[WEC Race] 6 Hours Of Spa-Francorchamps 3-5 May 2018

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's hardly EoT if you're actually building it so they aren't equivalent. I've always defended the EoT against BoP, but it's no longer equivalency.

I think it's still eot. They are supposed to be equivalent. And imo they will be in terms of pace eventually. The point of having a hybrid would be lost if they were to be equal in terms of stint length though. That's what the rule makers have pointed out for a long time now. Whether it's fair or not, that's up for debate but you can't say this is some new revelation.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's hardly EoT if you're actually building it so they aren't equivalent. I've always defended the EoT against BoP, but it's no longer equivalency.

I mean... the goal of the EoT was always to have Toyota have a lap advantage in stint length at Le Mans. That's been known for months, I'm not quite sure how you could have missed that?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

I'd say that was a quali sim by Ford. Speaking of qualifying, are we still doing the two lap,two driver average this year?

They've halved it to two drivers + one lap each 1 or 2 years ago but it's still an average laptime.

[RedSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

They've halved it to two drivers + one lap each 1 or 2 years ago but it's still an average laptime.

Thanks.
I knew about it only being one lap from each driver in recent seasons, I just worded my post badly.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think it's still eot. They are supposed to be equivalent. And imo they will be in terms of pace eventually. The point of having a hybrid would be lost if they were to be equal in terms of stint length though. That's what the rule makers have pointed out for a long time now. Whether it's fair or not, that's up for debate but you can't say this is some new revelation.

That's not strictly true - even if they ran equal stint lengths, the hybrid does it on less fuel. That means less weight which means more ballast to play with. It also has more flexibility in how it can deploy power compared to a traditional car, plus four wheel drive etc. And short pit stop times (although that may now be gone with the terrible new pit stop regulations). There's more than just fuel economy here.

It's crazy because all of this was actually predicted. It was said that at the last minute the ACO would move the goal posts for the privateer teams. When the new regulations were produced there were raised eyebrows and there were articles posted pointing out that the new regulations really did favour a balanced hybrid versus non-hybrid grid. Then at the last minute the fuel gets cut massively and then stint lengths changed. So much for that, eh? Almost like bait and switch tactic. Promise them rules they can challenge with and after they've committed, make some changes. Hell, make the changes after the teams turn up at the track. That's classy.

I don't even know why I'm annoyed at it. It was so predictable it's not even funny. Taxes, death and the ACO pandering.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Then at the last minute the fuel gets cut massively and then stint lengths changed. So much for that, eh?

This is not true. Once again, please read the posts in this topic.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

This is not true. Once again, please read the posts in this topic.

Elton Julian disagrees.

“Then they come with this rule [a few days] before the first race. Now we can’t do one stint drive time.”

Ignore all of the fluff that Dagys added certainly, but quotes are quotes. Dagys may add nonsense but I've never known him to lie about a quote.

Also, the wording should is so ambiguous it's almost like they're trolling. That could so easily be used against a team in a decision. "The rules say you shouldn't do this" is actually more reason than the ACO has used for penalties in the past. The word "should" is so open to interpretation it's madness. That shouldn't be anywhere near a regulation or official document.

And the fuel allocation was massively changed. That part is certainly true. They set the rules, got the teams in and committed..then changed it afterwards. That's BoP. If that's the route we're going down, then cool - lets just not pretend it's not then.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

The problem is that Elton Julian is simply wrong. The wording in that bulletin is not ambiguous at all. I've already explained that. And it's not 'a few days before the first race'. The bulletin spoken of was released on the 16th of April, over two weeks ago. And it's a refinement of the EoT set for the prologue where maximum fuel usage per stint was also already in the EoT regulations.

Also if you look at the quote, the [a few days part] was added in by the editor.

[MaskedRacer]

Originally Posted by TF110

That is amazing. These guys are going to be in the 2:12's come qualifying! Lmp2 was barely faster than that a couple years ago.

Agreed. Just a couple years back. GTLM was running laps at 2 min 20. Which was on par with the SRO Blancpain GT cars.

I can't believe GTs have gotten this quick. They are on the heels of the old regulation LMP2 cars now. A gap to the GT3 cars has happened now. And by the way I'm sure the GT3 pole for the Spa 24 will be about 2 min 16. So they have stepped up too. All a good thing i think.

[MaskedRacer]

What is the issue with Manor racing? Somebody's check did not clear?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

The problem is that Elton Julian is simply wrong. The wording in that bulletin is not ambiguous at all. I've already explained that. And it's not 'a few days before the first race'. The bulletin spoken of was released on the 16th of April, over two weeks ago. And it's a refinement of the EoT set for the prologue where maximum fuel usage per stint was also already in the EoT regulations.

Also if you look at the quote, the [a few days part] was added in by the editor.

You're completely correct about the [] part being added. However saying "over two weeks ago" like it's a long time is a bit misleading. These programs have been in development for 8-10 months, and we're moving the goal posts two weeks before the race? That doesn't ring alarm bells anyone? I don't think Elton Julian is wrong to be annoyed about building his team and plans around a set of regulations, only to have them changed as they're finalising what they're going to be eating for dinner when they arrive in Belgium.

The word should is completely ambiguous. That's the beauty of the word. It tells you what a competitor should do. If you don't do what you should do, you may be punished. A cynic would say it's been put in there on purpose so they can apply it when they want. However, I'll take the route of it's just more bad planning by the ACO. Kinda why we're in this mess in the first place. Using the word should in any sort of official rule, regulation or documentation is just outstanding.

Also interesting to see which cars they disadvantaged with the change. We've got a hybrid set of rules used by 1 team, and we've got a non-hybrid set of rules used by 5 teams. If one of those is unbalanced, surely you'd adjust the one used by 1 team to cause minimum disruption? Or do we not want to disturb the big team too much? hmm.

On a separate note: The Manor issues are sorely predictable. Chinese money and things always looking a bit iffy, coupled with the Ginetta. I'm surprised it's gotten this far with two cars, and like TF110, I'm a bit disappointed we've had cars turned away for this so far. Hoping they get whatever issue it is sorted out.

[RedSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Elton Julian disagrees.
Also, the wording should is so ambiguous it's almost like they're trolling. That could so easily be used against a team in a decision. "The rules say you shouldn't do this" is actually more reason than the ACO has used for penalties in the past. The word "should" is so open to interpretation it's madness. That shouldn't be anywhere near a regulation or official document.

Well then how would you word this document? The ACO doesn't know for sure how far the non-hybrids can go until the race takes place. "Should" allows for the unforseen. The bit with the "should" is merely an explanation of the numbers further up the document.
In essence, what they've said is "Based on the data available, we think the non-hybrids will do 17 laps on this amount of fuel while the hybrids will do 18 laps on this amount of fuel." They've no choice but to be ambiguous because they're trying to predict the future while acknowledging that people will try to play games. After all, Gibson could rock up to Le Mans with brand new pistons or something which renders the ACO's calculations obsolete.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

The problem is that Elton Julian is simply wrong. The wording in that bulletin is not ambiguous at all. I've already explained that. And it's not 'a few days before the first race'. The bulletin spoken of was released on the 16th of April, over two weeks ago. And it's a refinement of the EoT set for the prologue where maximum fuel usage per stint was also already in the EoT regulations.

Also if you look at the quote, the [a few days part] was added in by the editor.

Exactly. A few days should read 2 weeks. Then in actuality, it should read over a month (prologue eot) because this is not a big change that would have made it so they get the same amount of laps Toyota does. It might be an amendment to the tables, but the fact it could be amended was written in the rules anyway. Only one team is making a fuss about this and it's because their unqualified driver (by the driver ratings) will now actually have to race instead of driving around for 40 minutes.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

You're completely correct about the [] part being added. However saying "over two weeks ago" like it's a long time is a bit misleading. These programs have been in development for 8-10 months, and we're moving the goal posts two weeks before the race? That doesn't ring alarm bells anyone? I don't think Elton Julian is wrong to be annoyed about building his team and plans around a set of regulations, only to have them changed as they're finalising what they're going to be eating for dinner when they arrive in Belgium.
.

Again, this is simply untrue. All of this was known over two weeks ago. It was also known the EoT for Spa and Le Mans would be based on the testing at Paul Ricard. I'm really surprised you're not getting this simple fact. Once again:

- The ACO stated the goal of the new EoT was to give hybrid cars a one lap advantage in stints at Le Mans
- The second goal is to give the privateers a speed boost to get into the ballpark of the hybrid cars.
- There would be EoT set for the Prologue, then data from that would be used to tweak if necessary. Once again, these are all new cars so there was no data available.
- Maximum fuel use per stint has always been part of the EoT. This is not new.
- If any team would try to mislead the rulemakers during this process there would be consequences.

The ACO/FIA have done exactly as they said they would from the start. Anyone only catching up to this process now has simply not been paying attention. That seems to include both you and Mr Julian.

[RedSquirrel]

A thought: once it's clear where everyone is regarding pace and stint length, I think the ACO might start bumping up the fuel load. Eleven laps of Le Mans is just silly when Toyota could do thirteen or fourteen last year.

[gustavobamba]

Those BR LMP1 in Low drag config. are "FAST" 321.5 km/h, both of them.

It looks we are going to have +350 Km/h in Le Mans!!!!!!

[chernaudi]

I do think that this is BS on the part of the ACO but at the same time what do you expect? IMSA does this stuff just as bad and more often.

At the same time, I can see Elton's point, but that's also the price you might have to pay for having a pro-am pay driver in your car and building your program around that knowing that the ACO can screw with the rules any time they please. So far, I haven't heard Rebellion or BR complain, and it seems that Rebellion especially doesn't care and/or saw this coming and planned for it.

Crap move by the ACO, but I do also wonder how much sand Toyota has bagged up, as well as the privateers.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I do think that this is BS on the part of the ACO but at the same time what do you expect? IMSA does this stuff just as bad and more often.

At the same time, I can see Elton's point, but that's also the price you might have to pay for having a pro-am pay driver in your car and building your program around that knowing that the ACO can screw with the rules any time they please. So far, I haven't heard Rebellion or BR complain, and it seems that Rebellion especially doesn't care and/or saw this coming and planned for it.

Crap move by the ACO, but I do also wonder how much sand Toyota has bagged up, as well as the privateers.

Crap move by the ACO that the teams agreed to when they entered the lmp1 class? Come on now, this is blown way out of proportion. The cars are brand new, the teams are inexperience. Even if they are they're still coming to terms with their machines. The autonomy advantage of Toyota (hybrid car) was claimed from the start now Dagys makes some 'breaking news' story about eot tables that were known for weeks and it's all "ACO bad". I say lets let the weekend play out before casting judgement.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

Well then how would you word this document? The ACO doesn't know for sure how far the non-hybrids can go until the race takes place. "Should" allows for the unforseen. The bit with the "should" is merely an explanation of the numbers further up the document.
In essence, what they've said is "Based on the data available, we think the non-hybrids will do 17 laps on this amount of fuel while the hybrids will do 18 laps on this amount of fuel." They've no choice but to be ambiguous because they're trying to predict the future while acknowledging that people will try to play games. After all, Gibson could rock up to Le Mans with brand new pistons or something which renders the ACO's calculations obsolete.

The word "should" is the worst possible word to use because you CAN use that as a regulation. Imagine if you were to mess up a big contract at work, because you did not forward the email to the correct person (I realise this is a terrible example, but I witnessed this recently so go with me ). Your boss turns around and kicks your ass and says "RedSquirrel, wtf? You should have sent that". Aye, that word should is good enough for you to get your ass kicked.

Similarly, we have health and safety regs at work that say things like "Staff should not enter the fire ground without appropriate PPE". And "Staff should inspect the vehicle before use". If I don't obey these, I will get in trouble despite the word should being in there. The word should is not the appropriate word for that sentence.

You've asked me how I would word it, yet you've done a better job of it that the ACO in your own post. There is absolutely no ambiguity with your statement. Your statement is an intended aim, however, it's very clear that it may not occur. It in no way can be misused. You're also right that they've used the word should to allow for unforeseen circumstances. But that word also allows them to use it as a penalty reason if they want to do so. That's...rather convenient.

Sorry, the whole thing stinks of...well, the ACO tbh. It's not been a well-managed process at any point. But we should've known that with how well the hybrid situation was managed before.

chernaudi, agreed that it doesn't help having the Pro/Am setup. Although it's rather funny they've needed dispensation from the ACO to even allow Hedman in, as the rules don't allow him in an LMP1 car. Driver rankings and BoP - good times. So they needed to be allowed to be against the rules in order to be disadvantaged by a different set of moving rules.

[TF110]

Here's an onboard of the Rebellion, sounds like he misses a shift out of stavelot not to mention how twitchy the car is into braking for les combes. These cars have a lot left in them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFdDqfc4v_Q

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The word "should" is the worst possible word to use because you CAN use that as a regulation. Imagine if you were to mess up a big contract at work, because you did not forward the email to the correct person (I realise this is a terrible example, but I witnessed this recently so go with me ). Your boss turns around and kicks your ass and says "RedSquirrel, wtf? You should have sent that". Aye, that word should is good enough for you to get your ass kicked.

Similarly, we have health and safety regs at work that say things like "Staff should not enter the fire ground without appropriate PPE". And "Staff should inspect the vehicle before use". If I don't obey these, I will get in trouble despite the word should being in there. The word should is not the appropriate word for that sentence.

You've asked me how I would word it, yet you've done a better job of it that the ACO in your own post. There is absolutely no ambiguity with your statement. Your statement is an intended aim, however, it's very clear that it may not occur. It in no way can be misused. You're also right that they've used the word should to allow for unforeseen circumstances. But that word also allows them to use it as a penalty reason if they want to do so. That's...rather convenient.

Sorry, the whole thing stinks of...well, the ACO tbh. It's not been a well-managed process at any point. But we should've known that with how well the hybrid situation was managed before.

chernaudi, agreed that it doesn't help having the Pro/Am setup. Although it's rather funny they've needed dispensation from the ACO to even allow Hedman in, as the rules don't allow him in an LMP1 car. Driver rankings and BoP - good times. So they needed to be allowed to be against the rules in order to be disadvantaged by a different set of moving rules.

So you're just looking for any excuse to whine about the ACO. I see. No point in having an actual discussion then.

[RedSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

But that word also allows them to use it as a penalty reason if they want to do so. That's...rather convenient.

Sorry, the whole thing stinks of...well, the ACO tbh. It's not been a well-managed process at any point. But we should've known that with how well the hybrid situation was managed before.

Ah, so it all comes down to the possibility of penalties being issued. I don't think that'll happen. Look at the 2016 GTE fiasco. The ACO's pandering to one party managed to make everyone really properly angry and made Le Mans into a farce. They'll be more wary of pandering this time, particularly as there is so much riding on the privateers being competitive enough to prevent Toyota from clearing off into next week.

[Mike E]

I think we should stop arguing about stint lengths until Graham Goodwin tells us what's going on.

[chernaudi]

The ACO have done plenty of stupid stuff over the last decade, and this is one of them. It doesn't matter if it was 2 weeks ago or a few days ago, but they have turned EOT into BOP effectively by simply saying that they can change it up to 4 times prior to race 3 at Silverstone.

I'd rather have Toyota and the privateers run to nearly identical stint lengths, and if Toyota are faster on merit, so be it. Same holds true for the privateers if they were faster.

I also have to say that even Toyota being fortunate to do 40 minute stint lengths at best isn't very impressive IMO. I'm not that impressed with DPI cars for the same reasons. Granted, it's mostly due to smaller fuel tanks, but I miss the days of Audi R8s running for nearly an hour on a tank of fuel. It also placed more emphasis on double or even in some races triple stinting tires.

Increased stint length is why Audi went with DFI on the R8, it was initially a reason why Audi and Peugeot went the diesel route along with power and torque, and it was supposedly an advantage with hybrids. But even then diesels and later hybrids did take fuel tank hits in the name of equivalency.

I guess I don't want to see micromanagement and constant tinkering of the rules. But I guess that's what we have in today's world of instant gratification vs my desire to see innovation be rewarded.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

So you're just looking for any excuse to whine about the ACO. I see. No point in having an actual discussion then.

Nope (RedSquirrel gets it below). I've made my point clear (and you clearly understand it too as I'm no longer getting a real response). I've defended the ACO compared to SRO and IMSA quite heavily on this forum, but this one is quite a massive miss management of the entire situation. Just because I'm critical, it doesn't mean I'm always critical. And just because I like the ACO, doesn't mean I will blindly support them through poorly managed situations. Organisations I like are not perfect. Sorry that I don't see things in an easy black and white.

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

Ah, so it all comes down to the possibility of penalties being issued. I don't think that'll happen. Look at the 2016 GTE fiasco. The ACO's pandering to one party managed to make everyone really properly angry and made Le Mans into a farce. They'll be more wary of pandering this time, particularly as there is so much riding on the privateers being competitive enough to prevent Toyota from clearing off into next week.

Yes, you get my point (maybe it was poorly explained before, but now we're on the same page). I wish I shared your optimism, but in all honesty, I don't think it's enough to hope the wording won't become an issue. They've given themselves the opportunity to use this, and that's such a bad situation to be in. It's such a ridiculous situation that you accidentally worded it better in this thread! Either that or you're a natural regulation writer. Get your CV into the ACO.

You're totally right that the 2016 pandering turned it into a farce, and you'd like to hope they'd stop pandering...and then they moved Fuji for one team, causing problems for lots of others. They don't appear to have learnt much from the pandering burns of the past.