[WEC] 2018-2019 WEC Super Season

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

That's because the ACO is in an unwinnable situation and people fail to recognize that.

Really? Is everything that black and white?

This whole saga started years ago when the ACO didn't support the privateer entries and went for the big cash with no backup plan. The ACO dug this hole themselves. Since then they've recognised that and done a pretty decent job climbing out of the hole in quite a short period of time. However, an unwinnable situation? It wouldn't even need to be balancing the EoT on a minute by minute basis had they included the privateer cars in the development process back in 2011 when they first giving serious attention to factory hybrid cars.

The situation is not unwinnable. It's just poorly managed. We're now doing 7 years of catch up in 7 months, and the result is a rapid-fire balancing of cars. Sorry if I'm not impressed with a panic response to a situation they built themselves.

You know what's as boring as "I hate the ACO!"? It's the "The ACO isn't doing anything wrong!" reply. Two sides of the same coin.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

That's what I mean, rather than talking about the merits of the EoT table or practicality of balancing cars with fuel flow people make judgments based on grudges held for 7 years...

Even if one would grant that this is all the fault of the ACO themselves, what does that have to do with being 'unimpressed' with how they handle the balancing itself? It has no relation whatsoever. The current situation is the ACO is trying to balance the privateer cars against Toyota. Whether that is a 'panic response' or not is completely irrelevant. People have already made up their minds based not on a fair judgment of the situation and facts and you demonstrate that perfectly. I also really don't care whether you defended the ACO in the past or not because that is also irrelevant. I'm arguing against your position, not against your person.

Besides this clickbait article by a known hack we don't even have any clue about the Le Mans balancing yet. And it doesn't matter because as the reaction to this 'article' demonstrates, the ACO has already lost. Toyota will probably win Le Mans unless they break down and the only sentiment people will come away with is that the ACO will have given them the win for free.

[S griffin]

Well it’s strange it should do it now. I think it’s a mess this whole balancing acts. Why do past seasons matter. I think it’s an important bit of news, although they’d be better reporting other series

[Aysedasi]

Not sure I follow that at all SG......? What other series?

[CTD]

Let's also be fair, ACO do have telemetry access that we don't have. One or two LMP1 teams might have been sandbagging on purpose to have the pace of Toyota reduced.

We don't know the whole truth and I keep faith in that ACO wishes a close race at the top as that is what in the end keeps the crowd entertained.

[Aysedasi]

Well said Mathias. Keep the faith!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

That's what I mean, rather than talking about the merits of the EoT table or practicality of balancing cars with fuel flow people make judgments based on grudges held for 7 years...

Even if one would grant that this is all the fault of the ACO themselves, what does that have to do with being 'unimpressed' with how they handle the balancing itself? It has no relation whatsoever. The current situation is the ACO is trying to balance the privateer cars against Toyota. Whether that is a 'panic response' or not is completely irrelevant. People have already made up their minds based not on a fair judgment of the situation and facts and you demonstrate that perfectly. I also really don't care whether you defended the ACO in the past or not because that is also irrelevant. I'm arguing against your position, not against your person.

I don't think you're being very fair there at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be unimpressed with how the balancing has been applied. It's completely relevant to how a person feels about the situation. It's also completely relevant whether it is a panic response or not. Given these are opinions being offered on how the situation is being handled, neither of these are irrelevant at all.

It's also extremely unfair to label negative opinions are grudges. You're attempting to discredit any negative opinion with a dismissive comment. That isn't fair. If I dismissed all of your posts as being a fanboy for simply loving everything the ACO does, you'd be the first to call unfairness.

So sorry, I disagree. Peoples opinions on the situation are neither based on grudges, or irrelevant.

My position is I don't like seeing goal posts constantly moving about before a big race in response to a situation having not been managed properly. If you're unhappy with this position then that's fine - but it's not based on some fictional grudge, and it is certainly not irrelevant. And whilst it's just my opinion and certainly not fact, it is also not an uncommon opinion.

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Besides this clickbait article by a known hack we don't even have any clue about the Le Mans balancing yet. And it doesn't matter because as the reaction to this 'article' demonstrates, the ACO has already lost. Toyota will probably win Le Mans unless they break down and the only sentiment people will come away with is that the ACO will have given them the win for free.

Whilst I generally agree that Autosport and Gary Watkins are very much going after the clicks, I don't actually see the clickbait in this article here? If anything, this is one of the better Autosport articles as it actually gives facts and figures. Even if you ignore everything in the article apart from the numbers, it's pretty clear - the fuel allocation has been reduced from 108 kg/hr to 110kg/hr.

If this was clickbait it'd have a headline like "Are the ACO trying to screw Rebellion?" but this doesn't fit the clickbait template at all. In fact, the headline matches the content of the article and if the numbers are accurate then it's not clickbait even slightly. Not sure how it could be accused of that tbh.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't think you're being very fair there at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be unimpressed with how the balancing has been applied. It's completely relevant to how a person feels about the situation. It's also completely relevant whether it is a panic response or not. Given these are opinions being offered on how the situation is being handled, neither of these are irrelevant at all.

This is just a cop-out. Having your opinion on a situation influenced by irrelevant factors devalues that opinion. Which is exactly what I'm arguing against. You say you're 'unimpressed' but you can't articulate what you're actually unimpressed by, mostly because the thing you're 'unimpressed' with hasn't actually been made clear at all yet. The only thing you offer is a vague 'feeling' about the situation which actually makes your judgment the one that's not being fair. If only because this is the very first time in WEC history such a thing has even been properly attempted. Your complaint about goal posts moving is very ironic, since you're the one engaging in that.

If you actually had some valid criticisms, say for example about the EoT for the Spa race and its outcome, then we could talk because I probably share a lot of those.

[Adam43]

People may apply their prejudices to magazines as well as governing bodies.

Sprinkles you make a good point about basing your opinions on all the facts and we don’t have them here. I tend to agree with your point that it may make sense if you do have all the information the ACO has.

However, we don’t have all the facts and people have to go on what they do have. That leads you to see the cars that were behind on pace at Spa suffering a drop in performance. There are reasons to think that isn’t all there is to it, not least the change in hybrid power per km.

Another reason people need to draw conclusions from limited information, as long as they reconginsie that, is that otherwise there is nowt to talk about as we never have all the facts.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by CTD

Let's also be fair, ACO do have telemetry access that we don't have. One or two LMP1 teams might have been sandbagging on purpose to have the pace of Toyota reduced.

We don't know the whole truth and I keep faith in that ACO wishes a close race at the top as that is what in the end keeps the crowd entertained.

+1

We will see what they have done when LeMans is over, I hope their target is to make private teems faster over one lap, they have a long way catching Toyota in the pits and longer stint length. Only this way they can keep things interesting, otherwise it will be a walk in the park for Toyota.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is just a cop-out. Having your opinion on a situation influenced by irrelevant factors devalues that opinion. Which is exactly what I'm arguing against. You say you're 'unimpressed' but you can't articulate what you're actually unimpressed by, mostly because the thing you're 'unimpressed' with hasn't actually been made clear at all yet. The only thing you offer is a vague 'feeling' about the situation which actually makes your judgment the one that's not being fair. If only because this is the very first time in WEC history such a thing has even been properly attempted.

If you actually had some valid criticisms, say for example about the EoT for the Spa race and its outcome, then we could talk because I probably share a lot of those.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

My position is I don't like seeing goal posts constantly moving about before a big race in response to a situation having not been managed properly.

I don't know how to clarify that any further than I already have. Sorry if that reads rude, but I don't know how to reword that to make it any clearer than it already is. I've said it more than once, so I don't understand how it can be said my position isn't clear.

If we're going to keep calling these factors irrelevant then I don't see how the discussion can progress. You can't just label them as irrelevant because you don't think they are part of the conversation. The history of this situation is completely relevant as we wouldn't be here without it - the whole response and quick-fire adjustment of the EoT that people aren't liking is because of almost a decade of mismanagement. When discussing a problem (and a solution) it's important to consider all the factors in how you arrived at that point, rather than just label them as irrelevant. Sorry if you don't like that - but it's not irrelevant, and it's certainly not grudge holding to consider this poorly managed.

Not to be rude, but I imagine everyone reading this is getting a bit bored of us, so if we continue down the "it's irrelevant route" then I think I'd rather let the conversation end than hijack the thread, as it's clear we won't agree on that.

[GT6]

Originally Posted by CTD

Let's also be fair, ACO do have telemetry access that we don't have. One or two LMP1 teams might have been sandbagging on purpose to have the pace of Toyota reduced.

We don't know the whole truth and I keep faith in that ACO wishes a close race at the top as that is what in the end keeps the crowd entertained.

i think like me you think some teams did not produce their best at Spa however the ACO needs the privateers to keep the top class going unless they combine the lmp1 and 2 class into something cheaper to enter/run,

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Even if you ignore everything in the article apart from the numbers, it's pretty clear - the fuel allocation has been reduced from 108 kg/hr to 110kg/hr.

That's wrong though, the fuel allocation hasn't been reduced. It's (allegedly, since I don't see a bulletin) the peak fuel flow rate, which just means they'll have slightly less power and be doing less (or supposedly, zero) lift and coast to use the same energy per lap. For Rebellion that might actually improve their lap times by removing the guessing.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

That's wrong though, the fuel allocation hasn't been reduced. It's (allegedly, since I don't see a bulletin) the peak fuel flow rate, which just means they'll have slightly less power and be doing less (or supposedly, zero) lift and coast to use the same energy per lap. For Rebellion that might actually improve their lap times by removing the guessing.

You're quite right, but that's poor wording on my part - the article is actually accurate that it's fuel flow rate. But the result, as you say, is the same - it's a power reduction.

It's a stretch to suggest that this would be a lap time improvement though. 110kg/hr was the maximum fuel flow rate, not the rate at which it must flow. If it would improve lap times by cutting the rate, then the teams would do that themselves anyway to get that performance. So best case scenario is we're we were before? It's a stretch to praise the move, and even when it's praised the best case is no change. Again, I don't have a grudge, but I fail to see how that's a good thing even in best case. If that is why it's done, then they need to stop tinkering with things for the sake of tinkering with things.

[S griffin]

I really don’t get where the series is going, we’re discussing fuel flow rates and the like, and I don’t get power reduction either. It’s a strange move from the organisers, they must have a good reason for this. This is a bad move for the series IMHO. I just don’t get why they constantly have to change the rules, getting desperate perhaps?

[carbsmith]

Ideally speaking it definitely shouldn't help, no, but it makes consistency easier if they don't have the electronic package. Generally fans tend to complain about mismatched fuel flow rates and the resulting lift and coast anyways.

[chernaudi]

Well, there was hardly any BOP in the LMP900 days. Audi Sport dominated because they had the best car and team. They were also the only major manufacturer who seriously invested in the formula after BMW, Toyota, Nissan and Mercedes pulled out.

Compare and contrast this: Similar in that Toyota are a factory team and the only major one left, big difference is that at least Audi, especially in the R8 days, didn't get (at least on paper) several concessions, whether or not they asked for them or not.

I don't agree with automatically making Toyota out to be the bad guys here, because for all we know they may not agree with these changes, even if they're the ones benefiting from them.

But the ACO have had a track record of making bad or questionable decisions since late 2008 in my opinion, dating back to the '09 wing span reduction and not getting privateers more involved in the regs making process, and repeated formulae changes every three years or so.

But all we can hope for is that if there's too big a descrepency between Toyota and the other teams is that the ACO hold up their end of the bargain. If not, then I do hope that the WEC implodes and they really have to start back at square one. I know that it's cold to wish for bad things to happen, but it sems like the ACO's brass have to hit rock bottom before the right the ship.

[Irie]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Well, there was hardly any BOP in the LMP900 days. Audi Sport dominated because they had the best car and team. They were also the only major manufacturer who seriously invested in the formula after BMW, Toyota, Nissan and Mercedes pulled out.

Compare and contrast this: Similar in that Toyota are a factory team and the only major one left, big difference is that at least Audi, especially in the R8 days, didn't get (at least on paper) several concessions, whether or not they asked for them or not.

I don't agree with automatically making Toyota out to be the bad guys here, because for all we know they may not agree with these changes, even if they're the ones benefiting from them.

But the ACO have had a track record of making bad or questionable decisions since late 2008 in my opinion, dating back to the '09 wing span reduction and not getting privateers more involved in the regs making process, and repeated formulae changes every three years or so.

But all we can hope for is that if there's too big a descrepency between Toyota and the other teams is that the ACO hold up their end of the bargain. If not, then I do hope that the WEC implodes and they really have to start back at square one. I know that it's cold to wish for bad things to happen, but it sems like the ACO's brass have to hit rock bottom before the right the ship.

Well Toyota doesn't get concessions either - it's the other way round. They get even less fuel and the privateers have more liberal aero regulations (e.g. wider splitter)

[S griffin]

The ACO are right not to give concessions to Toyota. They do have a weird way of going about it and I wonder if it is all worth it

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Irie

Well Toyota doesn't get concessions either - it's the other way round. They get even less fuel and the privateers have more liberal aero regulations (e.g. wider splitter)

Seemingly pegging back privateers with EOT may not be a concession, but it's obvious that Toyota, still being a factory team, still has the upper hand. I'd argue that it's the way it should be, but changing the EOT with giving privateer teams less power still on the surface/at face value still seems suspect.

Even if it's given that Toyota are supposed to be .5 of a second faster around LM at least on a flying lap, they have way more than that in hand based on the Spa results.

I know that the privateer cars should still have untapped potential, but even given that I would've held off on making any EOT changes until at least Spa or the test day vs the Prologue.

[TF110]

I have something to add, Rebellion said they were guessing how much fuel they were using. If you believe that then they will be better at using their maximum at the test day if they tested trialed that at Monza. I'm sure they will do their best to get the best out of it. Another thing is that Toyota had 6mj for 7km at Spa. They have 8mj for 13.6km for Le Mans. So a ratio of .85mj per km down to .58mj per km. The 'drop' of fuel allowance for the private teams is less than 2% meanwhile.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by TF110

I have something to add, Rebellion said they were guessing how much fuel they were using. If you believe that then they will be better at using their maximum at the test day if they tested trialed that at Monza. I'm sure they will do their best to get the best out of it. Another thing is that Toyota had 6mj for 7km at Spa. They have 8mj for 13.6km for Le Mans. So a ratio of .85mj per km down to .58mj per km. The 'drop' of fuel allowance for the private teams is less than 2% meanwhile.

That's kind of where I am at on this too. The data crunchers who've contributed on here have predicted that the privateer P1's will be very much more competitive at LM, in terms of lap times, than they were at Spa, so the adjustment should really come as no surprise. We're not privy to the data which is in the hands of the ACO, but my perception prior to the revelation was that an adjustment was inevitable. The surprise (to me), is that the adjustment isn't more.

Me, I'm relaxed about it...

[Aysedasi]

Moi aussi. No wringing of hands here...

[GT6]

Well in 3 weeks time we will know how they did at the test day and be waiting with baited breath for the first practice, always have a soft spot for rebellion as have all those who possess the team shirts given to us on our visit many years ago. I will as always be wearing mine on the saturday.

[Aysedasi]

Yep, I still have mine, pristine and unworn and unless I lose several stone, it never will be!