Friday, 27 February 2015

Godzilla, by a whisker!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

How to win the Rolex 24 at Daytona

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 30 January 2015

Belatedly, a review of the Dubai 24 hours

The tenth edition of the Dubai 24 hours, heralding the arrival of a new sponsor in the shape of Hankook tyres, may not have been the edge-of-your-seat thriller of a race that we have become used to in GT3 races these days, but nevertheless, it provided a worthwhile curtain-raiser to the 2015 season. In a nutshell, the Black Falcon Mercedes team did everything right – at least the crew of the no. 2 car did – and their win became, from the half-distance point onwards as inevitable as it was well-deserved. Hubert Haupt, Yelmer Buurman, Oliver Webb and Abdulaziz Al Faisal kept the car out of the way of trouble in a race that, with 89 starters, was always going to be a question of survival in the early stages.

The car was quick and the drivers stuck to their task well and it was a race in which the battle for second was the one that held the attention, once the Black Falcon car had established a two lap lead.

Unusually, the drivers shared the duties pretty evenly, cycling through in the same order: Buurman, Haupt, Al Faisal, Webb throughout the race; only the Dutchman getting an extra stint in order to bring the car home in its final stint.

In terms of laps completed, the breakdown was as follows:

Driver Stint Percentage (laps)
Hubert Haupt 167 laps 27.6%
Yelmer Buurman 153 laps 25.3%
Oliver Webb 142 laps 23.5%
Abdulaziz Al Faisal 142 laps 23.5%

The drivers were pretty well-matched in terms of their lap times, too. The table shows the average lap time for each, based on the average of the best 20% of the ‘green’ (i.e. non-code 60) laps driven.

Driver Time
Haupt 2m 02.022s
Buurman 2m 01.465s
Webb 2m 02.895s
Al Faisal 2m 02.902s

Apart from speed, the other key to winning a race like this was to keep the car out of the pits. The table shows the time spent in the pits for the leading cars:

No. Car Time in Pits (inc fuelling) No. of stops
2 Black Falcon Mercedes 1h 20m 37s 20
30 Ram Racing Mercedes 1h 36m 56s 23
88 Dragon Racing Ferrari 1h 19m 41s 21
28 KPM Aston Martin 1h 36m 57s 22
23 Team RJN Nissan GT 1h 32m 58s 23
4 Scuderia Praha Ferrari 1h 44m 33s 22
99 Attempto Racing Porsche 1h 21m 34s 22

As I already mentioned, the race for second place was particularly enthralling, made more so by the fact that the Dragon Racing Ferrari was running in the “Am” category of the A6 class, unlike either the RAM Racing Mercedes SLS or the KPM Aston Martin Vantage. Creventic’s cleverly-constructed regulations allow cars in the Am category to run 30kg lighter and to take on 5 litres more fuel at each stop, but limit the cars in the class to a so-called “minimum reference lap time” of 2m 05s, under which they are not allowed to go.

With this in mind, it is interesting to compare the number of laps completed by each of the above-mentioned cars in each time bracket:

No. Car sub 2m 02s 2m 02s to 2m 04s 2m 04s to 2m 06s 2m 06s to 2m 08s
2 Black Falcon Mercedes 42 212 195 66
30 Ram Racing Mercedes 45 250 152 50
88 Dragon Racing Ferrari 5 3 350 125
28 KPM Aston Martin 74 192 143 81
23 Team RJN Nissan GT 1 4 244 165

The rules permit cars running in the Am category to use ten “jokers”, enabling them to go under the 2m 04s lap time: Dragon Racing (or perhaps more precisely, Matt Griffin) used eight of these. What is particularly impressive is the 350 laps run between 2m 04s and 2m 06s. Griffin did 11 laps (out of 135) over 2m 07s (not Code 60 or pit stop laps), Rob Barff just 7 out of 119. An astonishingly consistent performance.

Could anyone else than Black Falcon have won the race? Barring an unexpected incident affecting the progress of the no. 2  car, not really. Looking at the average of the best 20% of lap times is a good indicator of outright performance.

No. Car Average Lap Time
1 Stadler Porsche 2m 01.894s
2 Black Falcon Mercedes 2m 01.458s
3 Black Falcon Mercedes 2m 01.794s
4 Scuderia Praha Ferrari 2m 02.528s
12 Fach Auto Tech Porsche 2m 01.500s
19 V8 Racing Corvette 2m 02.473s
28 KPM Aston Martin 2m 01.485s
30 Ram Racing Mercedes 2m 02.029s

Whilst it is certainly true that all the cars that finished in the top six were worthy of their finishing positions, this table of average lap times shows how well the Creventic rules balance performance. Six different manufacturers’ cars comprise the top ten positions. And in terms of the average lap times, the fact that three-hundredths of a second per lap separates the top cars from Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Aston Martin is remarkable indeed.

Surely the first win for an Aston Martin in a 24-hour race for GT3 cars cannot be far away?

Friday, 12 December 2014

Looking back on 2014 and forward to 2015

2014 has been rather a hectic year, and I have written rather less on this blog that I have wanted to, particularly in the middle of the year. Pressures of work, family, other commitments: they've all taken their toll, and meant that I’ve not written about all manner of things that I have wanted to.

So I’m going to attempt to address that with this - a rather all-encompassing mish-mash of thoughts, experiences and tales from my year. At least part of it. Since writing here is purely a hobby for me, it has been one of my lower priorities. No, that’s not quite true: it’s a leisure activity, and hence it’s important to me. It is also a platform that I use to indulge myself. I may not make any money out of it, but I take great pleasure in watching how many readers I get; where they are based; and what reaction I get to my various musings.

I’ve been touched by offers from various people of help, in very open-ended forms: not knowing what might improve things for me, people wanting to make things better. As a Christian, I believe that prayer can make a difference, and whether folk have been praying, or whether it is just a general sense of positiveness, or whether pure chance and circumstance; you may all have different views.

But from my side, I am expecting a very different year next year from the one that is about to pass. Before going on to tell you about that though, a reflection on some of the things that I have wanted to write about this year, but failed, being overtaken (and possibly lapped) by events before I had chance put fingers to keyboard.

Back in July, the opportunity arose for me to visit Silverstone on the first day of free practice for the British Grand Prix, and it seemed like a good idea to go. I was surprised to discover, when I checked, that it had been as many as 12 years since I had last been at a Formula 1 race - having seen my first British Grand Prix at Brands Hatch in 1968, and been to every single GP in this country between 1976 and 2002 - I may nowadays associate myself more with endurance and sportscars, but it was not ever thus.

These days there are many F1 fans - they call themselves “motorsport fans” - who rarely visit a race. I don’t want to say this is necessarily a bad thing, for F1 on TV these days is very popular, due entirely to these fans; but personally, I do think that you can’t beat actually being there. To experience things from the spectator’s viewpoint is crucial for me and I had a jolly good day out at Silverstone. Admittedly I didn’t actually get there until mid-way through Free Practice 1, but by doing so I had no dramas with parking, no queues, and got to the trackside very easily indeed. The sun shone and it was great to be able to wander around the enclosures, spending the whole day watching from various points. I was rather disappointed to be told that I couldn’t go in the ‘Silverstone Six’ grandstand: the one that overlooks the inside of the Becketts esses as well as the exit to the Loop; but I did get into the stand on the outside of Becketts, and also at Stowe, Club, and opposite the pits.

It was great too, to see Silverstone looking its best. There is no doubt that when everything is painted, the grass is mown and there are vendors’ stands everywhere, the place has a splendid atmosphere, worthy of any major public event, sporting or otherwise.

I'm not sure whether Formula 1 lived up to my expectations though. For me, the lack of noise was an issue, even for one who has grown to love the whispering diesel prototypes that do so well in endurance racing. The only point of jaw-dropping, knocking-my-socks-off, in-your-face Formula 1 was when I stood on the outside of the track, at Maggotts, the first element of the Becketts esses. There you can get yourself pretty close to the track, and the barely bridled violence of a Grand Prix car at speed can be felt in every fibre of one's body. But without that immediacy, it was - at times - a bit tame, especially at slow corners. Granted of course, I was just there for a free practice session, and that never quite grabs the attention in the same way as a full-blown race, but still, I felt there was something out-of-reach about Formula 1 when I look back to the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s whereas I had the impression that today’s cars were being driven by mere mortals.

Apart from the Grand Prix, I didn’t go to any races ‘for fun’ this year. Indeed, following the Spa 24 hours in July, I didn’t manage to get to any other races this year at all - apart from those kart races in which my son was competing! After trips in the first half of the year to Dubai, Bathurst, Silverstone, Le Mans and Nürburgring, this was not such a sacrifice, and family holidays in Spain and Warwickshire (yes, Warwickshire) at least enabled me to increase my store of brownie points in August.

Covering the five remaining rounds of the World Endurance Championship for radiolemans.com from my spare bedroom might not have been exotic, but it worked pretty well, in my opinion - and your views would of course be welcome. Although it would have been fun to travel to Texas, Japan, China, Bahrain and Brazil, I am pretty sure that my home and work life would not have survived such trips.

Without the assistance of the kind folk at Al Kamel Systems (the WEC timekeepers) and of SBG Sports Software, who loaned me a version of their RaceWatch software, it would have been a far more difficult exercise though. These systems together enabled me to follow what was going on halfway across the globe and indeed furnished me with more information than John Hindhaugh and Graham Goodwin were getting in their commentary booth at the various circuits.

Inspired by my experiences of ‘remote commentary’, and also by the discovery that one LMP1 team had more than 250 working technicians at Le Mans this year, I began to work on an article entitled ‘Remote Engineering’; the purpose of which was to make the case that a lot of the strategy work, telemetry monitoring, tactical decision-making and more, can be done ‘back at base’ and doesn’t need to have people travelling to all the races at all. Maybe that’s an article that will get written in 2015.

I’ve also wanted to tell you about some good books that I’ve read this year. Tony Brooks’ autobiography, ‘Poetry in Motion’ was probably the best of the motor racing ones. In his foreword, Brooks boasts (or maybe admits is a better word), that it is all his own work. Despite offers of help from professional writers, he decided to write it himself. It shows too, but it is a good read for all that. Brooks manages to confront his critics, puff out his chest and boast of his achievements, but all in a modest way. As one who spent his career up against the likes of Juan Manuel Fangio and Stirling Moss, he hardly disguises his opinions of his contemporaries, and provides some splendid insights into a somewhat different world that was motor racing fifty or sixty years ago.

I tend to shy away from expensive ‘photo books’, and hence bought the latest book ‘Uncrowned King’ about Jochen Rindt with some trepidation. I had experienced Rindt's career as it happened, and remember to this day coming home from Crystal Palace and seeing an Evening Standard news placard from the top deck of the 164 bus at Rose Hill blurting out the news: “Racing star killed at Monza”.

I had read Heinz Prüller’s biography, and wasn’t sure that I needed to revisit the subject. However, partly prompted by the fact that David Tremayne is a writer that I enjoy reading and also by the fact that Rindt belongs to that special band of drivers to have won Le Mans; I took the plunge, and am very glad that I did. It may be expensive, and it may have a lot of pictures, but if you're looking for a last minute Christmas present for a friend, then you could do a lot worse. It’s a book that I suspect a lot of people don’t have.

At the moment, I am part way through ‘Doctor on the Grid’ by Tony Goodwin. Although I haven’t seen him for years, I got to know Tony quite well in my days at Brands Hatch; and a nicer man you couldn’t wish to meet. He may not be a household name, but like the tales of Perry McCarthy and Tommy Byrne, his story is worth telling and definitely worth a read. Like Brooks, Goodwin combined a passion (and a considerable, if largely unrecognised talent) for racing with a proper job in the medical profession, and both talk of the difficulty of balancing that passion with more mundane but important things like job and family. Which of course is a theme that I know well.

A theme that brings me on to my plans for 2015. After thirty-five years of working full-time in the IT industry, the plan is to spend no more than three days per week doing that next year. The idea is that this will free up time for pursuits such as writing and talking about cars and racing. I’m not sure yet how I shall make ends meet, but I am optimistic that I have enough money-earning potential that I shall be able to spend more time doing the things that I enjoy, whether that be crafting prose, analysing spreadsheets, talking into a microphone or simply spending more time with my family. If I make money enough money for a holiday, then that will be a bonus!

Friday, 7 November 2014

Leena Gade - Clever!

Dedicated readers (with good memories) might recognise that the heading of this post has echoes of an article that I wrote two years ago. If not, it’s here.

Leena (whisper it) may be a little older than H, but she has learnt her trade at Progressive Motorsport, and been mentored by H for many years now. And during the Six Hours of Shanghai she proved that she’s just as good at making swift strategy calls, if circumstances call for it.

The circumstances in question came as the two Audi R18 e-tron quattros battled over third place with the no. 14 Porsche and the six hour race headed into its final two hours. It was clear that the Porsche held the upper hand – not merely in terms of average lap times, but more significantly by virtue of superior fuel consumption. Both Porsches had planned to complete the race on just five stops, and the early Safety Car period had enabled the Stuttgart marque to carry out its plan without even the need for fuel-saving in the second part of the race, at least for the Dumas/Lieb/Jani car.

Marc Lieb brought the 919 into the pits from third place to hand over to Neel Jani a good ten minutes later than the Audis had pitted, and by then the Swiss driver knew that he would be able to get to the end of the race with just one stop for fuel and tyres, practically securing a podium finish.

Following a fine opening stint by André Lotterer in Audi no. 2, Ben Tréluyer had struggled slightly on the tyres during his stint, losing time to Loïc Duval in the no. 1 car. It’s important to appreciate that Audi does not implement team orders (as a rule), so the fact that the no. 2 car held a significant advantage in the WEC points standings didn’t mean that Wolfgang Ullrich was about to interfere. It was down to the race engineers on the each car to make the strategy calls: Kyle Wilson-Clarke and Dave Brown looking after the no. 1 and Leena Gade and Justin Taylor the no. 2.

Marcel Fässler took over from Tréluyer with a little over two hours remaining. The trouble was that the Audi would only do 30 laps on a full tank of diesel, and that would take less than 56 minutes, so Marcel would have to make two stops to get the R18 e-tron quattro to the end of the race. Tom Kristensen, in the no. 1, was 17.3s ahead and having stopped two laps before the no. 2 car, also had to make two more stops. The only difference was that Kyle was planning a driver change, to get Lucas di Grassi back into the car for the final stint.

There may be only two points difference between finishing fourth and finishing fifth, but Leena wanted those two points badly. How was she to recover those 17.3s? The answer, she decided, was to do the short-fuelling stop early, which would gain track position over the no. 1 car and secure fourth place should the Safety Car be deployed.

So after a 29-lap stint (taking nearly 54 minutes), Fässler came into the pits, took on board enough fuel for eight laps and a new set of tyres, and was on his way after a stop of just 56.927s (from pit in to pit out). He also found himself on a clear track, and in the eight laps before his next stop, his average lap time was 1m 50.418s. During the same period, di Grassi’s average in the no. 1 was 1m 51.520s.

But of course Fässler’s stop would be for a full tank of fuel; di Grassi only needed to take on enough for ten laps. To ensure fourth place, Fässler would need to keep delivering the lap times. Excluding pit laps, Marcel’s average lap time over the final hour of the race was 1m 51.365s, compared to Lucas di Grassi, whose average was 1m 51.613s.

As ever at Audi, the credit must go to the whole team of the no. 2 car: Fässler, whose driving this year has been sublime; Gade, for having the courage to make the call; and also the team of mechanics, who gained a further 4.8s in those crucial final two stops. That in itself was probably down to the extra two laps of fuel that the no. 1 car required. And that was due to Duval and Kristensen not being quite efficient enough in fuel-saving.

It might have been clever, but it deprived the spectators of a wheel-to-wheel battle which would almost certainly have ensued between the two Audis otherwise.

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Qualifying in Shanghai

Saturday’s qualifying session at Shanghai was thrilling as ever, with the official timesheet at the end of the session showing identical four-lap average lap times for the no. 14 Porsche and the no. 8 Toyota on the front row of the grid.

I’m sure readers here will be well aware of the format of WEC qualifying; but just in case you’re not, a brief recap for you.

Qualifying is split so that the GT cars and prototypes each have their own session, and each has 25 minutes, during which time teams are only allowed to use one set of (dry) tyres, and two drivers from each car must set two timed laps each. Refuelling is permitted, but the car may not go back into the garage during the session; if it does so, then its qualifying is deemed to be complete.

Obviously, the prototypes are quite a bit quicker than the GTs, and 25 minutes provides enough time for around four flying laps for each P1 driver (bearing in mind that the final ‘in’ lap doesn’t have to be completed inside the time limit). So although the mantra “every lap counts” is true, there is also room for a lap or two to be spoiled by traffic, without the four-lap average being too badly affected. There is also the opportunity to use the laps between ‘flyers’ to cool the tyres, or charge up hybrid systems, for example.

In Shanghai, the pressure was intensified by threatening clouds and reports of spots of rain on the track. The no. 14 Porsche was started by Neel Jani and he did just two flying laps and brought the 919 straight back into the pits to hand over to Romain Dumas. The Frenchman got into the car, did two more flying laps, and came back in as well. The car was pushed back into its garage, the Porsche having done just eight laps in total on its set of tyres.

Over at Toyota, Anthony Davidson took the no. 8 TS040 Hybrid out and did three flying laps, each one quicker than the one before - even if, by his own admission, the laps were “a bit scrappy”. Sebastien Buemi may not have had ideal track conditions, but he did find himself on an increasingly empty track, and was able to unleash all of the Japanese car’s 1000 horsepower in his quest - not only for pole position, but also for a championship point. Despite managing six flying laps, however, he wasn’t able - quite - to extract a quick enough lap time, as the figures below show.

14 - Porsche 919 hybrid
Lap Driver Time
1 Neel Jani 1m 47.036s
2 Neel Jani 1m 47.606s
3 Romain Dumas 1m 49.443s
4 Romain Dumas 1m 49.115s

8 - Toyota TS040 Hybrid
Lap Driver Time
1 Anthony Davidson 1m 48.097s
2 Anthony Davidson 1m 48.087s
3 Anthony Davidson 1m 47.847s
4 Sebastien Buemi 1m 48.671s
5 Sebastien Buemi 1m 55.994s
6 Sebastien Buemi 1m 50.555s
7 Sebastien Buemi 1m 48.637s
8 Sebastien Buemi 1m 54.459s
9 Sebastien Buemi 1m 48.632s

Now, before you get your calculators out and work out the four lap averages for the best two laps of each driver from each car, consider this: when you do an average, you have to divide, and that means rounding. Try working out the total time of the four laps, and don’t divide by four. Then you get a total time for four laps for the Porsche of 7m 13.200s. For the Toyota, the total is 7m 13.203s.

So the average lap times, as issued by the FIA WEC, are clearly truncated, rather than rounded. If you round to the nearest thousandth of a second, then the result is:
Porsche - 1m 48.300s
Toyota - 1m 48.301s

Of course, there is nothing in the regulations to say how you should resolve this arithmetic: perhaps there should be. What is specified, is that the car that sets the four lap average first takes precedence in the case of the average lap time being the same for two different cars. Fortunately, the Porsche did its time first, but if it hadn’t done, then I think it would have had a good case to argue that its average was quicker, and that it should have had pole position anyway.

Friday, 24 October 2014

Marking your card for Shanghai

Ahead of the next round of the World Endurance Championship in China, I have as usual been trying to work out what to expect. Fuji provided six hours of practically uninterrupted racing – and a facility like Shanghai will most likely provide similar. Remember that last year we had six hours racing at Shanghai: unspoilt by of Safety Cars, Full Course Yellows or rain. Although the weather gods were kind to us in Japan, rain in late October is not unheard of in China, and changeable conditions might be the best hope for either Porsche or Audi to put Toyota under pressure.

Before any race, a team will put together a race plan, which will include the driving sequence, length of stint and when tyres will be changed. Of course, the green flag waves and this plan is often the first casualty as events (dear boy) unfold and incidents happen. Nevertheless, and even if the better-prepared teams will have alternative plans up their sleeves to deal with various eventualities, it is the plan that you have to start with. And the thought occurs to me that the strategists at Porsche (and possibly even those at Toyota) might be thinking in terms of a five stop race in Shanghai.

It will not have gone unnoticed that at Fuji, Brendon Hartley in Porsche no. 20 managed a stint of 39 laps, which from the pit exit at the start of his stint to entering the pits at the end took him 58m 40s. If one allows that to refuel, change tyres and travel the length of the pit lane takes more than 1m 20s, then the inevitable conclusion is that it is possible for a modern LMP1 car to complete a six hour race on just five stops.

Last year at Shanghai, the longest stint by one of the works hybrids was 26 laps. By my reckoning, in fuel-saving mode, Porsche will be able to manage 32 laps. A good average lap time will be 1m 50s. I calculate that both Porsche and Toyota might be able to manage that, and if they do, then they'll be able to complete 191 laps in 6 hours - one more than last year's winning Audi R18 e-tron quattro.

With no time available for any development between races, it is safe to assume that Audi will struggle on pace again this weekend. Their decision to run in the 2MJ category may have provided them with the reliability to win Le Mans, but the long straights and tight hairpins of Shanghai will play to the more powerful cars from Stuttgart and Tokyo (via Cologne), just as it did in Japan. Audi also has a higher fuel consumption, so unless there is the opportunity to save fuel behind the safety car, both Audis will need six stops.

As Toyota found out in Texas, though, Audi will optimise their strategy, and pounce on any opportunity that is presented. And the most likely – some would say the only – area in which Audi can pull a rabbit out of the hat is in tyre usage. We know from previous visits to Shanghai that the tyres will not last two stints. At least, they won’t last two full stints. As Audi knows even now that they will have to do six stops for fuel, there might be an opportunity for them to do shorter stints with a lighter fuel load and thus be able to double-stint the tyres. But even then, I don’t think that the R18’s have the pace to worry the Toyotas. But the other advantage of having a six-stop plan is that it is inherently more flexible than a five-stopper. If the weather conditions change, or if a safety car intervention is called for, then a more flexible strategy could turn things Audi’s way. Even if nothing happens, everyone will have to be on their toes, ready to react, just in case!