A Brief Encounter with a Toyota

Regular readers will be aware that I drive an Audi as my regular road car, and that occasionally, the friendly folks in the Audi Press Office lend me something special from their fleet to allow me to experience their latest products and technology. Well, recently I had the opportunity for a brief drive in a Toyota, and I thought I should not only express my gratitude to Toyota but also give my impressions of the experience, by sharing my feelings with you, dear reader. It is possible that the timing might have been opportune, as the month of June beckons, and it strikes me that with that 24 hour contest in France on the horizon, the Sun might just be Rising a little further in the East - if you get my drift...

The Toyota in question was a rather well-specified GT86 - the latest addition to Toyota's sporty range - and apart from a hybrid Corolla that I drove last year, was the only Toyota I've driven since owning a Celica back in the early 1990's. And I have to say I was mightily impressed.

The GT86 is powered by a 4-cylinder boxer engine (a layout I first came across on my first beloved Alfasud), of 'only' 2 litres capacity giving just under 200bhp. So it is not a supercar, by any stretch of the imagination. But it is not priced as one either. The basic GT86, starts from a little over £25,000 - but I understand that the version I drove, with every imaginable TRD extra, would probably set you back at least another £10,000!

So whether I was impressed by the extras, or by the basic car, I can't really tell. First impressions as you settle into the cabin are certainly favourable. It is one of those cars that welcomes you, where you adjust the driving position to make it more comfortable, rather than just being able to get comfortable. All the controls are just in the right places already. Clever Japanese ergonomic engineers, I expect.

Once out on the road, the car is lovely to drive. A six-speed manual gearbox is easy to operate; all-round visibility is good, and the raspy exhaust note supplies just the right amount of decibels without being too raucous.

I find it an interesting car to look at. It is not outrageously styled, and the performance doesn't blow your socks off in the way that some of the high-priced and high performance Audis that I have driven. But its road-holding is outstanding. For a car that is not particularly low-slung, its ability to change direction is astonishing. I found myself just playing with the steering, and marvelling at the responsiveness. In traffic, or out on country lanes it comes close to putting the joy back into motoring. On the motorway, I imagine it's as dull as dishwater.

Although the acceleration was nothing to write home about, it was perfectly adequate. The brakes, though, were outstanding. A confidence-boosting dab when arriving slightly too quickly before a corner where there was uncertain grip levels left me quite happily able to continue on my way, and when another driver decided not to venture out onto a perfectly clear roundabout, I had to come to a complete halt rather more quickly than I had anticipated, but without any drama whatsoever.

It has to be said, though, that the calipers were part of the special TRD package, described in Toyota's publicity material as 'ABS with Electronic Brakeforce Distribution and brake assist Vehicle Stability Control with steering assist Traction Control': I've no idea what that all means, but it worked!

Overall, a brilliant driving experience - maybe not in the league of some of the Audis that I have driven over the years, but nevertheless a car with a great deal to offer its driver, and a price tag that is within the grasp of many more possible buyers.

The original Truswell Toyota - circa 1991!

Looking forward to Spa...

The Spa 6 hours promises to be a fascinating contest. Nine cars competing in the LMP1 category, seven of which are works cars, all of them approaching the race with different agendas and technologies, all of them focussing very much on the Le Mans 24 hours, but none of them able to forget that World Endurance Championship points will be at stake.

I will not be there, in person, although I will be covering the race for radiolemans.com, based in the spare bedroom at home with more screens than I will be able to shake a stick at. If past experience is anything to go by, this provides a perfectly adequate environment from which to watch the race, and even if I am lacking in “Ardennes Atmosphere”, at least I save myself the time and strain of travelling and gain - or should I say, not lose - valuable brownie points at home.

There are a number of reasons for wanting to post this article immediately ahead of the Spa race; the main one is to draw attention to a number of significant factors that I find interesting, and hence might also be interesting to my readers.

First off, in the GTE class, the Aston Martin Vantages will be (are allowed to be) 15kg lighter than they were at Silverstone. Although the result for the British-built cars was in the end reasonably satisfying, the fact was inescapable that the cars were off the pace. Also, the Porsches will have to carry an additional 25kg, which will certainly prevent them from scampering away up the Kemmel straight at the rate that the Silverstone race implied that they might.

It is in the battle for overall honours, though that the chief interest - and intrigue - lies. What fascinates me is that Audi is the only LMP1 manufacturer that will have a high-downforce (non-Le Mans configuration) chassis at Spa. Fascinating, because historically, it is the Ingolstadt manufacturer that builds its season around the Le Mans 24 hour race - even to the extent of running three cars at Spa.

Having run two Silverstone-optimised chassis at the first round, Toyota has opted to configure both chassis at Spa in full Le Mans trim. Readers may remember that last year, the Japanese team had one car in each specification at Spa, enabling us to compare the low-downforce Toyota with the long-tail Audi.

Audi will once more have a long-tail car at Spa, but it will be in the hands of Marco Bonanomi and Felipe Albuquerque. All due respect to both, but they are two of the most inexperienced WEC drivers in the LMP1 entry, so any conclusions drawn about the expected performance of the long-tail Audi at Le Mans, based on its performance at Spa will be speculative indeed.

Porsche will be concentrating fully on preparing for Le Mans. Any result that is achieved at Spa will be against that background. I expect them to be closer to the Toyotas and Audis than they were at Silverstone, but I believe that we will only see the full potential of Stuttgart unleashed when we convene in France next month.

To my mind, the two season-long Audi entries, despite the strains of the past fortnight spent preparing the cars, will arrive at Spa-Francorchamps as the favourites: primarily because theirs will be the only LMP1 cars running without compromise. It is not in my nature to stick my neck out, but I would not be surprised to see them a lap or two ahead of the field at the end of six hours racing.

The other point of interest, more relevant (perhaps) to Le Mans than to Spa, is that the third Audi will be engineered at both races by Matthias Huber. Huber is from Audi Sport, as opposed to Progressive Motorsport. Last year, you may remember, this car was run by Progressive director, Howden ‘H’ Haynes. Haynes was able to oversee the running of both cars in those races where Audi entered only two cars, but at Spa and Le Mans he was principally focussed on looking after the no. 3 car.

Promotion this year for ‘H’ means that he will be overseeing all three cars (although with Kyle Wilson-Clarke and Leena Gade looking after the no. 1 and no. 2 cars, respectively, he might be giving a bit more of a helping hand to Huber initially). Ralf Jüttner now plays a less technical role, and so Haynes’ competitive spirit will not be lost on any of the Audis in the highest profile races of the year.

Audi's start to the season may not have been the one they would have wished, but no-one at Toyota or Porsche should under-estimate the likelihood of them bouncing back from the setbacks of Silverstone all the stronger.

Five and a bit hours of Silverstone

I’m not sure that the opening round of the 2014 World Endurance Championship at Silverstone will go down in history as a classic race; but nevertheless it was a fascinating encounter and one which provides plenty of food for thought ahead of the next round at Spa, and more importantly the 24 hours of Le Mans in June.

With a little over a week before the teams assemble at Spa-Francorchamps, there is much to do at Ingolstadt, Cologne and Stuttgart, and also of course at the various suppliers that support Audi, Toyota and Porsche.

Obviously, Toyota had a perfect result at Silverstone, bringing home its TS040 Hybrids a lap apart and a lap ahead of the competition, but is that a realistic reflection of the pecking order?

The only period of the race for which a comparison can be made for all 6 LMP1-H cars is the first 20 laps - before the first rain shower sent everyone scurrying for the pits (or in Audi’s case, the gravel).

No.	Car	Driver	Best	Average
1	Audi R18 e-tron quattro	Di Grassi	1m 44.656s	1m 46.104s
2	Audi R18 e-tron quattro	Lotterer	1m 44.217s	1m 45.903s
7	Toyota TS040 Hybrid	Wurz	1m 44.326s	1m 45.933s
8	Toyota TS040 Hybrid	Buemi	1m 44.708s	1m 46.304s
14	Porsche 919 Hybrid	Jani	1m 45.452s	1m 47.223s
20	Porsche 919 Hybrid	Bernhard	1m 45.245s	1m 46.733s

Before reading too much into this, though, remember that the two Porsches were in Le Mans ‘low-downforce’ trim, whereas both Audi and Toyota had aerodynamic set-ups more suitable for the demands of the Silverstone Grand Prix circuit. If I were in the Fritz Enzinger’s shoes at Porsche, I think I would have wanted to be a little closer on lap times, but even so, the times shown above are encouraging for all concerned.

It’s worth pointing out as well that not only was the ‘average’ Audi ahead of the ‘average’ Toyota in lap times, but also in consistency: the Audi lap times are slightly less spread than those of the Toyotas.

Just before the race, of course, there was a small tweak to the regulations, aimed at balancing the petrol-diesel equivalence, reducing the amount of fuel that Audi could carry and increasing the amount available to the petrol-fuelled manufacturers. This tweak also reduced the rate at which Audi could pour the fuel into its (smaller) tank, so it really was a ‘triple-whammy’. It won’t matter, of course, at Le Mans, unless that half-litre reduction makes the difference between 13.1 and 12.9 laps on a tankful. But my calculations before the Silverstone race suggested that Audi would be comfortably in the 13-lap range on a tank: I don’t think they would have been considering 14 lap stints anyway.

Again, though, the data from Silverstone is interesting, if minimal. Audi only completed one full stint that wasn’t affected by changing weather conditions, when Benoît Tréluyer drove the no. 2 car from 13:51 to 14:41, completing 27 laps, with an average lap time of 1m 47.826s.

There was more data to go on from Toyota and Porsche. Both Toyotas managed 28 laps on a tank of petrol, without assistance from the Safety Car, in the hands of Nakajima and Lapierre. Nakajima was the quicker of the two, averaging 1m 46.978s for his stint - a pace that surely must be a concern for Audi.

Brendan Hartley completed the longest stint for Porsche (unassisted by the Safety Car), completing 29 laps from 13:39 to 14:33. The average lap time for the stint was only 1m 49.171s though, which perhaps goes some way to explaining its economy.

But again, before reading too much into this, remember that even two laps of Silverstone is less than a lap at Le Mans, so fuel economy may not be the deciding factor this year. Time spent in the pits could be though: time spent sitting stationary in the pit lane while fuel is going in or the tyres are changed can take a lot of effort to get back on the track.

The table below shows the fastest fuel only (full stint) and driver / tyre change stop for each of the LMP1-H teams. As always, this is the time spent in the pit-lane, rather than just the time spent at rest.

Car	Fuel only	Full service
Audi R18 e-tron quattro	1m 01.222s	1m 21.794s
Toyota TS040 Hybrid	1m 03.574s	1m 24.139s
Porsche 919 Hybrid	1m 10.196s	1m 28.186s

No real surprises here, I suppose, other than the size of the differences. Certainly, there seems no need for Audi to complain about the rule change; and for Porsche, there seems to be some room for improvement still.

Prospects for Spa? For sure, we can expect a good race. I admit that the limited analysis I have presented here does not make it clear whether we can expect Toyota or Audi to have the upper hand in the Ardennes. There will likely be a third car from Audi (in Le Mans trim, perhaps?). It may well come down to the abilities of the individual drivers to get the best from their steeds. Although changeable weather conditions can throw up unexpected results, a dry, uninterrupted race will make it easier to predict what might happen at Le Mans. On the other hand, Le Mans is seldom predictable and always thrilling.

Finally, hats off to all concerned that the opening round was free of controversy. Long may it remain so!

Sebring 12 Hours - What might have been?

The Sebring 12 hours was dominated – not entirely unexpectedly – by the Safety Car. In all, 5h 04m were spent under full course caution, in a total of eleven separate periods. At one point, the red flag was waved, and cars came to a complete halt on the Ullman Straight while the debris from the accident between David Ostella (Oreca no. 38) and Frankie Montecalvo (Oreca no. 52) was cleared up.

In the end, the winning Chip Ganassi entry, in the hands of Marino Franchitti, Memo Rojas and Scott Pruett came home the winner, but that was largely down to luck: although the efforts of Franchitti to keep the Riley-Ford in the lead for the last twenty minutes were indeed impressive, the car was only in that position due to its slightly higher fuel consumption requiring it to stop earlier than its competition, and the final Safety Car period coming at just the right time for the team and entirely changing the complexion of a race that was in some ways a fine strategic battle.

The Safety Car disruption meant that only three periods in the race were long enough for cars to use more than a tank of fuel, as shown in the table below:

From lap	To lap	From Time	To time	Period
22	52	11:34	12:30	56m
133	199	16:34	18:40	2h 06m
228	271	20:03	21:25	1h 21m

I thought it might be interesting to look at what happened in the race, based solely on the lap times recorded during these periods, and the results – unsurprisingly – bear little resemblance to the actual race results.

In the prototype class, the results were:

Pos	No.	Car	Laps completed	Time	Pit stops
1	42	Oak Morgan-Nissan	131	4h 19m 27.179s	5
2	5	Corvette DP	131	4h 19m 40.927s	5
3	1	ESM HPD-Honda	131	4h 19m 52.695s	5
4	02	Ganassi Riley-Ford	131	4h 20m 55.253s	6
5	2	ESM HPD-Honda	131	4h 20m 58.920s	5
6	01	Ganassi Riley-Ford	131	4h 21m 19.503s	6

I am not sure what, if anything, this all proves. Possibly that the race leaders in the United SportsCar Championship races do not push on as hard as they possibly can, knowing that any lead that they do establish will be eroded as soon as the next Safety Car appears. In any case, it is certainly interesting that the Oak P2-spec car was consistently quicker than any other, and also that the Extreme Speed HPD also came within a whisker of winning the race overall.

The balance of P2 and DP is probably about right, therefore, at least at Sebring. I suspect Daytona was probably somewhat extreme.

In the GT-LM class, the “All-Green” (using the same periods as above) race result looks like this:

Pos	No.	Car	Laps completed	Time	Pit stops
1	4	Corvette C7.R	126	4h 20m 31.371s	4
2	3	Corvette C7.R	126	4h 20m 44.205s	4
3	912	Works Porsche 911 RSR	126	4h 21m 10.127s	5
4	93	SRT Viper	126	4h 21m 59.109s	5
5	17	Falken Porsche 911 RSR	124	4h 19m 31.789s	4
6	55	BMW Z4 GTE	124	4h 22m 03.797s	10

From which the most evident thing is that this form of racing provides opportunities for recovery drives like no other - but then again, it was ever thus: racing for a team to exploit regulations, despite various setbacks. Hats off to the RLL BMW crew for getting back onto the class podium, despite losing two laps under green racing conditions!

New Approach Needed?

Readers here may have read the rather odd piece that I published on dailysportscar earlier this month – I was in two minds about publishing it there, but having asked for contributions to a general debate over the winter months on the direction of sportscar racing in general, I felt I had to tie up some loose ends: even if it meant some rather tenuous links.

And then Motor Sport arrived this month, with talk of a revolution in F1, and certainly elements of Mark Hughes’ (and Nigel Roebuck’s) articles struck a chord. If you haven’t bought a copy, I recommend that you do. Especially as, for some months now, it seems to be the only mainstream medium calling time on Bernie’s career. The time has indeed come. An era of post-Bernie may be just around the corner – and if that is the case, it will not just affect Formula 1, but all branches of the sport.

However, one theme that I particularly want to explore in this article, which I alluded to in the DSC article and which also features in Motor Sport, is the matter of procedure. There seems to be an idea these days that procedure is a good thing. A few years ago, when I went into hospital for a fairly major operation to remove a lump that was growing inside my skull, the surgeon came in before the operation to describe how he was going to hook the lump out, through a hole behind my ear, that was to have been drilled previously by a colleague of his. Then the anaesthetist came in to tell me how he was going to ensure that I remained unconscious for the whole time. All very sobering stuff. As he was leaving, I felt it appropriate to wish the anaesthetist “Good Luck”.

“No need for that,” he cheerily replied. “There’s no need for luck, it’s all procedure.” To an extent, this put my mind at rest, but nevertheless, the thought that there was no room for the virtuosity of the various professionals at work on me to demonstrate their skill – their artistry – made me feel more like a car being repaired than a piano being played.

And it is this disapproval of any expression of virtuosity in motor sport, in order for it to gain the approval of the FIA, that I find perturbing. Mark Hughes, in Motor Sport, refers to the ‘punkish’ spirit of the sport in the past, which has been lost today, and I know exactly what he means. Any place for spontaneity is being removed. Unpredictability makes people in authority nervous. But the fans love it.

I have said before that 24 hour races at Le Mans, Daytona, Nürburgring and Spa have nothing really in common as far as their organisation is concerned; and even if they are part of wider championships, they still stand alone in terms of specific sporting regulations, organising bodies, starting times, practice and qualification procedures and so on and so forth. With the exception of Daytona, they all draw substantial crowds, and yet have minimal impact on the sporting radar of mainstream media. Other races also spring to mind: the Sebring 12 hours, yes; but also the Indianapolis 500, the Monte Carlo rally – all events that have a culture of their own, above and beyond being ‘just another round of a championship’.

Twenty years ago, the great god was television. Great lengths were gone to, in order to ensure that ‘our’ product was suitable for televising. The world has moved on though. The public no longer watches television in the same way as it did twenty years ago. People want a race summary broadcast of an endurance race (in much the same way as they wanted DSJ’s GP reports back in the seventies), but more important today is the niche broadcast to those who have a specific interest. Those who watched BBC Ceefax to get news of Le Mans through the night in the eighties were perhaps ahead of their time.

The reason that what I call the “FIA Formula” evolved was that it made it easier for media organisations. Fixed times for press conferences, practice sessions and races, prescribed podium formats and an entry list fixed for the season meant that life became quite routine, if you were involved in the season-long championship; but it was meaningless for ad hoc reporting. And of course, the market, if you are selling a championship, is those with a season-long interest. The ad-hockers have to look after themselves.

What makes Bathurst, Le Mans, even the Indy 500 appealing is their uniqueness in the motor sporting calendar. By their very nature, they are ad-hoc events. In some ways, they provide a template for others to fit to, if they choose so to do.

What is not quite clear to me is whether the market wants something predictable, or whether part of the fun is in piecing together the various strands of information to extract what is going on. I get the impression, that to an extent, the internet-savvy motor sport fan of the twenty-first century derives a certain pleasure from finding video streaming channels, timing and scoring outlets, news and comment; even commentary (possibly).

But there’s another strand to this argument. Motor racing is something to be experienced first-hand. Formula 1 has undoubtedly sacrificed this principle to the dollars offered by television, but most people I speak to talk of their experiences being at races, seeing cars in the paddock, of talking to drivers and catching them in perhaps an off-guard moment, being – well – human. It’s my belief that it is this aspect that generates the appeal in the first place. Having kindled the fire of interest, then certainly, interest in a race may be clearly maintained by all manner of media outlets. But surely the most critical thing is making something that will get people through the gates in the first place – that is what will guarantee the future fans of the sport.

To my mind, the storyline of the race, whether it is won by clever strategy, sublime driving technique or sheer grunt under the bonnet, doesn’t have the same impact as standing beside the track, watching, feeling, smelling and of course hearing the action take place in front of you. However erudite and entertaining the commentators are, they will never be able to convey the full atmosphere of actually being there. However sophisticated online timing screens are, they are no substitute for seeing a car on and occasionally beyond its limit, controlled by someone whom you might have seen walking in the paddock earlier in the day, or standing in the bar later in the evening.

As always, your thoughts on the matter are welcome!

Getting on the Lead Lap

In the types of racing where Safety Cars are used to neutralise a race, the need to avoid being lapped is paramount. It hasn't always been thus, but I don't want to waste this particular post debating the uses of Safety Cars and their effects on racing.

At the recent Bathurst 12 hour race, the Safety Car was used in perhaps its most primitive (and simplest) form to bring the field under control. The pit lane entrance is never closed, and cars are released from the pit exit whenever they arrive, unless the Safety Car queue is passing. It means that Safety Car periods are reasonably short - the longest period under yellow at the weekend was 28m 22s - and by making the pace of Safety Car laps quite slow (the average speed of a yellow lap was 4m 24s, or just over 50mph), the queue forms up quickly.

Erebus Racing pulled a very neat trick though, which was noticed at the time, but has since then been quietly swept under the carpet.

It happened under the third (and the longest) safety car period, when the Clearwater Ferrari spun, having hit the wall, at the top of the Mountain and was then struck by the works Nissan. Both Erebus cars had made routine pit stops at the completion of their 55th laps, and were - just - on the same lap.

Bernd Schneider, in the no.1 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG was on his 59th lap, and right on the tail of Will Davison in the other Erebus car; the pair of them 5 seconds ahead of the Clearwater Ferrari, which was a lap behind Schneider, but closing for position on the no. 63 Mercedes. On the same lap that Hiroshi Hamaguchi crashed the Ferrari, Schneider overtook Davison. It was three minutes later that the Safety Car left the pit lane, immediately ahead of the no. 48 M Motorsport Lamborghini (in the hands of Ross Lilley).

Thus, when Schneider crossed the line at the end of his 61st lap, Davison was next in line, completing his 60th lap, and with initially three cars separating them from the Safety Car. This became two on the next lap as the no. 95 Abarth came into the pits.

So it was something of a surprise to observe, as the Safety Car came past the pits for the fourth time, that the no.48 Lamborghini had the no. 63 Mercedes behind it and the no. 1 Mercedes behind that. Next time around, Lilley and Davison were given the wave-by and although the Lamborghini continued round to catch up the tail of the queue, the Merc headed for the pit lane having used only 10 laps of fuel. Of course, it was able to get going again without losing the lap, and as the green flag was shown to Schneider (completing his 66th lap), the no. 63 was already heading up onto the Mountain, also on his 66th, with a full tank of fuel and crucially, back on the lead lap.

Without any sector times available for the no. 63 Mercedes (it having lost its transponder earlier in the race), it is hard to know exactly what happened where, but it is hard to see how the cars can have swapped places while the Safety Car was out.

Less questionable were the tactics of the HTP Motorsport Mercedes, which was two laps down on the race leader and in 19th place, with less than two hours of the race gone following an unscheduled disk change (after contact with another car) early in the race. Later on, the front pads needed replacing - a legacy of the wrong pads having been fitted with the replacement disk - requiring a further long stop; and yet the team still managed to recover to within a gnat's whisker of the winning Maranello Ferrari at the end of the twelve hours.

One lap was recovered fairly easily when the Safety Car made its 6th appearance, to tidy up following the crash of the no. 35 Sennheiser Porsche. Luckily for the HTP crew, the race leader at that time, the no. 1 Erebus Mercedes, had just made a routine stop, and elected to use the full course caution period to make another stop. Although it maintained the lead, it did enable Thomas Jäger to refuel and rejoin as well as regain a lap while the safety car slowed the rest of the field.

By lap 218, Harold Primat was back in the HTP car, and the no 88 Maranello Motorsport Ferrari was leading the race, still a lap ahead of the Mercedes, with just over three hours of the race remaining. Crucially, though, the Mercedes had fuel for four more laps than the Ferrari. Craig Lowndes then brought the Ferrari into the pits after a 27-lap stint (his previous stint had been 28), allowing Primat to regain the lead lap, just as the Ginetta stopped out on the circuit. This brought out the safety car (for the seventh time), and enabled the HTP Mercedes (as well as the McLaren) to pit for fuel without losing any ground.

The green flag waved on the start-finish line as the Ferrari started its 225th lap, with the McLaren second, the Erebus Mercedes third and the HTP Mercedes fourth - all on the same lap, all full of fuel, and separated by less than 20 seconds.

The interesting thing is that the average lap times of the HTP Mercedes were roughly the same as the Maranello Ferrari (2m 05.8s). Even allowing for its two drive-through penalties, the Ferrari spent 3m 42s less time in the pit lane. So how did they end up less than half a second apart? Easy - the Safety Car bunched up the field - on eight of its nine appearances, the no. 88 Ferrari was ahead of the HTP Mercedes, and on each occasion, a gap was wiped out.

The fact of the matter is, that if you're on the lead lap, and the Safety Car appears, you're in with a chance. It may not be fair, but it makes the racing exciting!

Audi's WEC drivers for 2014

I was interested to read earlier this week, Audi’s announcement of their driver line-up for the forthcoming WEC season. Two cars for the full season, and a third entry for Spa and Le Mans. When Allan McNish announced his retirement from prototype racing, my mind immediately went to Oliver Jarvis, and the thought that here was the chance that the under-rated Briton needed. I had first met Olly properly in 2008, at which time he was driving an Audi in the DTM, and it was clear where Jarvis’s ambitions lay. We spoke about his single-seater career (which had included a win at the Macau GP – a fine indication of form if ever there was one) and whether he saw himself one day driving prototypes.

It was very much on his agenda, he said, and when in 2010, he was given his chance at the wheel of a Le Mans prototype driving for Colin Kolles I took particular note of his lap times, and was impressed as he easily out-paced his team-mates. His times were also noticed at Audi Sport, and two years later, he was included in the works squad, driving a non-hybrid R18 with Mike Rockenfeller and Marco Bonanomi, as Audi took the opportunity to run four cars - both at Spa and at Le Mans.

Rocky wasn’t at Spa, due to a clashing DTM commitment, but nevertheless, a look at the average lap times for the three of them from Spa and Le Mans is interesting:

	Spa	Le Mans
Jarvis	2m 04.346s	3m 28.068s
Bonanomi	2m 04.492s	3m 28.845s
Rockenfeller		3m 28.818s

My non-statistically minded readers can take a break now (until the next paragraph!), for I want to spend a moment explaining how my opinion has changed recently on the calculation of average lap times. The problem comes when one compares, say, the average of the best 25 laps done by different drivers. Whilst clearly weather conditions, tyre choice and fuel strategy all have a part to play in giving drivers a reason to go quicker or more slowly, I have found that it is the number of laps that they do altogether that can skew the average somewhat more. For example, if one driver’s 25 lap average is from a stint of 75 laps, it is unlikely that he will be able to record the same average as a driver whose best 25 is taken from a total of 250.

So, what I have done above is to use what I call the 20% average – in other words, to take the average of the best 20% of green laps completed.

In any event, the table does seem to imply that Jarvis was quicker than either of his co-drivers in 2012. Now, just for interest, I thought we should perhaps also look at Loïc Duval and Marc Gené, both of whom drove the non-hybrid Audi R18 at Spa and at Le Mans in 2012.

	Spa	Le Mans
Duval	2m 03.680s	3m 26.887s
Gené	2m 07.761s	3m 28.168s

Here’s where the theory breaks down somewhat, as at Spa, Gené was only out at the start of the race on a damp track, but at Le Mans, Jarvis’s times compare very well against those of the Spaniard. Duval, meanwhile is in a different league (still is, in my view).

Lucas di Grassi appeared in the Audi family in the Brazilian WEC round at Interlagos, in August 2012. He landed a drive alongside McNish and Kristensen - replacing Dindo Capello, who had retired after Le Mans. Interestingly, di Grassi is also a Macau GP winner, two years before Oliver Jarvis.

At a track that he knew well, he was immediately quick. In the race, his average lap times were quicker than any of the other Audi drivers (in a race that was dominated by Toyota).

Interlagos was the Brazilian’s only race of 2012, but in 2013, he and Jarvis were to share a car – along with Marc Gené, as Audi focussed purely on the hybrid R18 e-tron quattro. Jarvis, Gené and di Grassi would only get two races though – at Spa and Le Mans, as the Ingolstadt manufacturer could commit to full season entries for only two cars.

At Spa, it did seem as though di Grassi held the upper hand: his average lap time was 2m 01.834s, compared to Jarvis’s 2m 01.945s, although Olly’s stint was only 40 laps, compared to di Grassi who did 67. Gené’s average, by comparison, was 2m 02.610s.

Le Mans was a different matter, with Jarvis doing more laps than either Gené or di Grassi. The weather was probably kinder to him as well: Jarvis’s average lap time was 3m 26.481s, di Grassi’s 3m 27.378s and Gené 3m 27.583s.

Jarvis must have been hoping for a season-long seat at Audi this year. He’s the same age as the Brazilian, but somehow (a) his career has been a bit slower getting going and (b) di Grassi seems to have made a ‘bigger’ name for himself at Audi Sport than the modest Englishman, not least in terms of his ability to set the car up, which I suspect will be all-important with the new regulations arriving for this year.

At Audi, it is all about the chemistry. I would like to think that Jarvis’s day will come, and I would expect him to shine alongside Bonanomi and Alburquerque. The tricky thing for the drivers of the number 3 car, of course is that they will only get two races in which to prove themselves, whereas the drivers of numbers 1 and 2 will have the full season. Not that there was ever any question of breaking up the Tréluyer / Lotterer / Fässler combination of course.

But one wonders how many more seasons Kristensen will drive, and then, surely, Jarvis’s time will come?