Wednesday, 6 February 2019

Bathurst Ruminations

The 2019 Liqui-Moly Bathurst 12-hours was a remarkable race – it would have been good to have been there. However, the coverage was excellent, so it was possible to follow the action from far away, and despite the virtual jet-lag, it was still possible to get a good flavour for the race.

It was particularly pleasing to see so little of the race disrupted by caution flags – only nine caution periods accounting for just 22 of the 312 completed laps (or 313 if you count the pace lap, which arguably you should, since that is when the timing for the 12 hours started). With some justification, much was made of the fact that driving standards were high, and serious incidents were few and far between. However, it should also be recognised that still there was 1h 48m of running behind the Safety Car.

Compare this to 19 Code-60 interventions for a total of 3h 57m for this year’s Dubai 24-hours and it is not that different (provided you divide by two to account for the different race lengths!). But at Dubai, there was little talk of how few caution periods there were – most people I spoke to were more eager to say that the number and frequency of the Code-60 periods were much more than they had expected (or wanted). In a way, I suppose this merely puts Bathurst in context – one really expects to have more cautions, so close are the walls and so tortuous is the track.

Another way to look at it is to consider that six of the nine pit stops made by the race winning Earl Bamber Motorsport-entered Porsche were made under green flag conditions. Certainly, that meant that strategy played a bigger role in this year’s race that it often does.

In both 2014 and 2012, there were also just nine safety car periods, and in 2012 those accounted also for just 22 laps. However, in 2012, there were only 25 starters, and only 8 of those were proper GT3 cars. In some ways, it is hardly surprising that they kept out of trouble, despite the atrocious weather that blighted that year’s race.

The only other occasion since then when there have been fewer than 40 starters was in 2016, when 36 cars started, 58% of which were GT3 class cars, and 27 laps were lost due to Safety Car periods. This year the race boasted 38 starters, two fewer than were initially expected, but 66% of them were GT3 cars. To me, there seems to be a pretty strong correlation between number of starters and number of Safety Car periods. Although to be fair, it depends as well on the mix between GT3 cars and the ‘others’.

Year Starters %age GT3 SC periods SC laps
2019 38 66% 9 22
2018 50 56% 16* 47
2017 51 61% 16 35
2016 36 58% 13 27
2015 50 54% 20 73
2014 40 30% 9 31
2013 53 34% 15 43
2012 25 32% 9 22
*In 2018, the race was terminated early with a red flag.

Note that in the calculation of the percentage of GT3 cars above, I have not accounted for whether the drivers were Pro or Am or a mixture of the two. Clearly, this also can influence matters. This year was the first that there were no GT3 cars driven only by amateur crews.

In any event, this year’s Bathurst 12 hours was a race to be savoured. The international aspect that the race has acquired in recent years was joined this year by an injection of youth. Matt Campbell (just 23 years of age) drove a storming stint after the final SC, moving from third to first in the final twenty minutes, passing first the Mercedes of Raffaele Marcielllo (at 24 years of age) and then the R-Motorsport Aston Martin in the hands of Jake Dennis (another 23-year old). But neither the Aston Martin nor the Porsche that were battling over the lead of the race at the end were really the quickest cars out there, although you would be forgiven for thinking so, based on that last frenetic hour.

The overall fastest lap of the race went to Josh Burdon in the no. 35 Nissan GT-R Nismo, at 2m 03.5382s, although this was almost two seconds slower than Shane Van Gisbergen achieved in during the 2016 race in the Tekno Autosports McLaren 650S.

The best average laps (looking at the best 20% of green laps) went to the two M-Sport Bentleys, the no. 107 being the quicker of the two. Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari and Nissan were all quicker, using this metric, than either the Aston Martin or the EBM Porsches. It should be noted that the difference between the GT3 field (as used by the wizards of BoP) was less than 0.5%, however, so I don’t think that any complaints are warranted.

Let’s look at some other numbers from Bathurst and compare them to Daytona and Dubai:
Dubai Daytona Bathurst
No of lead changes 15 50 30
No of cars that led 8 7 13
No of cars in 'top' class 13 11 15
Winner's average speed 136 km/h 154 km/h 162 km/h
No of starters 74 47 38
Cars outside 70% of winner's distance 24 (32%) 4 (9%) 13 (34%)
Cars within 5 mins of winner 1 2 7
Winning margin 1 lap 13.5s 3.4s

I present this data as it stands, without wanting to make any point in particular. You can read into it what you want. Certainly I am guilty of comparing apples with oranges – Daytona is for prototypes, Bathurst runs to a 12-hour duration, Dubai does not use Safety Cars – all this impacts the numbers shown, to varying degrees. Nevertheless, I found it interesting to compile, so I hope you find it interesting to read.

And to close, a couple of maverick thoughts. A lot of the appeal of endurance racing is the fact that it is multi-class racing. Different categories of cars racing at the same time on the same track – involved in different battles, but fighting on the same battlefield. Dubai this year had fewer non-GT3 cars than ever before, Bathurst too. The Spa 24 hours runs pretty much exclusively to GT3-specification cars (albeit with different grades of drivers) and has done for several years now. Personally, I don’t think this spoils the spectacle. It unquestionably changes the dynamic of the race; it changes the appeal and the spectator impact. It alters the way that teams and drivers have to approach matters of strategy.

But here we are in 2019 – things are anyway different in endurance racing from how they were thirty or forty years ago. Maybe there is a place for single-class endurance races? Not as a replacement for the multi-class ones, but as an addition.

And second, what about the “holy mantra” of a 24 hours race distance? I think Bathurst proves that you can have a perfectly good 12 hour race. There are more 24-hour races these days than ever there used to be in the past. I have argued before that having more events has the overall effect of devaluing the status of the individual event. I admit that there is something very special about staying up all night, experiencing the exhilaration of completing 24-hours non-stop racing and the fatigue that goes with it. But you can have too much of a good thing. Dubai, Daytona, Le Mans, Nürburgring, Spa, Portimao, Barcelona…it all gets a little too much.

Races of eight, ten, twelve or even eighteen hours all require strategy, fortitude, durability and consistency. And would provide race organisers with a little more variety with which to spice up their seasons.

Friday, 1 February 2019

Alonso at Daytona

It was a pity that so much of the Daytona 24 hours this year was lost through caution and red flag periods, for it means that less data is available for analysis. But still there is enough to draw some conclusions, and I particularly wanted to look at the evidence regarding the performance of Fernando Alonso.

Alonso is news-worthy, no question about it. Whenever a Formula One World Champion shows up in another form of racing, it is going to pull in the crowds and invite microscopic analysis. What’s great with Fernando is that he seems to relish the challenge, much as fellow world champion Jenson Button does.

At Le Mans last year, just as at Indianapolis the year before, Fernando Alonso demonstrated that his talent behind the wheel is matched by his competitiveness and will to win. Don’t forget either that he has raced at Daytona before – in the 2018 Rolex 24 hours he drove a United Autosports LMP2 Ligier alongside Phil Hanson and Lando Norris. And it should be recorded that in 2018 the Spaniard was not (quite) as quick as young Norris, not in terms of best lap, average lap or even best stint.

And if one just looks at the drivers’ best laps from Daytona this year one finds the drivers of the Wayne Taylor Racing-run, Konica Minolta-sponsored Cadillac DPi as follows. (The list is in the order that they drove the car):

Driver Laps Completed Best Lap
Jordan Taylor 219 1m 34.643s
Fernando Alonso 177 1m 35.182s
Kamui Kobayashi 86 1m 34.598s
Renger Van Der Zande 111 1m 35.135s

Does this suggest some over-hyping of Alonso? Possibly, but readers here should know that I don’t hold a lot of store by outright best lap times: rather I like to look at average lap times.

Driver Average of best 50 laps Average of best 25 laps Average of best 10 laps
Jordan Taylor 1m 35.730s 1m 35.450s 1m 35.184s
Fernando Alonso 1m 35.853s 1m 35.547s 1m 35.394s
Kamui Kobayashi 1m 36.362s 1m 35.720s 1m 35.294s
Renger Van Der Zande 1m 36.550s 1m 36.156s 1m 35.860s

Again, in none of the columns above is Alonso the quickest driver in the car. However, there is an argument that says that since Jordan Taylor had more laps in the car, then he had more chances to improve his average lap. In order to get a fair comparison, you need to look – goes the argument – at the average of the best 20% of green-flag laps.

Now the numbers look like this.

Driver No. of green flag laps Average of best 20%
Jordan Taylor 180 1m 35.438s
Fernando Alonso 126 1m 35.557s
Kamui Kobayashi 76 1m 35.438s
Renger Van Der Zande 102 1m 36.072s

All of which seems to suggest that Alonso, far from being the ‘star performer’, merely drove pretty much to the same pace (to within a tenth) as his team-mates. (The fact that Van Der Zande is slightly slower on all counts is perhaps a reflection of the accuracy – for once – of the FIA Driver Categorisation, which lists him as a Gold, the others are all Platinum).

Please don’t construe this as my criticising Alonso in any way, the point here is merely to analyse his performance in the car in relation to his team-mates and put some of the media hype into context.

The trouble with all this analysis of ‘fast laps’ is that it sometimes overlooks overall consistency. No good in being quick over 10, 25 or 50 laps and then losing time with spins or hesitancy in the traffic. To look at this, it is worth looking at lap times averaged over a full driving stint – thus taking into account tyre degradation, traffic management, etc. This table shows the best stint for each driver (ignoring in laps, out laps and those laps under caution).

Driver Stint Length (green laps) Stint time (time of day) Average lap for stint
Jordan Taylor 20 02:36 to 03:16 1m 36.293s
Fernando Alonso 22 18:34 to 19:17 1m 35.871s
Kamui Kobayashi 22 20:25 to 21:09 1m 36.834s
Renger Van Der Zande 19 00:35 to 01:22 1m 36.728s

All of a sudden, Alonso looks a bit more impressive, doesn’t he? After all, it is the stint time that is a true measure of the driver’s effectiveness, surely? Except that any advantage over the competition is ruled out every time there is a full course caution.

But talking of the competition, let’s look at where Alonso was compared to the drivers who were in other cars at the same time. Fernando had three runs at the wheel of the Konica-Minolta car. The first was from lap 62 to 155. Here’s a graph showing the gaps to his car during this phase:


The comparison cars are numbers 6 (Cameron, then Pagenaud in the Penske Acura), 31 (Curran, then Derani in the Whelan Cadillac), 55 (Pla, then Tincknell in one Joest Mazda), 77 (Rast, then Nunez in the other Mazda) and 85 (Goikhberg then De Francesco in the JDC-Miller Cadillac).

And a word of explanation, in case the “Gap Graph” is not clear: a line with an upward slope means that the ‘control’ car (the no. 10 Wayne Taylor Cadillac) is increasing its gap, a downward slope means a decreasing gap. Put simply, when Alonso was in the car, he was always quicker than his competition.

Alonso got in the car for the second time, just before 5am, as the rain was beginning to fall. Almost immediately, it was back to full course caution, and the green flag wasn’t given until the beginning of lap 485. At this point, the Konica-Minolta car led from the two Acuras – Dane Cameron in the #6 and Ricky Taylor in the #7 – with Eric Curran in the Whelan Cadillac the only other car on the lead lap. Admittedly, all three are only “Gold” drivers, but by the time the yellow flags came again after just 32 minutes racing (15 laps), Alonso had opened up a gap of nearly 50 seconds to Cameron and over a minute to Taylor(R).

And crucially, having followed the Whelan Cadillac for eight laps in the final green phase of the race, Fernando made the move for the lead of the race on track, just two laps before the caution flag was shown for the final time, having opened up a lead of 12 seconds over Felipe Nasr in two laps.

That’s impressive stuff.

Tuesday, 29 January 2019

The 2019 Daytona 24 hours - record-breaking?

With the weather forecast the way it was for the Daytona Beach area over the weekend, there can’t have been many who expected to get through the 57th running of the 24 Hours of Daytona with as few caution periods as we did in 2018, nor with as much Green Flag running.

As a reminder, the 2018 race was interrupted by Full Course Yellow periods only four times, for a total of 1h 16m 30s – accounting for just 20 laps of the 808 completed. Needless to say, the race distance of 2,876.85 miles (4,629.84 km) was a record.

This year, even before the rain started at around 5:00am, there had already been nine FCY periods, so despite increased speeds and record lap times, there was no chance of a further distance record. In the end the anoraks were looking at the record books for rather different reasons, as the race served up 18 caution periods and two red flags.

Together, the two red flag periods accounted for 3h 34m 34s (assuming the race went to its planned 24-hour duration) and the 18 full course yellows lasted for 6h 56m 17s. In total, therefore, more than ten-and-a-half hours of the race were lost. That’s almost 44% of the race!

In terms of laps, 111 laps were non-racing, which meant that of the 593 laps completed, only 482 (81%) were green flag laps.

It’s not the first time the 24 hours of Daytona has been red-flagged, although this was the first time the race had been stopped, re-started, then stopped again. In 1976, 1983, 1989, 2004, 2007 and 2014 the race also had to be stopped, and in 1989 the (single) stoppage was longer than we had this year.

(The story of the 1976 stoppage, due to water in the fuel supply, is somewhat longer than I have space to explain here – I commend J.J. O’Malley’s “Definitive History” of the race for the full explanation of how time went backwards during the stoppage that year.)

In 1989 though, despite a red flag interruption of nearly four hours (due to fog), there were only five further caution periods, allowing 621 laps to be completed, 589 of which were under green flag conditions, more than 100 more than this year – and almost 200 miles greater distance was completed by the winning car.

There have been more non-racing laps during the 24 hours: in 2011, 141 laps were under caution, but, because there were no stoppages, there was still time for 580 racing laps. And there have been more caution periods as well: in 2009, the Safety Car appeared on 25 separate occasions, but that only accounted for 117 laps of the total of 735 completed that year.

In 2004, rain fell for 18 of the 24 hours – at least this year we got through 14 hours on a dry track before the rain started. The race stoppage time was ‘only’ 2h 52m, considerably longer than the first stoppage this year (which was 1h 37m), and when the race was restarted in 2004 the cars then ran behind the safety car for a further three hours. As a result, only 526 laps were completed, and only 454 of those were ‘green flag’ laps. It’s worth considering though, when looking at the laps completed in 2004, that the cars then were at the beginning of the ‘brave new world’ of Daytona Prototypes, which were at least 10 seconds per lap slower than the DPi cars of 2019. In fact they were roughly the same pace (in the dry) as GTD cars of today, which completed 561 laps in this year’s race.

All of which goes a long way to answering a question about records broken (not in a good way) at this year’s Rolex 24 at Daytona. The records for number of cautions (25 in 2009) and caution laps (141 in 2011) remain unbroken, as does the lowest distance covered during the 24 hours (1,872 miles in 2004). Amount of race stoppage time was also not broken (3h 58m in 1989). The only records made, as I see it, were the number of stoppages (at two) and the least amount of time during the race actually spent racing – just 13h 29m 09s, or 56% of the race elapsed time.

(Trivia question in passing: does anyone know when – or if – the 24 hours of Le Mans has been red-flagged?).

Thursday, 17 January 2019

Dubai 24 hours - looking at the classes

One of the things that I especially enjoy about the racing in Creventic’s 24 hour series in general, and about the Dubai 24 hour race in particular, is the passion and enthusiasm that is shown across the board for the other classes. Obviously, the attention of most observers is focussed on the race for the overall lead, and the headlines (those that there are) are about the drivers that get the camel rides at the end of the race. But this year especially, the race in the GT4 class was particularly enthralling.

There were thirteen entries in the class, with representatives from BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Ginetta.

During the race, there were 27 changes of lead in the class and 9 different cars (including all four brands that entered) led at one point or another. There was drama in the last few hours, as first the ERC Sport Mercedes AMG GT4, then the similar car of QSR Racingschool struck problems, which resulted in a 1-2 for BMW that looked somewhat unlikely in the earlier stages of the race.

An examination of the lap times is always illuminating, and once again, I include the average lap times, in order to get a better picture of who was consistently quick. For the purposes of the table below, I exclude in and out laps, and those affected by code-60’s, then I take the average time over the 20% best laps.
Pos No. Car Average Best
1 426 MRS GT-Racing BMW 2m 12.248s 2m 10.740s
2 451 Sorg Rennsport BMW 2m 13.779s 2m 12.453s
3 454 QSR Racingschool Mercedes 2m 12.160s 2m 10.181s
4 430 Century Motorsport BMW 2m 12.397s 2m 10.685s
5 469 3Y Technology BMW 2m 12.448s 2m 10.555s
6 447 Fox Motorsport Audi 2m 12.501s 2m 10.958s
7 429 Century Mootorsport BMW 2m 12.351s 2m 10.858s
8 432 Optimum Motorsport Ginetta 2m 13.729s 2m 10.658s
9 405 ERC SPORT Mercedes 2m 11.077s 2m 09.909s
10 462 Ciceley Motorsport Mercedes 2m 11.515s 2m 09.905s
11 488 Dragon Racing Mercedes 2m 11.212s 2m 10.014s

From this, it seems quite clear that Mercedes had a pace advantage over BMW – the best BMW lap was more than a half-a-second a lap slower than the best Mercedes. However, it should be noted that the Hofor Racing BMW (#50), was the quickest BMW, both on a single lap and on average, but it finished too far back to be classified, having hit problems in the middle of the race.

In the GT3 class, a similar advantage was enjoyed by the Audis over Mercedes. The difference was that in GT4, none of the cars had a truly trouble-free run, and the teams from ERC Sport and Ciceley in particular, must regard the race as a missed opportunity.

Of the other classes, the 991 Porsche Cup class was dominated by the race between the Duel Racing entry of the Moutran family, ably assisted by Irishman Charlie Eastwood and the Modena Motorsport car in which Benny Simonsen flew, figuratively speaking, when he was behind the wheel. No-one else really got a look in, and when the Modena car fell back with a 45-minute delay, the Moutrans pretty much had it their own way.

Leipert Motorsport had a clear advantage in the SPX class with their Lamborghini Huracán Super Trofeo car that was easily two seconds per lap faster than any other car in the class. Ricardo Mauricio was the undoubted star in MRS GT-Racing’s SPX Porsche, but could only dream of hanging on to the coat-tails of the flying Lambo, which won the class by five laps.

The Touring Car Endurance division of the race somehow failed to excite to the same extent as the GT cars. The fact that only 19 cars took the start didn’t help (although it was probably a relief to many of the quicker and more committed GT drivers).

The SP3 class consisted of a non-starting Porsche, Colin White’s Ginetta (which spent more than five-and-a-half hours in the pits) and the Vortex V8, (more than three hours in the pit). The trophies should go to the mechanics, not the drivers.

The A3 class was little better – but the winning BMW of GR Motorsport was also in the pits for nearly four hours. The enthusiastically-run Lotuses need developing into proper endurance cars.

Neither of the BMW M235i Racing Cup cars ran without a problem either: surprisingly the fun-M Motorsport entry was the less delayed than the DUWO Racing car and won the class by just three laps.

That left a dozen cars competing in the TCR class for victory in the TCE division and the (dubious) honour of a camel ride to the podium. The front runners in the early stages were all Audi RS3 LMS DSG’s, one entered by AC Motorsport spearheaded by the driving talents of Vincent Radermecker, one by Bas Kouten under the LMS Racing banner and thirdly the Team Dynamics entry with the Neal brothers (or should that be sons?) aided by James Kaye and Jake Giddings. They all fell by the wayside to greater or lesser degrees, and the running was taken up by the KCMG Honda Civic FK7 before it came to a fiery end with Andy Yan at the wheel. This left the Autorama Motorsport VW Golf GTi in command, once the AC Motorsport Audi had faded away for good.

Here’s a look at the lap times for all of them, plus a couple of others that I have thrown in for good measure.
Pos No. Car Average Best
1 112 Autorama VW Golf GTi 2m 14.561s 2m 12.754s
2 125 Bas Kouten Cupra TCR DSG 2m 14.849s 2m 13.209s
3 101 Red Camel Cupra TCR 2m 15.553s 2m 13.696s
5 188 AC Motorsport Audi RS3 2m 13.745s 2m 12.290s
9 122 KCMG Honda Civic FK7 2m 13.561s 2m 11.863s
11 129 Bas Kouten LMS Audi RS3 2m 14.892s 2m 14.159s
12 138 Team Dynamics Audi RS3 2m 13.841s 2m 12.491s

A couple of surprising things to note here: firstly that the Honda Civic was the fastest TCR car out there, although it was over a second slower than Colin White’s Ginetta; and secondly, just how consistently quick the LMS Racing Bas Kouten Audi was. The difference between the best lap and the average lap is just 0.5%. Compare that to the 1% (roughly) in GT4 or 1.5% in the GT3 class.

As I said in my previous review, it was good to get the season underway. The Dubai 24 hours provided plenty of lessons, and lots of teams will be coming away with plenty of work to do before heading off to Florida, Australia or Tuscany. For those whose season hasn’t already started – you need to be better prepared than many were in the United Arab Emirates!

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

The Dubai 24 hours - a hard race

I really quite enjoyed the Dubai 24 hours. The place may not have much charisma, but there is unquestionably an appetite for the race locally, and in early January it is a very pleasant way to warm the bones.

An entry list of 75 cars (74 of which took the start) may not have been as many as in recent years – the average of the last four races has been 92 starters – but this was widely regarded as a good thing. Despite this the total time spent with the race neutralised under code 60 conditions was nearly four hours – only two of the last four races were greater than that.

The quality of the entry lacked for absolutely nothing. There were 23 cars in the A6 class, split 10 in A6-AM and 13 in A6-PRO. The entire A6-PRO field was separated by less than two seconds in qualifying. With an array of Porsche, Audi, Lamborghini, Nissan and Mercedes and singleton entries for Ferrari and Chevrolet, predicting a winner was not easy. Qualifying suggested that the Audis had a bit of an advantage in pace, and Matteo Malucelli made it quite clear that he thought that the Ferrari was unable to keep up. There was a point in the middle of the race when the Black Falcon Mercedes’ were actually quicker than the Audis, but whatever gave them that advantage strangely disappeared again after only a few hours – I suspect it might have been down to tyre pressure variations.

It was unusual for Car Collection to enter a full A6-PRO class car, and it seemed strange seeing Rik Breukers in an Audi rather than a Lamborghini, but although he is not classed by Creventic as a PRO, his times compared well with those of Frédéric Vervisch (who did the fastest lap of the race, two-tenths slower than last year’s fastest lap) and Christopher Haase. Dimitri Parhofer, the AM in the car, did his bit, but was well off the pace of his more accomplished co-drivers. All in all it was a well-deserved victory in a race in which many fell by the wayside.

The driving time figures make interesting reading:
Name Class. Driving Time Best Lap
Haase PRO 6h 34m 1m 59.255s
Vervisch PRO 5h 19m 1m 58.695s
Breukers SEMI-PRO 8h 32m 1m 59.461s
Parhofer AM 2h 03m 2m 04.482s

The rules restrict the total PRO driving time to be under 12h – Haase and Vervisch were at the wheel just seven minutes short of this limit. And Parhofer was just three minutes over his minimum driving time. Such are the margins at stake in the race.

A look back on the race would not be complete with a look at average lap times. In the table below, after the top six overall positions, I have selected just the fastest from each manufacturer which finished outside the top six. In each case, the Average Lap Time is taken over the fastest 20% of green flag laps.

Pos No. Car Average Best
1 88 Car Collection Audi 2m 00.387s 1m 58.695s
2 7 WRT Audi 2m 00.479s 1m 59.134s
3 11 Scuderia Praha Ferrari 2m 01.433s 1m 59.774s
4 63 Grasser Lamborghini 2m 00.550s 1m 59.015s
5 99 Attempto Audi 2m 00.921s 1m 59.805s
6 9 Mücke Audi 2m 00.841s 1m 59.439s
8 91 Herberth Porsche 2m 01.327s 1m 59.439s
15 2 Black Falcon Mercedes 2m 00.995s 1m 59.524s
57 23 KCMG Nissan 2m 01.206s 1m 59.622s
63 18 V8 Corvette 2m 02.296s 2m 00.021s

Before the race (and after qualifying) the organisers updated the BoP table to give the Audis five litres less fuel at each pit stop. The GRT Lamborghini was also given 20kg additional weight. Whilst the table above clearly shows that the Lamborghini (having had pole position) was a little slower than the Audis in the race, it is harder to evaluate the impact of the reduced refuelling amount.

In fact, I think that simply reducing the amount of fuel that may be put into the car at each stop makes very little difference at all, particularly if the amount of the reduction is as little as 5%. Think about it – the Audi R8 LMS has a 120-litre fuel tank, which will be full at the start of the race. The first (and indeed 19 out of the 32 pit stops the car made) were done under code 60 conditions, when only 48 litres are allowed to be put in. But on each of those occasions, the car made its stop before it was empty, so the fact that less fuel was put in was hardly a handicap.

The fact that both the WRT and CC Audis were lapping a tenth of a second faster than the Lamborghini (over 600 laps, that makes one minute over the duration of the race), more than compensates. On top of that, of course, the lower refuelling limit meant that each pit stop was a few seconds quicker for the Audis compared to the Lamborghini and Mercedes.

I am sure someone from Creventic can explain the thinking behind it all, but I am afraid it seems like a paper tiger to me, particularly because there were so many code-60 periods.

In a similar way, looking at the total time spent in the pits can be misleading – clearly being in the pit lane while everyone else is travelling at 60km/h is very different from a fully green pit stop. Unfortunately, I cannot (yet) distinguish between time spent in the pit lane and time spent in the refuelling area. Nevertheless, it is interesting to examine the following table.
Pos No. Car No. of stops Time in pits
1 88 Car Collection Audi 32 1h 33m 41s
2 7 WRT Audi 39 1h 37m 35s
3 11 Scuderia Praha Ferrari 30 1h 24m 32s
4 63 Grasser Lamborghini 36 1h 48m 37s
5 99 Attempto Audi 29 1h 38m 11s
6 9 Mücke Audi 35 1h 53m 18s
7 25 HTP Mercedes 31 1h 29m 54s

Perhaps most noticeable is the large disparity in the number of pit stops taken by different teams. There is a 25% difference in the number of stops made by cars finishing in the top six. Remember that Grasser, WRT and Mücke Motorsport spent extra time in the pit to resolve mechanical issues. And even if the Audis were allowed to put less fuel in at each stop, the untroubled no. 88 car still spent longer in the pit lane than either the Ferrari or the HTP Mercedes. A further indication of the inefficacy of reducing fuel amount as a means to handicap the car’s performance.

The Dubai 24 hours worked though, on so many levels. The winning Car Collection Audi led 560 of the 607 laps, and held the lead unopposed for the final nine hours of the race, yet it was still a gripping encounter. The battle in the GT4 class was even better than I had expected it would be (and I will try to get around to writing something about that soon). The separate TCE element of the race provided plenty of fun and games too, with many cars having problems, even if there were only 20 cars in that division.

For me, it was a ‘proper’ endurance race. Attrition played a huge part, as it should do in races of this kind. And yet, a good number of those who had problems overcame them, and still had their cars running at the finish. Just as it should be.

I have to say a big thank you to my friends at TimeService.nl. Rob, Floortje and the team make a huge effort to ensure that the timekeeping system is one of the best. Anyone using the “Live Timing” website during the race will know what I mean. If examining data is something that interests you, then you probably already know about their results website. If you don’t know about it and you are interested, it’s here.

Thursday, 3 January 2019

January 2019 - Happy New Year!

I don’t really do New Year Resolutions. I normally try to resolve to do things on the basis that they are worth doing, not that the rather arbitrary date of January 1st has been and gone. So the fact that I am writing on this blog in the first week of January after a hiatus of nearly a year has nothing to do with any “New Year, new commitment” malarkey. No, instead it is in recognition of my rather changed circumstances this year.

Readers may be aware that professionally, I describe myself as an IT consultant; and indeed, it is in that capacity that I have made (most of) my money over the years. However, I left that job at the end of December – of my own choosing, I hasten to add – and now am attempting to earn money devoting myself full-time to the sport that has been my passion for more than fifty years.

To some extent I have been doing this in my spare time, for Radio Show Limited through my commentary work on radiolemans.com and in various other outlets for many years. I also kept myself busy (although not well-paid) writing for dailysportscar.com. More recently, I have also made some money out of my contributions for sport auto magazine in Germany and of course sporadically for Racecar Engineering.

But I have finally decided to take the plunge and throw myself into this business full-time. I have various plans that I’m working on, which in the fullness of time I may get to share with readers on this blog.

First up, this year as for the last seven years, will be the Dubai 24 hours. A hugely popular race in a warm and usually sunny place in January can’t be a bad thing, and I am looking forward to a great race between some of the top GT3 drivers and teams, ably supported by a good variety of GT4 and Touring Car machinery.

I may be being a touch naïve, but I am also hoping that having some more time at my disposal (theoretically at least) will allow me to write more here. Several of you had made kind remarks about my various ramblings, and I am hugely encouraged by your appreciation. If the words here dry up, then it will mean that I am far busier than I anticipated, which hopefully will mean that I am earning some money in my enterprises.

On the other hand, if I find the time to post more frequent posts than I did in 2018, then that might be a sign of idle hands. So if you are one of those people who think: “We really need Truswell to do this for us, but he’s bound to be busy doing something else…” then drop me a note and I would be delighted to do that something instead of writing here. Especially if you’re going to pay me for it!

Monday, 26 February 2018

Silverstone - Return of the GT3's

After the frenzy of the 24-hour races at Dubai and Daytona, followed shortly by the 12-hour race at Bathurst, it has been a quiet few weeks for many of us endurance racing fans. I refuse to get excited by ACO press conferences, nor by the other announcements of this time of year about who will be driving for whom and in what. I know that it is all supposed to be part of the build-up of anticipation, but I would rather have a real race and some real racing to get my teeth into.

As a result, I now find myself in eager anticipation of Creventic’s extravaganza of races coming up at Silverstone next month and I thought it might be fun to see what, if anything, the races thus far this year have taught us. I must admit, I think it could be a thoroughly good weekend’s racing. If you haven’t already familiarised yourself with the programme, then you should: www.24hseries.com is your first point of call. On Friday, 9th March there is qualifying, then the first of two 7-race series events (for Caterhams), followed by the first segment (five-and-a-half hours) of racing for the 12 hours, for Prototypes and GT3 cars, followed by night practice for the 24-hours cars.

On Saturday, 10th March, the action starts at 9am with the remaining six-and-a-half hours for the GT3/Prototypes, a second 7-race series encounter, with the 24 hours scheduled to start at 5pm. With sunset at 17:08, the pace car will, quite literally, be heading off into the sunset (or the murky dusk, more likely). Sunday will be a long day…

Compared to the ninety-plus cars that started in Dubai, the entry is small, but one can understand that the prospect of racing in the pleasant winter sunshine of the UAE is more attractive to many than Northamptonshire before the spring equinox. Bearing in mind the weather that greeted the WEC at Easter 2016, or going further back, the International Trophy Meeting in 1973, let’s hope that the weather smiles on Creventic and the BRSCC organisation.

Entirely gratuitous shot of Ronnie Peterson in the snow in 1973!

I like the idea of mixing the GT3 cars with the Prototypes, although I must admit I am more interested in who will take A6 honours than the Prototype division. It will be interesting to see whether a Prototype can stay sufficiently trouble-free to remain ahead to take overall honours (and how many actually take the start too).

Theoretically, the LMP2 cars in the proto class should easily lap five seconds quicker than the LMP3 cars, which themselves are another five seconds quicker than the GT3 cars, which means that the P2’s should lap the P3’s at least every hour, and the GT3’s twice every hour. But still, none of Creventic’s prototype races have thus far really grabbed my enthusiasm, and with only two Simpson-entered Ginettas in the P2 class, it is far from a foregone conclusion that one of them will take outright honours.

Indeed, it is worth making the point that the gap between LMP3 and GT3 is smaller than the gap between LMP1 and LMP2 or between LMP2 and GTE in the WEC. And I am optimistic that the two-part format will work well.

So who will be at the front of the A6 class? At the time of writing, there are 12 published entries in the A6 class – four Mercedes and two cars each from Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari and Audi. Although there is a BOP-advantage to running as an “amateur” entry, there is no separate class for A6-Pro and A6-Am, so one source of confusion is removed.

There is quite a bit of data worth extracting from the three races at Dubai, Daytona and Bathurst. But for the sake of its relevance to the Silverstone race, I will only take the data relating to those brands that will actually be at Silverstone.

Dubai
Car No. Team/Car Best Lap Average Lap
3 Black Falcon Mercedes 1m 58.541s 2m 00.327s
777 WRT Audi 1m 58.452s 2m 00.402s
9 Mücke Audi 1m 58.591s 2m 00.607s
12 Manthey Porsche 1m 59.660s 2m 00.646s
964 Grasser Lamborghini 1m 58.199s 2m 00.674s
911 Herberth Porsche 1m 58.792s 2m 00.948s


Daytona
Car No. Team/Car Best Lap Average Lap
51 Spirit of Race Ferrari 1m 47.663s 1m 48.583s
29 Land Audi 1m 47.896s 1m 48.666s
64 Scuderia Corsa Ferrari 1m 48.025s 1m 48.822s
12 Grasser Lamborghini 1m 48.207s 1m 48.860s
964 Riley Mercedes 1m 47.964s 1m 48.972s
911 Manthey Porsche 1m 47.668s 1m 49.083s


Bathurst
Car No. Team/Car Best Lap Average Lap
74 Jamecpem Audi 2m 02.932s 2m 03.803s
37 WRT Audi 2m 03.524s 2m 04.498s
56 Strakka Mercedes 2m 03.416s 2m 04.536s
991 EuroMechanica Porsche 2m 03.583s 2m 04.604s
75 SunEnergy1 Mercedes 2m 03.477s 2m 04.632s
12 Ice Break Porsche 2m 04.173s 2m 05.021s

What does it all mean? Well, the most noticeable thing is how close it all is. In terms of percentages, none of the average lap times is more than 1% behind the best, and in the case of Dubai and Daytona, the gaps are practically all under 0.5%. On paper, looking purely at the manufacturer’s hardware and the outright pace, Ferrari and Audi seem to have the upper hand, with Lamborghini not far off, but Mercedes and Porsche slightly slower (it is possible that Black Falcon’s performance at Dubai is an ‘outlier’ and in any case Black Falcon is not at Silverstone).

But of course there is more to it than outright pace, that’s why long races are such fun. On paper, I reckon the Scuderia Praha Ferrari is the strongest contender for class (indeed, let’s face it, outright) victory. But you can’t overlook the Herberth Porsche or the ROFGO or RAM Mercedes, although the data above suggests that they may be short on pace. And Grasser proved at Daytona that they have a winning car also. So pick any one from five!



However, as the podium celebrations for the Silverstone 12 hours are finishing, and the anthems fading away, preparations for the 24 hours will be in their final stages, as less than an hour after the finish of the 12 hour race, the TCE and GT4 cars are due on the grid for their race. (There’s also the small matter of a half-hour thrash for the “7 Race Series” to be squeezed in as well).

Whereas on paper, the 12 hour race should be easily won by a prototype, the balance between the Touring Cars in the TCR class and the Grand Touring cars in the GT4 and SP3 classes is far less clear. Indeed, although GT4 and SP3 are separated into two distinct classes this year, the Ginetta G55 is still an anomaly: two entries (from Colin White) are in the SP3 class, and one (from Team HARD) is in GT4.

That said though, I think that just like in Dubai, the race will liekly boil down to a battle between the TCR class cars, although only five of the TCR entrants from Dubai are expected at Silverstone.

Looking at the lap times from Dubai is interesting, as unlike the A6 class, there are big differences between the cars. I’ve excluded cars at Dubai that are not in the provisional Silverstone entry list.

Dubai TCES
Car No. Team/Car Best Lap Average Lap
129 LMS Racing Seat Leon 2m 12.198s 2m 14.153s
125 Bas Koeten Audi RS3 2m 12.990s 2m 15.563s
115 Bonk Audi RS3 2m 13.825s 2m 15.872s
303 Red Camel Seat Leon 2m 14.177s 2m 17.188s

Missing from Dubai, but entered for Silverstone are the Team Bleekemolen Seat Leon which won last year’s race by 5 laps (with the same driver line-up), the Team Denmark Hyundai, (featuring Jakob Kristensen), Holmgaard Motorsport with their potentially rapid Golf and Motorsport Developpement, also with a Golf.

Not wanting to put the ‘curse’ on them, but I reckon that Michael Bleekemolen’s family-run team will be a tough act to beat again this year. They proved both in 2016 and 2017 that they had the pace – in 2017 they proved they had the reliability too. Anyone wanting to beat the Dutch squad is going to have to have a fault-free run and be quick in the pits.