Petrol Parity Pantomimes

[GTRMagic]

It has been an interesting week in V8Supercar apparently, with petrol on the tip of everyone’s tongues. It came up as a topic of conversation at a V8SC manufacturer conference this week, with opening questions said to be asking when the results of the first two cars on the Saturday would be removed from the results. Needless to say, the results stand.

The plan was apparently to improve the fuel consumption of the nominated cars running the E70 product, whilst maintaining the performance to a level consistent with the E85 fuel

This brings up a very important point. None of this heat in the fuel usage discussion is actively levelled at Nissan Motorsport, or Erebus AMG for that matter. They ran their nominated cars to the rules as adjusted by the powers that be at V8SC’s technical bods, and that included running the E70 fuel in some of their fleet.

That the other teams signed off on the trial isn’t in dispute either. They were probably silly to do so, but the show must go on, progress is required and all that...

That said, there has been much conjecture across the sport about the equalisation issue with the Nissan engine.

The Nissan Motorsport team, all four drivers, and team management, have been reported in every interview, in every article of late, that their engines are not as strong as those of Ford and Holden. Erebus AMG have nominated similar issues, but didn’t keep harping on them, spending their time on the dyno and making new parts to improve their lot.

Which makes Mr Larkham’s whiteboard information very telling, allegedly of course.

A number of casual viewers thought Mr Larkham's presentation was actually quite aggressive, seemingly trying to convince everyone listening that there was nothing wrong with the way the fuel parity was carried out.

Anyhoo...

There were two laps overlaid in his Microsoft technical centre briefing, which were told to us that they showed the data traces for throttle/brake/steering applications from Mr Moffat’s qualifying laps for R25 (Saturday) and R27 (R2 Sunday). Odd that they weren’t labelled that way but maybe that was the point.

Just for fun, below is something that may or may not be that data trace , perhaps even as presented on the Sunday by Mr Larkham.



So... why is this important to the discussion?

When I used V8Supercar live timing on my iPhone at the weekend, it wasn’t showing the usual “Speed Trap” numbers that are recorded as part of the Natsoft timing process. Unusual, but sometimes technical glitches happen. That’s not to say that they weren’t recorded, just that they weren’t broadcast for some reason.

This week is the one immediately after the Winton race weekend, and for most of them, it is time for a full on running session-by-session debrief protocol for the weekend, on the Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

Not surprisingly, the speed of the Nissan is said to have come up in some of these debriefs.

Some clever technical bods took a look at the data trace above, and went about comparing it to their own car(s) data traces for that piece of the track. More than one team did this, so it’s likely nothing out of the ordinary, just comparing what one team did over another to identify areas to work differently.

And it clicked.

The #360 Nissan in the above trace, presuming it was accurate as Mr Larkham presented it to be, showed a top speed for Mr Moffat’s #360 Nissan at the speed trap marker as being 225 km/h.

Means nothing in isolation, but when another team’s engineer looks at his data and discovers the cars in his charge apparently didn’t do any better than 221km/h at the speed trap on ANY lap across the weekend, and another team’s engineer, for another brand interestingly, showed they saw 219 km/h as their best across their couple of cars across the speed trap, well heads start to be scratched.

The noise from the Nissan Motorsport squad has been that they were not able to increase the power from of their engines, that they had driveability problems with them, and fuel economy suffered as a result.

Yet they were arguably (and reportedly from Nissan Motorsport’s own data trace.. presuming it was correct of course) the quickest team across the speed trap at Winton across the weekend!!

What is difficult here is that we don’t have a copy of a data trace from another of the Nissan Motorsport cars. This would be interesting to overlay with the above, for if all four cars from that car are technically the same, then they too should be as quick across the Winton speed trap

Or not.

It would present us with two possibilities.

That the 4 Nissans were able to achieve what is reportedly the quickest velocities of the weekend across the speed trap. Or that the yellow versions, fuelled as they were reported to be, with the alternate E70 mix were faster in a straight line.

To the former, it suggests that the Nissans may not have as bad an engine issue as has been (much) purported, and to the latter it suggests that E70 may have provided a performance enhancement not afforded the other cars, despite it apparently not being designed that way!

In either event, this must present a problem to V8Supercar to address before Sandown. Presumably the other brands’ teams will not enjoy being outsped up the straights because of an alleged fuel performance imbalance, or even that the base engine is better than its team is talking to.

We saw a sign of the media leverage that Nissan brings to the sport too, placing full page ads in some of the daily newspapers, celebrating its first win in the category. It is a win, a feel good story for them and the sport, and may bring new fans to the category.

But the manufacturer isn’t likely to be impressed by the controversy.

For teams in the series to be asking for the exclusion of the Nissans is likely not the appropriate course of action. The Nissans and the Erebus AMG ran to the rules, and the rules produced what looks like an unexpected outcome.

But we dont even know if the fuel consumption was improved as a result...

The fuel controversy cannot continue, or the sport will suffer as a result.

Something to consider too is that V8Supercar presents itself as being an environmentally responsible category having brought Sucrogen and their bio ethanol product into the sport, with 85% bio ethanol blended with 15% of regular unleaded petrol to make the regular E85 blend.

The thing to note is that the E70 fuel, as run by the three cars on the Saturday, contains twice as much unleaded petrol in the mix, arguably dulling that environmental message. Not to mention possibly annoying Sucrogen with this controversy, as it directly suggests that fuels with LESS bio ethanol in the blend makes cars go faster!!

Its all very very interesting. And annoying. And shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

Presuming any of this actually happened of course

[Umai Naa]

I couldn't agree more, GTR.

Worth noting, that back at beginning of the season, Kelly Racing were happy to share the fact that all four cars were not running the same engine specs. The words "Experimental" and "Prototype" were used a lot in reference to camshafts, cylinder heads, and manifolds, of both intake and exhaust.

Whether this policy has changed in recent times, who knows?

One thing is for certain, is that closer scrutiny is required of both the Nissan and Mercedes engines, and that the evolution of their specifications, should have been done over predetirmined periods of time. Furthermore, a complete example of each engine, at those stages of evolution, should have been made available to V8SC, for independant analysis.

While V8SC continues to allow such a broad range of eligible engine specifications (i.e. pushrod Vs OHC), the final homologated specifications for the Nissan and Mercedes (and soon, Volvo) engines, needs to be sought ASAP.

[Go Harder.]

Can't tell from the image posted, but was the top speed of 225km/h achieved on both Saturday and Sunday?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Go Harder.

Can't tell from the image posted, but was the top speed of 225km/h achieved on both Saturday and Sunday?

I would imagine, given that the text is in red, that it corresponds with the red data trace, which if correct, is the Sunday R27 lap.

That said, the red and blue lines seem to virtually overlap, so perhaps its both

[Matthew Ronke]

In theory E85 should be more of a performance gain than E70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Ethanol burns cooler and has a higher octane rating.

Time Attack, Drag Racers, Burnout cars are all looking to run on as high Alcohol content as possible to get more power.

Why the change is conventional thinking here? are the running a Polariser as well?

[TWRv12]

They worst thing is the shambolic way this was all handled.

There should have been a public test, other teams should have been allowed use E70 if they wanted.

Allowing Nissan to just use the fuel in one race and then quickly withdrawing it, stinks big time and reinforces the argument that it was a big mistake that went to far.

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ronke

In theory E85 should be more of a performance gain than E70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Ethanol burns cooler and has a higher octane rating.

Time Attack, Drag Racers, Burnout cars are all looking to run on as high Alcohol content as possible to get more power.

Why the change is conventional thinking here? are the running a Polariser as well?

The switch to E70 was to improve the fuel consumption.

Remember, fuel consumption took a big dive when they went to E85 back in '09.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

They worst thing is the shambolic way this was all handled.

There should have been a public test, other teams should have been allowed use E70 if they wanted.

The consistent story from a number of sources around this suggest that the teams were asked to sign off on the use of E70 on the basis of data supplied by V8SA's technical group.

Mr Hasted was mentioned on the coverage at the weekend as being involved in the testing & selection of the E70, and also in suggesting that there was no performance difference to operating on E85.

It still seems unclear even now whether dyno testing of the affected engines took place. And if it did, did Erebus AMG and Nissan Motorsport remap those engines to account for the different combustion profiles the new E70 fuel may provide? Did the yellow Nissans and the blue and silver Erebus AMG run a different engine map on the Saturday to the Sunday to account for the different fuels?

Lots of questions, not so many answers

Originally Posted by TWRv12

Allowing Nissan to just use the fuel in one race and then quickly withdrawing it, stinks big time and reinforces the argument that it was a big mistake that went to far.

Arguably, even if there proves to be no performance advantage to E70 over E85, V8Supercar certainly highlighted that they thought there may have been by withdrawing its use in the yellow Nissans and Erebus AMG for the Sunday races.

Looking guilty is as bad as being guilty in that circumstance...

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Go Harder.

Can't tell from the image posted, but was the top speed of 225km/h achieved on both Saturday and Sunday?

Here is an interesting collage fresh from the weekend's coverage...



We have an FPR car to the left, poking out the back of one of the Holdens, Mr Larkham's presentation, and the data as shown above highlighting the top speed of the Nissan, as presented.

While the speeds on the visual display on the teev graphics may not always perfectly match the data out of the cars themselves (Not sure the car on the right hand top corner can do 220 km/h in second gear for example... ), it is counter intuitive to some of the claims being made on Mr Larkham's all-knowing whiteboard...

Or is this the equivalent of Mr Raikkonen's 'Shut Up I Know What I'm Doing"

Presuming any of this actually happened...

[Mr X]

What data guy worth his wage is going to give other data guys something accurate to analyse on Tuesday and Wednesday?
Probably should of choosen 'Gps Speed'/1.02 rather then 'Gps Speed'*1.02

[TWRv12]

So when do they get use the magic potion again?

[EfiOz]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ronke

In theory E85 should be more of a performance gain than E70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Ethanol burns cooler and has a higher octane rating.

Time Attack, Drag Racers, Burnout cars are all looking to run on as high Alcohol content as possible to get more power.

Why the change is conventional thinking here? are the running a Polariser as well?

All true as long as you can get a high enough dynamic CR number. The 10:1 rule is what has made the whole change to E85 problematic from the beginning. You have to put alcohol right under the squeeze to get any power out of it. Hence why Knoxville sprint cat motors were running number above 16:1 at one stage (not sure if they still do).

Without CR numbers of this magnitude, you're better off with pump 98.

[EfiOz]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I would imagine, given that the text is in red, that it corresponds with the red data trace, which if correct, is the Sunday R27 lap.

That said, the red and blue lines seem to virtually overlap, so perhaps its both

Larkhams methodology stank to high heaven and scored my TV more incoherent rantings from yours truly whilst watching it. For any of that to be valid, the data should have come from one of the Norton cars and one from a JD car. Way too many variables otherwise, especially in those weather conditions.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by EfiOz

Larkhams methodology stank to high heaven and scored my TV more incoherent rantings from yours truly whilst watching it. For any of that to be valid, the data should have come from one of the Norton cars and one from a JD car. Way too many variables otherwise, especially in those weather conditions.

Arguably the only part we could point to is that the two lap times presented in the top LHS of the graphic matched Mr Moffat's best qualifying time for R25 and R27.

As I suggested, that these numbers appear on the graphic do not necessarily make it the actual laps involved.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

So when do they get use the magic potion again?

That's the question you might think the owners of 21 of the cars in the field wouldn't mind knowing the answer to too.

But the issue is bigger than that... if the Nissan engine is better than the teams have been saying... and that the extensive V8SC testing has revealed ... then perhaps they will get a free kick for the enduros regardless of fuel??

[EfiOz]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Arguably the only part we could point to is that the two lap times presented in the top LHS of the graphic matched Mr Moffat's best qualifying time for R25 and R27.

As I suggested, that these numbers appear on the graphic do not necessarily make it the actual laps involved.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the laps are what the appear to be. Still doesn't make the methodology any better.

[Trev Campbell]

So what will everyone say if/when the AMG's and Nissans are 1-2 seconds of the pace at Sandown and Bathurst ???? Good we don't want them to have a chance of winning or even a result. would we like V8Supercars to pull a 'Saftey Car' for low flying geese just before the cars get lapped ????

I don't know the answer but as with most things motor racing there is a lot of screaming about this that is bordering on Hysteria. A result was obtained by a couple of cars on the slowest track in the country (A track that they were always going to perform well at, IIRC Moffat passed 11 or 12 cars in race 26 on E85 on a track you can't pass on, I don't think any other driver came close to that either), where the 2 enduros are to be held on a couple of the fastest.

As with nearly everything in the motor sport world everyone is selve serving and self interested, (The Kellys/Nissans included)

[Axeman444]

Originally Posted by Trev Campbell

So what will everyone say if/when the AMG's and Nissans are 1-2 seconds of the pace at Sandown and Bathurst ???? Good we don't want them to have a chance of winning or even a result. would we like V8Supercars to pull a 'Saftey Car' for low flying geese just before the cars get lapped ????

I don't know the answer but as with most things motor racing there is a lot of screaming about this that is bordering on Hysteria. A result was obtained by a couple of cars on the slowest track in the country (A track that they were always going to perform well at, IIRC Moffat passed 11 or 12 cars in race 26 on E85 on a track you can't pass on, I don't think any other driver came close to that either), where the 2 enduros are to be held on a couple of the fastest.

As with nearly everything in the motor sport world everyone is selve serving and self interested, (The Kellys/Nissans included)

not sure with everyone else's self serving agendas, but this is mine:
There was 4 weeks between Ipswich and Winton, which are the tracks that all 28 cars test at. Now I am not up there completely with the time it takes to strip down a car post race meeting and then prepare for the next, however if there is bleating from the operators of AMG and Nissan equipment, then they should make themselves available (1 car per team, maybe 2) to either stay back at Ipswich (in the case of Nissan) or get to Winton extra early (in the case of AMG) - or somewhere neutral like Ford's and Holden's proving grounds - and go up against some local Falcons and Commodores to assess what E70 would do in a non-live environment that otherwise has championship implications ie do it in a TEST environment. A championship round is no place to be testing by the powers that be

That's my point.

If the Nissan' were always going to do well at Winton, why was there such a big disparity between the yellow cars and the black ones on Saturday?

[Trev Campbell]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

not sure with everyone else's self serving agendas, but this is mine:
There was 4 weeks between Ipswich and Winton, which are the tracks that all 28 cars test at. Now I am not up there completely with the time it takes to strip down a car post race meeting and then prepare for the next, however if there is bleating from the operators of AMG and Nissan equipment, then they should make themselves available (1 car per team, maybe 2) to either stay back at Ipswich (in the case of Nissan) or get to Winton extra early (in the case of AMG) - or somewhere neutral like Ford's and Holden's proving grounds - and go up against some local Falcons and Commodores to assess what E70 would do in a non-live environment that otherwise has championship implications ie do it in a TEST environment. A championship round is no place to be testing by the powers that be

That's my point.

If the Nissan' were always going to do well at Winton, why was there such a big disparity between the yellow cars and the black ones on Saturday?

You'll get no argument from me regarding the way it was done, It should have been tested on a runway or the speedbowl at Holdens.

But what is annoying is that all the teams agreed to what happened and then when the results don't turn out how some of them want they go running to anyone who will listen screaming unfair.

I still think then enitre way the engine formula/parity is being regulated is wrong.

On your second point, That's like asking what's was the difference between Tander and Courtney. The Norton Cars had the wood over their stablemates almost the entire weekend, the E70 thing just muddied the waters.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Axeman444

not sure with everyone else's self serving agendas, but this is mine:
There was 4 weeks between Ipswich and Winton, which are the tracks that all 28 cars test at. Now I am not up there completely with the time it takes to strip down a car post race meeting and then prepare for the next, however if there is bleating from the operators of AMG and Nissan equipment, then they should make themselves available (1 car per team, maybe 2) to either stay back at Ipswich (in the case of Nissan) or get to Winton extra early (in the case of AMG) - or somewhere neutral like Ford's and Holden's proving grounds - and go up against some local Falcons and Commodores to assess what E70 would do in a non-live environment that otherwise has championship implications ie do it in a TEST environment. A championship round is no place to be testing by the powers that be

That's my point.

If the Nissan' were always going to do well at Winton, why was there such a big disparity between the yellow cars and the black ones on Saturday?

Bear in mind though that (according to Larko) they DID do some testing plus they also did Dyno runs with the fuel, both supervised by VESA. With this kind of thing (parity adjustments of any kind) often it's only in genuine racing conditions, dealing with traffic, running consistent laps etc that the real impact of the change can be judged with complete certainty.

To me, whilst not ideal sometimes running in real race conditions is what you have to do & it's better to do that in one race at a multi race round than taking a punt that you've made the right call based on a test & seeing the Nissan's drive off into the distance at Sandown and/or Bathurst because testing rarely replicates race conditions in their entirety & in a class as close in performance as V8s are, this last point is critical.

In some ways, having other teams up in arms indicates that they see the new makes as real threats and that's a positive thing for the level of competition in the category.

[rik]

Why not dyno all teams engines and publish the results for everyone to see? Perhaps claim the engines after a race to ensure no sandbagging....

Will never happen, because various parties will claim it's not fair, blah, blah.

[Buckshot]

So can anyone tell me - well everybody be on the same fuel for Bathurst ?

That's my largest concern as it's the most important race of the year which attracts a lot of once a year viewers as well and to have any results in question because not everybody is on the same fuel would be a disaster.

[Scrut]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

So can anyone tell me - well everybody be on the same fuel for Bathurst ?

That's my largest concern as it's the most important race of the year which attracts a lot of once a year viewers as well and to have any results in question because not everybody is on the same fuel would be a disaster.

Was not the purpose of the E70 to give the Nissan's & AMG's better economy
for the endurance races, to equalise the fuel burn to that of the Ford's & Holden's ?

[bluesport]

I don't know what all the fuss is about, let 'em run E70.........Whincup was going to win at Winton until the car karked it, so what's the big deal.

[EfiOz]

That's a very good point.........

And also not to forget that the Hornets were faster than the JD cars all weekend, regardless of what fuel they used.

Hhhhhmmmmm, now if they had of been running some "development" parts in the 2nd cars perhaps. Maybe they figured out the slow shift problems plaguing the Albins trans but didn't want to risk it in the number one cars.

Or maybe a left field setup derived from hours on the sim.

That, of course, is if any of that actually happened.