LeMans racing thread
Discussion
Altrezia said:
37chevy said:
Cut a hole into a homoligated part to save 30 seconds every pit stop so they didn't have to take the rear bodywork off to access the starter motor. If they hadn't broken the homologation they wouldn't have finished third.
Harsh decision but I can understand why it had to be made. If it were me I'd have given a time penalty roughly equal to the time saved not removing the bodywork though
They had a huge time penalty the first time they "fixed" the starter, and made a clever fix for it. Isn't that what endurance racing is about? If they'd punted it into the tyres and cracked that area, the car would have been allowed to finish, but not because of a manually cut hole? bHarsh decision but I can understand why it had to be made. If it were me I'd have given a time penalty roughly equal to the time saved not removing the bodywork though
ks imho!If they had left it then maybe they would have got away with a time penalty?
RL17 said:
How long were the LMP2 fuel stops taking? GTE Pro were normally stopped for just over a minute - plus you have a long run in to pit limiter and a very long pit straight (was it 80kmph in pit lane?)
Was sat in Raccordement most of race and had a clear view of pit lane entry - LMP2 cars coming in for fuel every 25-30 mins compared to 45 mins for LMP1.
Just on stopped time of a minute a go for extra fuel that's 16 extra stops (47 v 31 stops necessary) or 16 minutes plus which is over 4 whole laps - if add slow down time must be closer to 6 or 7 laps different. Porsche won by 1 and a bit laps.
No wonder top of Porsche Experiene corp grandstand not packed on Sunday pm for the finish.
Not right for LMP2 to have so many stops!!!
was about to argue that this was due to smaller fuel tanks but just seen the LMP2's are larger (75L v 68L) than LMP1.Was sat in Raccordement most of race and had a clear view of pit lane entry - LMP2 cars coming in for fuel every 25-30 mins compared to 45 mins for LMP1.
Just on stopped time of a minute a go for extra fuel that's 16 extra stops (47 v 31 stops necessary) or 16 minutes plus which is over 4 whole laps - if add slow down time must be closer to 6 or 7 laps different. Porsche won by 1 and a bit laps.
No wonder top of Porsche Experiene corp grandstand not packed on Sunday pm for the finish.
Not right for LMP2 to have so many stops!!!
Sorry if this has already been covered and a bit off topic, but thought i would mention vue cinemas are showing a 3d le mans documentary based on 2015 race on wednesday 21st
https://www.myvue.com/news-competitions/le-mans-3d...
https://www.myvue.com/news-competitions/le-mans-3d...
Lynchie999 said:
egomeister said:
Crafty_ said:
So the retirement of the 7 seems to have been caused by a rather bizarre incident, possibly even skulduggery.
The car was in pit lane and because of the safety car was told to stop and the end of pit lane by a marshal.
Toyota are claiming that a fake marshal then told the car to go out on track, Toyota claim this man was a driver from another team.
They then told him to stop, because the safety car & pack were approaching.
They claim the clutch burned out from all the starting and stopping and thus caused the retirement. They apparently have video of the fake marshal.
I noticed this chap at the time, waving them out behind the usual orange marshalls back and thought it looked quite oddThe car was in pit lane and because of the safety car was told to stop and the end of pit lane by a marshal.
Toyota are claiming that a fake marshal then told the car to go out on track, Toyota claim this man was a driver from another team.
They then told him to stop, because the safety car & pack were approaching.
They claim the clutch burned out from all the starting and stopping and thus caused the retirement. They apparently have video of the fake marshal.
Edit: Found it here @9h44m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yhVJoScJRw
Commetators suggest it was a g-drive driver
Edited by egomeister on Sunday 18th June 18:51
RL17 said:
How long were the LMP2 fuel stops taking? GTE Pro were normally stopped for just over a minute - plus you have a long run in to pit limiter and a very long pit straight (was it 80kmph in pit lane?)
The pit lane is 60kmph and slow zones 80kmphA very quick glance at the Pit Stop Analysis from the results pdf from the ACO HERE shows that LMP1 and 2 fuel stops are broadly similar lengths at 1 minute and a few seconds with GTE being a little longer
Reference discussions that the LMP2 cars have to stop every ~30 minutes as compared to the ~45 minutes for the LMP1 cars. If the LPM2 cars were allowed to have larger fuel tanks they would be able to run for longer and thus there is a risk that the LMP2 could lead the race (V8 engine, no hybrid etc) based on fuel millage. Not exactly what the FIA want to see when promoting fuel efficiency with hybrid systems in LMP1.
Even if they could run the same distance they would still be 10s per lap slower, they would need to run a lot longer than the LMP1 cars to stand any chance overall under normal circumstances.
You can then add the fact because they are carrying more weight due to an additional 1/3 fuel, they would be even slower, so would be more like 12s a lap slower.
The rules aren't designed to allow the LMP2 cars to compete with the LMP1 cars, if that were the case the manufacturers wouldn't bother at all with LMP1. What you saw at Le Mans this year was a freak.
You can then add the fact because they are carrying more weight due to an additional 1/3 fuel, they would be even slower, so would be more like 12s a lap slower.
The rules aren't designed to allow the LMP2 cars to compete with the LMP1 cars, if that were the case the manufacturers wouldn't bother at all with LMP1. What you saw at Le Mans this year was a freak.
10s off is best case too. Quite often with traffic the gap is even bigger. Just watching the cars from the track the P1's are way quicker, 10s off seems too little.
The time difference isn't just range. The P1's are pushing an additional 400hp. So while P2's have a similar top speed the P1's are getting to theirs a lot quicker out of corners and indeed go through corners quicker to start with.
The time difference isn't just range. The P1's are pushing an additional 400hp. So while P2's have a similar top speed the P1's are getting to theirs a lot quicker out of corners and indeed go through corners quicker to start with.
jsf said:
. What you saw at Le Mans this year was a freak.
Completely. Le Mans is 4 classes racing at the same time for 4 separate podiums. Not 4 classes racing for 1 win.As romantically nice as it was to have an LMP2 take the lead outright, this was purely down to the LMP1-H teams inability to develop a servicable, quick, reliable car (with equally reliable drivers). If there had been any LMP1-L cars racing then this is where they would have had their chance at victory (Rebellions 4th place overall in 2014 comes to mind)
olliethehut said:
jsf said:
. What you saw at Le Mans this year was a freak.
Completely. Le Mans is 4 classes racing at the same time for 4 separate podiums. Not 4 classes racing for 1 win.As romantically nice as it was to have an LMP2 take the lead outright, this was purely down to the LMP1-H teams inability to develop a servicable, quick, reliable car (with equally reliable drivers). If there had been any LMP1-L cars racing then this is where they would have had their chance at victory (Rebellions 4th place overall in 2014 comes to mind)
The point is that endurance racing tests reliability so with only 5 very complex LMP1-H cars racing the prospect of an LMP2 win wasn't that unlikely really, particularly with the performance increase that LMP2 has had this year. The LMP1-L cars weren't there this year and you can only beat what is.
Race has a history of changing regulations and it's not always the top class that wins.
From the hourly results sheets from organisers - final position
http://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2017...
Still struggling to see how the number LMP2 pits stops equates to endurance racing (the lap time advantage should be enough on its own for LMP1). Porsche & Toyota have invested too much time and expense to now make the LMP1 class more accessible to other non-manufacturer teams and other manufacturers would need 3 years or so to get up and running.
How long do the current LMP1 rules go out or do they get yearly adjustments?
From the hourly results sheets from organisers - final position
http://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2017...
Still struggling to see how the number LMP2 pits stops equates to endurance racing (the lap time advantage should be enough on its own for LMP1). Porsche & Toyota have invested too much time and expense to now make the LMP1 class more accessible to other non-manufacturer teams and other manufacturers would need 3 years or so to get up and running.
How long do the current LMP1 rules go out or do they get yearly adjustments?
Personally, having a 2nd tier class car would be a great story; in the right circumstances, a LMP2 car should be able to win. However, the regs are written so they have no chance - even when things fall into place, i;e like the weekend gone. It was nice to see the JC LMP2 car in the lead, and a great experience for the team and drivers, but they simply didn't have the pace to compete; they were relying on the #2 Porsche running into difficulties. Just look how quick it took Bernhard to unlap himself and then eventually take the race lead.
Maybe most series are so desperate to please the manufacturers, that they can't afford to have an underdog 2nd tier car winning a prestigious event; so the rues/ regs are designed so this can't happen. I imagine the ACO were relieved when the #2 Porsche actually did win.
I'm reminded of the F2 cars in the WRC who took the fight to the WRCars on the Tarmac rounds in 1997/98, and won 2 events in 1999; the WRC teams were not impressed - but failed to see the 'bigger picture'. Nowadays, there is no chance a R5 car could win a WRC round; even a 2016 WRCar is unlikely.
In my view, in any multi category series, there should always be a chance, however small, in the right circumstances, that a 2nd tier car can win. But I acknowledge, I'm in the minority.
Maybe most series are so desperate to please the manufacturers, that they can't afford to have an underdog 2nd tier car winning a prestigious event; so the rues/ regs are designed so this can't happen. I imagine the ACO were relieved when the #2 Porsche actually did win.
I'm reminded of the F2 cars in the WRC who took the fight to the WRCars on the Tarmac rounds in 1997/98, and won 2 events in 1999; the WRC teams were not impressed - but failed to see the 'bigger picture'. Nowadays, there is no chance a R5 car could win a WRC round; even a 2016 WRCar is unlikely.
In my view, in any multi category series, there should always be a chance, however small, in the right circumstances, that a 2nd tier car can win. But I acknowledge, I'm in the minority.
Trouble with that is if you make the regs on paper that an LMP2 can win then you get someone like Porsche go all out on the LMP2 regs to exploit it. They even already took this route when they raced the RS Spyder in North America rather than go with whatever the P1 rules were at the time.
GrahamG said:
Its a fiar point but they wouldn't be allowed to enter LMP2 now - only four different chassis allowed - Porsche aren't one of them
I had forgotten about that. Actually influences my decision about them being competitive as I believe overall honours should be open for anyone to contest.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff