|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
17 Jun 2018, 20:38 (Ref:3831477) | #1676 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
|
||
|
17 Jun 2018, 20:45 (Ref:3831478) | #1677 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
It's an evolution of last years car. Of course it's as fast, and actually slightly faster than last years car. That's what happens - it wouldn't have gotten slower (that prize goes to Aston Martin).
It also fits with what we saw at Spa. 2 lap lead after 6 hours becomes 8 laps at Le Mans. Take off the time lost by Rebellion due to a couple of penalties and short garage stops and you have 8 laps. It's basically what everyone predicted would happen - and the LMP1s were, of course, pegged back after Spa too, thus negating the slight gain in energy per km that they would have gotten. And just to stop it off, turns out the stint length was a hard limit and not just a guideline. So despite posting my concerns about that, and being told I was wrong, scaremongering, not reading properly and listening to click bait, turns out it was true anyway? I don't want to seem like I'm on a downer over the event because as always I really really enjoyed Le Mans (and Toyota were not handed the victory - they most certainly earned it). But this was predictable - not necessarily the Toyota win (because you still need to beat Le Mans), but the performance gaps were exactly as most said they would be. A handful of people trying to justify any criticism as ACO-hating didn't change that. So now we head to Silverstone and we know things are off. If the ACO Want to keep it like that, that's fine - there's a good argument for the private cars shouldn't be able to battle the Toyotas for obvious reasons. But if they are going to pretend they are balancing it, and actually aiming for half a second, then they need to make some massive swings. |
|
|
17 Jun 2018, 21:07 (Ref:3831484) | #1678 | |
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 303
|
Looking ahead to the rest of the season, if we want some competition in LMP1 some drastic measures need to be taken. What is the main reason Toyota were so much quicker at Le Mans? Not works tyres, not works aero, not even works drivers. It's the fact that with the hybrid boost they accelerated more quickly than a Formula 1 car. That happened six or seven times per lap. Meanwhile the non-hybrids were slower than Indycars.
The hybrid power cap needs to come down from 300 kW to maybe 150 kW. This weekend they had that 300 kW for 26.67 seconds per lap.Meaning that they had four wheel drive and were around 200 hp up on the rest of the class for a good chunk of the lap. At Silverstone last year they had 5.37 MJ available per lap. At 300 kW that was 17.9 seconds, so at 150 kW that would be 35.8 seconds. Just a thought anyway. |
|
|
17 Jun 2018, 21:56 (Ref:3831501) | #1679 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 89
|
Very well reasoned post Akrapovic, difficult to disagree with anything you say
|
|
|
17 Jun 2018, 22:23 (Ref:3831511) | #1680 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
If you imagine you could in theory go over the stint fuel limit without necessarily overextending your fuel range, so that's why they're separate penalties. Last edited by carbsmith; 17 Jun 2018 at 22:29. |
||
|
18 Jun 2018, 03:22 (Ref:3831535) | #1681 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
There was a few times where Toyota only went 10 laps in a stint. If the fuel is set, and the refueling is set, the only way to increase the lap time is to be more efficient. No one should believe that these engines are nearly as good at that as Toyota's. They were even faster than the Porsche last year. There's no way the ACO didn't know about Toyota's capability rather it seems they expected more from the privateers. I did, that's for sure. They were able to get close to the 3:18's during the test day and practice sessions. I thought for certain they would up their pace even more. I don't know if 110kg/hr rather than 108kg/hr is really going to give them the pace to match Toyota. I doubt it. These cars are still pretty new, so maybe with a little more time they will challenge. We'll see what happens at Silverstone with their high downforce kits. But honestly Toyota's HD car is a record setter too. And if, like their LM-kit, it's even better this year then the non-hybrids might need more than just more fuel allowance.
|
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 10:01 (Ref:3831596) | #1682 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
There is too many "I think" and "I imagine" when it comes to this rule. I posted the exact wording of it and what it means and was told I was wrong because others interpreted it differently. But that isn't how rules work - you have to look at exactly what the rule says. The rule says they shouldn't go over 10 laps, and when they did (outside of a SC situation) they were punished. That is exactly what the rules say would happen, and exactly what happened. I don't think anyone is impressed with the current fuel regulation setup. We all understand why it's there, but we now have 3 rules governing the same thing (fuel tank size, fuel allocation per stint, and stint length), which all overlap and make it extremely complicated. And there's fuel flow as well, which breaks things further. I think we'd all agree that the rules setup needs to be simplified, and things like maximum stint lengths need to go. Quote:
Another thing not taken into account is the Toyotas incredible ability to deal with the traffic. The way it can slice through cars on short straights is mind-blowing, even 4 years after the introduction of the hybrids. It's maybe my favourite thing about the LMP1s - that savage torque from the hybrid that lets it deal with packs of cars in an instant and short space. We saw a toned down but similar balancing problem in IMSA when they balanced the DPs and LMP2s. The lap times were identical, but the DPs dominated because they had so much torque that they could deal with traffic easier. So balancing cars on a lap time doesn't work out when you introduce traffic. And of course we seen the Toyotas leaving the pit stops on electrical power, saving 2 seconds each stop - they let the cat out of the bag on that one with the wheels spinning in the air - the hybrid is engaged before the cars on the ground - something the private teams aren't allowed to do. I'm not arguing that the teams should be balanced. That's a different discussion altogether. There are perfectly good reasons why Toyota are winning, and without the EoT the gap would be larger. However, if we're going to sit and say "right the cars are being balanced", then it has to be done properly - because Le Mans was absolutely miles off. Everyone seen it coming, it was very predictable and it happened anyway. The gap at Spa was big, the private cars were then pegged back further, which negated any gain from the reduction in hybrid power per km, and the gap was the same as Spa. Add in the hard limit on stints and you get exactly what we saw. Not taking anything away from Toyota - they still had to win, and they didn't cruise. Not saying private teams should be able to beat (or even challenge) a factory car. But I am saying that if they are going to balance it and sell the class to privateers based on the promise of balance, then it needs to be done properly. The positive side is, that not one single LMP1 team was sandbagging. Everybody has been honest from the prologue onward, and we know 100% what the car's performances are now. So moving forward we should be able to see any improvement that the LMP1 teams make, and we have a unique situation of having two Le Mans in one season - so the next one there really is no excuse of missing that half a second target. And we'll now get to see the Manors at Silverstone. They have 2 months to work on the car, with a downforce kit they already have. So I'm hoping it can at least start to challenge the ByKolles. I'm sure they've learnt a lot (especially about things that didn't work!), so I have high hopes for Silverstone now. REALLY looking forward to the LMP1 battle at Silverstone, even if Toyota do drive off. |
|||
|
18 Jun 2018, 10:27 (Ref:3831600) | #1683 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
Can you point me to the regulations where it says that stint length can not be exceeded and that this is measured in the number of laps?
For the general people to know why the penalty it's easier to name this "stint length" penalty, but I'm 100% certain that this is based on fuel allowance per stint and not km driven in "race mode". Fuel usage penalty are actually two types, fuel per stint and energy (fuel) per lap, maybe just maybe "fuel usage penalty" is measured per lap fuel energy allowance and "stint length penalty" is stint fuel allowance. As @carbsmith noted per regulation there is min amount of fuel that must always be present in the car, so even if the car uses all the fuel that is alowed per stint it still has a litre or two of fuel so it doesn't get stranded. Last edited by GasperG; 18 Jun 2018 at 10:34. |
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 10:34 (Ref:3831601) | #1684 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
https://www.fia.com/file/67509/download?token=Qpm5Yckh In terms of stint length, in any case, the maximum number of ‘green’ laps (without safety car, slow zone(s) and not depending on track conditions) should not exceed 11 laps for LMP1H and 10 laps for LMP1NH in Le Mans 2018 race and 19 laps for LMP1H and 17 laps for LMP1NH in Spa 2018 race. http://www.dailysportscar.com/2018/0...ictorious.html Of note, the #7 Toyota served a 10 second stop and hold penalty for exceeding the allowable fuel on a previous stint. They received an additional 10 second stop and hold penalty for exceeding the maximum laps in a stint, the one where Kobayashi missed the pitlane and toured around the circuit saving fuel. The penalties did not affect the result. Neel Jani in the #1 also received a 10 second stop and hold for exceeding the allowable fuel on a stint. The #7, Rebellion received an additional penalty for exceeding the maximum amount of laps per stint. Again, it didn’t affect the results. They have issued penalties for both the fuel usage per stint and for the additional lap. These were different penalties for different rules. |
||
|
18 Jun 2018, 10:41 (Ref:3831602) | #1685 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
Thank you for clarifying, but I still don't understand why such a rule if you have regulated tank sizes.
|
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 12:43 (Ref:3831626) | #1686 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
I believe (but don't know), that it's the same reasons as SRO does it - it's an easy to balance the cars without having to work out all the fuel tank sizes for each engine.
Spa 24 has a mandated maximum stint length of 65 minutes and they also have minimum pit stop times. This means they don't need to bother adjusting fuel tank sizes for each car and don't need to bother with fuel fill rates during refuelling. They only have to adjust the air restrictor or turbo boost to mess with engine power, and not then have to readjust fuel tanks and fuel fill rates to get that back in line. This being the problem with balancing things - when you adjust one thing (in this case, engine power via fuel flow), you then knock out the amount of distance the car can go on a tank of fuel (and it's different for every car because they all have different engines), and the the time it takes to refuel said car. So then you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the tank size correctly, and then off of that you then need to adjust the fuel fill time for each tank size. And then you have the Manor issue - they ran in high drag, so use more fuel. So is the rate that the Manor used fuel at a good number to work off of? The amount of room for error is massive - any mistake at any point could knock one car quite far off. So the easiest way is just set a maximum stint length and that way you don't bother with fuel tank sizes and fuel refill rates. It's easy but it takes a lot away from the racing as you're essentially mandating the strategy everyone has to run. Hopefully, it's just a temporary measure until they work it out, because it was a complete mess. Same with the new pit stop regulations - it took a lot away from the two races. Changing that back would be a huge help and allow strategy to become important again. |
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 14:34 (Ref:3831657) | #1687 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,955
|
I am always a GT fan first and foremost, but WEC LMP did keep my interest pretty darn good in 2017. Even so far in 2018 to see if Toyota would break down and we could see a genuine privateer win a race overall. After seeing Toyota run flawlessly for 24 hours. I doubt 2 cars will run into major issues in any of the 3 remaining 6 hour races this year.
So yeah, GT is the only category of interest for the rest of this year in WEC I think. LMP is an after thought now at least until Sebring 2019. |
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 18:34 (Ref:3831713) | #1688 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
Now that we've got Le Mans out of the way, I'm hoping for a big change in the EoT. They've got to do something to make the racing in their top class more interesting. A Toyota 1-2 is already old news.
|
|
|
18 Jun 2018, 20:05 (Ref:3831747) | #1689 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
Quote:
|
||
|
18 Jun 2018, 22:03 (Ref:3831767) | #1690 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
#17 probably would have been in the 19s in the morning if it hadn't crashed out, anyways. I was under the impression Rebellion was cruising once the other privateers disappeared. With Toyotas laying down 17s that doesn't do much good though.
In earlier years the hybrid cars used to come back to the non-hybrids a bit from qualifying to race pace but that doesn't seem to much exist with the changes to energy deployment rates over the years. |
|
|
19 Jun 2018, 09:05 (Ref:3831837) | #1691 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
The test day is almost ideal conditions. Similar to qualifying you've got a half-empty track as half the grid is in the pits at any one time. You get nice clear runs. That's where these qualifying times come from. Then add in a qualifying simulation and that's where you're getting the 3:18s from. Come race day, you're not on qualifying runs, you spend the time on new tyres with a full tank, and you've got an entire grid of 60 cars to deal with as traffic. As said, the traffic is a bigger killer for the non-hybrids because they don't have the incredible torque to help them. You're not going to get qualifying style times in that situation, no matter what. The Toyota dropped off 2-3 seconds from its qualifying time, which is about normal. The LMP1 non-hybrids did too. Why would we expect anything different? Whilst I understand being disappointed that they weren't closer, it shouldn't be surprising. Any hope of them being closer required a massive jump in performance from Spa - not only to gain back 2 laps over 6 hours, but to also make up the extra from the pegging back they got after Spa. That's not going to happen for any private team. You're basically asking them to close the gap to a factory team, by several seconds, whilst being given less fuel to work with than they had previously. I don't know why anyone expected the gap to come down? Again I'm not saying Rebellion and SMP should be nagging the back of the Toyotas. That's a totally different discussion. But they said they'd get them within half a second and made changes contrary to achieving this. The result was very very predictable. So unless there is a huge swing for Silverstone, then this is what we'll have again. But again, the plus side is nobody sand bagged. ACO said anyone faster than Toyota would get a penalty and that's just an anti-sand rule really. Nobody hid anything and we knew what everyone had. It's a refreshing change from GTE really. So now if they really want to balance it, we have a perfect baseline to use. |
||
|
19 Jun 2018, 09:54 (Ref:3831843) | #1692 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I understand the criticism that the cars were not perfectly where they were supposed to be according to the stated EoT goals. But certain context should not be ignored (new cars, new procedure etcetera). Really the biggest 'problem' is that Toyota has run flawlessly for two races now with no mechanical trouble. As long as they keep doing that, any discussion about EoT is kind of moot.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2018, 10:25 (Ref:3831849) | #1693 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 199
|
I understand people complainig about privateers pace but I feel they were far less disapointed themselfves than the people on internet.
From the beginning the deal was that they get a unique chance to win just because there is only one manufacturer present and "wait there is more " it was Toyota. A big, big chance. So it was to be the fight between the privateers to be the best to capitalise. But Toyotas were amazing and ran flawlessly for 24 hours with zero technical problems. I think it was not often the case, even for Audi. So Toyota got their reward. Also they really went fast, quicker than last year. I think that it maybe helped that it was colder than last year. And with Porsche they would probably have more pressure, for drivers, cars and the whole team, more stress. Maybe a mistake would be more likely. Still I think, they would manage it this time. They were really better prepared. There was big pressure not to lose this time with only privateer opposition however. |
|
|
19 Jun 2018, 15:39 (Ref:3831908) | #1694 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Borrowing from another site, here's a quote talking about the advantage that Audi Sport with the Audi R8 and in '03 the Bentley Speed 8 had over the nearest true full-on privateer effort:
"Audi/Bentley beat the top opposition car gaps of 24, 23, 16, 17 and 18 laps for the first 5 years. It didn't get close until Audi was using an outdated car that was further hampered by penalties for being outside the latest regulation." So it can be argued that Audi Sport had at least as big an advantage over the privateers as Toyota this year. It also happened in the Porsche days, too. Like 1981 when the Porsche 936 beat the 2nd place Rondeau by nearly 15 laps. So it happens when you have 1, maybe 2, factory teams vs the privateers. So in this instance, I'd argue that Toyota were right on the money, especially given that they had no major issues and the Rebellions also lost some time with issues. |
||
|
19 Jun 2018, 18:09 (Ref:3831935) | #1695 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
Lots of teams improved their pace from the test day. The only lmp1's that did any real gains in lap time were Toyota and Ginetta. The SMP's gained a little bit, near a second but Toyota and Ginetta gained about 2 seconds. I guess you can say dragonspeed did too, but it's mostly because the car was a rebuild at the test day. We'll hopefully see closer pace at Silverstone. Maybe the aco will be generous with the eot.
|
|
|
19 Jun 2018, 21:41 (Ref:3831977) | #1696 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
A decade ago only two privateer cars managed to qualify within 10s of the pole sitting Peugeot despite 15 of them being entered in LMP1. This year there was 13.
|
|
|
20 Jun 2018, 18:14 (Ref:3832192) | #1697 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
“I am a huge advocate of separating car work and fueling,” Fehan said. “So the emphasis comes on to the crew. I want to see the same thing in America.
“I like it when the pit stop plays a role in how effectively you compete in the race. Where it’s more than just a driver in the car, it’s the whole team that has a role. “The unintended consequence of that is that it encourages less tire usage. Because now you really have to ask yourself, ‘Should I keep the set of tires on, or should I take the time to put a new set on?’… I like that.” Corvette gets it. Doug Fehan is absolutely spot on. http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/f...dained-racing/ It's basically everything we've said in this forum. If you BoP everything, then make sure everyone runs an identical strategy, then nobody can do anything. I also stopped short before of saying that I believe these strategy calls is how Corvette manages to be fighting at the end despite never being the ultimately fastest car, but I suspect one reason Doug has said this is that's probably the case. |
|
|
21 Jun 2018, 01:24 (Ref:3832237) | #1698 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
|
Quote:
I do understand what you are saying, and I agree on it. That would make for the far more interesting races. However, BOP in a cost conscious category is supposed to hide the technical deficiencies of the various platforms that come to race. GTE is not an open development class and it should stay that way otherwise cost goes out of control If you say that everyone has an 80 Liter fuel tank, and no balancing of stint length, then the Ford and Ferrari win Le Mans every year. If you say that tires and refueling cannot happen at the same time, then cars with tire wear advantage due to the platform (Ferrari) can win. See Nürburgring race last year. When the intent of the category is to use the BOP to hide technical deficiencies and allow all of these different platforms to be competitive (front engine, mid engine, rear engine, small front area, big frontal area), then no one should have an efficiency advantage. Now I do think GTE has unfortunately been boxed into a corner in the name of cost. What can you really do? This is what happens when cost matters. If GTE was open development, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the class would kill itself once cost got out of hand. Last edited by Articus; 21 Jun 2018 at 01:35. |
||
|
21 Jun 2018, 02:02 (Ref:3832242) | #1699 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
If only GTE was actually remotely cost effective.
|
|
|
21 Jun 2018, 16:00 (Ref:3832353) | #1700 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2018 VASC Silly Season (with POLL) | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 2074 | 19 Oct 2018 05:49 |
[Driver] 2018 F1 silly season. | F1Guy | Formula One | 1204 | 16 Sep 2018 23:44 |
WEC round 8: Six Hours of Bahrain---WEC season finale. | chernaudi | ACO Regulated Series | 212 | 23 Nov 2015 22:17 |
Hockenheim secures new deal until 2018 | jab | Formula One | 13 | 2 Oct 2009 00:25 |