The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga

[TF110]

Draggy? How would any of us know if their draggy or efficient? Thats like saying Audi's fenders looked more blocky so they're more draggy. Obviously what the issue is the fact that the diesels get better fuel economy than the petrols, combined with Toyota probably using it's hybrid power as more of a boost than for extending range and you end up with Toyota getting 5 laps less on their stints. Toyota lost by around 55 seconds, and when you do the total pit time spent by each team, Toyota spent at least a minute longer in the pits. That's not just because they made 'more stops', but the refueling took longer as well. If that were equal and the 2nd safety car period didn't separate the #1 from the Toyota, it would have been down to the wire IMO.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That depends on what areo package that Audi and Toyota use--Fuji is basically the Japanese Paul Ricard since Toyota (who own Fuji Speedway) paid Tilke to mess with it to get a F1 race for a couple of years.

The front straight is nearly a mile long and most of the corners are consistant with what one would find at Le Mans and Paul Ricard, and Paul Ricard does favor an LM-type set up, and I don't think that Fuji will be much different, and we know that Super GT teams do tend to run special areo there because of those considerations.

I think that a safe bet would be either a low downforce version of the sprint body kits, or a high downforce version of their LM packages, quite possibly the latter, because those noses on the sprint R18s and the sprint spec TS030 are very draggy with those short fenders and huge dive planes.

I'm guessing Fuji is all about compromise in the setup like Indy? The third sector must be a complete b**** to drive with a very low downforce setup/package.

[chernaudi]

Most of those corners are slow corners, so slow that downforce often has minimal effect.

Compare the layouts of modern day Fuji and Paul Ricard, you'll find plenty of similarities, and there's a reason why Audi and Toyota have done a lot of testing at Paul Ricard for Le Mans. Both are dominated by a long straight and medium speed corners.

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by TF110

Draggy? How would any of us know if their draggy or efficient? Thats like saying Audi's fenders looked more blocky so they're more draggy. Obviously what the issue is the fact that the diesels get better fuel economy than the petrols, combined with Toyota probably using it's hybrid power as more of a boost than for extending range and you end up with Toyota getting 5 laps less on their stints. Toyota lost by around 55 seconds, and when you do the total pit time spent by each team, Toyota spent at least a minute longer in the pits. That's not just because they made 'more stops', but the refueling took longer as well. If that were equal and the 2nd safety car period didn't separate the #1 from the Toyota, it would have been down to the wire IMO.

Spot on!

[Aysedasi]

Well all I can say is that I was mightily impressed. Towards the middle section of the race the Toyota was massively quicker than the Audis - I was timing the gaps over quite a few laps. To finish that close in their second race and let's face it, give Audi a really hard time - that's extraordinarily impressive. Yes, high fuel consumption, but I'll lay odds-on that'll soon be improved. This is a team making incredible progress and praise the Lord they are taking the fight to Audi.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well all I can say is that I was mightily impressed. Towards the middle section of the race the Toyota was massively quicker than the Audis - I was timing the gaps over quite a few laps. To finish that close in their second race and let's face it, give Audi a really hard time - that's extraordinarily impressive. Yes, high fuel consumption, but I'll lay odds-on that'll soon be improved. This is a team making incredible progress and praise the Lord they are taking the fight to Audi.

Indeed.
The engine is still based on a old unit - something that will likely chance for 2013 or at least 2014.

And let's not forget this is Toyota's second race run. They still have a lot to learn about endurance racing with their car

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Draggy? How would any of us know if their draggy or efficient? Thats like saying Audi's fenders looked more blocky so they're more draggy.

The additional downforce (and hence drag) of the TS030 compared to other LMP1 cars could be an explanation for its terrible fuel consumption.

Originally Posted by TF110

Obviously what the issue is the fact that the diesels get better fuel economy than the petrols, combined with Toyota probably using it's hybrid power as more of a boost than for extending range and you end up with Toyota getting 5 laps less on their stints.

You should not generalize. The privateer petrol cars have comparable fuel economy as Audi.

This is comparison of the duration of the stints for first five LMP1 cars. Safety car periods are marked in italic.

car	stint 1	stint 2	stint 3	stint 4	stint 5	stint 6	stint 7	stint 8
1	46:21	49:13	56:56	51:37	51:19	55:59	48:59
2	48:19	53:03	56:08	51:30	51:29	56:03	40:08
7	39:02	41:50	49:45	43:42	42:34	45:43	27:44	27:42
13	45:44	50:43	56:38	52:54	50:57	55:26	47:38
21	45:35	50:28	59:56	49:08	50:21	55:49	48:49

The privateers can run 50 min with 75 liter of petrol, so with 73 liter they could in theory run around 48-49 min. That is a lot longer than the 42 min stints that Toyota managed.

Note that the #2 Audi started the race with a fuel saving strategy. The team hoped that this would allow them to finish the race with one less stop:

Tom Kristensen (Audi R18 ultra #2): “Congratulations to Audi and to our sister car on having clinched victory. We were initially trying to save fuel to prevent having to come in for a last short refueling stop at the end of the race. But then, unfortunately, a few things interfered with our plan. Due to the safety car periods the other cars used less fuel as well. Unfortunately, Allan had to pit due to a puncture. We managed a nice recovery. Naturally, third place is not a dream result. It could have turned into a clearly much closer battle of our car with Toyota.”

Allan McNish (Audi R18 ultra #2): “The strategy played a major role today. Our car was very quick. But we also knew how to save fuel. So, theoretically, we would have had to have one pit stop less than our rivals. Unfortunately, a puncture deprived us of our chance. The safety car didn’t help us with our strategy either. And so, in the end, we finished in third place.”

[rich07]

Originally Posted by CTD

Hmm, i think we will see some kind of update to the Japanese round, as this round will have a high value for the Toyota board.
A victory there might secure the project a few extra millions for 2013 and 2014.

Yeah a win at Fuji would be BIG for them. There's no championship on the line so Im certain they will throw everything 2012 wise (updates etc) at this race. The big guys from Toyota will be at the race, it'll be at home, at their own track, as you said a win might also open up more funding for next year.

To beat Audi at home would be big, would they run two cars there if they could I guess is the question.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The additional downforce (and hence drag) of the TS030 compared to other LMP1 cars could be an explanation for its terrible fuel consumption.
You should not generalize. The privateer petrol cars have comparable fuel economy as Audi.

This is comparison of the duration of the stints for first five LMP1 cars. Safety car periods are marked in italic.

The privateers can run 50 min with 75 liter of petrol, so with 73 liter they could in theory run around 48-49 min. That is a lot longer than the 42 min stints that Toyota managed.

Note that the #2 Audi started the race with a fuel saving strategy. The team hoped that this would allow them to finish the race with one less stop:

And the traps speeds showed the TS030 was 10 km/h down to the Audi. They were carrying more drag than the Audi for sure. Naturally we can't say for sure as a % as I'm still under the impression the Toyota has less HP. But recall at LM they were consistently faster in a straight line than Audi. Hmmm, now that I say that aloud, now I'm not too sure about drag levels relative to Audi...I'll have to think about this now... This might just confirm they have less HP.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

And the traps speeds showed the TS030 was 10 km/h down to the Audi. They were carrying more drag than the Audi for sure. Naturally we can't say for sure as a % as I'm still under the impression the Toyota has less HP. But recall at LM they were consistently faster in a straight line than Audi. Hmmm, now that I say that aloud, now I'm not too sure about drag levels relative to Audi...I'll have to think about this now... This might just confirm they have less HP.

Really strange to me as a pure spectator with little technical knowledge. The Audi's must have been running quite a severe fuel-saving strategy then, because for all that McNish says his car was fast, during the first 2-3 hours, consistently on my stopwatch, the Toyota was positively blowing both the Audis into the reeds.....

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well all I can say is that I was mightily impressed. Towards the middle section of the race the Toyota was massively quicker than the Audis - I was timing the gaps over quite a few laps. To finish that close in their second race and let's face it, give Audi a really hard time - that's extraordinarily impressive. Yes, high fuel consumption, but I'll lay odds-on that'll soon be improved. This is a team making incredible progress and praise the Lord they are taking the fight to Audi.

Yep , I was massivily impressed at their overtaking manouvre at Le Mans , but this was sheer delight .

[DeathOrGlory]

Really impressed with Toyota's pace. Imagine how will they be at Fuji, throwing everything and the kitchen sink!

[Gingers4Justice]

Just to check, are chances of a second car at Fuji 100% dead in the water?

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Just to check, are chances of a second car at Fuji 100% dead in the water?

I wish they would have the confidence to kick on. All it would take is some small problem and they could lose valuable development/race time and data with the one car.

Maybe this result will change their thinking. They could run one car super rich and try and eke more economy out of the other. It would be massively beneficial.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Just to check, are chances of a second car at Fuji 100% dead in the water?

No, it is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by @dsceditor

Toyota meanwhile currently have no plans to field second car for remainder of 2012 #FIAWEC

source: http://twitter.com/dsceditor/status/239307298479144961

[The Badger]

Currantly no plans doesnt say no either . I reckon in the face of what we just saw at Silverstone , they would be foolish not to .

[CTD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Currantly no plans doesnt say no either . I reckon in the face of what we just saw at Silverstone , they would be foolish not to .

I agree.
Toyota might have learned a lesson with the no-show at Spa, and therefor wont publicly plan something which might not happened because of unforeseen circumstances (like a crash and CarbonFiber shortage).

[gwyllion]

The whole TS030 program is executed on a tight budget, which has been approved before the start of the season. According to http://lendurance.co.uk/2012/08/on-a...scal-vasselon/ Toyota will not test this year anymore. That illustrates that their budget is limited. No budget for testing probably also means no budget for a second car at Fuji.

The lack of additional test sessions could also be explained by very busy WEC agenda, with only 2 weeks between every next round (15/9 Sao Paulo -> 29/9 Bahrein -> 14/10 Fuji -> 28/10 Shanghai).

[kober]

Do they actually have a second TS030 that could be raced at Fuji?

[Gingers4Justice]

Maybe they only had the budget to race a second at Fuji or have another test?

I appreciate I'm clutching at straws here, but at least there are still straws left to clutch. Just.

[Articus]

To add to mind boggling strategies of the car, fuel efficiency, drag etc. Benaoit Treluyer said in interview that they where told to go flatout from start to finish. That does not sound like the Audi was exactly saving fuel. So refreshing to see the Toyota absolutely dominate the Audi on pace. The Toyota lead for over 60% of the race!
Maybe the mileage is why Toyota complain about 2014 regs?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by kober

Do they actually have a second TS030 that could be raced at Fuji?

They have at least two chassis, three if the one crashed at LM is usable. See this:

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=3937

[Articus]

Originally Posted by kober

Do they actually have a second TS030 that could be raced at Fuji?

Maybe. I jut assumed it being the home race that they would do everything to win the race including 2 cars if it comes to trading paint with the Audi's . Apparently its only 1 car there.

[Articus]

Was anyone else impressed with Nakajima's pace with traffic? What was initially me crossing my fingers before the driver change turned into cheering him on. The guy was flying the entire stint and on the same speed as Wurz!

I was a little dissapointed in Lapierre. He can drive a quick lap on a clear track but he was not as effective as Nakajima and Qurz in traffic.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The lack of additional test sessions could also be explained by very busy WEC agenda, with only 2 weeks between every next round (15/9 Sao Paulo -> 29/9 Bahrein -> 14/10 Fuji -> 28/10 Shanghai).

Exactly, and probably more about this. From what Vasselon said can't really conclude that budget is the main reason. Is Audi going to test either?

No plans to race 2nd car = not officially decided/announced [/optimism]