTzei]

Should give the privateers around 40bhp more.

[Bcarr6]

So they gave Toyota their Le Mans win, now they dont mind the others playing for the rest of the season.

I wonder if they will feel the need to drastically change the EOT again just before the next le mans...

[Akrapovic]

“This is why we’re taking the following decisions: the performance gap of 0.25% is being reduced to 0% (the 0.5-seconds difference per lap at Le Mans between hybrids and non hybrids is no longer relevant). The fuel flow for privateer LMP1s goes up from 108 kg/h to 115 kg/h compared to 80 kg/h for the hybrids. Furthermore, the fuel flow of the refuelling system used by private teams has been increased. And last but not least, cars powered by normally-aspirated engine will benefit from a 15kg weight reduction.”

lol...

[chernaudi]

Why didn't the ACO have this info before Le Mans, or even Spa. Like others have commented elsewhere, it's a bit hard to not be skeptical or cynical even seeing how the ACO have done things, including GTE at LM in '16 as well.

Nothing against Toyota winning Le Mans, as they deserved it for all they've been though trying to win it. But IMO the ACO set themselves on a slippery slope here amid accusations of them playing political games.

[TF110]

Did you not read what they said regarding the performance of the lmp2's in expecting the same for the lmp1's? Lmp2 gained more than 2 seconds from the test day to qualifying. They expected that to carry over in lmp1 but it didn't. They can't pin down the exact reason why but that's what happened. Instead of gaining 2+ seconds, they gained 2 tenths. This new eot continues to next year's Le Mans usually. But not sure if they feel like they should change it again, seems that's a possibility too.

[TF110]

Too late to edit the above post but I think it's a little confusing that only atmospheric engined lmp1's are getting a 15kg weight break. That means Rebellion who are the fastest team besides Toyota. I think it should have been across the board but maybe they see something in the data or not everyone is meeting the 833kg weight?

[Akrapovic]

Proves that the current EoT is simply based off of lap times generated by the cars, rather than on fancy engineering outputs as they like to suggest.

Don't know tbh. I didn't find it surprising. Don't think many really did. It's not like these teams were sandbagging. We knew the performances from Spa. LMP2s may have improved 2 seconds, but so did GTE-Pro - a class full of sand bagging. So really, unless they expected them to be holding back, I don't know where they expected the time to come from.

Either way, it's done now. And the apart 0.5 second gap is going to be reduced to 0%. We absolutely know the performances of the vehicles now, so they don't have much excuse. A 0% gap between Toyota and the lead non-hybrid still leaves Toyota with an advantage in pit stops and traffic management, and that's fine - still enough for a good race.

Originally Posted by TF110

Too late to edit the above post but I think it's a little confusing that only atmospheric engined lmp1's are getting a 15kg weight break. That means Rebellion who are the fastest team besides Toyota. I think it should have been across the board but maybe they see something in the data or not everyone is meeting the 833kg weight?

I'm purely speculating here, it may be something to do with turbo v na fuel allocation?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Proves that the current EoT is simply based off of lap times generated by the cars, rather than on fancy engineering outputs as they like to suggest.

Don't know tbh. I didn't find it surprising. Don't think many really did. It's not like these teams were sandbagging. We knew the performances from Spa. LMP2s may have improved 2 seconds, but so did GTE-Pro - a class full of sand bagging. So really, unless they expected them to be holding back, I don't know where they expected the time to come from.

Either way, it's done now. And the apart 0.5 second gap is going to be reduced to 0%. We absolutely know the performances of the vehicles now, so they don't have much excuse. A 0% gap between Toyota and the lead non-hybrid still leaves Toyota with an advantage in pit stops and traffic management, and that's fine - still enough for a good race.



I'm purely speculating here, it may be something to do with turbo v na fuel allocation?

I don't think it's based solely on lap time. What would be the use in examining data if you can just look at the fast laps and say we'll adjust from that? What I mentioned before in these forums came up in this press release as well. and that's the lack of improvement from the lmp1's. EVERY class saw rather large improvements from the test day, but not lmp1 (besides Toyota). I don't see how anyone can blame eot for that either because lmp2's eot or bop is/was set in stone the same way lmp1 was from the test day to race week. How is it they gained nearly 2.5 seconds but lmp1 gained 2 tenths? I'm sure that's a question they're asking the teams and themselves but I don't think they can take blame there because the expectation and the history of the event has shown pace improvement come during race week. If they improved by 2 seconds like lmp2 did, they may have been on the same pace as Toyota during the race. At least we get to see what this new EOT does for them at Silverstone and the new high downforce packages.

[Akrapovic]

GTE classes barely count as improving. The only reason there's an improvement in GTE Pro (and this goes for every series that runs GTE and GT3 regulations) is because of the massive amount of sandbagging that goes on. Had Porsche ran the 3:50 in test day, they'd have gotten absolutely flattened for race week. In VLN and Blancpain we regularly see cars magically find 1-10 seconds (10 seconds at the Ring obviously, lol) because of sandbagging. That's not an actual performance increase.

If they're using GTE as a basis of it, then they clearly based it off of lap time and assumed sandbagging was occurring.

I don't know. Expecting full professional teams to have the same performance jump as Pro-Am teams seems a stretch at best. Bringing in the GTE classes where nobody ever shows pace until race day just furthers that. There was nothing to suggest they'd find that time other than pure hope and speculation, and even if they did find 2 seconds or so, they'd still be 4 times further away from Toyota than what the ACO was aiming for.

It just all seemed a bit silly. I'm not suggesting malicious, but just badly handled in that usual lovable way we're used to seeing at Le Mans. Slowing down the slower cars in the hope they'll get faster and not only make up the gap they had before, but also the added performance deficit from the slow down. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to work out what went wrong with that one.

If they get within a tenth or two at Silverstone (in clear air race pace) then that's as good as it'll get. There's not really an excuse for getting it wrong now. But even if it is all wrong, at least we finally get to see a Ginetta with a proper aero kit on it.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

GTE classes barely count as improving. The only reason there's an improvement in GTE Pro (and this goes for every series that runs GTE and GT3 regulations) is because of the massive amount of sandbagging that goes on. Had Porsche ran the 3:50 in test day, they'd have gotten absolutely flattened for race week. In VLN and Blancpain we regularly see cars magically find 1-10 seconds (10 seconds at the Ring obviously, lol) because of sandbagging. That's not an actual performance increase.

If they're using GTE as a basis of it, then they clearly based it off of lap time and assumed sandbagging was occurring.

I don't know. Expecting full professional teams to have the same performance jump as Pro-Am teams seems a stretch at best. Bringing in the GTE classes where nobody ever shows pace until race day just furthers that. There was nothing to suggest they'd find that time other than pure hope and speculation, and even if they did find 2 seconds or so, they'd still be 4 times further away from Toyota than what the ACO was aiming for.

It just all seemed a bit silly. I'm not suggesting malicious, but just badly handled in that usual lovable way we're used to seeing at Le Mans. Slowing down the slower cars in the hope they'll get faster and not only make up the gap they had before, but also the added performance deficit from the slow down. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to work out what went wrong with that one.

If they get within a tenth or two at Silverstone (in clear air race pace) then that's as good as it'll get. There's not really an excuse for getting it wrong now. But even if it is all wrong, at least we finally get to see a Ginetta with a proper aero kit on it.

You lost me there. Lmp2 gained 2.4 seconds, they're not professional pro teams like lmp1 is. Even Rebellion, arguably the strongest non-Toyota lmp team, gained nothing. Do we think the eot is at fault for that? That's why I mentioned lmp2. They had the same bop during the test day like lmp1-nh, but they improved on race week, lmp1 didn't. I doubt the ACO expected the pace to stay the same from them, so their eot isn't the sole issue and it shouldn't be talked as if it is. The teams ultimately didn't improve at all but everyone else did, that's a fact regardless of bop adjustments or not.

[Akrapovic]

LMP2 gained 2.4 seconds. Because they worked on race performance during the test, especially for the Am drivers. Then you stick Pros in for qualifying and happy hour and you get faster times. That's not a huge shock.

Even Rebellion, arguably the strongest non-Toyota lmp team, gained nothing. Do we think the eot is at fault for that?

Let's break it down a little bit.

So Toyota set 3:19.0 during the test day. In a car we know for a fact could do a 3:14 in qualifying trim, and would go on to do 3:15 this year.

Rebellion set a 3:19.7 and was expected to find another 2 seconds. Ok, so that at best takes them to a 3:17.7 in qualifying trim. That's 3 seconds off the potential pace of the Toyota. So..how does that work? They were 5 seconds off, expected to find 2, and that would take them to within the target 0.5? Lets be honest, we don't need calculators to see that's off.

The non-works cars were slower than the works car, slowed further, and yet expected to find more time than the factory Toyotas. How does that work? That's fantasy at best. You can expect to wake up to a green sky if you want, but that's also quite unrealistic.

Not malicious. Just mismanaged and shows a complete misunderstanding of how a small team actually operates. Reminds me of when Glickenhaus talked about entering a GT car and they were met with "Why don't you build a prototype?". I think Jims quote was something like "I think they overestimate how much money I have!". ACO seem to have an issue managing the smaller teams limits and expecting much bigger things out of people with a lot less money. Expecting slower cars to find more time than a factory car after being slowed further is delusional.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by TF110

Too late to edit the above post but I think it's a little confusing that only atmospheric engined lmp1's are getting a 15kg weight break. That means Rebellion who are the fastest team besides Toyota. I think it should have been across the board but maybe they see something in the data or not everyone is meeting the 833kg weight?

There's a very clear comparison there between SMP and Dragonspeed, whether the ORECA happens to be a better car than the Dallara is immaterial.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

LMP2 gained 2.4 seconds. Because they worked on race performance during the test, especially for the Am drivers. Then you stick Pros in for qualifying and happy hour and you get faster times. That's not a huge shock.

Even Rebellion, arguably the strongest non-Toyota lmp team, gained nothing. Do we think the eot is at fault for that?

Let's break it down a little bit.

So Toyota set 3:19.0 during the test day. In a car we know for a fact could do a 3:14 in qualifying trim, and would go on to do 3:15 this year.

Rebellion set a 3:19.7 and was expected to find another 2 seconds. Ok, so that at best takes them to a 3:17.7 in qualifying trim. That's 3 seconds off the potential pace of the Toyota. So..how does that work? They were 5 seconds off, expected to find 2, and that would take them to within the target 0.5? Lets be honest, we don't need calculators to see that's off.

The non-works cars were slower than the works car, slowed further, and yet expected to find more time than the factory Toyotas. How does that work? That's fantasy at best. You can expect to wake up to a green sky if you want, but that's also quite unrealistic.

Not malicious. Just mismanaged and shows a complete misunderstanding of how a small team actually operates. Reminds me of when Glickenhaus talked about entering a GT car and they were met with "Why don't you build a prototype?". I think Jims quote was something like "I think they overestimate how much money I have!". ACO seem to have an issue managing the smaller teams limits and expecting much bigger things out of people with a lot less money. Expecting slower cars to find more time than a factory car after being slowed further is delusional.

I think you misunderstood. When did Rebellion say they went for a qualifying run on the test day? I didn't recall them saying that. I figured the 3:19 was a fast lap but not a qualifying run. In fact they ran multiple laps in the 3:19's during the test day. Even if they improved only a second from that, then it would be close if not equal to Toyota's race pace. That's why I said race pace in my last post, did you think I was talking about qualifying? How is finding 2 seconds more then what Toyota found? If you look at the fast lap from Toyota it was in the 3:17's. Which is about 2 seconds from the pace during the test day.

Your lmp2 theory is reasonable but the AM drivers aren't the ones setting fast laps. The improvement is there regardless of the driver. I don't understand what that correlation is for lmp1. If anything it should be easier for pro drivers and pro teams to find out where they can make time.

As for the eot, it was explained that the Toyota had less hybrid power per km at Le Mans than at Spa, that's why the eot was dropped for the others. And that was fractionally. The private cars need to get on top of their issues and setup first before they can even challenge at the end of a 6 hour race. These guys signed up knowing that they would only look at a win if Toyota ran foul. They didn't, so they won handily. Just like Audi used to do.

What happens if Toyota wins Silverstone and is still faster? Will the aco be at fault more because the others aren't as fast? We can't keep blaming them for everything if the cars themselves aren't quick.

[chernaudi]

That's the conflict here. How much of this discrepancy is down to EOT, how much is it down to factory vs privateer?

I think it's a bit unrealistic for a private team, no matter how good, to be on the pace of Toyota without a load of BOP/EOT help. But I also believe that the ACO were unrealistic when it came to their expectations of pace. The problem I have is that they should've had this info as early as the WEC Prologue.

Either the people who write the rules are incompetent, had an agenda, or simply messed up, albeit big time. Which of those depends on who's camp you fall into.

[TF110]

My guess is they expected more from them and it didn't pan out as they foreseen. I hope the pace is close at Silverstone. The hd package is the same Toyota ran at the end of the 2017 season which was super quick so they have their work cut out for them.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

What happens if Toyota wins Silverstone and is still faster? Will the aco be at fault more because the others aren't as fast? We can't keep blaming them for everything if the cars themselves aren't quick.

We can keep going round in circles, because neither of us will agree, but this is one bit I will mention.

Well..yes. Of course, the ACO will be at fault. If you have a formula which is attempting to balance the cars (whether it be through BoP or EoT techniques), and the cars are out by 2 seconds, then of course the organiser is at fault. A tenth or two then sure, that's good enough and the rest is up to the teams, but otherwise then yes. If the rule makers try to balance things, and they aren't balanced, then the rule makers are at fault.

Saying "if the cars aren't quick" is very unfair, because it's not like the cars are so far off they cannot be balanced. A couple of seconds a lap is well within the grasp of a BoP/EoT balance. If someone (let's say...Datsun) turned up with a car that was mid LMP2 speed, then sure you look at the car and say no amount of rule tweaks will solve it and its the teams responsibility to produce a car that's in the right ball park. But in LMP1 case, they're well clear of LMP2 and setting times that factory cars would be proud of only a couple of years ago. Blaming the teams for being slower in class that was meant to be balanced is a complete cop out and means the ACO could literally do *nothing* wrong. They literally slowed down the slower cars and people still wonder why some blame the ACO for mismanaging.

Again, not saying the small teams SHOULD be challenging Toyota. But that's what the EoT is now based on, that's what they said they'd do. Privateer v Factory is now meant to be balanced.

Slow down the slower car. Expect them to be faster. If IMSA slowed down the Mazdas and then said "Yeah but we expected them to catch up with Cadillac" we'd all be on the floor laughing at such a ridiculous statement.

Either way, there's no excuse now. We know the performance of each car, we know what they can do, and we know the pecking order. So if Silverstone isn't a massive improvement in the spread then something has gone very wrong.

[TF110]

I don't think it adds up. Say if they balance on lap times, imo that's BOP, not EOT. EOT is the technology equivalence. The lap time being "within half a second" was a goal and I don't recall it being the basis of their equalizing. So if they're doing that which they said, then it's based on the data of the potential of the cars but the half second rule is a goal within their balancing. It's up to the teams to get the most out of their package then because the rule makers see what they are capable of. It should not be based on 'were not fast enough, give us a break', which I equate to bop, because that can be gamed. It should be based on what they originally said, which is the technology and it's potential. It all sounds simple but we know it's not. Regardless of what opinions we have, I'm sure we agree that the racing is better when it's close and hopefully Silverstone shows this!

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by TF110

I don't think it adds up. Say if they balance on lap times, imo that's BOP, not EOT. EOT is the technology equivalence.

How is lap time what makes it BOP? EoT is exactly what they're doing, they don't apply different rules to different chassis. The same rules apply across the class or engine type in order to make sure the class is in a level field of energy. They haven't penalized Rebellion vs the rest for being faster. The only reg not covering the class is to balance the Mechachrome engine, is that the only NA engine in LMP1 non-hybrid?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

How is lap time what makes it BOP? EoT is exactly what they're doing, they don't apply different rules to different chassis. The same rules apply across the class or engine type in order to make sure the class is in a level field of energy. They haven't penalized Rebellion vs the rest for being faster. The only reg not covering the class is to balance the Mechachrome engine, is that the only NA engine in LMP1 non-hybrid?

Because imo basing it off of lap time is BOP because they're not going by potential of the engine or car, but by how fast they went their last race. I don't know if that's what they're doing more than basing it off data, but I would prefer that they allow the teams to work towards getting the most out of their car instead of possibly sandbagging to get favorable treatment.

The mechachrome engine is turbocharged. The only NA engine is in the back of the Rebellion. Which so happens to be the fastest non-hybrid team currently and it's getting a 15kg weight reduction. I'm curious about what they saw to give them that but perhaps it's because of upcoming races or because of the expected gains from the turbo engines with the new EOT?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

How is lap time what makes it BOP? EoT is exactly what they're doing, they don't apply different rules to different chassis. The same rules apply across the class or engine type in order to make sure the class is in a level field of energy. They haven't penalized Rebellion vs the rest for being faster. The only reg not covering the class is to balance the Mechachrome engine, is that the only NA engine in LMP1 non-hybrid?

Exactly spot on.

And if they weren't doing it on lap time, they wouldn't have a target of 0.5 seconds a lap, and now a target of the same lap time. And if it was based on actual data then surely that data would've shown up at Spa and the Le Mans test. If they used data, there's no way the cars would've been pegged back further. The only way they could justify that is on pure speculation of the teams finding this mythical 2 seconds.

And let's be realistic here - the EoT is no longer about making sure the rule sets can produce the same results. The non-hybrid regs have been given a boost to make sure small budget teams can compete with a works team. If a manufacturer entered non-hybrid (we know it's not allowed but for the sake of discussion) then they'd win by miles with the boost that set of regs has.

EoT is now about letting David fight Goliath, not making sure David and Goliath have the same weapons.

--

On a different note, we won't find out the LMP2 Le Mans class winner (and therefore WEC standings) until September now. That's poor, no matter which way you look at it.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

EoT is now about letting David fight Goliath, not making sure David and Goliath have the same weapons.

Yes. And that's exactly how it should be, IMO.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Exactly spot on.

And if they weren't doing it on lap time, they wouldn't have a target of 0.5 seconds a lap, and now a target of the same lap time. And if it was based on actual data then surely that data would've shown up at Spa and the Le Mans test. If they used data, there's no way the cars would've been pegged back further. The only way they could justify that is on pure speculation of the teams finding this mythical 2 seconds.

And let's be realistic here - the EoT is no longer about making sure the rule sets can produce the same results. The non-hybrid regs have been given a boost to make sure small budget teams can compete with a works team. If a manufacturer entered non-hybrid (we know it's not allowed but for the sake of discussion) then they'd win by miles with the boost that set of regs has.

EoT is now about letting David fight Goliath, not making sure David and Goliath have the same weapons.

--

On a different note, we won't find out the LMP2 Le Mans class winner (and therefore WEC standings) until September now. That's poor, no matter which way you look at it.

What? Think the world is ending, often have a very different view of things than Akrapovic but seems like we're agreeing more and more here lately

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

What? Think the world is ending, often have a very different view of things than Akrapovic but seems like we're agreeing more and more here lately

We can't be having any of that now. I'll go find something for us to disagree about!

Correcting my final comment too - G-Drive aren't a WEC team, so whether or not they are successful in the appeal doesn't make a difference to the WEC standings.