I have spent much of the last two weeks going over the data from this year’s astonishing Le Mans 24-hour race, and in the analysis of the numbers, some of the emotion has been lost. Probably, this is good thing, because for several hours after the race a sense of numbness overcame me – as I am sure it did for a lot of people.
Make no mistake, there has never been a finish like this one. Not just in terms of the proximity to the finish when the leading car coughed, spluttered and died – at least temporarily – but also in the fact that the chasing car – a Porsche – was only just over a minute behind when it happened. And that minute would have been a lot less but for a puncture in the last 15 minutes.
I must admit, in the immediate aftermath, the biggest injustice seemed to me that the no. 5 Toyota, so ably driven throughout the race by Sebastien Buemi, Anthony Davidson and Kazuki Nakajima, was not even classified. No wonder that the Audi crew of Oliver Jarvis, Lucas di Grassi and Loïc Duval was so reluctant to take up the third step of the podium.
But “rules are rules”, came the cry – and it clearly states in article 10.15(e) of the Le Mans Supplementary Regulations, that the final lap must be completed in less than six minutes, except in cases of force majeure, at the Stewards’ discretion. Exactly what constitutes force majeure was the subject of some debate, albeit somewhat briefly – and there didn’t seem to be much stomach for it in the Module Sportif. There would be two German flags and one Japanese flown over the podium, and that, it would seem, was that.
The first time that a limit was imposed for a time to complete the final lap was in 1949, when the rule was introduced that the final lap had to be completed in under 30 minutes. The rule was introduced, as much as anything else, because the organisers wanted to ensure that the marshals could be safely stood down at the end of the race, and that the track be re-opened to the public, without some racing car still trying to complete its twenty-four (and a half) hour race.
It was not until after the millennium that the maximum time for the final lap was reduced to six minutes, and the reason it was done was not merely to allow the marshals to stand down sooner.
After the 24-hour race of 2007, there had been some criticism of the ACO that various rules had not been strictly applied, and early in 2008, the organising body issued a statement to clarify matters. Interestingly, two of the specific complaints had been that bodywork had been used to block the view into the garages and the race numbers were not visible at night – maybe progress has not been as great in the last ten years as we think.
However, and more significantly to my mind, was that the Peugeot 908 driven by Sébastien Bourdais, Pedro Lamy and Stéphane Sarrazin had not completed the final lap in the required six minutes – indeed it had come out and waited by the start finish line for the chequered flag to be waved at the winning Audi before crossing the line in ‘second’ place, strictly against the provision of the same article in the regulations that led to the exclusion of the Toyota this year.
In fact, none of the final four laps of that Peugeot had been under six minutes – although there was the mitigating factor of rain, but we will return to the subject of the weather later.
Ah, said the ACO, but the spirit of the rule had not been broken. The rule had been introduced, they said, to prevent an “endless victory lap before the end of the race and thus endangering safety of other cars that were racing for position”. This was merely the case of the car trying to get to the finish of the world’s greatest endurance race. No-one mentioned the fact that it was a French car, of course.
I reminded a seasoned hack of this immediately after the race. “Yes, but that was nearly ten years ago,” I was told, “now we have an FIA/ACO alliance and a World Championship. Things are different.”
Maybe so, but only two years ago (when there was indeed a World Endurance Championship to be fought over and points to be won and lost), there was a little bit of trouble and fuss when the Porsche driven by Romain Dumas, Neel Jani and Marc Lieb (remember them?) completed the final lap of the race in 1h 26m 09.430s and yet somehow that counted as force majeure and their fourth place in the LMP1-H class enabled them to score 24 points in the championship.
In case you missed it, the Porsche had made a long pit stop, and came out just in time to complete its final lap, but as the start finish line is before pit, the time that the car spent in its pit counted towards the final lap time. Although the final lap time should have led to the car’s exclusion, the ACO reasoned that the final lap time should not be defined as the time between crossings of the timing line, but should be calculated as the time from the pit out to the finish line.
Fair enough I suppose, but in that case why didn’t Nakajima bring the Toyota into the pits when the car suffered its problem at 14:57 on Sunday afternoon? The pit lane would have (should have) remained open until Neel Jani got round his final lap, so getting out of the pit again would not have been a problem. The fact is, Kazuki panicked. Rafal Pokora, the race engineer on the car, panicked. I suspect everyone in the Toyota garage who had any influence panicked.
The other option would have been for Nakajima to stop his car just before the pit lane entrance. Assuming that whatever was done could have been done just as well there as three hundred yards further on, again, it would have ensured that the long ‘problem’ lap was the penultimate lap and the final one would have been covered in less than the six minutes required by the regulation.
It wouldn’t have given them the win that they wanted, but at least Anthony Davidson, Sébastien Buemi and Nakajima would have had a second-place podium consolation prize. And the humiliation of being stationery under the famous Rolex clock, in front of the packed grandstands, would have been avoided as well. Somehow, that image smacked to me of a stereotypical Japanese melodrama. I’m not sure that I would have reacted any differently in that situation, but I suspect that some of Hugues de Chaunac’s tears were due to the missed opportunities. The people who are paid to know what to do failed to come up with the correct answers in a crisis.
Let’s take a look at the matter from a different angle. I can see an argument for dispensing with the six-minute rule altogether (although I grant you that some means has to allow the poor soul waving the chequered flag to be able to furl his flag and go home). In recent years, crowd control at Le Mans has improved vastly – we no longer have spectators invading the track as the cars are on their last lap, blissfully unaware of any class battles that may be going on. The introduction of a proper slowing-down lap and the positioning of the parc fermé on the track at the Ford Chicane means that the marshals can leave their flag-waving appreciation of everyone’s efforts until after the race is over.
When the cars were waved off the track at the end of the pit lane, the only opportunity for drivers to appreciate the crowd was on the last racing lap. Of course they milked it (if their lead was big enough).
Now, consider the possibility that the no. 5 Toyota, instead of being just a minute or so ahead of its nearest competitor, had been a lap or more ahead. Then, when the Porsche had gone past the stricken Toyota, it would only have been unlapping itself, not going into the lead. If, as it did, the Toyota got going again to complete its lap, it would have won the race, surely? Not if its final lap was discounted for being over six minutes long! Thankfully, it didn’t happen – but it would have presented the stewards with an interesting dilemma.
Alternatively, consider what would have happened if the weather conditions on Sunday would have been as bad as on Saturday. Would we have had a finish behind the Safety Car? The ACO considers such an eventuality extremely unlikely, but would the need to follow the Safety Car be regarded as force majeure? Maybe the whole field would have been excluded!
Feel free to leave your comment below.
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Friday, 10 June 2016
Team-mates - Thoughts from Allan McNish
Looking through the entry list for this year’s Le Mans 24 race, it occurs to me that this year will be the seventh consecutive time that Marcel Fässler, André Lotterer and Benoît Tréluyer will have driven together in the same car. Apart from this being remarkable in its own right, it is also significant because it equals the record set by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Dindo Capello, who also shared the same car on seven occasions, between 2006 and 2012.
“I wasn’t aware of that!” said Allan McNish when I drew his attention to the fact earlier this week. “But it is an interesting reflection on the fact that there are not many manufacturers around that are in a position to provide that sort of an opportunity, where drivers can work together for that many years.”
Although Allan, Tom and Dindo only won the big race once as a team of drivers (in 2008), McNish believes it gives a big advantage to have that kind of longevity for a driving crew. “Knowing your co-drivers is very important,” he says. “It is harder for three drivers to make it work than if you would only have two, but it is very important to be able to understand and work well together. Tom, Dindo and I are all very strong characters – you have to be a strong character if you are a racing driver – but it was Dindo who really brought us together as a team. He was the key ingredient: he would put his arm round your shoulder when you needed it.”
The combination of the Briton, the Dane and the Italian came together in the first year of the Audi turbodiesel engine. Although they had never all driven together before, all had been part of the Audi family for many years, and all had already won the 24 hours before – Kristensen and Capello having shared the winning Goh Audi in 2004 as well as the Bentley that triumphed in 2003. “It was a good time to get together,” opines McNish, “as the new technology meant a new start in some ways. On the other hand, we all knew each other well already, so it didn’t take long to be effective, as a team.”
It is more than just a team of three drivers, though, as McNish readily admits. “People like Dr. Ullrich, Ralf Jüttner, Ulrich Baretzky and Jo Hausner have all been involved since the very start,” he says. “Even if there has been change [Howden Haynes, Chris Reinke have both now moved on], the nucleus of the team has remained. That’s especially true on the design side and in the engine development, which is vitally important.”
The German/French/Swiss combination of Lotterer, Tréluyer and Fässler has been immensely successful of course: on the six occasions they have shared a car at Le Mans, they have won the race three times. Does McNish see any parallels in the driving crews? “Not really, Marcel, Ben and André are quite different from Tom, Dindo and me. With them, you have someone for every occasion. André may seem quite laid-back, but he is pretty intense. What you have to remember is that they all had quite varied careers before joining Audi – they haven’t been successful all of the time. Ben has quite a lot of other elements to his career. He and Marcel are both a little older – they have families, in fact Marcel has four girls!”
Although André Lotterer is regarded by many people as the outstanding member of the crew when fast laps are required – indeed some would regard him as the outstanding endurance racer of the current era – both Marcel and Benoît have turned in race-winning performances of their own. “Absolutely!” agrees McNish, “there have been races in the past where Marcel and Ben have both stepped up and, quite frankly, won the race. All three drivers have the ability to raise their game when they have to. They are all extremely strong under pressure. With Marcel, well, he’s Swiss! There are no secrets with him – what you see is what you get. If he’s feeling an emotion, you will know exactly what it is!”
In 2009, the year before Fässler, Lotterer and Tréluyer came together at Audi for the first time, they had all been at Le Mans, but in rather different machinery. André Lotterer had been at the wheel of the older, Kolles-entered Audi R10; Tréluyer had been employed by Henri Pescarolo to drive his privately-entered Peugeot 908 and Fässler had been at the wheel of a factory GT1 Chevrolet Corvette.
“It wasn’t a crew of drivers that seemed a natural fit at first,” accepts Allan McNish. “Marcel was part of the Audi team already (having driven Audis in GT racing) and the relationship between him, Ben and André was a bit like a marriage: it had to be worked at. It took a bit of time to get it right.”
What is not in doubt, as the teams assemble for the 84th running of the 24 hour race, is that the relationship is now absolutely right. With Leena Gade on the pit wall, masterminding the crew for the last time before moving on to pastures new at Bentley, the no.7 Audi e-tron quattro must be counted among the favourites for what would be a fourth win for the four of them together!
Monday, 6 June 2016
A Gnawing Concern
I am looking forward to the Le Mans 24 hours, of course I am. This will be my 36th time at the race and the week is always a highlight of my year, even if it means I miss my wife, family and home life while I am away. However, there is a concern that has been growing steadily over the past few years, that I fear – a bit like global warming – that we ignore at our peril. And a bit like David Cameron’s referendum, if it goes wrong, it will be entirely self-inflicted. It is one of those things that has been gnawing away, like a rat through a telephone cable and I just want to flag it up so that someone, somewhere, might be able to take some preventative measures.
Here’s the subject:
Although the entry list has been extended to allow 60 cars to start this year, only 9 of them are in the LMP1 category – that’s just 15% of the entry, nearly the lowest ever. Last year’s renaissance in the percentages came largely (but not exclusively) as a result of the arrival in the entry list of the three Nissans, and I would regard 25% as an absolute minimum for the top class at Le Mans.
But it is not just the percentage, it is the fact that there are six – only six – LMP1 Hybrids in the entry. The performance differential among these six seems (from the evidence of the Test Day) to be pretty small, certainly compared to last year. But the difference to the rest of the field is significant, and the fact that the entry has been expanded by nearly 10% means that there is likely to be a lot more overtaking to be done over the course of the 24 hours.
The original plan, as it was announced last year, was to invite 58 cars to enter the race this year, and extend to 60 only in 2017. The decision by the ACO to accelerate this progression was made after the decision of the Volkswagen Group to reduce the factory efforts from both Porsche and Audi to just two cars each. So was someone at the ACO thinking that 27 GT cars and 23 LMP2 cars was a reasonable number (compared to 23 and 19, respectively, last year) and that they would just be absorbed into the path of the LMP1 Hybrids? Or was it merely an opportunistic move because work on the additional garages had gone smoothly? I wonder.
It’s a somewhat tricky calculation, but a few years ago, I worked out that the winning car at Le Mans made over 1,000 overtaking manoeuvres on the race track. In total, there were something like 25,000 moves where one car passed another during the 24 hours of the race.
By my reckoning, the additional cars (and the speed of the P1 Hybrids) will add around 1,000 to that number. Whoever wins this year – be it a Porsche, an Audi or a Toyota – will have to make an additional 200 or so overtaking moves.
If a snap decision was made by the ACO to build the additional garages, then I hope that a driver’s snap decision does not have long-lasting consequences.
I have written before about narrowing the gap between the GT and Prototype cars (here), but that vision was a longer term one. If ever-larger grids is to become a sustainable objective, then maybe this would provide a way forward.
Here’s the subject:
| Year | Starters | LMP1 cars | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 55 | 14 | 25% |
| 2014 | 54 | 9 | 17% |
| 2013 | 56 | 8 | 14% |
| 2012 | 56 | 13 | 23% |
| 2011 | 56 | 17 | 30% |
| 2010 | 55 | 18 | 33% |
| 2009 | 55 | 20 | 36% |
| 2008 | 55 | 22 | 40% |
| 2007 | 54 | 16 | 30% |
| 2006 | 50 | 12 | 24% |
| 2005 | 49 | 13 | 27% |
| 2004 | 48 | 19 | 40% |
Although the entry list has been extended to allow 60 cars to start this year, only 9 of them are in the LMP1 category – that’s just 15% of the entry, nearly the lowest ever. Last year’s renaissance in the percentages came largely (but not exclusively) as a result of the arrival in the entry list of the three Nissans, and I would regard 25% as an absolute minimum for the top class at Le Mans.
But it is not just the percentage, it is the fact that there are six – only six – LMP1 Hybrids in the entry. The performance differential among these six seems (from the evidence of the Test Day) to be pretty small, certainly compared to last year. But the difference to the rest of the field is significant, and the fact that the entry has been expanded by nearly 10% means that there is likely to be a lot more overtaking to be done over the course of the 24 hours.
The original plan, as it was announced last year, was to invite 58 cars to enter the race this year, and extend to 60 only in 2017. The decision by the ACO to accelerate this progression was made after the decision of the Volkswagen Group to reduce the factory efforts from both Porsche and Audi to just two cars each. So was someone at the ACO thinking that 27 GT cars and 23 LMP2 cars was a reasonable number (compared to 23 and 19, respectively, last year) and that they would just be absorbed into the path of the LMP1 Hybrids? Or was it merely an opportunistic move because work on the additional garages had gone smoothly? I wonder.
It’s a somewhat tricky calculation, but a few years ago, I worked out that the winning car at Le Mans made over 1,000 overtaking manoeuvres on the race track. In total, there were something like 25,000 moves where one car passed another during the 24 hours of the race.
By my reckoning, the additional cars (and the speed of the P1 Hybrids) will add around 1,000 to that number. Whoever wins this year – be it a Porsche, an Audi or a Toyota – will have to make an additional 200 or so overtaking moves.
If a snap decision was made by the ACO to build the additional garages, then I hope that a driver’s snap decision does not have long-lasting consequences.
I have written before about narrowing the gap between the GT and Prototype cars (here), but that vision was a longer term one. If ever-larger grids is to become a sustainable objective, then maybe this would provide a way forward.
Friday, 20 May 2016
Brands Hatch in the sunshine!
The opportunity arose on the Sunday following the Spa WEC race to visit Brands Hatch to see the Blancpain Sprint Series GT race, and I have to admit it was the most fun I’ve had at a motor race for some time. It is nearly fifty years since I first went to Brands (some recollections here), and it remains a great venue for watching motor racing.
Thanks to a little bit of string-pulling, my friend Rod had managed to obtain free passes for my 15-year-old son Robin, him and me, which were easily picked up from the “media awning” just outside the circuit entrance, and parking was conveniently not more than fifty yards away.
We were also entitled to participate in the Grid Walk – I have to admit that the SRO organisation was excellent, and both Rod and Robin were using social media to the full as they mingled! I may not be typical of the modern-day race fan, but the whole atmosphere (along with the sunshine) was a perfect way to draw new fans – a key part of the philosophy of Stéphane Ratel.
We were able to watch the start of the qualifying race from inside the WRT Audi garage, which meant watching the TV monitors on the wall of the pit garage, but nevertheless, HTP’s Jules Szymkowiak was impressive indeed. Entering Paddock Hill Bend alongside the pole-sitting ISR Audi, the 20-year-old Dutchman was four lengths clear as they headed up towards the hairpin. He comfortably controlled the field from the front, and was able to hand the car over to Bernd Schneider (31 years his senior) in a lead that the new Mercedes AMG GT3 wasn’t to lose.
Popping out of the back of the garage to watch the cars racing along Cooper straight and into Surtees – the left-hander leading out onto the GP circuit – provided some close action, but not much overtaking. Someone said it was a bit like Formula Three racing of years gone by, where the cars are very even, and are relatively easy to drive, making distinctions between drivers difficult to spot. A new set of wheel bearings might make all the difference.
We watched the WRT crew carrying out their mandatory pit stop (driver swap and a change of all four wheels) from inside the garage and that was a real thrill for Robin – a chance to experience at first hand the genuine sense of sporting endeavour, involving the whole team.
A hospitality lunch (thank you WRT) was followed by a walk around the paddock, in which we got up close and personal to some rather special supercars and hypercars. This was a round of Stéphane Ratel’s Gentleman’s demo series, and young Robin was highly delighted to take photographs of cars well beyond our means. For him, the sideshows were as important a part of the day as the on-track action, and he came away thrilled at his experience. I suppose sometimes I need to loosen my anorak a bit.
Then it was off for a walk into the woods of the Grand Prix circuit. Here, I was reminded of my first sight of Graham Hill in the flesh, as he walked back from his broken-down Lotus in the 1968 Race Of Champions. And the ghosts of the Portobello woods are never far away – even if someone has put a tarmac rally stage down in the middle of it all!
We watched the start of the main race from just beyond Stirling’s – and although we were standing in the spectator enclosure, it was a pretty intense experience, the like of which you would not experience at Silverstone, or indeed very many other circuits. The cars were so close – to one another and to us – and the fact that we were showered with leaves, twigs and other vegetation after the cars had passed revealed that this was proper, raw, in-your-face racing. No wonder the Brands GP circuit was dubbed the ‘mini-Nürburgring’ when it was opened in 1960. “Inadequate barrierage”, muttered someone on Facebook, and we moved on.
These days, too much motor racing is watched on screens from armchairs, in my opinion. The crowd at Brands was not huge, by any means: the fact that the BTCC was on at Thruxton probably didn’t help. But quite simply, staying at home and watching on TV does not come anywhere close to the experience of watching the action take place before your very eyes. The assault on the senses of 37 GT3 cars, each producing more than 500bhp does not transmit down a wire into your living room… you have to be there.
Next week, I shall be at the Nürburgring to watch 157 cars start the 44th running of the 24 hours through the Eifel Mountains. If I get the chance, I shall certainly go out to Pflanzgarten to mingle with the 200,000 spectators that line the circuit; and the experience will re-ignite my enthusiasm and passion, just as standing at Dingle Dell Corner did when I was still a schoolboy!
Thanks to a little bit of string-pulling, my friend Rod had managed to obtain free passes for my 15-year-old son Robin, him and me, which were easily picked up from the “media awning” just outside the circuit entrance, and parking was conveniently not more than fifty yards away.
We were also entitled to participate in the Grid Walk – I have to admit that the SRO organisation was excellent, and both Rod and Robin were using social media to the full as they mingled! I may not be typical of the modern-day race fan, but the whole atmosphere (along with the sunshine) was a perfect way to draw new fans – a key part of the philosophy of Stéphane Ratel.
We were able to watch the start of the qualifying race from inside the WRT Audi garage, which meant watching the TV monitors on the wall of the pit garage, but nevertheless, HTP’s Jules Szymkowiak was impressive indeed. Entering Paddock Hill Bend alongside the pole-sitting ISR Audi, the 20-year-old Dutchman was four lengths clear as they headed up towards the hairpin. He comfortably controlled the field from the front, and was able to hand the car over to Bernd Schneider (31 years his senior) in a lead that the new Mercedes AMG GT3 wasn’t to lose.
Popping out of the back of the garage to watch the cars racing along Cooper straight and into Surtees – the left-hander leading out onto the GP circuit – provided some close action, but not much overtaking. Someone said it was a bit like Formula Three racing of years gone by, where the cars are very even, and are relatively easy to drive, making distinctions between drivers difficult to spot. A new set of wheel bearings might make all the difference.
We watched the WRT crew carrying out their mandatory pit stop (driver swap and a change of all four wheels) from inside the garage and that was a real thrill for Robin – a chance to experience at first hand the genuine sense of sporting endeavour, involving the whole team.
A hospitality lunch (thank you WRT) was followed by a walk around the paddock, in which we got up close and personal to some rather special supercars and hypercars. This was a round of Stéphane Ratel’s Gentleman’s demo series, and young Robin was highly delighted to take photographs of cars well beyond our means. For him, the sideshows were as important a part of the day as the on-track action, and he came away thrilled at his experience. I suppose sometimes I need to loosen my anorak a bit.
Then it was off for a walk into the woods of the Grand Prix circuit. Here, I was reminded of my first sight of Graham Hill in the flesh, as he walked back from his broken-down Lotus in the 1968 Race Of Champions. And the ghosts of the Portobello woods are never far away – even if someone has put a tarmac rally stage down in the middle of it all!
We watched the start of the main race from just beyond Stirling’s – and although we were standing in the spectator enclosure, it was a pretty intense experience, the like of which you would not experience at Silverstone, or indeed very many other circuits. The cars were so close – to one another and to us – and the fact that we were showered with leaves, twigs and other vegetation after the cars had passed revealed that this was proper, raw, in-your-face racing. No wonder the Brands GP circuit was dubbed the ‘mini-Nürburgring’ when it was opened in 1960. “Inadequate barrierage”, muttered someone on Facebook, and we moved on.
These days, too much motor racing is watched on screens from armchairs, in my opinion. The crowd at Brands was not huge, by any means: the fact that the BTCC was on at Thruxton probably didn’t help. But quite simply, staying at home and watching on TV does not come anywhere close to the experience of watching the action take place before your very eyes. The assault on the senses of 37 GT3 cars, each producing more than 500bhp does not transmit down a wire into your living room… you have to be there.
Next week, I shall be at the Nürburgring to watch 157 cars start the 44th running of the 24 hours through the Eifel Mountains. If I get the chance, I shall certainly go out to Pflanzgarten to mingle with the 200,000 spectators that line the circuit; and the experience will re-ignite my enthusiasm and passion, just as standing at Dingle Dell Corner did when I was still a schoolboy!
Wednesday, 27 April 2016
Some Observations from the Silverstone 6 Hours
With apologies that this analysis is not as deep as usual, but nevertheless some thoughts that you may not have read elsewhere.
1) LMP1 just gets better and better
Even if the on-track racing may not have provided the same phenomenal spectacle that was seen at last year’s Silverstone Six Hours, this year’s crop of LMP1 Hybrid racers proved that the march of progress is relentless indeed. Despite a 7.5% reduction in fuel use, Toyota, Audi and Porsche all lapped quicker than last year’s best lap.
Best Lap Times:
2016: Porsche: 1m 40.303s / Audi: 1m 40.461s / Toyota: 1m 40.657s
2015: Audi: 1m 40.836s / Porsche: 1m 42.012s / Toyota: 1m 42.209s
Percentage improvement: Porsche: 1.7% / Audi: 0.4% / Toyota: 1.5%
Top Speeds:
2016: Porsche: 293.5 kph / Audi: 294.3kph / Toyota: 296.7 kph
2015: Porsche: 300.0 kph / Audi: 274.1kph / Toyota: 282.7 kph
Percentage improvement: Porsche: -2.2% / Audi: 7.4% / Toyota: 5.0%
Setup for Silverstone is of course a compromise, with its mixture of straights, fast sweeps and slow corners coming, annoyingly, in every sector. But the data would seem to show that Audi’s balance was about right, whereas Porsche could have perhaps sacrificed a little downforce for a higher top speed – possibly with the benefit of a better average lap time. Perhaps that was the difference between the number one and the number two cars: it was very noticeable in the first phase of the race that the Webber / Hartley car was substantially quicker than that of Dumas / Lieb / Jani, although no explanation for the difference was forthcoming from any official Porsche sources.
It should also be said that, despite the expectations – and despite the result which allowed a Rebellion to be classified in a podium position – reliability among the manufacturer hybrids was good. Porsche lost one car due to driver error and Toyota one due to a puncture. In the end, neither Audi was classified but it is not unreasonable to expect the team to be able easily to address the issue which caused the excessive wear to the skid block that led to the exclusion of the car.
As far as the problem that struck the other Audi R18 e-tron quattro - leaving it stranded in the middle of the track at the Loop as the Full Course Yellow was implemented, I am told that this was caused by ‘human error’, rather than mechanical frailty, so in some ways, the designers, engineers and test teams can be satisfied that their winter travails have been worth the effort.
2) The pecking order
My analysis of the times from the Prologue at Paul Ricard suggested that the times would be close at Silverstone and the best laps shown above reflect that to an extent. In the race itself, the difference in the average of the best 20% of green race laps between the Lotterer/Fässler/Tréluyer Audi and the Dumas/Lieb/Jani Porsche was less than a tenth of a second (the Audi being marginally quicker). The Toyota of Conway/Kobayashi/Sarrazin was around seven-tenths of a second slower in third place on the road. However, as I have already mentioned, the average lap times of the two Porsches in the first portion of the race were 0.66s different, whereas the two Audis were less than a tenth apart and the two Toyotas were separated by just three-tenths of a second.
There certainly seemed to be a difference in the suitability of the tyre compounds being used. Although Porsche, Audi and Toyota all use Michelin rubber, they all have different compounds available to them, and it would seem that Audi lost time in the opening stint on the wrong compound. Toyota made better use of their tyre allocation than Audi or Porsche and saved time in the pits by not changing tyres at every stop. Audi’s pit stops were not as slick as they should have been - in the first two stops, Lotterer and Fässler lost more than twenty seconds to Dumas and Jani.
A fact often forgotten is the turnover of staff that takes place within the teams: many of the tyre-changers at Audi were doing so for the first time in anger during the Silverstone weekend, and Audi’s hard-won reputation for efficiency in the pits needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Arguably, there were various points through the race when strategic mistakes were made by all of the leading teams - surely with a race under their belts, Spa will be better for everyone.
So is Audi really ahead of Porsche? I think not. The evidence from Silverstone isn’t conclusive. Is Toyota really behind? Possibly, but a look at the top speeds shows that the Japanese marque was 10km/h quicker down Silverstone’s big straights: surely that will negate any disadvantage in France in June? Sector times from Spa-Francorchamps –which provide a good indication of performance in slow, medium and high-speed configuration – will be telling.
3) The LMP2 class is good
Silverstone had greater strength in depth in the baby prototype class than we have ever seen. While we have become used to GT cars providing entertainment when attention wanders from the overall lead, LMP2 has taken over that role.
The difference in average lap times across the top four finishers was less than half a second – the RGR Morand Liger, the ESM Ligier, the G-Drive Oreca and the Signatech Alpine. That’s more than the difference between the two LMP1 Porsche 919s.
Ten of the eleven starters made it to the finish – and five of them spent less time in the pits than the ‘winning’ Audi, so there’s not much wrong with either the teams or the robustness of the cars. This year will be the swan-song for the current breed of LMP2, before the new regulations in 2017 – enjoy it while you can!
4) The balance of GTE-Pro needs fixing
If there was a disappointment at Silverstone, it was the GTE-Pro class. The AF Corse Ferrari 488 GTE of Davide Rigon and Sam Bird led every single lap of the race – almost unheard of in GTE races in 2015. The best Ferrari lap (by Bruni in the no. 51) was more than a second quicker than the best lap of any non-Ferrari (Darren Turner in the no. 95 Aston Martin).
The average lap times tell the same story: the Ferraris were 1.3% quicker than the best that Aston or Porsche could manage, and 1.8% faster than the Fords. Moreover, the AF Corse cars spent less time re-fuelling and went further between stops.
The fact that the Bruni/Calado Ferrari was able to recover to finish second, despite a three-minute penalty pit stop was further evidence of the Maranello superiority. The World Endurance Committee will consider adjustments ahead of the 6 hours of Spa-Francorchamps: I cannot imagine that they will not act.
5) ELMS is good
The four-hour ELMS race on Saturday afternoon featured a 44-car grid, 19 of which were in the LMP3 class. Compare this with 30 cars that started the 2015 edition of this race, with just five LMP3 cars. Three different P2 manufacturers in the top three places overall. Harry Tincknell, in the winning G-Drive Gibson, having somewhat blotted his copybook on the opening lap, drove superbly to hand the car over to Simon Dolan in a winning position. Giedo van der Garde, in his final stint was also mighty, setting the car’s fastest lap of the race on the final lap - whether that is a good thing or not is left to the reader to decide!
A one-two result for United Autosports in LMP3 demonstrates that serious engagement garners results – it will be interesting to see how long it is until the team arrives in LMP2. At which point the class can justify its claim as a feeder category.
What about you? Were you at Silverstone? What did you think? If you watched it from home, did you enjoy the coverage? Do you agree with any of these musings? Let me know in the box below!
1) LMP1 just gets better and better
Even if the on-track racing may not have provided the same phenomenal spectacle that was seen at last year’s Silverstone Six Hours, this year’s crop of LMP1 Hybrid racers proved that the march of progress is relentless indeed. Despite a 7.5% reduction in fuel use, Toyota, Audi and Porsche all lapped quicker than last year’s best lap.
Best Lap Times:
2016: Porsche: 1m 40.303s / Audi: 1m 40.461s / Toyota: 1m 40.657s
2015: Audi: 1m 40.836s / Porsche: 1m 42.012s / Toyota: 1m 42.209s
Percentage improvement: Porsche: 1.7% / Audi: 0.4% / Toyota: 1.5%
Top Speeds:
2016: Porsche: 293.5 kph / Audi: 294.3kph / Toyota: 296.7 kph
2015: Porsche: 300.0 kph / Audi: 274.1kph / Toyota: 282.7 kph
Percentage improvement: Porsche: -2.2% / Audi: 7.4% / Toyota: 5.0%
Setup for Silverstone is of course a compromise, with its mixture of straights, fast sweeps and slow corners coming, annoyingly, in every sector. But the data would seem to show that Audi’s balance was about right, whereas Porsche could have perhaps sacrificed a little downforce for a higher top speed – possibly with the benefit of a better average lap time. Perhaps that was the difference between the number one and the number two cars: it was very noticeable in the first phase of the race that the Webber / Hartley car was substantially quicker than that of Dumas / Lieb / Jani, although no explanation for the difference was forthcoming from any official Porsche sources.
It should also be said that, despite the expectations – and despite the result which allowed a Rebellion to be classified in a podium position – reliability among the manufacturer hybrids was good. Porsche lost one car due to driver error and Toyota one due to a puncture. In the end, neither Audi was classified but it is not unreasonable to expect the team to be able easily to address the issue which caused the excessive wear to the skid block that led to the exclusion of the car.
As far as the problem that struck the other Audi R18 e-tron quattro - leaving it stranded in the middle of the track at the Loop as the Full Course Yellow was implemented, I am told that this was caused by ‘human error’, rather than mechanical frailty, so in some ways, the designers, engineers and test teams can be satisfied that their winter travails have been worth the effort.
2) The pecking order
My analysis of the times from the Prologue at Paul Ricard suggested that the times would be close at Silverstone and the best laps shown above reflect that to an extent. In the race itself, the difference in the average of the best 20% of green race laps between the Lotterer/Fässler/Tréluyer Audi and the Dumas/Lieb/Jani Porsche was less than a tenth of a second (the Audi being marginally quicker). The Toyota of Conway/Kobayashi/Sarrazin was around seven-tenths of a second slower in third place on the road. However, as I have already mentioned, the average lap times of the two Porsches in the first portion of the race were 0.66s different, whereas the two Audis were less than a tenth apart and the two Toyotas were separated by just three-tenths of a second.
There certainly seemed to be a difference in the suitability of the tyre compounds being used. Although Porsche, Audi and Toyota all use Michelin rubber, they all have different compounds available to them, and it would seem that Audi lost time in the opening stint on the wrong compound. Toyota made better use of their tyre allocation than Audi or Porsche and saved time in the pits by not changing tyres at every stop. Audi’s pit stops were not as slick as they should have been - in the first two stops, Lotterer and Fässler lost more than twenty seconds to Dumas and Jani.
A fact often forgotten is the turnover of staff that takes place within the teams: many of the tyre-changers at Audi were doing so for the first time in anger during the Silverstone weekend, and Audi’s hard-won reputation for efficiency in the pits needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Arguably, there were various points through the race when strategic mistakes were made by all of the leading teams - surely with a race under their belts, Spa will be better for everyone.
So is Audi really ahead of Porsche? I think not. The evidence from Silverstone isn’t conclusive. Is Toyota really behind? Possibly, but a look at the top speeds shows that the Japanese marque was 10km/h quicker down Silverstone’s big straights: surely that will negate any disadvantage in France in June? Sector times from Spa-Francorchamps –which provide a good indication of performance in slow, medium and high-speed configuration – will be telling.
3) The LMP2 class is good
Silverstone had greater strength in depth in the baby prototype class than we have ever seen. While we have become used to GT cars providing entertainment when attention wanders from the overall lead, LMP2 has taken over that role.
The difference in average lap times across the top four finishers was less than half a second – the RGR Morand Liger, the ESM Ligier, the G-Drive Oreca and the Signatech Alpine. That’s more than the difference between the two LMP1 Porsche 919s.
Ten of the eleven starters made it to the finish – and five of them spent less time in the pits than the ‘winning’ Audi, so there’s not much wrong with either the teams or the robustness of the cars. This year will be the swan-song for the current breed of LMP2, before the new regulations in 2017 – enjoy it while you can!
4) The balance of GTE-Pro needs fixing
If there was a disappointment at Silverstone, it was the GTE-Pro class. The AF Corse Ferrari 488 GTE of Davide Rigon and Sam Bird led every single lap of the race – almost unheard of in GTE races in 2015. The best Ferrari lap (by Bruni in the no. 51) was more than a second quicker than the best lap of any non-Ferrari (Darren Turner in the no. 95 Aston Martin).
The average lap times tell the same story: the Ferraris were 1.3% quicker than the best that Aston or Porsche could manage, and 1.8% faster than the Fords. Moreover, the AF Corse cars spent less time re-fuelling and went further between stops.
The fact that the Bruni/Calado Ferrari was able to recover to finish second, despite a three-minute penalty pit stop was further evidence of the Maranello superiority. The World Endurance Committee will consider adjustments ahead of the 6 hours of Spa-Francorchamps: I cannot imagine that they will not act.
5) ELMS is good
The four-hour ELMS race on Saturday afternoon featured a 44-car grid, 19 of which were in the LMP3 class. Compare this with 30 cars that started the 2015 edition of this race, with just five LMP3 cars. Three different P2 manufacturers in the top three places overall. Harry Tincknell, in the winning G-Drive Gibson, having somewhat blotted his copybook on the opening lap, drove superbly to hand the car over to Simon Dolan in a winning position. Giedo van der Garde, in his final stint was also mighty, setting the car’s fastest lap of the race on the final lap - whether that is a good thing or not is left to the reader to decide!
A one-two result for United Autosports in LMP3 demonstrates that serious engagement garners results – it will be interesting to see how long it is until the team arrives in LMP2. At which point the class can justify its claim as a feeder category.
What about you? Were you at Silverstone? What did you think? If you watched it from home, did you enjoy the coverage? Do you agree with any of these musings? Let me know in the box below!
Monday, 25 April 2016
A Grand Day Out
I had a very good day out at the Guild of Motoring Writers appropriately-titled ‘Big Day Out’ last week. It was held at Castle Combe, in Wiltshire, a track I don’t know particularly well, having only commentated for two race meetings there – the most recent of which was back in 2005, when the British F3 and GT championships visited.
The day had the backing of several manufacturers, including Honda, Fiat and Jaguar Land Rover, but more importantly allowed members to drive their own cars on the circuit. Altogether, I had an hour of driving on the track, and somewhat more than that sampling other cars on the local roads.
Although I normally confine myself to writing about the sport rather than road cars, I had such a good day that I wanted to record it here. I know it’s self-indulgent, but then if I can’t be self-indulgent on my own blog, then where can I be? Especially since I no longer keep up-to-date with my hand-written diary!
Readers may know already that my regular road car – that I have owned since 2009 – is an Audi S4 Avant. The biggest surprise of the day was that I fell back in love with it. Not that I had ever really fallen out of love with it, but I realised once again what a good car it is. It is certainly not a ‘track day’ car (although it does boast 328bhp), and I am certainly not a track day driver, but the car lapped very quickly, was great fun to drive and most important, kept me safe despite a couple of minor misjudgements on my part. The car simply accelerated well, braked well and turned where I wanted it to.
By the end of the day, I was confident enough that I knew the circuit, and had the opportunity to take a Honda Civic Type-R around. With 306bhp compared to my Audi’s 328, but weighing only 1397kg compared to the 2275kg of my car, this pocket-rocket was quite brilliant. It may have lacked some of the subtle refinements of the Audi, with that over-stated rear wing and rather bright red sports seats, but I can easily see how it would appeal to a younger version of myself. After a couple of laps, I pressed the red “+R” button that adjusted the engine mapping, steering and suspension, to make driving more quickly even more of a pleasure. Keeping up with a competently-driven Caterham offering passenger rides up ahead was not difficult, and when the chequered flag was shown to bring the session to a close, I was genuinely disappointed. The car is built just thirty miles away in Swindon, and demonstrates a corporate interest in the sport that the soon-to-be-launched NSX (later this year) will surely continue. Honda at Le Mans? Why not?
The other side of the day was made up of various road cars that could be driven, not on the track but around the byways surrounding the picture-postcard village of Castle Combe itself. There were two absolute stand-out cars here: at very different ends of the spectrum, but both left me smiling broadly as I stepped out of them.
First was the Jaguar XF. Equipped with a three-litre turbo-diesel six-cylinder engine and delivering 296bhp, this car welcomed me into its driving compartment from the moment the door closed with a satisfying ‘thud’. Having previously owned a 1988-vintage Jaguar Sovereign, I expected “grace, space and pace”, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the 2016 evolution still provided opulence, speed and a general feeling of quality that surpassed anything that I’ve experienced from any of the German manufacturers that are regarded as market leaders.
Its list of features is far too long to describe here; indeed, I could not even manage to explore everything that the car could do in the brief half-hour that the car was at my disposal. But this was luxurious technology for the 21st century – making driving more comfortable, convenient and safe.
Inevitably, such things do not come cheap: the basic on-the-road price is just under £50,000 and the version I drove would have set me back £58,355, but this is an astonishingly well-appointed car. I found it so good that I would give very serious consideration to it when – if ever – the time comes to replace the Audi. These days, when perhaps greater consideration should be given to the country of manufacture, it is good to know that two of the best cars I drove on the day were made in England.
Then there was the Fiat 500. Powered by an 875cc twin-cylinder air-cooled engine, it sounded a bit like an old VW beetle that I drove thirty years ago. But it was such a happy little car – no wonder you see so many of them on the roads. I promise you, I couldn’t stop laughing as I drove it. And when I spotted a fellow Guild member in a Jaguar XE behind, I couldn’t resist showing him how quick the thing was. It may only deliver 104bhp, but it does so extremely well. Kim Palmer from Jaguar was most concerned that we might have been “racing on the public highway”… Of course not, Kim!
The Fiat is, obviously, aimed at a very different consumer from the Jaguar. But it does go to prove that there are different ways of giving driver satisfaction. Back seat passengers would be somewhat squashed, but not impossibly so. And journeys of over an hour might become more wearying than those in the Jag. But if the task is the daily commute, the school run or nipping over to see friends, then I can see no need to consume fuel at the rate that the Jaguar gulps it down, when the Fiat will get you there in the same time, use less fuel and for an outlay of less than a third of the cost of the Jaguar.
Thanks to Guy Loveridge, Chris Adamson, Kim Palmer, Tom Lynch, Puneet Joshi and Nick Mason who between them ensured it was indeed a Big Day Out. And to Jeff Bloxham for additional photographs.
The day had the backing of several manufacturers, including Honda, Fiat and Jaguar Land Rover, but more importantly allowed members to drive their own cars on the circuit. Altogether, I had an hour of driving on the track, and somewhat more than that sampling other cars on the local roads.
Although I normally confine myself to writing about the sport rather than road cars, I had such a good day that I wanted to record it here. I know it’s self-indulgent, but then if I can’t be self-indulgent on my own blog, then where can I be? Especially since I no longer keep up-to-date with my hand-written diary!
Readers may know already that my regular road car – that I have owned since 2009 – is an Audi S4 Avant. The biggest surprise of the day was that I fell back in love with it. Not that I had ever really fallen out of love with it, but I realised once again what a good car it is. It is certainly not a ‘track day’ car (although it does boast 328bhp), and I am certainly not a track day driver, but the car lapped very quickly, was great fun to drive and most important, kept me safe despite a couple of minor misjudgements on my part. The car simply accelerated well, braked well and turned where I wanted it to.
First was the Jaguar XF. Equipped with a three-litre turbo-diesel six-cylinder engine and delivering 296bhp, this car welcomed me into its driving compartment from the moment the door closed with a satisfying ‘thud’. Having previously owned a 1988-vintage Jaguar Sovereign, I expected “grace, space and pace”, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the 2016 evolution still provided opulence, speed and a general feeling of quality that surpassed anything that I’ve experienced from any of the German manufacturers that are regarded as market leaders.
Inevitably, such things do not come cheap: the basic on-the-road price is just under £50,000 and the version I drove would have set me back £58,355, but this is an astonishingly well-appointed car. I found it so good that I would give very serious consideration to it when – if ever – the time comes to replace the Audi. These days, when perhaps greater consideration should be given to the country of manufacture, it is good to know that two of the best cars I drove on the day were made in England.
Then there was the Fiat 500. Powered by an 875cc twin-cylinder air-cooled engine, it sounded a bit like an old VW beetle that I drove thirty years ago. But it was such a happy little car – no wonder you see so many of them on the roads. I promise you, I couldn’t stop laughing as I drove it. And when I spotted a fellow Guild member in a Jaguar XE behind, I couldn’t resist showing him how quick the thing was. It may only deliver 104bhp, but it does so extremely well. Kim Palmer from Jaguar was most concerned that we might have been “racing on the public highway”… Of course not, Kim!
Thanks to Guy Loveridge, Chris Adamson, Kim Palmer, Tom Lynch, Puneet Joshi and Nick Mason who between them ensured it was indeed a Big Day Out. And to Jeff Bloxham for additional photographs.
Sunday, 10 April 2016
Looking forward to the World Endurance Championship
When I was younger and had fewer responsibilities, I used to dabble in buying and selling stocks and shares. I read many articles describing how the future behaviour of prices could be predicted from an analysis of past performance. Some of what I read made a lot of sense, and I started to do my own analysis, and sometimes – just occasionally – I got this spectacularly right and I began to believe that I might one day become a wealthy man. Needless to say, other times I was not so successful; and I have in any case discovered that there are other things more important that financial success.
I tell you this, not to suggest that you should follow my investment advice, but rather to set your expectations on the outcome of this year’s World Endurance Championship, based on the times set at last month’s Prologue at the Paul Ricard circuit at Le Castellet in the south of France.
The first thing (other than to note that prices can go down as well as up, and that you may lose your shirt if you do not keep to your repayment schedule) is to note that the WEC season has become a saga in three parts. In 2015 that was perhaps more noticeable than ever before. Secondly, Toyota had a spectacularly bad year last year. Although its 2015 car was undoubtedly an improvement on the 2014 version, it became apparent very early in the season – some would say even after the Prologue – that it would be a season to forget for the 2014 world champions.
So even if it is a risky business, it is worth looking at the Prologue in a bit of detail, in an attempt to see what it might mean; initially for the opening round of the championship at Silverstone, and also for the 24 hours of Le Mans in June.
And I’m sorry for those fans of LMP2 or the GTE classes, but I am going to restrict myself here to just looking at the LMP1-hybrid class and the contest for outright wins.
Let’s start off with the headline figure: that of best lap recorded and compare them with 2015:
Next, my favourite, the best average lap time for a stint of ten laps or more:
If anything, this just goes to show the difference between best laps and average lap times over a full stint. So just how far were the cars going in a stint?
Here is where the story of tyre wear comes in though. The length of the Toyota stint was not constrained by fuel, but by the tyres – according to my information – and the races at both Silverstone and Spa restrict the LMP1-Hybrid teams to just 26 tyres (6 sets plus two ‘spares’) for the race – meaning that at least one set must be used for 90 minutes. This, along with reliability, could well end up deciding the outcome of the first three rounds of the championship.
I mentioned before that there are three phases to the WEC – the bit before Le Mans, the bit after Le Mans, and of course, Le Mans itself. This year, with an extra race in Mexico in the third part of the season, the first two races are relatively less important. Like last year though, Silverstone and Spa make up just two of the nine-race calendar, and just two-tenths of the points. In addition, Silverstone, Spa and Le Mans, although they all have sublime sections of high-speed cornering, are as different from one another in technical terms as any three circuits on the calendar.
So although Silverstone and Spa are important races, one should perhaps not use them to determine what will happen at Le Mans - just as last year, the first two races can throw you severely off the scent. At Le Castellet Porsche, Audi and Toyota spent their time running through some quite different programmes; programmes that were different from one another, but also different from what they did last year. For example, both Audi and Toyota experimented with different aero configurations whereas Porsche stuck to a ‘high-downforce’ set-up. At both Silverstone and Spa last year (as well as at the Prologue) Porsche was concentrating on its ‘low-downforce’, Le Mans aero package. This undoubtedly contributed to its success both at Le Mans and in the championship, but now that the data is gathered, this year will see the team from Weissach attempting to gather points early in the year as well.
Another way to look at the data is to look at the top speeds recorded, again with a comparison to last year’s Prologue:
Times through Paul Ricard’s second sector (which includes the main back straight) also indicate that the new Toyota TS050 has prodigious speed, but also confirm that Porsche was most likely running a lot of high-downforce drag during the test.
Rumours suggest that the reliability of the new Audi R18 e-tron quattro is not what the Ingolstadt team has wanted. However, despite spending much of the evening session in the garage at Ricard, Audi actually completed more laps in this year’s Prologue than the car did last year, as the table shows - note that as teams ran two cars each in 2015, I have only included the figures for a single car (the better of the two):
So what does it all mean? Can we use the data from Paul Ricard to make some predictions about the Six Hours of Silverstone? Is there already a favourite emerging for Le Mans?
Of course, there was a lot more going on during the Prologue than was apparent on the surface. Even the data that I have extracted is far more limited than the teams themselves have. But one thing I have noticed is that the teams tend to be so wrapped up in themselves that they don’t always spot the shape of the bigger picture.
The structure of qualifying remains this year – the two best laps from two different drivers, both of whom have to drive the car during a twenty-minute session. Here’s my prediction for Silverstone then:
This is the two-lap average, and I have taken into account that Porsche last year at Silverstone had a very similar aero package to the one that they would run at Le Mans, whereas this year they will probably run a higher downforce package. Overall, despite a reduction in fuel consumption allowance of around 7.5%, I expect the times to be very close to those we saw last year. LMP1 fuel tank capacities have also been reduced by an equivalent amount, so the overall stint lengths are probably going to be about the same as they were last year – about 29 or 30 laps. Last year we had two short full course yellow periods, and the race ran for 201 laps (a record). Given some decent weather, some shorter pit stops and clear running, the race should run over 200 laps again this year.
Who’s going to win? There’s no way of knowing. My analysis above indicates that there will be a lot less than a second separating the first three rows of the grid. So much is new: hybrid systems, engines, aero. Michelin brought new tyre compounds to Paul Ricard as well, which further complicates the mix. Although the six hours will be run as a sprint, traditional endurance values like reliability, consistency and efficiency will probably be the deciding factors.
Let’s just hope that the race - indeed the whole season - lives up to expectations!
I tell you this, not to suggest that you should follow my investment advice, but rather to set your expectations on the outcome of this year’s World Endurance Championship, based on the times set at last month’s Prologue at the Paul Ricard circuit at Le Castellet in the south of France.
The first thing (other than to note that prices can go down as well as up, and that you may lose your shirt if you do not keep to your repayment schedule) is to note that the WEC season has become a saga in three parts. In 2015 that was perhaps more noticeable than ever before. Secondly, Toyota had a spectacularly bad year last year. Although its 2015 car was undoubtedly an improvement on the 2014 version, it became apparent very early in the season – some would say even after the Prologue – that it would be a season to forget for the 2014 world champions.
So even if it is a risky business, it is worth looking at the Prologue in a bit of detail, in an attempt to see what it might mean; initially for the opening round of the championship at Silverstone, and also for the 24 hours of Le Mans in June.
And I’m sorry for those fans of LMP2 or the GTE classes, but I am going to restrict myself here to just looking at the LMP1-hybrid class and the contest for outright wins.
Let’s start off with the headline figure: that of best lap recorded and compare them with 2015:
| Car | 2015 Best | 2016 Best | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 1m 37.220s | 1m 37.445s | -0.2% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 1m 39.949s | 1m 38.273s | 1.7% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 1m 39.058s | 1m 38.827s | 0.2% |
Next, my favourite, the best average lap time for a stint of ten laps or more:
| Car | 2015 Best | 2016 Best | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 1m 40.5s | 1m 39.8s | 0.7% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 1m 42.0s | 1m 41.9s | 0.1% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 1m 40.5s | 1m 40.7s | -0.2% |
If anything, this just goes to show the difference between best laps and average lap times over a full stint. So just how far were the cars going in a stint?
| Car | 2015 Longest | 2016 Longest | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 31 laps | 29 laps | -6.5% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 29 laps | 10 laps | -65.5% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 30 laps | 20 laps | -33.3% |
Here is where the story of tyre wear comes in though. The length of the Toyota stint was not constrained by fuel, but by the tyres – according to my information – and the races at both Silverstone and Spa restrict the LMP1-Hybrid teams to just 26 tyres (6 sets plus two ‘spares’) for the race – meaning that at least one set must be used for 90 minutes. This, along with reliability, could well end up deciding the outcome of the first three rounds of the championship.
I mentioned before that there are three phases to the WEC – the bit before Le Mans, the bit after Le Mans, and of course, Le Mans itself. This year, with an extra race in Mexico in the third part of the season, the first two races are relatively less important. Like last year though, Silverstone and Spa make up just two of the nine-race calendar, and just two-tenths of the points. In addition, Silverstone, Spa and Le Mans, although they all have sublime sections of high-speed cornering, are as different from one another in technical terms as any three circuits on the calendar.
So although Silverstone and Spa are important races, one should perhaps not use them to determine what will happen at Le Mans - just as last year, the first two races can throw you severely off the scent. At Le Castellet Porsche, Audi and Toyota spent their time running through some quite different programmes; programmes that were different from one another, but also different from what they did last year. For example, both Audi and Toyota experimented with different aero configurations whereas Porsche stuck to a ‘high-downforce’ set-up. At both Silverstone and Spa last year (as well as at the Prologue) Porsche was concentrating on its ‘low-downforce’, Le Mans aero package. This undoubtedly contributed to its success both at Le Mans and in the championship, but now that the data is gathered, this year will see the team from Weissach attempting to gather points early in the year as well.
Another way to look at the data is to look at the top speeds recorded, again with a comparison to last year’s Prologue:
| Car | 2015 Top Speed | 2016 Top Speed | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 338.6 km/h | 301.7 km/h | -10.9% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 334.4 km/h | 340.7 km/h | 1.9% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 313.0 km/h | 310.3 km/h | -0.9% |
Times through Paul Ricard’s second sector (which includes the main back straight) also indicate that the new Toyota TS050 has prodigious speed, but also confirm that Porsche was most likely running a lot of high-downforce drag during the test.
Rumours suggest that the reliability of the new Audi R18 e-tron quattro is not what the Ingolstadt team has wanted. However, despite spending much of the evening session in the garage at Ricard, Audi actually completed more laps in this year’s Prologue than the car did last year, as the table shows - note that as teams ran two cars each in 2015, I have only included the figures for a single car (the better of the two):
| Car | 2015 Laps Completed | 2016 Laps Completed | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 393 | 372 | -5.3% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 311 | 266 | -14.5% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 229 | 235 | 2.6% |
So what does it all mean? Can we use the data from Paul Ricard to make some predictions about the Six Hours of Silverstone? Is there already a favourite emerging for Le Mans?
Of course, there was a lot more going on during the Prologue than was apparent on the surface. Even the data that I have extracted is far more limited than the teams themselves have. But one thing I have noticed is that the teams tend to be so wrapped up in themselves that they don’t always spot the shape of the bigger picture.
The structure of qualifying remains this year – the two best laps from two different drivers, both of whom have to drive the car during a twenty-minute session. Here’s my prediction for Silverstone then:
| Car | 2015 Pole time | 2016 prediction | Percentage Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porsche 919 | 1m 39.721s | 1m 39.684s | -0.0% |
| Toyota TS-050 | 1m 40.382s | 1m 39.574s | 0.8% |
| Audi R18 e-tron quattro | 1m 40.352s | 1m 40.136s | 0.0% |
This is the two-lap average, and I have taken into account that Porsche last year at Silverstone had a very similar aero package to the one that they would run at Le Mans, whereas this year they will probably run a higher downforce package. Overall, despite a reduction in fuel consumption allowance of around 7.5%, I expect the times to be very close to those we saw last year. LMP1 fuel tank capacities have also been reduced by an equivalent amount, so the overall stint lengths are probably going to be about the same as they were last year – about 29 or 30 laps. Last year we had two short full course yellow periods, and the race ran for 201 laps (a record). Given some decent weather, some shorter pit stops and clear running, the race should run over 200 laps again this year.
Who’s going to win? There’s no way of knowing. My analysis above indicates that there will be a lot less than a second separating the first three rows of the grid. So much is new: hybrid systems, engines, aero. Michelin brought new tyre compounds to Paul Ricard as well, which further complicates the mix. Although the six hours will be run as a sprint, traditional endurance values like reliability, consistency and efficiency will probably be the deciding factors.
Let’s just hope that the race - indeed the whole season - lives up to expectations!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
