The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga - Page 230

airbusA346 · 28 May 2013, 09:25 (Ref:3254405)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

we can assume that nobody is going into reserve prior to refuel

Some teams do run until the reserve tank is required.

deggis · 28 May 2013, 19:08 (Ref:3254661)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

Yep just measure energy put in and let it be free......

Didn't you just describe the 2014 regs...

**Adam43** · 28 May 2013, 20:20 (Ref:3254690)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

Didn't you just describe the 2014 regs...

Good plan although it'll probably need a little tweaking. Fortunately they will have the opportunity to apply a little balance

TF110 · 28 May 2013, 21:24 (Ref:3254732)

So 12 lap stints at LeMans is my estimation with the slight increase of fuel. If we go by the stint length at Spa it would be just shy of 12 but 3 liters extra should put them at that threshold.

MyNameIsNigel · 28 May 2013, 22:30 (Ref:3254759)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

So 12 lap stints at LeMans is my estimation with the slight increase of fuel. If we go by the stint length at Spa it would be just shy of 12 but 3 liters extra should put them at that threshold.

Both Toyotas were able to do 22 lap stints at Spa, meaning a fuel consumption of less than 3.3 liters per lap of the Spa circuit. Assuming a margin of 1 to 2 liters in the tank at the end of the stint, we can therefore estimate the fuel consumption to be of the order of 3.23 to 3.27 liters per lap at Spa. This should correspond to an estimated fuel consumption at Le Mans of the order of 6.28 to 6.36 liters per lap. That could indeed allow Toyota to theoretically do 12-lap stints, but this does not leave much margin for error.

The Audis should easily be able to do 10-lap stints, possibly 11-lap stints if they opt to improve their fuel efficiency a bit.

GTfour · 28 May 2013, 23:17 (Ref:3254771)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

In the end that is just really dumb justification. Only justification can be the numbers ACO have but doesn't seem like they really add up either.

With this I agree. Surprised that some people in this thread are now responding to this like this was totally a new issue? (In before playing the "there was no factory petrol" card.)

Look here laddy, no matter what your point is, I don't accept to be branded with 'really dumb justifications' from your side in any parts.

The fact clearly remains that the true sportscar fans don't want to see yet another Audi walk away. If one can not understand this, I think you're not at home at Le Mans.

rich07 · 29 May 2013, 00:56 (Ref:3254791)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

Some sanity amongst the talk of the small bop change, a good read on Toyota's page about the race engineers http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/me...-game-masters/

Thanks for posting that up. We hear a lot more about Audis engineers but not so much (if at all) about their counterparts at Toyota. An interesting read for sure

Mal · 29 May 2013, 06:23 (Ref:3254827)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTfour

Look here laddy, no matter what your point is, I don't accept to be branded with 'really dumb justifications' from your side in any parts.

The fact clearly remains that the true sportscar fans don't want to see yet another Audi walk away. If one can not understand this, I think you're not at home at Le Mans.

I would rather see pure racing whatever it leads to - The ACO should set the rules for a season and stick to it. Why should Audi be penalised for doing a better job. There were no complaints when the Toyota was quicker last year.

This is a shame as all this will do is encourage more and more sandbagging each year as you will get penalised if you dare to show you are quick

GT6 · 29 May 2013, 07:44 (Ref:3254858)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I would rather see pure racing whatever it leads to - The ACO should set the rules for a season and stick to it. Why should Audi be penalised for doing a better job. There were no complaints when the Toyota was quicker last year.

This is a shame as all this will do is encourage more and more sandbagging each year as you will get penalised if you dare to show you are quick

As much as I would love to see close racing at Le mans this year, LMP1 is not the place for BOP adjustments the class should be unrestricted as much as possible

MyNameIsNigel · 29 May 2013, 07:55 (Ref:3254865)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I would rather see pure racing whatever it leads to - The ACO should set the rules for a season and stick to it. Why should Audi be penalised for doing a better job. There were no complaints when the Toyota was quicker last year.

This is a shame as all this will do is encourage more and more sandbagging each year as you will get penalised if you dare to show you are quick

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT6

As much as I would love to see close racing at Le mans this year, LMP1 is not the place for BOP adjustments the class should be unrestricted as much as possible

vincegail · 29 May 2013, 08:43 (Ref:3254888)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT6

As much as I would love to see close racing at Le mans this year, LMP1 is not the place for BOP adjustments the class should be unrestricted as much as possible

And one from me too!

silente · 29 May 2013, 09:01 (Ref:3254898)

Quote:

As much as I would love to see close racing at Le mans this year, LMP1 is not the place for BOP adjustments the class should be unrestricted as much as possible

totally agree as well

Lorenzo S · 29 May 2013, 09:12 (Ref:3254904)

This is the last year of these regulations, I wouldn't read too much into the ACO using BOP in the P1 class. I think maybe the ACO are scared it will be an Audi walk over again. Just think of these tweeks as a 1991-esque Mazda weight break. Don't think it will help Toyota now as much as it helped Mazda then though...

ClassicAuto · 29 May 2013, 09:19 (Ref:3254906)

So you think the race is going to be an Audi demonstration ? I still hope Toyota got the potential... for the moment, we only seen the 2013 spec car for 3 hours at Spa...

TF110 · 29 May 2013, 09:41 (Ref:3254914)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I would rather see pure racing whatever it leads to - The ACO should set the rules for a season and stick to it. Why should Audi be penalised for doing a better job. There were no complaints when the Toyota was quicker last year.

This is a shame as all this will do is encourage more and more sandbagging each year as you will get penalised if you dare to show you are quick

Yes there was. Audi still complain about the 120kmh rule for their fwd/awd hybrid activation. Then they complained about the braking G-force load for the hybrid. They complained that Toyota had no right to say they were disadvantaged to diesel fuel. Audi did a better job at what exactly? Imo they showed their "490hp" claim was bogus. They increased their pace by 2 seconds, but at the same time decreased efficiency by around 20%? Toyota went about 1.5 seconds faster at Silverstone but actually went further in a stint than last year. So who did the "better job"? Theres no denying theres more than being let on by either team and we'll only see at the 24.

gwyllion · 29 May 2013, 09:52 (Ref:3254917)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

Audi did a better job at what exactly?

In 2012 Toyota dominated the last WEC rounds. In 2013 Audi has dominated the first WEC rounds, even though diesel engines got a reduction in air restrictor size. Doesn't that qualify at doing a better job at developing the car during the winter

Furthermore, if Audi complains that they are not allowed to use the hybrid system in the pit like Toyota, I think they have a very valid point.

TF110 · 29 May 2013, 10:03 (Ref:3254922)

Diesel doesn't rely on the air restrictor so much as the petrol. You know theres more to it and the 4wd is limited for reasons. The telling thing is Toyota ran 2012 cars and went a second faster personal best at Silverstone compared to last year. And went further on a stint with the 15kg increase the 2012 car wasn't designed around. 4 tenths slower on ultimate pace with an old car an extra weight...

silente · 29 May 2013, 10:26 (Ref:3254932)

Quote:

Diesel doesn't rely on the air restrictor so much as the petrol. You know theres more to it and the 4wd is limited for reasons. The telling thing is Toyota ran 2012 cars and went a second faster personal best at Silverstone compared to last year. And went further on a stint with the 15kg increase the 2012 car wasn't designed around. 4 tenths slower on ultimate pace with an old car an extra weight...

yes but at the end of the day Audi was still faster than Toyota...and won the race...right?

To me it is enough to say they did a better job.

Anyway, maybe we will see something different in Le Mans...who knows?

Canada ALMS fan · 29 May 2013, 16:49 (Ref:3255060)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I would rather see pure racing whatever it leads to - The ACO should set the rules for a season and stick to it. Why should Audi be penalised for doing a better job. There were no complaints when the Toyota was quicker last year.

This is a shame as all this will do is encourage more and more sandbagging each year as you will get penalised if you dare to show you are quick

I wholeheartedly agree.

aneesh99 · 29 May 2013, 17:16 (Ref:3255072)

Can the BoP be changed after test day or is it 'locked in' now?

nkoske · 29 May 2013, 17:24 (Ref:3255074)

The problem...once you negotiate with terrorists, they'll always expect to negotiate in the future and will 'blow' things up until they get their way.

Simmi · 29 May 2013, 17:38 (Ref:3255080)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkoske

The problem...once you negotiate with terrorists, they'll always expect to negotiate in the future and will 'blow' things up until they get their way.

A bit of a forced analogy but okay.

TF110 · 29 May 2013, 20:10 (Ref:3255160)

Quote:

Originally Posted by silente

yes but at the end of the day Audi was still faster than Toyota...and won the race...right?

To me it is enough to say they did a better job.

Anyway, maybe we will see something different in Le Mans...who knows?

True, but the race that matters most happens next month. Hopefully the race will continue on and there will be no hiccups like wrong tire choice or improper hybrid install. 24 hours is a long time to get right or wrong.

gregtummer · 29 May 2013, 20:14 (Ref:3255163)

Audi #1 has Andre and Ben; something that no rule change or BOP can account for.

TF110 · 29 May 2013, 20:40 (Ref:3255178)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregtummer

Audi #1 has Andre and Ben; something that no rule change or BOP can account for.

And the Toyota #8 has Davidson and Sarrazin

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[LM24] Toyota plans Le Mans return with hybrid!	Bentley03	24 Heures du Mans	424	8 Nov 2010 19:56
[LM24] Best LMP1/LMP900/LMGTP Manufacturer of the '00s at Le Mans	Danny_GT2	24 Heures du Mans	11	11 Aug 2009 18:26
[LM24] Acura Heading to Le Mans in 2008 and LMP1 in 2009	Mal	24 Heures du Mans	45	11 Jul 2007 23:05
[LM24] When do you think Porsche will return to Le Mans?	H16	24 Heures du Mans	3	14 Nov 2001 10:38