WEC Porsche Prototype Discussion - Page 170

jimclark · 16 May 2014, 03:28 (Ref:3406830)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

Sadly, I completely expect people in fifty years to come will be saying the same about now.

Wondering what Porsche will be writing underneath their wing. 'See you later' ?

Understood.

jimclark · 16 May 2014, 03:37 (Ref:3406832)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyderman

My apologies! I'm a little dense today.

TodAy????

Spyderman · 16 May 2014, 05:24 (Ref:3406842)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Yes.
I would guess they tested the new front drive shaft and messed with the wiring to make sure they don't have electrical issues again.

The "electrical issues" was due to a crash sensor that was set too conservatively. They were going to be reviewed.

Spyderman · 16 May 2014, 05:25 (Ref:3406843)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimclark

TodAy????

Well..OK...everyday.

Spyderman · 16 May 2014, 05:31 (Ref:3406844)

Doesn't sound to me that they will do the Paul Ricard test.

CyberMotor · 16 May 2014, 12:32 (Ref:3406916)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

and messed with the wiring to make sure they don't have electrical issues again.

Wonder if they ran over a bunch of the curbs in testing?

Simmi · 16 May 2014, 14:12 (Ref:3406945)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

Wonder if they ran over a bunch of the curbs in testing?

Good point. If you muller the kerbs at Ford Chicane that's a long way to crawl back around if the same problem strikes again.

CyberMotor · 17 May 2014, 04:30 (Ref:3407134)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simmi

Good point. If you muller the kerbs at Ford Chicane that's a long way to crawl back around if the same problem strikes again.

Am I correct in that they thought that running over the curbs/kerbs at Spa caused both the broken axles and the overly conservative crash sensor that triggered the false alarm? If so, it seems that hitting the curbs/kerbs hard in testing would be a good test. If they survive, test passed. If not, then it will be strict instructions to the drivers to stay off the curbs/kerbs at Le Mans, I would think.

TF110 · 17 May 2014, 05:16 (Ref:3407140)

Well, there goes the ford and dunlop chicanes. I dont think its a quick fix. If its suspension related it could be a fundamental problem. But I hope its not that deeply rooted.

Spyderman · 17 May 2014, 05:56 (Ref:3407147)

It was the front drive shaft that broke. They had already identified the issue and had stronger parts in the pipeline before Spa. They fitted them after Spa and tested them successfully at Aragon.

TF110 · 17 May 2014, 06:31 (Ref:3407152)

And what of the sensor issue?

Spyderman · 17 May 2014, 07:07 (Ref:3407157)

Hitzinger said that they were reviewing them too.

NelisB · 17 May 2014, 07:57 (Ref:3407162)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

And what of the sensor issue?

That probably need recalibrating to set it less sensitive.

Spyderman · 17 May 2014, 08:59 (Ref:3407182)

What I find more worrisome is that other weaknesses were detected and that they would "try"and fix them before Le Mans. This is not too comforting to hear. There is no "try"; Just "do". On the other hand, we don't know what these issue were/are. Hopefully they are small issues that are controllable/manageable.

CyberMotor · 17 May 2014, 22:40 (Ref:3407352)

It seems the bottom line is that the 919 is fast but fragile. It is, though, a new car so much of this is quite understandable.

I think many of us were thinking that Porsche would get it perfect on the first try. They have done very well but are mortal like the rest.

Deleted · 20 May 2014, 16:22 (Ref:3408285)

New weekly miniseries of Webber's journey to LM
http://www.redbull.com/en/motorsport...mans-webisode1

dbagtbag · 21 May 2014, 14:41 (Ref:3408697)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

It seems the bottom line is that the 919 is fast but fragile. It is, though, a new car so much of this is quite understandable.

I think many of us were thinking that Porsche would get it perfect on the first try. They have done very well but are mortal like the rest.

Not to mention the people that are doing the 919 are almost a completely different set of engineers than those who did the legends in the past. Not to say they can't do it, they are just simply different talents working differently.

Bandicoot17 · 21 May 2014, 14:50 (Ref:3408703)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyderman

What I find more worrisome is that other weaknesses were detected and that they would "try"and fix them before Le Mans. This is not too comforting to hear. There is no "try"; Just "do". On the other hand, we don't know what these issue were/are. Hopefully they are small issues that are controllable/manageable.

Better to say this than come out and say you will fix it, then have the issue at LM.

The electronic sensitivity may be something do do with the fire that affected the car in testing. Better to err on the side of caution till you know it is safe than ruin a car.

Articus · 21 May 2014, 21:37 (Ref:3408817)

I think some people are reading too much into "try and fix this"...
This is just business. They identify a weakness and redesign. Maybe it makes the car stronger, maybe it doesn't. It's not like they will go into the race with a car that they know will break at hour 13, and 30 seconds...They fully expect it to go the distance. Why shouldn't it?

J Jay · 21 May 2014, 22:48 (Ref:3408826)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyderman

What I find more worrisome is that other weaknesses were detected and that they would "try"and fix them before Le Mans. This is not too comforting to hear. There is no "try"; Just "do". On the other hand, we don't know what these issue were/are. Hopefully they are small issues that are controllable/manageable.

As a Manchester United fan, I could give you lectures on how utterly depressing that word can be, but in this case I think it's used correctly. There is no doubt Porsche are putting everything into this effort, they're just being realistic about the unseen issues that only full-blooded race conditions will reveal. Just ask Toyota and Peugeot ...

CyberMotor · 22 May 2014, 02:16 (Ref:3408848)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

The electronic sensitivity may be something do do with the fire that affected the car in testing.

I disagree. While watching the Spa broadcast, there was a message that went out from the Porsche camp during the live broadcast to the drivers to avoid hitting the curbs too hard. It seems doing so had a dual affect of breaking axles and triggering the conservatively-set crash sensor.

Articus · 22 May 2014, 04:36 (Ref:3408861)

Perhaps what he means is that events during the fire caused them to make this safety device more sensitive?

nkoske · 22 May 2014, 05:19 (Ref:3408862)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Articus

I think some people are reading too much into "try and fix this"...
This is just business. They identify a weakness and redesign. Maybe it makes the car stronger, maybe it doesn't. It's not like they will go into the race with a car that they know will break at hour 13, and 30 seconds...They fully expect it to go the distance. Why shouldn't it?

Agree. I'd bet every time a team like Porsche, Audi, Toyota, etc... tests, they find flaws to fix. Hell it probably happens every time they run the car.

All I think we can read into Porsche tests finding flaws is that they're testing and testing a lot. The whole point of tests is to find flaws and make them better.

Spyderman · 22 May 2014, 05:24 (Ref:3408863)

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Jay

As a Manchester United fan, I could give you lectures on how utterly depressing that word can be, but in this case I think it's used correctly. There is no doubt Porsche are putting everything into this effort, they're just being realistic about the unseen issues that only full-blooded race conditions will reveal. Just ask Toyota and Peugeot ...

As a Benfica fan, I sympathize completely.
The issues I was referring to are not "unseen issues" but rather ones that were further identified. They are a known quantity.
My problem with the use of the word "try" is not so much that I doubt that Porsche are putting everything into it, but rather that it may indicate issues that are too complex or too big to fix (properly) within the short time span before Le Mans.

Hopefully the usage of the word was not meant to telegraph any major problems.

Spyderman · 22 May 2014, 05:36 (Ref:3408864)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Articus

I think some people are reading too much into "try and fix this"...
This is just business. They identify a weakness and redesign. Maybe it makes the car stronger, maybe it doesn't. It's not like they will go into the race with a car that they know will break at hour 13, and 30 seconds...They fully expect it to go the distance. Why shouldn't it?

I sincerely hope that you are correct.
Again: The issue here is in the way the press release was written. A different wording such as: " further issues were identified and we will work to fix them..." communicates confidence and I certainly would not have questioned it further. Normal testing procedure.
Choosing to use the word "try" telegraphs a difficult challenge.
Lets hope that it was just a poor choice of words.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Are there any differnces between a Porsche carerra cup Porsche and GT3 class Porsche?	SALEEN S7R	Sportscar & GT Racing	25	6 Feb 2008 21:06
New Porsche prototype (merged threads)	BSchneiderFan	Sportscar & GT Racing	265	5 Sep 2006 11:29
What is the differnce between the Porsche 996 and Porsche 911 GT3'rs?	SALEEN S7R	Sportscar & GT Racing	12	28 Mar 2003 11:36
Joest Porsche VS Factory Porsche	H16	Sportscar & GT Racing	10	20 Dec 2001 14:07