Monday, 6 July 2015

What's happening at Audi?

It is no secret that I like Audi. I like their road cars (indeed I own one), I enjoy watching them go racing and I count as friends several of their drivers and engineers, not to mention Martyn and Theresa Pass, who have worked tirelessly and loyally as the PR representatives for Audi UK for many years.

Once again this year, the Audi UK Press Fleet allowed the Radio Le Mans team the use of some of their cars in which to travel to and from Le Mans - my mode of transport was a 2.0 litre turbo-diesel A4, which swallowed up not only pitlane commentator Bruce Jones, our chauffeur (‘the Baron’) Paul Tarsey and myself but also our luggage, which included a large case full of computer equipment and two boxes of books and other reference material. As the owner of the shortest legs in the crew, I sat in the back, but there was still adequate space, and although I didn’t keep track of refuelling (shame on me), as far as I remember we only needed to make one refuelling stop the whole week.


Earlier this year, I was also able to try out the new TT – the solution to rather a different problem – and had a great deal of fun. The model I drove was a 2.0 petrol-engined coupé with a six-speed manual gearbox. This delivered 230PS (227bhp), and 0-100kph in six seconds, according to the manual. The new body shape is appealing, and the driving experience – especially with the all-electronic LCD screen dash – extremely good. I’ve read some reviews that don’t like having the satellite navigation positioned in front of the driver rather than in the centre console, but for me it worked fine (I don’t need my passenger contributing to navigational decisions).


The most impressive technology was the matrix LED headlights, which were bright enough to bring dozing squirrels scurrying out of the trees; but intelligent enough to dim selectively when passing cars, cyclists or other road users were around. All in all, a very fine, if somewhat expensive, car. And it would be the cost that would probably prevent me buying one. That and the fact that I don’t actually want an Audi TT. For some reason, Audi’s small sports cars don’t quite stir the soul in the same way as certain other makes do. The thought occurs that for around the same price as a TT, I could get a Lotus Elise – with all its sporting heritage, and, having owned a Lotus Elan +2S many years ago, a brand for which I have a great sentimental attachment.


Lotus was founded by Colin Chapman way back in 1952, and I was surprised to learn recently that the first Audi to go on sale to the general public in the UK, was in 1965, just fifty years ago. It is not the cause of great celebration though; the current Audi brand having grown from the “Union” of Audi, DKW, Horch and Wanderer in 1936. If you want to go further back, though, the original Audi company (founded by August Horch) was started in 1910, eighteen years before Chapman was even born, so maybe my sense of sporting heritage is misplaced.

In 1965, though, the pioneering, four-stroke Audi F103 went on sale in the UK, and 32 examples were sold in that first year. (In case you’re wondering, the F102 was a two-stroke DKW.) This year, Audi sold its two-millionth car and has 51 different models for prospective buyers to choose from. For all its heritage, Lotus can’t match that.


In my view, what Audi does well (apart from the R8, which is simply astonishing), are big powerful saloons and estate cars. I have thoroughly enjoyed time that I have been lucky enough to spend in the S4, RS4, RS5 and S6. The combination of the ability to absorb luggage passengers and cover plenty of miles at impressive average speeds with technology at the fingertips and comfort in abundance is unparalleled.

The other thing that Audi does well, of course, is to win Le Mans – a feat that eluded them this year, but it was some of the detail from that which was the original intention of this article.

In terms of average lap times, there was very little to choose between Audi and Porsche. Porsche though brought two cars to the flag with only the merest whisper of a problem – some bodywork damage and a drive-through penalty.

All three Audis had – by their own high standards – significant problems. First was Loïc Duval’s encounter with slow-travelling GT cars when he was accelerating out of a slow zone; or more to the point the encounter with the barriers that came immediately after he took evasive action. That put the number 8 car a lap down. Then there were rear bodywork failures which led to Marcel Fässler spending nearly seven minutes in the pits having repairs made to the no. 7 car. Finally, the third-string R18 e-tron quattro, which for a while looked like the car most likely to take the fight to the Zuffenhausen-built cars, had problems with the hybrid system, which eventually led to the need to replace a front corner of the car, and costing more than a quarter of an hour.

Had Audi been able to deliver better reliability, they still might not have won the race of course, but they certainly would have enlivened the last six hours, as they would have been able to prevent Porsche from taking things quite so easily and potentially putting extra strain on their rival’s cars.

There will be many a post mortem meeting back at Ingolstadt – indeed there has already been a major investigation into a problem with the electronic engine seals on the no. 7 car that scrutineers uncovered following the warm-up session on the morning of the race. Due to a (manual) handling error on the seals, they were not able to be read: not by the official FIA/WEC reader, nor by Audi’s own equipment. Audi Sport Team Joest, having been found guilty of swapping the positions of the seals, admitted the fault on their side in a hearing held more than a week after Le Mans in Paris. The outcome is that the team has been fined €50,000 and deemed to have used four out of the five engines that they are allowed to use in the season. Lotterer, Fässler and Tréluyer will thus have to complete the remaining five races of the season with only one new engine – although the two engines used so far at Silverstone, Spa and Le Mans are available, if there is enough life left in them. Fortunately, Audi is famous for welcoming challenges!


Anyway, here’s the driver data from the three cars:
Car No. Driver Average Lap Time Laps
Completed
7 André Lotterer 3m 20.412s 132
Benoît Tréluyer 3m 20.421s 146
Marcel Fässler 3m 20.786s 115
8 Loïc Duval 3m 21.767s 124
Lucas di Grassi 3m 20.363s 161
Oliver Jarvis 3m 21.175s 107
9 Marco Bonanomi 3m 22.317s 126
Felipe Albuquerque 3m 21.306s 154
René Rast 3m 22.070s 107

Monday, 29 June 2015

Nissan at Le Mans - a little more detail

Back in January, I have to admit that I was eagerly anticipating Nissan’s arrival in the 2015 World Endurance Championship, in particular because it represented the arrival of a fourth manufacturer in the LMP1 class at Le Mans. For several years, Nissan had been a successful supplier of engines to LMP2 teams and as their numerical domination of the category became clear, the marketing folk began to grasp the opportunities of motor-sporting success, and rumours of an entry into the top category began to circulate.

Simultaneously, the Nissan GTR Nismo started to make its presence felt in GT3 racing, particularly in the Blancpain Series; in the 24-hour races at Spa, the Nürburgring and of course at the Bathurst 12 hours, where Katsumasa Chiyo, Wolfgang Reip and Florian Strauss brought the car its first major endurance win at the beginning of this year.

Then there was the growth of the Nissan GT Academy scheme, bringing new drivers into the sport from their armchairs and Playstation consoles – whether purely on altruistic grounds or as a marketing exercise, it doesn’t really matter: the fact remains that it was a success.

Meanwhile, there was the DeltaWing and its successor, the ZEOD RC, which were not necessarily blessed with success on the track at Le Mans, but which undoubtedly captured the imagination of the public. I am told that the Nissan brand-awareness generated by the DeltaWing at Le Mans in 2012 was second only to that of the winning Audi; not only surpassing that of Chevrolet and Aston Martin in the GT class, but also of Japanese rival Toyota.

Then there was the marketing. Not only was it up-beat, but it was also open and, it seemed, honest; driven to a large degree by the infectious enthusiasm of Global Motorsport director Darren Cox. When news of the car’s unusual front-engine, front-wheel-drive configuration broke, I was intrigued. The diversity of Le Mans would surely be enhanced by this.

First pictures of the car were equally intriguing: I understood that the downforce was supposed to be generated at the front, but the proximity of the cockpit to the rear wing would surely disrupt airflow and I began to find those who criticised the concept just as convincing as those who justified it. Of course it was a disappointment when delays to the project were announced, especially when it became apparent that the car would not race at either of the first two rounds of the WEC.

The disappointment turned to alarm as rumours began to surface that the drivers were not happy with the car either. Marc Gené’s decision to step down from driving duties at Le Mans, and the fact that, at the Test Day, some of the drivers did their qualifying laps in Ginetta LMP3 cars all added to a sense that the claim that the cars would be on the pace of a non-hybrid P1 car – or even on the pace of 2013 P1 cars – seemed to be more than a touch optimistic.

Despite all this though, the three cars arrived, and although none of them achieved the minimum qualification time, they all started the race. With the race underway, the lap times were consistent – at around 10% slower than those of the leading Porsches and Audis.

Inevitably, the cars spent a lot of time in the pits; only one of them was still around at the chequered flag, and it was unclassified, having spent nearly eight hours in the pits, covering just 61% of the number of laps completed by the winning Porsche.

Nevertheless, I think it is still worth looking at some of the detail, for with the focus on the battle for overall honours, it may get missed otherwise.

Car No. Drivers Qualifying Best Race
Best
Laps Race Ave. Lap Time
21 Ordoñez/Shulzhitskiy/Matsuda 3m 38.691s 3m 37.863s 115 3m 40.362s
22 Tincknell/Krumm/Buncombe 3m 36.995s 3m 35.888s 242 3m 38.745s
23 Mardenborough/Chilton/Pla 3m 37.291s 3m 36.525s 234 3m 38.848s

In my view, all the drivers are heroes, and the following is neither to condemn nor to criticise: they all deserve nothing but praise. All I am doing is recording their performances:

Car No. Driver Average Lap Time Laps
Completed
Longest Stint
(Green)
21 Lucas Ordoñez 3m 42.660s 37 12
Mark Shulzhitskiy 3m 40.653s 45 12
Tsugio Matsuda 3m 39.396s 33 12
22 Harry Tincknell 3m 38.387s 88 11
Michael Krumm 3m 39.434s 95 12
Alex Buncombe 3m 38.565s 59 12
23 Jann Mardenborough 3m 38.579s 87 12
Max Chilton 3m 39.924s 72 12
Olivier Pla 3m 38.339s 75 12

Some readers may remember that following last year’s Le Mans 24-hour race, I gave a complete run-down of the average lap time of each driver in the LMP2 category (it’s here, if you want to look back). It should therefore come as no surprise that those members of the Nissan LMP1 driving squad who were driving LMP2 cars last year are roughly in the same positions in this chart. What perhaps is more noteworthy is the fact that four of the top ten LMP2 drivers last year were in the GTR-LM Nismo this year; and under the circumstances, gave a good account of themselves.

It will not have escaped their attention though that they were lapping no faster this year than they did in 2014 at the wheel of their P2 cars. The entire team must now regroup. There are still five rounds of this year’s World Endurance Championship remaining and while the cars cannot be expected to be contenders for overall victory in the 2016 Le Mans 24 hours, they must at least be in the hunt... and that means finding at least twenty seconds per lap.

Monday, 20 April 2015

A few details from the Silverstone Six Hours

The Silverstone Six hours was, for many, one of the best races ever in the World Endurance Championship: afterwards some were saying it was the best race they’d seen. Due to a family holiday, I wasn’t even there; but I did follow along with what was happening, and I would agree that it was an outstanding example of endurance racing in the current age.

In 2014, the WEC served up some splendid racing, but a combination of stability in technical regulations, a year’s worth of experience and development from the three leading LMP1 manufacturers and a few minor tweaks to the sporting procedures and the opening round of the 2015 season had action to keep everyone on their toes throughout the six hours.

It is a credit to the team behind the technical regulations that three very different configurations of car, one from each of the manufacturers, should end up in the top three finishing positions, separated by less than 15 seconds at the chequered flag.

That’s a percentage difference of less than 0.07%. The winning margin represents a difference of just over 0.02s per lap over the Silverstone Grand Prix circuit. If you want to make the comparison (and perhaps you shouldn’t) that is less than the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg, in identical F1 Mercedes. Consider this: each of Porsche, Audi and Toyota have different types of hybrid systems, different size of engine and even a different number of cylinders in their solutions to the best way to go racing.

Inevitably, though, you can break it down differently, and then, as I shall demonstrate, there are some bigger differences to be seen. A good way of analysing the outright pace of each car is to look at the best 20% of the laps completed under full green conditions and here are the results for the top six LMP1 cars.

No. Car Drivers Lap time
8 Audi Di Grassi/Duval/Jarvis 1m 42.173s
7 Audi Tréluyer/Fässler/Lotterer 1m 42.264s
17 Porsche Webber 1m 42.301s
18 Porsche Dumas/Lieb/Jani 1m 42.576s
1 Toyota Buemi/Davidson/Nakajima 1m 42.975s
2 Toyota Wurz/Conway/Sarrazin 1m 43.356s

It is interesting - and I must admit reassuring - that this clear pecking order is what I predicted following the Prologue at Paul Ricard last month. Whether this is a pattern that will change as the season progresses, remains to be seen.

Let us now take a look in a little more detail at the contributions of the individual drivers of the first three cars past the chequered flag and the stints that they completed, as here, as in so much else, different strategies are at play.

One of the ‘tweaks’ in the regulations referred to above limits teams to six sets of tyres per car for qualifying and the race (at least at Silverstone and Spa). This means that, at best, one set of tyres has to be used for a double stint: furthermore the tyres used in qualifying have to be used again, unless two sets of tyres are used for double stints. (This latter strategy is not necessarily impossible, and I believe was tried by at least one team at Silverstone.)

The following three tables show the race strategies employed by each of the podium finishers:

No. 7 - Audi R18 e-tron quattro
Stint Driver Laps Average Lap time
1 Benoît Tréluyer 24 1m 44.040s
2 Benoît Tréluyer 28 1m 43.367s
3 Marcel Fässler 28 1m 44.630s
4 André Lotterer 28 1m 43.162s
5 André Lotterer 28 1m 43.688s
6 André Lotterer 28 1m 43.806s
7 Marcel Fässler 28 1m 43.478s
8 Marcel Fässler 1 N/A
9 Marcel Fässler 8 1m 44.156s


No. 18 - Porsche 919 Hybrid
Stint Driver Laps Average Lap time
1 Romain Dumas 24 1m 43.943s
2 Marc Lieb 29 1m 44.442s
3 Neel Jani 29 1m 44.587s
4 Romain Dumas 30 1m 44.188s
5 Marc Lieb 30 1m 44.351s
6 Neel Jani 30 1m 44.171s
7 Neel Jani 29 1m 43.535s


No. 1 - Toyota TS040 HYBRID
Stint Driver Laps Average Lap time
1 Sébastien Buemi 23 1m 44.167s
2 Sébastien Buemi 28 1m 44.825s
3 Anthony Davidson 28 1m 44.236s
4 Anthony Davidson 28 1m 44.158s
5 Kazuki Nakajima 28 1m 44.240s
6 Kazuki Nakajima 28 1m 44.359s
7 Sébastien Buemi 26 1m 43.857s
8 Sébastien Buemi 12 1m 44.001s

I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions - compare the lap times of your favourite drivers and see how they did. Certainly no-one disgraced themselves, but the differences are considerably more than 0.02s per lap. The fastest stint in the race, though, was not done by any of the drivers shown above; in fact it was by Oliver Jarvis, in the no. 8 Audi. In his second stint, after the car had lost time in the pits having damage repaired, he put in a 28-lap stint with an average lap time of 1m 43.137s. Earlier in the race, Lucas Di Grassi had also done a (slightly shorter) stint in 1m 43.180s, discounting the effect of the second full course yellow. Only André Lotterer’s first stint (see above, 1m 43.162s) is comparable.

It seems too that the track might have been improving towards the end of the race - in any event, it is impressive that all of the top three cars were going faster at the end of the race than they did at the start. Not much sign of wear and tear over six hours - I wonder what will happen over twenty-four?

But first, Spa-Francorchamps. Will the pecking order be maintained? Will the need to score points in the WEC outweigh the desire to test components ahead of Le Mans? Will there be special Le Mans ‘low-downforce’ aero trim in evidence? What will the weather do?

It’s a tantalising prospect...

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

The Prologue - FIA WEC test days at Paul Ricard

Although I wasn’t at Le Castellet for the FIA WEC’s “Prologue”, I did try to track the lap times – and thanks to the ever-helpful David Escribano at Al Kamel Systems, I do have a lot of data about what went on.

I must admit my primary concern was to follow the progress in the LMP1 class – and progress is certainly the operative word: some of the lap times, particularly from the Porsche 919 Hybrids, were quite astonishing. Of course Porsche set the fastest time at the Prologue last year as well, but Brendon Hartley’s time from last year was 4.069s slower than this year’s best time, set by Neel Jani – coincidentally in the equivalent session on the Friday evening. That’s an improvement of more than 4% - which would mean knocking around eight seconds off the lap time around Le Mans.

Surprising perhaps, but nothing new: John Surtees qualified his Ferrari eight seconds quicker in 1964 than Pedro Rodriguez’s pole position time (also in a Ferrari) the year before. And Phil Hill then went a further eight seconds quicker in his Ford Mark II twelve months later. More recently, Peugeot managed to find an eight second improvement between 2007 and 2008: Stéphane Sarrazin setting the lap times in both cases.

So, even if some eyebrows were raised, the improvement is not so staggering as it may appear at first sight; development in motor racing never stands still.

Don’t forget that Porsche is also now running in the 8MJ hybrid class – a 33% increase on the 6MJ that it ran last year. Similarly, Audi has stepped up to the 4MJ class from running with 2MJ in 2014 (according to some, less than it had in 2013). And the Joest Racing team must have also been pleased with a 3% improvement in their lap times compared to last year’s Prologue.

By contrast, Toyota has remained in the same 6MJ category as it ran last year, yet still was able to show a 2.407s improvement on last year’s best time.

However, I worry about reading too much into any of these lap times, because to the best of my knowledge, there was no control over the amount of fuel being used throughout the test. I have been told on good authority that there was no control during last year’s Prologue either, so at least we are comparing ‘like-with-like’.

Readers are probably aware that the regulations limit the fuel consumed by LMP1 cars in two ways: firstly an instantaneous kg/h rate, and secondly based on the MJ content of the fuel used during a lap. The 2MJ, 4MJ, 6MJ and 8MJ categories refer to the amount of energy that may be released from the hybrid systems per lap of Le Mans. For other circuits, the limit is a percentage, based on the circuit length, but multiplied by a factor of 1.55. This means that you can deploy more energy per kilometre (provided you can harvest that much) at other circuits.

Similarly, the amount of fuel allowed per lap is also limited, but with a multiplication factor for circuits other than Le Mans of 1.11. For Paul Ricard, this means that Porsche must be able to manage a minimum of 31 laps on a tank of fuel and that Toyota and Audi each must be able to do 30 laps.

Let’s look at the long stints then:
No. Car Driver Laps When Lap time
7 Audi Tréluyer 30 Friday afternoon 1m 40.849s
17 Porsche Bernhard 31 Friday afternoon 1m 41.621s
18 Porsche Lieb 30 Saturday morning 1m 41.731s
1 Toyota Nakajima 29 Saturday afternoon 1m 42.724s
7 Audi Fässler 30 Saturday afternoon 1m 41.364s
8 Audi Di Grassi 30 Saturday afternoon 1m 41.188s
17 Porsche Hartley 31 Saturday afternoon 1m 41.548s

The average lap times shown are calculated as the ‘sanitised’ average: in other words, ignoring the out lap, the in lap and in the case of Nakajima and Fässler, laps under yellow flag conditions. Note also that both Lieb and Nakajima are one lap short of their minimum - but I include them as I believe these stints were intended to be race pace simulations.

If - and it is a big ‘if’ - the Porsches were over-using their fuel on their fast laps and if the times shown above are true reflections of race pace, then it is possible that the Audis might be quicker than the Porsches over a whole stint when we get into serious racing starting at Silverstone in two weeks’ time. But they would have one less lap per stint - at least at the shorter circuits like Paul Ricard and Silverstone. And according to my calculations, at Le Mans, the Audis will be stuck on 13 laps (as they were last year), whereas both Toyota and Porsche should be able to manage 14.

Then there’s the tyres. Never has so much energy been put through the tyres of LMP1 cars, so more frequent tyre changes must be likely. But part of Audi’s strategy in 2014, choosing the lower hybrid class, was to reduce tyre wear. Even though Audi has gone up a class, its cars are still likely to be less hard on their tyres than those from Toyota and Porsche. Not to mention Nissan. With less rubber in total on the road, tyre wear is surely going to be an issue for the front wheel drive car. As it will not make its debut until Le Mans, I think it can probably be discounted from this year’s 24 hour race. Next year, though - who knows?

So what conclusions to draw from The Prologue? How much do the lap times over 17 hours of testing tell us? Is there more speed to come before Silverstone? Or are some of the lap times flattering, only to deceive? And where does Toyota fit into all this - were they not pushing as hard at the test? If not, why not? Or has Toyota under-estimated the progress made by Audi and Porsche?

Many of these questions will be answered at Silverstone. Without doubt, speeds have increased. With the revised qualifying procedure, expect pole position to be a low 1m 39s. If the weather is good and there are no caution periods, 1200kms could be completed in six hours. We might also get an indication of whether the boardrooms of Stuttgart, Ingolstadt and Tokyo think that the World Endurance Championship is more important to win than Le Mans, or not!

As always, your thoughts, comments, criticisms are welcome below.

Friday, 27 March 2015

Sebring 12 hours - the anatomy of victory

The 63rd Annual Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring Fueled by “Fresh from Florida” provided a perfect opportunity for the Action Express Racing Team Coyote Corvette DP to demonstrate its superiority over the rest of the 43 car field in the classic race around the runways and service roads of the historic airfield circuit last weekend. It must have been a particularly satisfying win for Bob Johnson and his team, following their failure to capitalise on a similar performance advantage at the opening round of the Tudor United SportsCar Championship at Daytona at the end of January, when Chip Ganassi used a well-timed full course caution period to snatch victory for his more economical turbo Ford-powered Riley from the GM-branded car.

The second of the traditional Floridian enduros ran with just 28 laps behind the Safety Car - out of a total of 340 completed - which left more than ten hours for some proper racing, including one green flag period of 3h 47m 59s. And it was this long green period that enabled the Action Express car, ably piloted by João Barbosa, Sébastien Bourdais and Christian Fittipaldi, to establish a lap’s advantage on the rest of the field and allowed the team to run the final two hours to the flag without any real concerns.

No race of this length is ever easy, but once the fragility of the LMP2 challengers proved their undoing, there never seemed much doubt that the Mustang Sampling sponsored car would come out on top of the Corvette DPs. If the relatively smooth surface of Daytona was too much for the Le Mans-rules cars, what hope did they have over the bumps of Sebring?

So how was it done?

Well, in the first place, it was a fault-free run. The car completed the race with just fourteen pit stops, the longest of which was 1m 14.684s - and the Safety Car was out then in any case, nullifying any time lost in the pit lane: Fittipaldi resumed and simply latched on to the tail of the queue of cars. Every other stop for the car was less than 1m 04s. The length of the stints was dictated, to some extent, by the timing of the Full Course Yellow (FCY)periods, but during green periods, the car could run for 23 laps between refuelling stops.

The full list of pit stops looks like this:

Stop no. Activity Time in pit lane
1 Barbosa stays 1m 01.557s
2 Barbosa to Bourdais (FCY) 1m 01.295s
3 Bourdais stays (FCY) 0m 58.029s
4 Bourdais to Fittipaldi (FCY) 1m 14.684s
5 Fittipaldi stays 1m 03.265s
6 Fittipaldi to Barbosa 1m 01.899s
7 Barbosa stays (FCY) 0m 49.623s
8 Barbosa stays 1m 01.695s
9 Barbosa to Bourdais 1m 02.148s
10 Bourdais stays 1m 00.833s
11 Bourdais to Fittipaldi 1m 01.039s
12 Fittipaldi stays 1m 03.303s
13 Fittipaldi to Barbosa 1m 03.969s
14 Barbosa stays 1m 02.977s
Total 14m 26.316s

As usual, the time spent includes the time spent driving down the pit lane itself. Needless to say, the time spent in the pits by the Action Express car was less than any other prototype that finished the race. And of course, the actual time spent stationary is considerably less than the time spent in the pit lane.

Under IMSA rules, the time spent stationary consists mainly of getting fuel into the car, so the length of time in the pits depends largely on how much fuel is required, which is in turn dependent on the length of the previous stint. As the table above shows, Barbosa got the most time behind the wheel, as he managed to get three shifts to the two each for Bourdais and Fittipaldi. Here's the full breakdown of the driving periods:

Stint no. Driver Laps Time
1 Barbosa 22 42m 19.467s
2 Barbosa 27 1h 04m 21.575s
3 Bourdais 22 54m 00.786s
4 Bourdais 28 1h 02m 44.283s
5 Fittipaldi 25 52m 12.941s
6 Fittipaldi 22 42m 27.064s
7 Barbosa 12 25m 53.412s
8 Barbosa 25 53m 04.216s
9 Barbosa 22 42m 04.219s
10 Bourdais 23 43m 56.789s
11 Bourdais 22 42m 03.538s
12 Fittipaldi 23 44m 42.196s
13 Fittipaldi 26 58m 23.241s
14 Barbosa 18 34m 43.108s
15 Barbosa 23 44m 16.664s

The totals for each driver were:
Driver Total Laps Green Laps Time
Barbosa 149 137 5h 06m42.651s
Bourdais 117 84 3h 22m 45.396s
Fittipaldi 118 90 3h 17m 45.442s

Endurance is always a team effort, and it is important that the drivers work well together; but I am always interested in comparing the lap times of the drivers of a car, to see if there is any evidence of a weak (or sometimes a particularly strong) member of the team: after all, many of the driver's excuses can be ignored if one is able to drive the same car more quickly in the same conditions than the others...

Having said that, team managers may give specific instructions to their driver: setting a target lap time, for example, to which some drivers may be more obedient than others. The tables above give you practically all the information you need to work out average lap times for each stint, for each driver, for yourselves, but to save you the trouble of that, I’ve laid it out on a stint by stint basis in the table below.

Stint no. Driver Stint Average Lap Green Lap Average
1 Barbosa 1m 55.430s 1m 55.246s
2 Barbosa 2m 23.021s 1m 54.803s
3 Bourdais 2m 27.308s 1m 54.852s
4 Bourdais 2m 14.439s 1m 54.951s
5 Fittipaldi 2m 05.318s 1m 55.699s
6 Fittipaldi 1m 55.776s 1m 55.810s
7 Barbosa 2m 09.451s 1m 55.128s
8 Barbosa 2m 07.369s 1m 55.505s
9 Barbosa 1m 54.737s 1m 54.634s
10 Bourdais 1m 54.643s 1m 54.560s
11 Bourdais 1m 54.706s 1m 54.751s
12 Fittipaldi 1m 56.617s 1m 56.528s
13 Fittipaldi 2m 14.740s 1m 55.848s
14 Barbosa 1m 55.728s 1m 55.471s
15 Barbosa 1m 55.507s 1m 55.396s

The column showing the Green Average lap is the average lap time for the green laps in the stint: ignoring laps into and out of the pits.

Consider this: Fittipaldi drove 90 green flag laps. On average, as can be seen above, his laps were a second slower than those of his team-mates. In that case, the car could have been a further minute and a half ahead: nearly a lap!

Perhaps that is speculation a little too far. But how did engineer Iain Watt and Crew Chief Bill Kueller get their car to be so much quicker?

The answer, if one looks at the sector times (Sebring is split into 10 sectors by the IMSA timekeeping team), lies in the fact that in only two of Sebring’s sectors was the #5 car quickest. It was not fastest through either of the two speed traps. And yet, of the three Corvette DPs around at the end of the race, it had easily the fastest average lap time. It may not have been as fleet of foot as the Ligiers, but nevertheless it strikes me that the team was quickest by virtue of the optimum compromise. And if that meant that the car wasn’t quite to Fittipaldi’s taste, it was certainly better than anything else at Sebring.

Friday, 27 February 2015

Godzilla, by a whisker!

I wasn’t at Bathurst for the 2015 edition of the LiquiMoly Bathurst 12 hours, nor did I follow the race closely live on TV; but I did catch up on what happened after the event, and was surprised and pleased in equal measure that the Nissan GT-R NISMO won.

Pleased - because I have enjoyed watching Nissan’s exploits over the years: their approach is never one that follows the crowd and often seems outside some sort of comfort zone. It was also good to see two more graduates from the GT Academy, Florian Strauss and Wolfgang Reip, triumphing in a major international event against some serious competition. For Katsumasa Chiyo, the race must have been particularly satisfying, not only because of that sensational, race-winning penultimate lap, but also coming after his spectacular exit from the race last year.

And surprised, because although the Nissan GT-R NISMO GT3 has gradually moved up into contention over recent years, I have to admit that I expected the competition from Audi, Mercedes, Aston Martin, Ferrari and of course Bentley, to overwhelm Bob Neville’s small, close-knit team.

In the end, the race became less about endurance and more about race-craft; and that’s exactly what Chiyo-san had in spades. As ever, though, my interest turned to average lap times. If the outcome of the race had been purely based on speed, what then? The table shows the figures for the top seven finishers (all cars from different manufacturers, and although these were the highest-placed cars, they weren’t necessarily the quickest representative from each brand).

No. Car Average lap time
35 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2m 05.470s
15 Audi R8 LMS ultra 2m 04.628s
97 Aston Martin Vantage 2m 05.868s
10 Bentley Continental 2m 05.959s
36 Mercedes SLS AMG 2m 05.952s
49 Ferrari 458 Italia 2m 07.090s
32 Lamborghini Gallardo 2m 06.448s

Note that the averages are for the fastest 39 laps, which is 20% of the laps completed under green conditions, my standard way of calculating these things.

From the figures (and even having taken only a passing interest in the practice and qualifying sessions leading up to the race), it is apparent that the Phoenix Audi was comfortably the fastest car in the field. But the Nissan is still nearly 0.4s faster than the next quickest car, so perhaps my surprise at the car’s pace was unfounded.

As ever, the real surprise is how closely-matched the times are: less than a tenth of a second separated the Bentley, Aston Martin and Mercedes. And if one looks at the average lap time (over 20 laps) for the no. 77 AF Corse Ferrari (which had led the race, and was on the lead lap when it retired in the eighth hour after contact with the wall), that is more than 0.6s faster than the no. 49 Vicious Rumour Ferrari shown in the table above. The black art of performance balancing may not have got things absolutely right, but it was certainly not bad. And in any event, in a race dominated by Safety Car Periods, any failings that there may have been are not so apparent.

By my calculations, with that kind of an advantage, the Phoenix Audi could have lapped the entire field if there would have been around three hours’ non-stop green running. And that would have made the race a lot less entertaining for the many fans that stayed up (or got up) and watched it in its entirety.

But I am being curmudgeonly again and that was not my intention. Full course cautions are inevitable at a track like Mount Panorama and I will save my thoughts on them for another time. Hats off to all at RJN Motorsport on a thoroughly well-deserved win. Katsumasa Chiyo will be racing for the Nismo Athletes in the Blancpain Endurance Series in 2015, providing him with an opportunity to race in the 24-hour race at Spa-Francorchamps; but first, he will drive in the Nürburgring 24 hours in May. Maybe next time (surely there must be a next time?) I shouldn’t be surprised to see Nissan winning a 24-hour race.

France in June, though? That’s a different kettle of fish - and the subject of a post that I’ve not yet written!

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

How to win the Rolex 24 at Daytona

I assume that Chip Ganassi won’t be reading this, since with six wins out of his 12 attempts at “North America’s most prestigious sports car race”, he more than most does not need to. It hardly needs me to present the case, either, as I have only witnessed two of the Daytona Prototype-era versions of this 24-hour race, even though 2015 was my eighth attendance at the Daytona International Speedway.


However, the opening round of the 2015 Tudor United SportsCar Championship, the only 24-hour race run under IMSA rules and regulations, presents unique challenges to its competitors. One of the reasons that I enjoy tearing apart the innards of a long race is that there is no single formula that will correctly identify the difference between the winner’s strategy and those of the runners-up.

You can look at average lap times, time spent in pits, strategy under caution or what you will, but there’s never a single solution. Which makes writing software for defining the perfect strategy very difficult. Let’s look at Average Lap Times at Daytona then. As usual, I’m taking the average of the best 20% of laps run without the interference of the Safety Car. For the sake of simplicity, I will stick to the leading cars in the Prototype class.

No. Car Average Lap Time
01 Ganassi Riley-Ford 1m 40.583s
02 Ganassi Riley-Ford 1m 40.369s
5 Auto Express Coyote-Corvette 1m 40.549s
10 Wayne Taylor Dallara-Corvette 1m 40.323s
60 Michael Shank Ligier-HPD 1m 40.735s
90 VisitFlorida Coyote-Corvette 1m 41.031s

What about Time Spent in Pits? Surely (as co-commentator Greg Creamer reminded me during the race) that’s a good indicator of who will come out on top? Stay out of the pits and lap consistently quickly - surely a great formula for winning a long-distance race?

No. Car No of Stops Time in Pit Lane
02 Ganassi Riley-Ford 34 51m 00.561s
5 Auto Express Coyote-Corvette 30 *49m 12.666s
10 Wayne Taylor Dallara-Corvette 33 40m 46.375s
60** Michael Shank Ligier-HPD 33 1h 19m 40.438s
90 VisitFlorida Coyote-Corvette 35 1h 02m 03.104s
KEY: *Includes time for tow-back to paddock
**Not Running at Finish

Maybe number of laps led will provide us with a little more information?

No. Car No of Laps in lead
02 Ganassi Riley-Ford 264
7 Starworks Riley-BMW 3
90 VisitFlorida Coyote-Corvette 3
07 Speedsource Mazda Prototype 1
60 Michael Shank Ligier-HPD 4
10 Wayne Taylor Dallara-Corvette 264
01 Ganassi Riley-Ford 141
5 Auto Express Coyote-Corvette 59
1 ESM HPD-Honda ARX 1

None of the tables above lead you any closer, I suggest, to identifying which was the best car at Daytona - if anything the no. 10 Wayne Taylor car, spending least time in the pits and being quickest on the track looks the most deserving winner. Nothing in the tables above indicates precisely why it was the no. 02 Ganassi car that was the one to beat. Indeed the fact that the car went a lap down when it went back to its garage (“behind the wall”) to have work done to the front end of the car, seemed to the inexperienced observer to put the car out of contention, unless other cars had problems.

Daytona is not like that though. Being a lap down is not a problem, provided that the Safety Car comes out. The astute team manager (and even the not so astute one) can manage the pit stops to enable the car to avoid the initial rush to the pits when the lane opens, get back on the lead lap, and then pit at the next opportunity, leaving the car fully fuelled and on the lead lap, albeit at the back of the Safety Car queue.

Even looking at the fuel consumption does not show any difference between the Ford EcoBoost of the Ganassi Riley and the Chevy-engined Corvette of Wayne Taylor Racing. When the track was fully green, both cars covered 26 laps with metronomic reliability. The only divergence from this rule was at 7:15 on Sunday morning, when Tony Kanaan brought the Riley in after 25 laps, but this was in anticipation of a Full Course Yellow precipitated by the no. 33 Viper stopping at T6.

As far as I can work out, there was one factor, and one factor only, that enabled the Ganassi #02 car to win the 2015 Rolex 24 at Daytona. Although speed clearly played its part, as did the sublime driving of Scott Dixon in the final three-and-a-half hour stint, the key moments came as first Tony Kanaan stayed out for a 29-lap stint through the Full Course Caution period at 9am and then Dixon achieving the same feat through the shorter yellow at 10:50am.

These two stints gave Ganassi a three-lap cushion on its fuel window, and allowed Dixon to leapfrog Jordan Taylor at the penultimate round of stops, into a lead he was able to maintain at the final re-fuelling stop, which meant that 2.5 seconds could be saved.

Even without the shambles of Jordan Taylor’s drive-time violation, Ganassi had the bases covered. One thing I wonder though: did Chip know that the no. 10 crew was about to shoot itself in the foot? Was he really only concerned with staying ahead of the no. 5 Action Express Corvette? And if last year’s combo of Bourdais, Fittipaldi and Barbosa would have won, how much of a sour taste would that have left in the mouth, following the car’s tow back to the paddock late on Saturday night?

But Daytona often is a strange 24-hour race. Never short on entertainment; but you have to know how to win.