Le Mans 2013

I have been somewhat slow in posting anything about Le Mans 2013 on this blog. There are a number of reasons for this; among them: firstly, that I was busy in the immediate aftermath of the race writing up a long analysis for Racecar Engineering, which should appear in the next issue of that magazine. Secondly, I have been busy at the routine tasks of my day job. Thirdly, that I seem to have had lots of jobs to do at home that needed my attention. But fourthly, and perhaps most relevantly, I’ve spent a good deal of time mulling over the death of Allan Simonsen.

I’ve commented on death in motorsport before in these pages, (here, if you missed it) and it is not my intention to repeat my thoughts on the matter. However, when one considers the scale of some of the accidents that have occurred at Le Mans in the past twenty years or so, I was somewhat taken aback that the accident that looked relatively innocuous at first viewing could have such terrible consequences.

Emotions run fairly high as a matter of course in the Radio Le Mans commentary box, particularly at Le Mans, and I found myself on more than one occasion having to re-focus attention on the on-going race, rather than dwelling on sentimentalities. It was the first time that I had been hooked into the team Skype channel, which enables John, Eve, our London studio and some others, to have off-air ‘conversations’ during the broadcast, and thus it was that I learned the news before the official press releases were issued. And due to the nature of the news and how it broke, we at Radio Le Mans had to confront it, head-on and for real.

Although I wouldn’t count Simonsen as a friend (I have few enough of those), I had met him on a number of occasions. I was impressed watching him at first hand in British GT races, and had interviewed him for circuit PA in the pit lane. There was also the inaugural Dailysportscar Cricket Match in 2008, which Allan attended,  and which provided a memorable opportunity to chat on a range of subjects, including the pronunciation of his surname, about which he was relaxed.

But I think it was the very fact that we have dodged the bullet so often at Le Mans that was the reason this year, that its impact, when it hit home, was so shocking. It was a hard race, in every way.

But, to use a well-worn phrase, back to the race. What a well-deserved, well-executed and thorough victory it was for Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval! A slow puncture aside, it was a fault-free run, as it had to be, given that there was always at least one Toyota close behind.

After the race, though, there was a press release from Audi that got me thinking. “Audi most efficient in the field”, it read, and there’s nothing quite like an extravagant claim to get me rushing for calculator and spreadsheet. The Michelin Green X Challenge is something of a dark niche, but having failed to get to the bottom of the calculation used, (despite email requests to Michelin, answers have not been forthcoming) I have developed my own “Index of Efficiency” for the 21st century.

Just as in the 1950’s and 1960’s my “Index” is based on the simple ratio of average speed divided by fuel consumption. The average speed is the speed of the car when it is on the track, so it is a matter of subtracting the time spent in the pits from the aggregate time of the car for the race, and dividing by the number of kilometres completed. It being France, fuel consumption is calculated in litres per 100kms.

However, since diesel has a higher calorific value than petrol, (measured in megajoules per litre), I apply a factor of 13% to the diesel-powered cars to come up with the following:

No.	Car	Average Speed (km/h)	Fuel Consumption (l/100km)	Index of Efficiency
3	Audi e-tron quattro	203.129	33.264	5.404
2	Audi e-tron quattro	204.138	34.044	5.306
1	Audi e-tron quattro	204.485	34.882	5.188
8	Toyota TS030 Hybrid	203.568	40.585	5.016
7	Toyota TS030 Hybrid	202.998	40.500	5.012

No argument, then, that Audi had the most efficient car at Le Mans. But more interesting, perhaps, is a comparison with last year’s race, in which Audi achieved an Index of Efficiency with the winning car of Lotter, Tréluyer and Fässler, of 5.870, compared to Toyota’s 5.017, which admittedly only completed around seven hours of the race. Audi's second-placed R18 e-tron quattro, in the hands of Kristensen, McNish and Capello, achieved an even more impressive 6.127.

In case it is not already clear, the way this calculation works, a higher Index of Efficiency means a more efficient car. So although Toyota would appear to be much the same as last year, it seems that this year’s Audi is up to 10% less efficient than last year’s car.

The Michelin Green X Challenge works the other way round - i.e. a lower index indicates more efficiency. But the same pattern is evident in that calculation too: last year Audi won with an Index of 5.26, this year it was 6.10, an even more significant change.

Unfortunately, in order to qualify for the Michelin Challenge, you need to finish the race, so figures for Toyota are not available for 2012; however, it is possible to make a comparison between Audi and Rebellion. Last year, Rebellion’s most efficient Michelin Green X Index was 83% of the best Audi, this year it was 91%; further evidence that Audi sacrificed efficiency for speed this year.

Now normally, I do not spend a lot of time fretting about the Michelin Green X Challenge, or on matters of fuel efficiency – after all, racing is more about speed than efficiency. But in 2014, the regulations are going down the route of allocating fuel based on the efficiency of the engine, and so understanding the nature of these calculations is going to be critical.

At the beginning of this year’s WEC season, Ralf Jüttner admitted that the reduced size of the engine air restrictor had forced Audi to take the less efficient route in order to stave off the challenge from Toyota. In defining fuel allocations for 2014, the FIA / ACO will be looking at the evidence from 2013, and could well find themselves in the role of kingmaker.

For sure, there will be plenty of to-ing and fro-ing before regulations are issued, and even after they're published, don’t be surprised to see some adjustments as we go through the early season races of next year as well.

Of over-riding importance, though, is that measures taken in response to Simonsen’s accident are well-considered and well-judged. It is essential that lessons are learnt, but the response must be appropriate. The FIA and ACO have a lot of difficult decisions ahead. I do not envy them the task.

Postscript: Following further analysis, I also picked up on Audi's assertion that the winning car completed the race using 16 sets of tyres. This means that each set lasted, on average, 21.75 laps. Last year's winning car though, completed 378 laps on just 13 sets, an average of 29 laps per stint. I leave it to the reader to decide whether 2012 or 2013 was the more 'efficient' victory!

Benoit Froger

I was saddened to hear recently of the death of Benoit Froger, following a long illness.

Benoit was, in a sense, one of the founding fathers of Radio Le Mans, and certainly helped establish the radio station in the late 1980's and into the 1990's.

At that time he was the marketing manager for the ACO, and was extremely supportive of Radio Le Mans in the early days. In effect, if we wanted to do anything, it was Benoit that sorted it out, whether it was arranging for telephone lines from France Telecom, radio frequencies from the French Government, car passes from the ACO, or the allocation of commentary booths amongst a variety of radio broadcasters.

He was usually ready to help, although he could at times be stubborn and intransigent: this was due as much as anything to his having to make compromises to keep as many people as possible as happy as possible for as much of the time as possible.

He left the ACO in 1995 and spent the rest of his career working for GM, providing a valuable link for the Corvette Racing and Cadillac teams with his many friends at the ACO.

His legacy was much broader than that though. During the 1970's it was Froger that encouraged many of the American teams to cross the Atlantic and come to Le Mans. Closely allied with Bill France of NASCAR, one wonders what would become of USCR if Benoit were still involved in the process.

It was also Froger that developed the marketing potential of the TV coverage of the race. Don't forget that during the 1970's the Le Mans 24 hours was seen as a something of a drudge. Contemporary sports-prototypes were not reliable, there were fuel shortages and the race was generally at a low ebb. With the arrival of Group C came increased interest from manufacturers, and Froger saw the potential of a world-wide TV audience for the race.

A man whose vision and enthusiasm is already missed.

Three more litres

It's now been more than a week since the ACO announced that the petrol-engined LMP1 cars are to be allowed a larger fuel tank at Le Mans. At least the organiser of the most important endurance race of the year has come clean and admitted that the additional three litres of fuel that the works Toyotas, the Rebellion Lolas and the Strakka HPD will be allowed to carry is in order to better balance the performance between petrol and diesel-fuelled engines.

So, this year, the hybrid Toyota TS030 cars will be allowed to carry 76 litres, an increase of 4.1% per tank. The non-hybrid privateer entries from Rebellion and Strakka will be able to carry 83 litres, an increase of 3.75%.

In 2012, both Toyotas were only able to manage 11 laps in a stint, which means that they were using about 6 litres per lap. Audi sometimes did 12 laps on its 58 litres of diesel, although some stints were 11 as well.

Just as an aside, before diving into the arithmetic too heavily, and before anyone starts pulling the wool over your eyes about how efficient these engines are, consider this. The diesel Audi, if it used all its fuel to do 12 laps last year, would be achieving 7.8mpg and the Toyota a miserable 5.8mpg (of super-unleaded). That means if you were to drive from Calais to Le Mans, you would need to stop twice en route to refuel, even if it you topped it up to the brim before you boarded the ferry at Dover!

So while we applaud the increased emphasis on more efficient engines, we must never forget these are racing cars, designed first and foremost to optimise performance. Using the same analogy of driving your road-going Toyota TS030 Hybrid from Calais to Le Mans, you could expect to arrive in around two hours - depending on how long the queue for toll booths was!

Anyway, to return from my tangent to the matter at hand, three litres is not even enough for a lap. But it might make the difference between 11 and 12 laps for Toyota. And you get the feeling somehow, that it must make the difference. Such rule changes are not made in isolation, they are made in consultation with the entrants concerned, and we know that Toyota has been lobbying for a performance break.

So it is reasonable to expect the Toyota TS030 Hybrids to be able to manage 12 laps in a stint this year. It will mean that at the start of each stint, the cars will be 2¼kg heavier, and the pit-stops will take around a second longer.

But what I find interesting is that the ACO chose to increase the tank size of the petrol-engined cars and not decrease the size for the diesel-engined Audis. It seems pretty obvious that Toyota needed the increase to get an extra lap and it wouldn't have the same negative impact on Audi - or at least that's what Toyota must think.

From what we have seen so far this year, Audi has a much thirstier car than last year - indeed, by my reckoning, they might only be able to get 10 laps out of a tank.

The other big issue is going to be tyre usage. We have seen the Michelin tyres lasting for three stints at Le Mans in the past - indeed, Audi has been known to run a quadruple strategy in the past. And if Audi can only manage 10 laps on a tank, then a triple stint for the tyres would only be 30 laps.

Of course, there are many scenarios, but let's take just two: first, that Toyota can indeed manage two laps more than Audi on a tank of fuel, but that Audi triple stints the tyres, where Toyota only double stint them.

In this case, assuming that there are no safety car periods, then the Audis will need to make seven additional stops (each) during the race. However, if they can lap, on average, three-quarters of a second faster than the Toyota, then they should (according to my projection software) be ahead at the end of twenty-four hours.

Second, let's suppose that Toyota's fuel advantage is only one lap, but that both teams can triple stint the tyres. This will enable Toyota to complete an extra lap over 24 hours, but it will have to maintain an average lap time within half a second of Audi in order to win the race.

In a nutshell, it is all finely balanced. The underlying theme is that Audi has the quicker car, but it will have to stop for fuel more often. The projections above both assume the ‘perfect race’ though - i.e. no fumbles on track or in the pits, no safety cars and no rain.

These days, that is not such a wild assumption, but bear in mind that each of the works hybrids will need to make more than thirty pit stops and over a thousand overtaking manoeuvres during the race, so achieving perfection is a very tall order indeed.

Continental Notes - May

A feature of my youth was growing up with Motor Sport magazine, and readers may recall the columns written by the irreplaceable and incomparable (and perhaps irascible) Denis Jenkinson under the same title. I do not for a moment pretend to be in Jenks' league as a journalist, nor as a writer, but wish to preserve his memory by using - I hope he'll forgive me - one of his headings for this post.

It was at Spa, at the beginning of May, that Nick Daman mentioned to me that he had noticed that I was at more races this year. And I explained to him the conscious decision I had taken at the beginning of the year to devote more time to racing, at the expense of my day job. Inevitably, it has been, to an extent, at the expense of my family life as well, but I have an understanding family (I think...) and May was a good month, featuring a trip to Spa-Francorchamps for the Six Hours WEC race, and to the Nürburgring for the 24 hours.

I first went to Spa in 1986, for the 1000kms sports-prototype championship race, and had a most memorable time, including being driven round the old circuit by Howden Ganley. In those days, even though the new circuit was in use, parts were still public road, including the run up to La Source and then back down to Eau Rouge, although Raidillon itself was coned off, you could then drive up the Kemmel straight towards Malmedy.

My last visit had been in 2001, and although in the interim I had visited various events, including some GPs, I must admit I had forgotten some of the charms of the place. I was able, during the Saturday morning warm-up session to wander off and watch the cars.

And I have to say that Spa is (in my opinion) one of those very special places to watch racing cars. It's not just the proximity - at some points you can get very close - and it is more than just the legendary status of places like Eau Rouge. It is to do with the age, the venerability of the place. If race circuits were in the Queen's honours list, Spa would have a knighthood.

You almost want to talk to the trees and ask them what they think of the current breed of WEC car, compared to the D-Types, Aston Martins, Ferrari Testarossas and Porsche 956s.

Time moves on of course, and now there is a nice new media centre in the paddock, but the old start finish line is still overlooked by the main grandstand. And the old commentary box, at the top of the hospitality suites in the centre of the picture below, brought back memories of times that aren't really that long ago.

The old 'bus stop' has gone too, but from the top of the pits is a marvellous viewing area (and a bar!), not just of the start finish, but of the run down towards Pouhon in the distance. Simply magnificent.

Audi UK had provided me with an A5 in which to make the trip, and as the race was held on Saturday, finishing at 8:30 in the evening, it was possible to drive home on Sunday morning on some delightfully empty Belgian autoroutes.

To make the weekend practically perfect, the weather was fine throughout, most unlike some very dreary weather that I've experienced in the past in the Ardennes.

A mere fortnight later, and it was off again, this time to the Nürburgring, for the 24-hours, with transport this time from Toyota GB, and a rather spiffing Lexus RX450h. It wasn't the first hybrid that I had driven, but it was certainly the best, the car easily returning 35mpg, despite being driven with some gusto at various points by John Hindhaugh and Jim Roller, who both drove it on occasions.

It's not really fair to compare Spa-Francorchamps with the Nürburgring, for although they are only 50 miles apart, they are quite different animals. The Nürburgring is itself something of a 'Jekyll and Hyde', with the rather bland Grand Prix circuit attempting, but failing, on 24-hour weekend, to cast a shadow over the mighty Nordschleife.

Although Spa was modernised before the Nürburgring (in 1979, rather than 1984), somehow the Germans managed to get everything wrong that the Belgians got right. The beauty of the 24-hour race at the Nürburgring is that you get to see both sides of the place: and in some ways the German character is similarly dichotomous. Never did we see an Autobahn as empty as in Belgium, and yet we were allowed to drive as fast as the poor little Lexus would go, once the de-restricted signs were shown.

Drivers in Germany are a lot more aware and disciplined than in Belgium, for good reason.

At the end of the long weekend though, driving home provided the opportunity to reflect on two rather different races and two rather different tracks. And yet, both stir the soul of motor racing aficionados.

When I was deciding on my 'Classic Tracks' recently, I didn't include either Spa or the Nürburgring - you'll have to wait for the final part of my trilogy to see what I added to Indianopolis and Monza - but having visited both in the last month, they are undoubtedly worthy of inclusion, and certainly both are well worth a visit. Even if you've been before, Spa Francorchamps and the Nürburgring are tracks that get under your skin and suck you back for repeat visits.

Maxime Martin

There's a danger here that I am going to be accused of being a bit slow on the uptake, but that's a risk that one takes every time one picks up a microphone and speaks, or puts pen to paper and publishes. So with that proviso, I'd like to share with you a small moment of enlightenment that I had since observing the Nürburgring 24 hour race.

Driving home with fellow-commentator Jim Roller, we were reflecting on the sublime performance of Maxime Martin in the Team Marc VDS BMW Z4 GT3, and the thought suddenly occurred to me that, as he was Belgian, there were some other Belgians called Martin that had indelibly written themselves on my memory as I was growing up and beginning to get to grips with this whole endurance racing thing.

Sure enough, when I got home, a little research soon revealed that Max is indeed related to the famous Belgian racing brothers of the same name: he is the son of the winner of the Nürburgring 24 hours in 1992, Jean-Michel Martin. Readers who are as old as me (or older) will no doubt recall the Belga-sponsored cars of the late 1970's and early 1980's which had the Martin brothers - Jean-Michel and Philippe, partnered by luminaries such as Gordon Spice, Bob Wollek and Marc Duez. Jean-Michel is the elder of the two brothers, and I have to admit, on remembering the connection, were a pretty potent force.

Jean-Michel is four-times the winner of Spa 24 hours, (twice with his brother, in a 3-litre Ford Capri) and in 1980, partnered by Spice, they were third at Le Mans in the Belga-sponsored Rondeau.

A small thing, I know, but one that caused me a great deal of pleasure somehow - a sort of link with the past. And I am sure that Guy Edwards (father of Sean) and Jean-Michel and Philippe Martin, could share some stories, if they haven't already done so, as they watch their accomplished offspring plying their trade.

Here's a photo I took of Jean-Michel at the wheel of the Joest Porsche 936C at Silverstone in 1982

Spa Six Hours

Brilliant sunshine accompanied the Spa Six hours, and I must admit I enjoyed it as much as I have any of the races I’ve been to this year. I'm very tempted to present another of my ‘classic tracks’ articles about Spa, but that will have to wait until some chores are complete. Suffice for now to say that one of the highlights of the weekend was to have a wander around (the less far-flung reaches of) the circuit during the Saturday morning warm-up. Thanks to John Hindhaugh for allowing me the flexibility to indulge myself!

Although the result was an entirely predictable Audi whitewash, the race contained lots of hints for what might happen at Le Mans in June. A detailed analysis will appear on dailysportscar.com later this week, but in the meantime, here are some interesting points. How about the time spent in the pits by each of the leading runners?

Car No.	Car	No of stops	Time in Pits	Tyre stops	Stop-Go penalties	Finishing position
1	Audi	8	9m 36.471s	5	0	1st LMP1
2	Audi	8	8m 51.866s	4	0	2nd LMP1
3	Audi	8	9m 23.116s	5	0	3rd LMP1
8	Toyota	7	8m 20.856s	4	0	4th LMP1
12	Rebellion Lola	7	7m 40.526s	3	0	5th LMP1
13	Rebellion Lola	6	7m 16.466s	3	0	6th LMP1
21	Strakka HPD	7	10m 41.754s	5	0	7th LMP1
49	Pecom Oreca	8	10m 42.654s	7	0	1st LMP2
24	Oak Morgan	7	8m 54.954s	5	0	2nd LMP2
38	Jota Zytek	7	8m 05.926s	3	0	3rd LMP2
51	Ferrari	7	7m 26.231s	5	2	1st GTE-Pro
98	Aston Martin	6	6m 24.265s	3	1	2nd GTE-Pro
71	Ferrari	5	6m 33.919s	5	0	3rd GTE-Pro
81	Ferrari	5	7m 06.562s	5	0	1st GTE-Am
95	Aston Martin	5	6m 34.702s	4	0	2nd GTE-Am
50	Corvette	5	7m 37.932s	5	0	3rd GTE-Am

The pit lane at Spa is 386.6m long, which means that at a constant 60 km/h it will take 23.2s just to get from one end of the pits to the other. For the no. 2 Audi, this means that more than 3 minutes was spent travelling down the pit lane - so the time actually spent stationary in front of the pit was something like 5m 40s (taking account of braking and acceleration time).

Even more impressive was the no. 98 Aston Martin, which spent just over four minutes at rest during the race.

With so many teams have practically perfect runs over six hours, the objective for the twenty-four hours must be at a similar level. One cannot imagine the winner at Le Mans (in any of the classes) having an unscheduled pit-stop.

As far as the race for the overall win was concerned, neither the no. 3 Audi (in Le Mans aerodynamic configuration) nor the no.8 Toyota (in 2012 specification) was quite on the pace of the others, and once the no. 7 Toyota had retired, it was left to the two Audis that battled for the lead at Silverstone to provide the excitement at the front at Spa as well.

The fact that Tréluyer, Fässler and Lotterer were able to overcome a 45s longer pit stop time speaks volumes for the pace of the three young chargers (although Lotterer was seen having a couple of close calls in the traffic). The average times for the fastest 25 laps for each of the Audi drivers (along with Nicolas Lapierre in Toyota no. 7) are as follows:

Car No.	Driver	Average of best 25 laps	Laps completed
1	Lotterer	2m 01.366s	88
1	Tréluyer	2m 03.020s	40
1	Fässler	2m 02.509s	40
2	Duval	2m 02.171s	89
2	Kristensen	2m 03.401s	39
2	McNish	2m 03.164s	40
3	Gené	2m 03.227s	61
3	di Grassi	2m 02.316s	67
3	Jarvis	2m 02.553s	40
7	Lapierre	2m 02.880s	67

There is a good case that André Lotterer is the best prototype driver of the current era - the above table certainly provides evidence that he is the quickest. It is, however, inevitable, that those drivers completing more laps will have a better 25-lap average. And in those terms, Oliver Jarvis is serving notice of his intent to join Audi's top flight.

There's a lot more to look at, especially the fact that the Audis were only running for 20 laps before refuelling, whereas the Toyotas could do 22. For the moment, though, it is all speculation. June will be upon us before long, and the pieces are in place for another great race at Le Mans.

Audi RS4 Avant - Irresistible!

I was lucky enough to sample the new Audi RS4 Avant not long ago, and as it is only a few months since I also had the S6 Avant to try out (see my blog entry here), I thought there was some merit in comparing the two. Although both will set you back in excess of £50,000, depending how you choose the optional extras, the basic cars are similarly priced, and both fall roughly into the same category of ‘performance family estate car’. Certainly both have comparable luggage-carrying capacity: although it should be noted that the S6 offers 565 litres of space, whereas the RS4 only provides 490 litres. In practical terms, that means that while both would comfortably accommodate a family of four and the associated stuff required for a week away, the S6 would be more suitable for those with a third child, or who are contemplating a two week holiday with camping paraphernalia or the like.

In price and function, the two cars are therefore similar – or at least in the same ballpark. Both have V8 engines providing more than 400bhp. But although the S6 gives 414PS (408bhp) from its twin-turbo, 4.0 litre engine, the RS4 simply blows the larger car away with a staggering 450PS (444bhp) from its 4.2 litre normally-aspirated version.

With lightweight technology being a key element in Audi’s marketing strategy these days, it is also pertinent to note that the RS4 is 155kg lighter than the S6, giving it a nearly 20% better power to weight ratio. And, oh boy, that is something that you notice!

Driving the S6 Avant left one thinking: “it’s a lovely car, but can I really afford it?” but the RS4 is far more addictive: “I need to buy one of these, how can I afford it!”

It is a car that demands to be stretched, to be hurried along, even if there is no hurry. Even when you can see the next traffic light ahead is red, the temptation is to always be there first, apart from anything else, because you can. In many ways, it is more like a high-performance sports car than a family estate. When I took my 12-year-old son to his cycling club, the bike went easily into the boot, but as I drove there, I quite simply forgot what I was doing, and found myself pushing the car through the corners, accelerating through medium-speed curves with enthusiasm that had us both grinning foolishly.

Then there are the “impressive engine acoustics”, as it says in the brochure. The V8 bellows out without the constraint of turbo-charger. Subtle it isn’t, but it is rather good.

I am reasonably used to the S-tronic gearbox, and in dynamic mode it enables the enhanced acoustics as well as providing the optimum gear for fast acceleration – obviously at the expense of fuel consumption. But it really doesn’t matter. Getting good fuel consumption is not the point of the RS4 Avant. Rather like Billy Whizz from “The Beano”, the point is to travel quickly, not to arrive sooner. It may mean you end up a bit red in the face, but why not? It’s worth it.

Look forward to a lot of visits to the pumps!

Dynamic mode also activates the sports suspension, which may be fine for some press-on driving round a test track, but is, I am afraid, rather uncomfortable on nearly all of the roads that I drive on. Local government seems to be unable to provide road surfaces that can survive a British winter without developing more potholes than the surface of the moon and repairs seem short-lived as well. But I digress. Fortunately, the Audi RS4 Avant can be set to allow comfort mode on the suspension and dynamic for everything else, which worked well enough for me and my aging spine.

Overall, this is a remarkable car - yes, it is expensive, but it does do everything extremely well. I've been lucky enough to drive an R8 on more than one occasion, and it is a very wonderful car, but totally impractical. When I drove the RS5 last year, I was impressed - it's a proper wolf 'in sheep's clothing'. But there's something about the estate, which makes the disguise even better!

I see that this month's Motor Sport contains a test of the RS6 Avant , but unless you have the extra £15,000 burning a hole in your pocket, I don't see how it could be that much better.

>