[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[tyronnezx]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Well it is interesting to see that you obviously think that the Porsche team are a bunch of drooling morons that did no set-up work at all and just floored their car to try and get around as fast as possible.
Talk about a lack of humility and respect for Porsche's racing history.

I never called them Morons. Im guessing each team had a different focus at the prologue and it was convenient for Toyota to have a slight different one than Porsche to not show their hand this early on. Don't be twisting my words now

[Hiro]

According to as-web.jp, #1 had oil leak trouble in pit early in the Sat morning session. In afternoon session, #2 Conway was (accidentally) blocked by Ferrari and hit the curb and jumped. The front section under MGU got damaged and was smoking, then stopped.

[insane014]

Those who think that Toyota is sandbagin' are being quite optimistic.

I think they are paying the price for going evolutionary route too much just like two years ago. Definitely paying the price for not stepping up and opting for 8MJ setup.

[Articus]

All I can say is I would be stunned if Toyota was not on the pace at Silverstone.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by insane014

Those who think that Toyota is sandbagin' are being quite optimistic.

No, just sensible. They have apparently done 1:36s in testing.

Plus, all of the Toyota people kept stressing how they were just running their program, not even worrying about setting lap times.

History is repeating itself: Look at the 2014 prologue results, Toyota was behind Porsche in every single session. We know how the season went. They simply see no reason to show off in a test..let Porsche have the headlines

[Hiro]

Someone gives us lap time comparison charts here, which are really good.

Toyota fans should not be so optimistic but no need to be worried. Charts indicate balance of big 3 (except quali-simulation laps) is quite similar to last year.

Anyway we really dont know it before silverston quali.

[TF110]

Do you recall what Toyota said last year? They ran with old used tires during the prologue, and limited their pace. They ran always close to full tanks of fuel and did no qualifying runs..

[TF110]

Heres two pics showing the difference of high and low d/f-

High downforce car has the wider gap in the splitter opening and curved diveplanes


Low d/f car with flat diveplanes and the width of the splitter opening isn't as wide

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by tyronnezx

I never called them Morons. Im guessing each team had a different focus at the prologue and it was convenient for Toyota to have a slight different one than Porsche to not show their hand this early on. Don't be twisting my words now

re read my post ...very slowly.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I struggle a bit to understand the interest in sandbagging at this year's Prologue. If that's what Toyota have been doing, aren't they unnecessarily making their life more complicated ? Wouldn't you want to take such an opportunity to make a direct comparison with the competition, rather than trying to draw conclusions from an indirect comparison of performance levels with cars running in greatly different meteorological conditions ? It is always quite windy at Paul Ricard at this time of the year and this greatly affects aerodynamic efficiency, surely making indirect comparisons more difficult.

Porsche and Audi have also focused on their own test programme and I would expect that they paid little attention to what Toyota or their other competitor was doing. In any event, if there is something that one manufacturer has no influence on, that's the performance levels of the competition. They can't do much about it. And the start of the season is in less than two weeks.

Now, it is true that we basically had a similar picture at the Prologue last year.

As for the 1:36s allegedly run by Toyota in testing, that rumour is not consistent with what had previously transpired, namely a 2sec per lap improvement at the Paul Ricard, which would rather put them at 1:39s. But who knows ?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Heres two pics showing the difference of high and low d/f-

High downforce car has the wider gap in the splitter opening and curved diveplanes


Low d/f car with flat diveplanes and the width of the splitter opening isn't as wide

Many thanks for that TF110. That helps because those differences were not so evident.

[Spyderman]

Thank you for a slice of sanity.

[Hiro]

As-web.jp Murata said rivals fastest lap times at Ricard were about ones they expected.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I struggle a bit to understand the interest in sandbagging at this year's Prologue. If that's what Toyota have been doing, aren't they unnecessarily making their life more complicated ? Wouldn't you want to take such an opportunity to make a direct comparison with the competition, rather than trying to draw conclusions from an indirect comparison of performance levels with cars running in greatly different meteorological conditions ? It is always quite windy at Paul Ricard at this time of the year and this greatly affects aerodynamic efficiency, surely making indirect comparisons more difficult.

Porsche and Audi have also focused on their own test programme and I would expect that they paid little attention to what Toyota or their other competitor was doing. In any event, if there is something that one manufacturer has no influence on, that's the performance levels of the competition. They can't do much about it. And the start of the season is in less than two weeks.

Now, it is true that we basically had a similar picture at the Prologue last year.

As for the 1:36s allegedly run by Toyota in testing, that rumour is not consistent with what had previously transpired, namely a 2sec per lap improvement at the Paul Ricard, which would rather put them at 1:39s. But who knows ?

The rumor was 2-3 seconds per lap faster in testing. Knowing that Toyota was not running their full pace at the prologue last year, its not hard to believe they were doing 1:40's and 1:39's in 2014 in their tests. A 2-3 second gain this year would see a 1:37 or 1:36. Why make a qualifying sim during a public test? You think its necessary? Maybe Porsche do and Toyota dont. Maybe they ran harder tires or older tires. Test times dont mean anything, Silverstone times do

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The rumor was 2-3 seconds per lap faster in testing. Knowing that Toyota was not running their full pace at the prologue last year, its not hard to believe they were doing 1:40's and 1:39's in 2014 in their tests. A 2-3 second gain this year would see a 1:37 or 1:36. Why make a qualifying sim during a public test? You think its necessary? Maybe Porsche do and Toyota dont. Maybe they ran harder tires or older tires. Test times dont mean anything, Silverstone times do

That makes a lot of "assumptions" and "ifs", but I do fully agree with your last sentence

[gustavobamba]

If TOYOTA, PORSCHE and AUDI do proper qualifying times they should be all closer in the 1:37/8 range… but at the prologue only Porsche do it… the other 2 where working in race pace.

[J Jay]

Whatever Toyota, Porsche and Audi were doing it looks like all three are pleased with what they managed at the prologue, regardless of what it looked like to people on the outside.

When the flag drops and all that...

[tomazy]

Another assumptions here, if we asume that the program for every team was the same this year as last year, the results are the folowing.

Porshe improved its best lap by 4,069s (2014=1:41.289 (on a stint of 7 timed laps), 2015=1:37.220 (2 timed laps))
Audi by 3,015s (2014=1:42.073 (2 timed laps), 2015=1:39.058 (24 timed laps))
Toyota by 2,407s (2014=1:42.356 (5 timed laps), 2015=1:39.949 (3 timed laps))

Another useles statistic I know.


Edited my post for more data.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by tomazy

Another assumptions here, if we asume that the program for every team was the same this year as last year, the results are the folowing.

Porshe improved its best lap by 4,069s
Audi by 3,015s
Toyota by 2,407s

Another useles statistic I know.

I find this quite interesting actually

[tyronnezx]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I struggle a bit to understand the interest in sandbagging at this year's Prologue. If that's what Toyota have been doing, aren't they unnecessarily making their life more complicated ? Wouldn't you want to take such an opportunity to make a direct comparison with the competition, rather than trying to draw conclusions from an indirect comparison of performance levels with cars running in greatly different meteorological conditions ?

Blatant sandbagging is unnessary but may be a side effect of focusing on a specific program as mentioned in many posts. Silverstone is two weeks away, so suppose if Toyota were to find themselves slow at the prologue after running qualifying runs like Porsche, or in two weeks time at silverstone. It makes little difference in respect to the action plan they will have to come up with to win the race they want to win the most in June.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I struggle a bit to understand the interest in sandbagging at this year's Prologue. If that's what Toyota have been doing, aren't they unnecessarily making their life more complicated ? Wouldn't you want to take such an opportunity to make a direct comparison with the competition, rather than trying to draw conclusions from an indirect comparison of performance levels with cars running in greatly different meteorological conditions ? ...

Porsche and Audi have also focused on their own test programme and I would expect that they paid little attention to what Toyota or their other competitor was doing. In any event, if there is something that one manufacturer has no influence on, that's the performance levels of the competition. They can't do much about it. And the start of the season is in less than two weeks.

Now, it is true that we basically had a similar picture at the Prologue last year.

As for the 1:36s allegedly run by Toyota in testing, that rumour is not consistent with what had previously transpired, namely a 2sec per lap improvement at the Paul Ricard, which would rather put them at 1:39s. But who knows ?

This is testing not racing... there is too much tests possible, to win, it doesn't suffice being the fastest per lap or the 'top speeder' ... tire ware, how many laps you can do per stint, reliability, are equally as important... tough in Le Mans usually who is the fastest (and reliable) tend to win... besides PR is a mix circuit, not exactly a low DF(speedy) circuit, neither a high DF (twisted) circuit, so to test many variants you can't focus only on speed...

And Toyota did make it into 1.39s in day1 morning ( i think Buemi 1.39:949s), after that everybody improved their times except Toyota (see it in http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/index.html ) ... suspect they were sandbagging a little... its a mix calculation really, since PR is exquisite... at a point everybody was sandbagging a little ( as example Audi runs with an obvious high DF bias which is not the most appropriate), kind of intentionally to preserve the FIA/ACO odd calculations for the 'balancing of performances' based on stated efficiencies ( can't pass 2% of the declared numbers, from which those abhorrent 'factors' are calculated 'a priori', and enforced by engine torque measurements in every official session), and not intentionally also, but as an effect of having to test for every other circuit from PR ( only Porsche seems very well balanced for the circuit, just like last year... though PR is hardly a sure indicative for every other circuit ).

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Hiro

As-web.jp Murata said rivals fastest lap times at Ricard were about ones they expected.

Damage control ... i think rival lap times, considering that it is PR and everybody might be sandbagging a little as exposed (for many reasons, not by shadows exclusivelly as bluff -> this is not poker), i think rival times specially Porsche's, might had been higher than Toyota's expectations... tough the gap is not by shadows as high as it seems, for Toyota is now high concentration time, they can't facilitate in any way...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

That makes a lot of "assumptions" and "ifs", but I do fully agree with your last sentence

There is no assumption that Toyota didnt run their best at last year's prologue. They admitted it. Mostly full fuel, old tires, no qualifying sim. Then you saw how much faster they actually were than Audi and Porsche who led the Prologue last year. It was close to a second a lap over a stint.

Originally Posted by hcl123

Damage control ... i think rival lap times, considering that it is PR and everybody might be sandbagging a little as exposed (for many reasons, not by shadows exclusivelly as bluff -> this is not poker), i think rival times specially Porsche's, might had been higher than Toyota's expectations... tough the gap is not by shadows as high as it seems, for Toyota is now high concentration time, they can't facilitate in any way...

What damage? Porsche was fastest at the Prologue last year too. Audi and Toyota didn't mind.

[tomazy]

If we are comparing last years prologue with this yers one, lets do it with numbers. Last year fastest lap from Toyota was 1.067s slower than the best lap overall. This year, the gap was 2.729s.

So Toyota was running even more fuel and even older tires?

Dont get me wrong, I belive that Toyota is sandbagig big time, but on the other hand, I am a bit worried for them.

TF110 you would be probably happier, if Toyota did Porshes lap times right?

[TF110]

According to other sources, they already beat Porsche's lap time It would be nice to see, but it probably wouldn't change much. I think the cars are going to be breaking records, a little suspense of who is where is fine with me. No one knows what Toyota was really doing, but its not hard to lift or run to a delta.