[WEC] 2018-2019 WEC Super Season

[Adam43]

You can help by storing them in ideal conditions (dark, good temperature). I wonder if they are.

Of cours, it may not be important over these time scales? I didn’t really follow the outrage about the Continental tyres, wasn’t the suggest that these were over a year old?

[Akrapovic]

Could also argue that providing the tyre isn't dangerous if it's a spec tyre series then who cares if it's slow and awful to use - everyone is on the same tyre, so it doesn't make a difference.

There was a suggestion that one of the Daytona tyres Conti used was over a year old yeah. They originally ran the old Hoosier stuff from the DP days with new stickers too, so they weren't great to start with. Then when they did roll out a new tyre for Daytona it was made quite hard to withstand the forces on the banking, but too hard to heat up properly - so in a 12 lap stint you were on cold tyres for 6 laps. But you could argue if IMSA wants cheap tyres, you won't get a great product.

It only really became a big issue at Petit Le Mans when the Conti wets were so bad that the Michelin GTLM Porsche won the race overall, overtaking all the Prototypes in the wet.

[Adam43]

Thanks.

[chernaudi]

Is this done on by a certain date for each race or did the tires all have to be delivered by a certain date, period?

After all, the ACO have said that they're willing to waive 200K Euro of the fee if Michelin provides all the tires for Le Mans by a certain date.

[Adam43]

Some of the tyres have to delivered by a certain date. They don’t need all of them. This collection of tyres will be allocated at random later in the season. This way encourages the tyre manufacturer to produce consistent tyres through the year as per the rules. Otherwise there would be variations amongst the teams and stints.

More exact details than that I don’t know.

Edit.
I referred to three compounds allowed earlier. The rules refer to “specification”, which is a better term.
https://www.fiawec.com/en/tyres/87

The article by motorsport explains the segregation bit quite well. I’ve not seen it in any official rules. I’ve not looked that hard. This could be because it’s not really a rule more a means of administering it.
https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/...-fine-1034548/

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Also if the goal is to have Toyota have a .5 of a second a lap advantage around Le Mans, it's easy to say that we're quite a ways away from that given that most everyone was at least a second off in terms of ultimate pace at Spa. And given that if you're 1-1.5 seconds off around Spa (about half the length of Le Mans), that could easily be 2-3 seconds around LM, though not always (such as 2008 when Audi were on Peugeot's pace at Spa, but where much slower around LM relative to Peugeot).

Maybe the Prologue EOT was right, and the ACO have said that they do reserve the right to revisit those figures as they see fit. Maybe we'll see by the LM test day or race week if they put the words to action.

Relative to Spa, Toyota will have less hybrid power. 8mj for 13+km vs 6.1mj for 7km. The top speed of the non-hybrids will also be something to keep an eye on too. I think the straights are long enough they could keep Toyota in sight if not pass them when they lift and coast if close. That's what I'm hoping to see at least. Then Toyota might have the advantage in acceleration again and we may see a double dose of passing.

[chernaudi]

I'm not sure, though Spa is a sample of one and there's also too many variables to judge accurately.

If we had a caution free race without anyone having any time-losing issues, we'd have a valid comparison.

Where the waters get muddy is that the first half of the race most of the LMP1 privateers stayed on the lead lap, but that was doubtlessly helped by FCYs/pace cars. Also, everyone, especially Rebellion, lost as much time due to pit and electronics problems as due to any performance disparity with Toyota.

But taken into consideration, it'd seem that Rebellion would've been about a lap behind at the finish, which at Le Mans would seemingly work out to be half a lap behind after 6 hours.

Also, in another thread, it'd seem that Toyota should have less fuel/hybrid power for LM while the LMP1 privateers get a slight bump for LM under the current EOT. That could also have been a problem too, in that it seems that the ACO might not have taken into effect for Spa the 1.55 ERS adjustment.

[Adam43]

Perhaps the ACO forgot about the 1.55 factor, after all this was introduced a few years ago. Too busy deciding the goal was 0.5s around Le Mans no doubt.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That could also have been a problem too, in that it seems that the ACO might not have taken into effect for Spa the 1.55 ERS adjustment.

That would be extremely odd since that is integral to the EoT table. It is incorparated.

[chernaudi]

It does IMO seem odd, given that Toyota per mile had more hybrid and engine power at Spa vs LM, while the LMP1 privateers gain some for LM. And that's with no changes to EOT between events as of now.

[TF110]

Maybe the obvious explanation is the non-hybrids aren't all the way up to speed. I'm pretty sure I've read almost each of the teams saying they weren't among the sea of EOT complaints.

[XtC24]

In the Rebellion thread, there is an indication that they are aiming for 3.13 at Le Mans.
If ACO thought it like this, than Toyota should be able to go even faster.

But is that possible given very limited changes to the TS050 this year and also very favourable conditions last year - "correct" winds on the straights and Porsche curves?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by XtC24

In the Rebellion thread, there is an indication that they are aiming for 3.13 at Le Mans.
If ACO thought it like this, than Toyota should be able to go even faster.

But is that possible given very limited changes to the TS050 this year and also very favourable conditions last year - "correct" winds on the straights and Porsche curves?

I don't remember the exact words, but there was talk that they could have gone faster last year. I think they can this year because they have more test and race time with the LM package. Maybe they'll get more out of it?

[chernaudi]

ACO reduce engine power for LMP1 privateers prior to the LM test weekend:

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...r-le-mans-test

[GT6]

odd thought it would go the other way as the toyota was so much quicker than the others

[JoeW04]

I'm beginning to hope Toyota drop the ball again this year, nothing against Toyota...more the rule makers

[Damian Baldi]

At this point it looks so in favor of Toyota that I'm starting to hope that they have problems on the race and a privateer win the race.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Damian Baldi

At this point it looks so in favor of Toyota that I'm starting to hope that they have problems on the race and a privateer win the race.

I've seen this sentiment a lot on Facebook and Twitter in the last hour. I don't think anyone is very impressed.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

At this point it really doesn't matter what the ACO does, the hate mob has already decided.

[Akrapovic]

There's a lot of people who normally defend the ACO that are unimpressed. We've already been through this before - the world isn't that black and white.

[nobster]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

ACO reduce engine power for LMP1 privateers prior to the LM test weekend:

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...r-le-mans-test

Thank you very much ACO for trying even harder to hand this race on a plate to Toyota.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There's a lot of people who normally defend the ACO that are unimpressed. We've already been through this before - the world isn't that black and white.

plus changes can be made after the test day if deemed necessary.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

At this point it really doesn't matter what the ACO does, the hate mob has already decided.

Yes, I do think there is an element of that. I'm keeping an open mind when I read

The ACO has reserved the right to change the EoT between the test and the race at Le Mans as it attempts to balance the performance of the privateers and the Toyotas, which are running to different rulebooks.

but I hope the ACO really does mean it when they say it. A walkover for Toyota isn't what anyone wants, not even Toyota, I suspect.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Do remember it's Autosport and Gary Watkins, probably the worst combination to write about endurance racing. For example the claim that they are running to two different rulebooks is already false.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There's a lot of people who normally defend the ACO that are unimpressed. We've already been through this before - the world isn't that black and white.

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