[WEC Race] 2018 6 Hours of Silverstone

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by villeneuve

Regarding the thing the Toyotas were disqualified for I hate ride height limitations since I first heard of them as a child when they were introduced during the 1994 F1 season. Cars running as low as technically possible look much better and disqualifications like yesterday's wouldn't occur.

But then you introduce other safety issues with cars bottoming out.

Ride height infringements are easy to avoid. Just raise the car. Sure, it makes it probably slower and not so good on it's tyres, but if you're several seconds a lap faster than everyone else, that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Unless that's the reason you're several seconds a lap quicker, of course, in which case you deserve to be disqualified compared with someone who didn't take that risk.

[GT6]

i would say the attendance was certainly higher this year car parks were full on sunday and even on friday and saturday there seemed to be more people around. The circuit buses were as usual totally over inadequate for the people wanting to use them, especially on friday when there appeared to be only two in use. The only other complaint was that the wing had put the prices of breakfast up conciderably from last year.

[Sodemo]

Had the organisers also erected sheeting around the "loop" area of the track so that you can't spectate there and also closed all the photographer "holes" in the fence? So nice of them to do that...

[Aysedasi]

There was only a relatively small area of green sheeting and although one of the windows was shut early on Friday, they were all open again during the weekend from what I could see.

[Aysedasi]

I had a really enjoyable three days, but I approach events like this on a less 'technical' basis than some others. I'm one of those who still loves Silverstone. I had very enjoyable company for three days, ate some decent (if expensive) food, curried both evenings and stayed pretty warm throughout. I hugely enjoyed my son's girlfriend's delight at experiencing her first race meeting. Worth the ticket price for that alone. Yes, the disqualifications do the championship and the organisers no good at all, but I can't argue against the 'rules is rules' position. Oh and I've officially now decided not to read anything more about it on FB where the negativity level is high as a kite and Toyota are an utter disgrace for having the gall to remain in the WEC...... Memories are so short.....


Oh and kudos to the one eaterie behind the main straight grandstands who were able to provide son's girlfriend with a gluten free meal. (The first one you came to walking from Club).

[Akrapovic]

Just a thought, but if Toyota think the new Silverstone bumps and kerbs are causing issues, then Sebring might be a reality check for them.

[Peter Mallett]

I think that was mentioned by Midweek Motorsport earlier.

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I hugely enjoyed my son's girlfriend's delight at experiencing her first race meeting. Worth the ticket price for that alone.

This reminds me of my daughter's reaction on her first visit to LM this year. I really wasn't sure what she would make of it, and neither was she. She has just about no interest in motor racing. We got to the terraces outside the first turn at 10pm on the Wednesday night just as the field left the pits for the first qualifying session and she was wide eyed and grinning like a fool immediately.

Even more so when they came around at full speed.

Needless to say, she wants to go back.

[Aysedasi]

Just so Mike. Son's girlfriend now wants to go to Le Mans!

[Mike E]

we should be getting commission.

[tux]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Just a thought, but if Toyota think the new Silverstone bumps and kerbs are causing issues, then Sebring might be a reality check for them.

Yeah, before this weekend they said they might not test at Sebring because they were able to validate all of their loading information at Portimao, I’m sure that will change now though.

[andrewn7]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Still baffled at people moaning about the ACO here. The other option is we stop DQ'ing illegal cars, at which point we might as well throw the rule book out.

Because it is an FIA decision you mean?

[Akrapovic]

No, because whether the FIA or ACO writes the rules if the rules say X and the car doesn't conform to that. that isn't the rules fault or the writer of said rules - that's the team.

Obviously, common sense has to be applied to that, and if 20 cars got DQ'd then sure, something is up. But in this case, Toyota suffered the same issue on both cars - something no other prototype suffered. That's a car issue, not a rules issue.

Same about G-Drive at Le Mans. They modified the fuel rig and got caught. That's a team issue, not a rules issue. The difference there is it appears they did it on purpose, whilst we assume the Toyota problem was accidental and caused by the new bumpy surface and kerbs.

I don't agree telling the drivers to stay off the kerbs is the solution. That means your car could be broken by being forced onto a kerb by a backmarker. The car should be able to take that sort of running. They learnt that lesson with a clutch that only worked in very specific circumstances.

Edit: Let's put it this way. I understand exactly why people are unhappy - the results don't reflect what we all watched. But what exactly should the ACO (or FIA, or whoever) have done with illegal cars? What did they (ACO/FIA) do wrong, and what could they do better?

[chernaudi]

It can be argued that a fine or points penalties (like NASCAR or Indy Car) may be appropriate if the ACO/the team in question can prove no intent to break the rules. But how would the ACO legislate intent?

I do believe that fines or points penalties ought to be issued for minor infractions or for rules that are open to interpretation, but if a rule's black or white, there should be some kind of set penalty. Same thing for stuff like track limits IMO.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It can be argued that a fine or points penalties (like NASCAR or Indy Car) may be appropriate if the ACO/the team in question can prove no intent to break the rules. But how would the ACO legislate intent?

I do believe that fines or points penalties ought to be issued for minor infractions or for rules that are open to interpretation, but if a rule's black or white, there should be some kind of set penalty. Same thing for stuff like track limits IMO.

The NASCAR system is ridiculous because you can run the most illegal car possible and keep the win. If it comes down to intent then it's hard to argue that because there are no solid facts. Even G-Drive can say it wasn't their intent - they read the rule book differently.

The car is either legal or illegal. Taking into account intent just opens it up to abuse.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Had the organisers also erected sheeting around the "loop" area of the track so that you can't spectate there and also closed all the photographer "holes" in the fence? So nice of them to do that...

There was advertising sheeting covering fences, but in fairness the stands were open above at least some of these areas (Village, Becketts) though not Copse.

There’s only one photo gap I know of, facing Becketts just as the cars turn onto Hanger Straight. That was open but the Total advertising on the fence beneath the grandstand spoiled the shot.

It was good to get into Village, Club and Becketts grandstands, though why only half of the last two of those were open, I have no idea.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The NASCAR system is ridiculous because you can run the most illegal car possible and keep the win. If it comes down to intent then it's hard to argue that because there are no solid facts. Even G-Drive can say it wasn't their intent - they read the rule book differently.

The car is either legal or illegal. Taking into account intent just opens it up to abuse.

As I asked, how would one legislate intent? You really can't in reality. Mind you, I think that the legality plank is a stupid feature that only adds ballast to a car. Why not mandate an actual minimum right height for LMPs aside from that fact that it's only a static measurement that can only be measured when the car's at rest?

You do have to remember that the ACO, prior to Silverstone in 2011, didn't even check wear/damage to the skids previous to that date, and they had been around since 2004 on some cars and 2006 on all LMPs outside of the Audi R8 and Lola B160s that got grandfathered for the ALMS that year.

I also don't think that deflection was a big issue with the wider front floors used 2013 and earlier.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

As I asked, how would one legislate intent? You really can't in reality. Mind you, I think that the legality plank is a stupid feature that only adds ballast to a car. Why not mandate an actual minimum right height for LMPs aside from that fact that it's only a static measurement that can only be measured when the car's at rest?

Because the ride height of a car lowers at speed with the downforce acting upon the car. So all you'd have then is a car that sits at a legal ride height when static, but it's actually completely illegal when in motion. In such a case then you'd end up teams engineering a way for the cars ride height to decrease even more at speed.

If you choose to measure the ride height as static only and ignore what happens at speed, then you might as well remove the minimum ride height completely as it becomes meaningless.

[chernaudi]

IMO, it doesn't matter since one, GTE cars have a minimum ride height without the skid, and two, one of the GTE Pro Porsches got DQ'd for being below minimum ride height.

I know that comparing GT cars to Prototypes is mostly apples to oranges, but if a GT car flunked the ride height rule, who's to say that a prototype couldn't.

I also don't believe this to be a problem if we went back to the wider front floors from 2013 and earlier.

I'm also confused as to why the ACO sanctioned WEC and ELMS have had more penalties and DQ's than IMSA though they follow (broadly) the same rule book. If there a difference in how the ACO and IMSA enforce their rules or are the European/WEC teams pushing things more than their IMSA brethren, or both or is something else going on?

Like with rule breaking in NASCAR, this is almost becoming a bad joke.

[Akrapovic]

Just because a GTE Porsche was too low, doesn't mean that the LMP rules are ineffective. GTE cars are heavier and produce less downforce, so have less difference between loaded and unloaded ride heights.

A wider floor would move the plank away from the centre of the corners, but then it makes the cars more sensitive to sideways motion again. That's reintroducing a safety issue in order to deal with a single disqualification of a car. Why would you change the entire architecture of the vehicle to try and stop this, when the real fix is either re-engineer the car to survive the impacts or raise the ride height?

I'm really not sure what the discussion is here. The car failed the standard plank wear test, yeah? Toyota say it's because it took too much of a beating on the kerbs. Now it's Toyotas job to go back and make sure the car can survive such a beating. Quite why this requires a change in the rules or the way the rules are applied, I don't know.

The over-reaction to this has been weird, just because it was the lead cars. The rules apply to everyone and nobody said Rebellion should just pay a fine for the Spa issue, or the rules should be changed so it doesn't happen.

[TF110]

I think this just took them off guard and they probably ran the same tolerance as before. That's what their PR says, it's been the same since 2017 so over a year now. The thing that changed is Silverstone's bumpiness and the curbs. I'm sure they know the tolerances now and will change accordingly. As for comparing it to the F1 race, that's not even a third of the length so the wear rate for those cars (which are lighter btw) would be accordingly less.

Concerning the rest of the wec rounds, I don't think this hurts them for Sebring either. Partially because they learned from this race and because there's going to be a test before the race takes place. They said they wouldn't have to do a private test there but they didn't say they wouldn't take part in the public test that's seemingly scheduled before the 1000 mile race.

Away from Toyota, I want to know if the ACO now goes back and applies more friendly EOT to the non-hybrids before Fuji. I would count on it. But it seems the weight limit going lower is not the most beneficial since some of these cars are near their limit. I would guess the fuel flow will increase along with tank size or allowance.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

That's still not going to make up the difference though. I have to admit I did not think the Toyota would be breaking it's own records this year, they've just built a rocketship that even Porsche couldn't beat on speed. And now it's reliable too. Only the team part is failing them now

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think this just took them off guard and they probably ran the same tolerance as before. That's what their PR says, it's been the same since 2017 so over a year now. The thing that changed is Silverstone's bumpiness and the curbs. I'm sure they know the tolerances now and will change accordingly. As for comparing it to the F1 race, that's not even a third of the length so the wear rate for those cars (which are lighter btw) would be accordingly less.

Concerning the rest of the wec rounds, I don't think this hurts them for Sebring either. Partially because they learned from this race and because there's going to be a test before the race takes place. They said they wouldn't have to do a private test there but they didn't say they wouldn't take part in the public test that's seemingly scheduled before the 1000 mile race.

Away from Toyota, I want to know if the ACO now goes back and applies more friendly EOT to the non-hybrids before Fuji. I would count on it. But it seems the weight limit going lower is not the most beneficial since some of these cars are near their limit. I would guess the fuel flow will increase along with tank size or allowance.

Agree with all this. The car survived last year, and they probably didn't think the resurface would be that big a deal. If you want to take positives from it, it's good they found out now than the car survived Silverstone and then this happened at Sebring - a potentially bigger round.

I also think they'll get a fuel flow increase and fuel allowance increase, but that'll be a reluctant increase as that's against what the whole efficiency drive is about. But no matter what you do, you just won't see that gap come down. Maybe in qualifying where the track is clearer, but not in the race. And it'll vary track to track too. Fuji with long straights and long corners might bring the gap down a bit - but Sebring, the gap will go up. It's filled with all these little bits where the hybrid power will squirt by a GTE/LMP2, and the LMP1 non-hybrid will have to wait.

Balancing wildly different tech like this may just not be possible. It could be the only way you can do it is produce a standardise hybrid unit for privateers they can plug in. BTCC is doing it, so it's not too much of a fantasy.

[outnumbered]

Some random notes based on earlier posts:

There were 2 open photographers windows on the outside of Village. It'd be nice to have a few more...

Ben Hanley was complaining a lot about the handing of the Dragonspeed #10 contributing to their lack of speed, and with good reason - it looked absolutely horrible at the end of the hangar straight, pogoing up and down on the ripples. The SMP looked similarly bouncy, where the Rebellions and Toyotas seemed to have a much softer setup.

I used to be very critical of the spectating experience at Silverstone WEC, but I think it improves yearly. The food is much better, (if still expensive) there are more screens now and more grandstands open. I agree they could do with a lot more buses, or an access tunnel near the Wing as it is a long old walk over there.

Overall it was a great spectacle as ever, but the race was a bit disappointing. The privateer P1 battle never really happened, P2 and GTE Pro wasn't as close as it has been in the past.

[The Fat Clerk]

All this fuss about Toyota breaking the rules and getting caught, imagine how much more fuss would have been made if Alonso had been driving it?