[WEC Race] 2015 WEC Round 7--Shanghai

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

wow, pegasus racing finished in front of strakka & ESM (and that one G-Drive) -- the michelin wets played a part in that, but still, nice achievement.

Tbh finishing ahead of cars driven by Brown and Leventis isn't necessarily something to write home about. But Pegasus did spice up the race while it was wet.

[chernaudi]

Audi actually got both cars to be competitive against both Porsches and for the first time this season, both cars got home on the lead lap, even though they only finished 3rd and 4th. They did both run faster race laps at the end than Porsche did. Things would've been closer if Audi didn't continue to struggle on jumping from the rain tires to intermediates. That suggests that their set up isn't very good for mixed or drying conditions.

Porsche have the better car for mixed conditions, while Audi seems to be better if it's wet, or almost-totally dry.

That was actually the most interesting auto race, period, that I've seen in a while.

[TzeiTzei]

Interesting total pit times:

#1 7 stops 6:54
#2 6 stops 6:50
#7 6 stops 6:43
#8 6 stops 6:34
#17 6 stops 6:03
#18 6 stops 5:41

Porsche I think double stinted their tyres at some point.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Porsche I think double stinted their tyres at some point.

They both doubled their wets when Audi was going to Inters, and the #18 additionally did extend its tyre use on its last stop by not changing (thus keeping it in front of the Audis).

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Audi actually got both cars to be competitive against both Porsches and for the first time this season, both cars got home on the lead lap, even though they only finished 3rd and 4th. They did both run faster race laps at the end than Porsche did. Things would've been closer if Audi didn't continue to struggle on jumping from the rain tires to intermediates. That suggests that their set up isn't very good for mixed or drying conditions.

Porsche have the better car for mixed conditions, while Audi seems to be better if it's wet, or almost-totally dry.

That was actually the most interesting auto race, period, that I've seen in a while.

I remember hearing that Audi had full dry setups on both cars.

[kvenom]

Congrats to Porsche, dominated the season. Audi will be disappointed. Toyota will be miserable and will need pretty much a miracle to compete next year as well with the new tech they have to run.

[chernaudi]

Audi are probably kicking themselves for not running this new spec sprint bodywork earlier and for messing up with the #7's tire strategy at Fuji. They spotted Porsche some manufacturer and drivers' points at Nurburgring and COTA for sure, and even Fuji.

And we also have to consider that Fuji and Shanghai are probably Audi's weakest tracks right now. Sort of makes one wonder how Audi could've done at Nurburgring and COTA with the new bodywork.

[GT-Eins]

Here our race-report of Fuji with first race related statistics (LMP1 only - rest of classes and Qualiresults to follow asap):
http://www.gt-eins.de/Berichte2015/wec/shang/shang.html



Laptime-Grafics are in another format than usual - due to the characteristic as a rain-race

[Mike E]

What a tough race for Strakka. A suspension failure is what put Danny Watts in the gravel and to the back of the field, and then a slow puncture caused Nick Leventis to go off.

http://www.strakkaracing.com/wp/news...es-in-shanghai

[TF110]

Originally Posted by kvenom

Congrats to Porsche, dominated the season. Audi will be disappointed. Toyota will be miserable and will need pretty much a miracle to compete next year as well with the new tech they have to run.

Toyota improved 2-3 seconds by optimising the same car/package. The others gained 5+ by going up a mj-class and bringing brand new cars. Next year Toyota will have a 100% new car and go to 8mj. If they can gain 2-3 more seconds by stepping in new shoes theyll be right there where the others are now. If they gain more by stepping up to 8mj then they can keep up. Audi will probably be mostly new also, at least the hybrid. Theres no miracles needed, just more improvements on top of what theyre expected to improve.

[msd76]

Originally Posted by TF110

Toyota improved 2-3 seconds by optimising the same car/package. The others gained 5+ by going up a mj-class and bringing brand new cars. Next year Toyota will have a 100% new car and go to 8mj. If they can gain 2-3 more seconds by stepping in new shoes theyll be right there where the others are now. If they gain more by stepping up to 8mj then they can keep up. Audi will probably be mostly new also, at least the hybrid. Theres no miracles needed, just more improvements on top of what theyre expected to improve.

As I understand, the 919 was a new tub up redesign where Audi is still using the same tub/engine/gearbox as last year. So Audi are in the exact same position as Toyota for next year. That being said I don’t see Toyota being that much faster than Porsche will be next year (if at all) as I think they have already missed a trick by having a larger engine and not using MGU-H to recover HY not dependant to braking. It’s a mistake to think all of Porsche speed is just because they run 8mj.

[chernaudi]

Porsche's speed is in large part not due to simply being at 8MJ, but it's more how they use it. Why are Audi and Toyota going to some type of battery system next year. Tactical flexibility and in the case of Audi, it's a legitimate excuse to re-activate the e-turbo program that they were looking for to use on the R18 in 2014 (though it showed not advantage at the time over the VTG turbo).

E-turbo/ERS-H is also a big deal since Porsche (and Audi if they use it) don't have to rely exclusively on braking to recover energy.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by GT-Eins

Here our race-report of Fuji with first race related statistics (LMP1 only - rest of classes and Qualiresults to follow asap):
http://www.gt-eins.de/Berichte2015/wec/shang/shang.html



Laptime-Grafics are in another format than usual - due to the characteristic as a rain-race

I like that format, it shows speed progress through the race.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by Pontlieue

The development in LMP1 is insane. Porsche have found six seconds in one year. The #17 was just as fast as the Manors in F1 this year. I don't think I've ever seen a similar development in any form of motorsport.

Yup, insane pace to be already at the bottom of F1. Porsche #17 "outqualified" Marussia's Mehri despite losing almost 20kmh to him on speed trap(more than 30kmh to Rosberg's Mercedes).

This just shows how good the LMP1s are on cornering. With the likes of Mclaren and Force India being on the low 1m39s(at Chinese 2015 QLF), there is a good possibility that the LMP1s will be faster than these F1 cars, next year, and Alonso and Hulk will be missing a faster ride.

I just imagine how insanely fast a car with Audi's aero and Porsche's hybrid system would be. Next year, we'll see something closer to that

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by Artur

Yup, insane pace to be already at the bottom of F1. Porsche #17 "outqualified" Marussia's Mehri despite losing almost 20kmh to him on speed trap(more than 30kmh to Rosberg's Mercedes).

This just shows how good the LMP1s are on cornering. With the likes of Mclaren and Force India being on the low 1m39s(at Chinese 2015 QLF), there is a good possibility that the LMP1s will be faster than these F1 cars, next year, and Alonso and Hulk will be missing a faster ride.

I just imagine how insanely fast a car with Audi's aero and Porsche's hybrid system would be. Next year, we'll see something closer to that

It would be interesting to see how LMP1 acceleration compares to F1, especially out of slow corners. F1 has a significant weight advantage but P1 has 4 wheel drive and traction control. The P1s have a lower top speed but they get to it very quickly.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by Mike E

It would be interesting to see how LMP1 acceleration compares to F1, especially out of slow corners. F1 has a significant weight advantage but P1 has 4 wheel drive and traction control. The P1s have a lower top speed but they get to it very quickly.

It seems F1 cars are not traction limited anymore(full throttle) on speeds around 120kmh

Due to them having 800-850HP(ICE 640-690HP and 160HP from ERS for 35s) during most of full throttle time and having only 700kg, I think it's fair to say F1s accelerates much quicker than even Porsche(950kg, ~550HP on ICE and ~5MJ on 5km tracks. F1's ERS accounts for 4MJ, mind you).

[cokata]

Originally Posted by Artur

It seems F1 cars are not traction limited anymore(full throttle) on speeds around 120kmh

Due to them having 800-850HP(ICE 640-690HP and 160HP from ERS for 35s) during most of full throttle time and having only 700kg, I think it's fair to say F1s accelerates much quicker than even Porsche(950kg, ~550HP on ICE and ~5MJ on 5km tracks. F1's ERS accounts for 4MJ, mind you).

Actually F1 is limited to 4MJ deployment from ES(battery) -> MGU-K. But MGU-H -> MGU-K direct transfer is unlimited. What most team do is they always feed H->K since it's unlimited and it much more efficient (no inverter or battery losses) and at peak power that might be as much as 70-80bhp and the rest remaining 80-90bhp required to feed the K at it's peak power (160bhp) are taken from the ES. If you look from onboards you can see that the mercedes cars almost never run out hybrid energy and 4MJ gives you "just" 33 seconds of deployment, not nearly enough to cover a whole lap. Probably real deployment is in the 6-7MJ per lap range.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by msd76

As I understand, the 919 was a new tub up redesign where Audi is still using the same tub/engine/gearbox as last year. So Audi are in the exact same position as Toyota for next year. That being said I don’t see Toyota being that much faster than Porsche will be next year (if at all) as I think they have already missed a trick by having a larger engine and not using MGU-H to recover HY not dependant to braking. It’s a mistake to think all of Porsche speed is just because they run 8mj.

Audi's car is brand new. Even if the tub and drivetrain are the same, they stepped up to 4mj and probably gained engine power instead of losing it with the lower flow in the new 4mj subclass. Toyota stayed at 6mj whileeveryone else moved up. Seems like going to the next mj class is worth 2 seconds on its own?

It was mentioned earlier in these forums that Audi spend 5000 some hours in Saubers windtunnel alone. Thats more than two-times what F1 is allowed to spend. I did a little digging and from 2014 a top f1 team has a budget for tunnel time costs minimum something around £15-20million per season. That would mean Audi could be spending £30million on their car's aero. Its no wonder theyre faster through some high-speed turns than F1.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

Audi's car is brand new. Even if the tub and drivetrain are the same, they stepped up to 4mj and probably gained engine power instead of losing it with the lower flow in the new 4mj subclass. Toyota stayed at 6mj whileeveryone else moved up. Seems like going to the next mj class is worth 2 seconds on its own?

It was mentioned earlier in these forums that Audi spend 5000 some hours in Saubers windtunnel alone. Thats more than two-times what F1 is allowed to spend. I did a little digging and from 2014 a top f1 team has a budget for tunnel time costs minimum something around £15-20million per season. That would mean Audi could be spending £30million on their car's aero. Its no wonder theyre faster through some high-speed turns than F1.

3000 hours was the figure I posted on here (quoted from a RCE feature on the R18). So you've exaggerated the expenditure of a not-TMG team in order to put down their achievement. Colour me surprised.

As for the MJ jump, the infamous ERS incentive did specify that moving up an ERS class should result in a 2s/lap gain over an car still in the original class (I think the exact term was 0.5s/MJ/lap) in order to give the manufacturers a compelling reason to push their hybrid technology as far as possible. The waters have been muddied with this year's EoT adjustments but I doubt this incentive has been wiped out completely.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by J Jay

3000 hours was the figure I posted on here (quoted from a RCE feature on the R18). So you've exaggerated the expenditure of a not-TMG team in order to put down their achievement. Colour me surprised.

What? I didnt mention Toyotas windtunnel time. I dont know about that "put down their achievement". I said Audi's was more than twice that of an F1 team. So its no wonder theyre faster through high speed turns (than f1, not Toyota) The 5000hours may have been me combining Audi's and Porsche's or Audis total time with and without Sauber. But I do know its at double that of what F1 is allowed.

Originally Posted by J Jay

As for the MJ jump, the infamous ERS incentive did specify that moving up an ERS class should result in a 2s/lap gain over an car still in the original class (I think the exact term was 0.5s/MJ/lap) in order to give the manufacturers a compelling reason to push their hybrid technology as far as possible. The waters have been muddied with this year's EoT adjustments but I doubt this incentive has been wiped out completely.

I know this was discussed at length in another thread and there was a lot of talk of why there should be a faster lap time in the higher mj class. These cars are going formula 1 speed at 200kg heavier. I wonder what theyll do next year.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by TF110

These cars are going formula 1 speed at 200kg heavier. I wonder what theyll do next year.

even worse, 250kg heavier.

I heard there will fuel allowance restriction next year to slow them down. If that's the case, I'll no longer follow WEC in 2016

I want no change at all just to see how much they improve again. If that will be denied to me, big part of my interest is gone.

[chernaudi]

With tire and aero evolution (as well as Audi and Toyota moving up at least one level in terms of MJ class--and rumors that Audi might try for the full 8MJ, which has yet to be confirmed and IMO 6MJ is more likely), the 10MJ ICE energy allowance at LM might not have much impact at shorter tracks if those tracks are subject to it being a percentage, just like the other MJ ratings.

We also have to remember that there's also a strong rumor that the ACO might reduce tire usage from 6 sets at most sprint races to 4 (and to somewhere between 4-6 for Bahrain and Shanghai) to encourage more double stinting or maybe even triple stinting during the 6 hour races.

I don't think that the cars will slow a ton in the sprint races, but the ACO are concerned about the cars breaking the 3:15 barrier--and that's with the Mulsanne Chicanes.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

With tire and aero evolution (as well as Audi and Toyota moving up at least one level in terms of MJ class--and rumors that Audi might try for the full 8MJ, which has yet to be confirmed and IMO 6MJ is more likely), the 10MJ ICE energy allowance at LM might not have much impact at shorter tracks if those tracks are subject to it being a percentage, just like the other MJ ratings.

I pray everyday that you are right, and that the impact of this reduction does not have a significant impact.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

We also have to remember that there's also a strong rumor that the ACO might reduce tire usage from 6 sets at most sprint races to 4 (and to somewhere between 4-6 for Bahrain and Shanghai) to encourage more double stinting or maybe even triple stinting during the 6 hour races.

So let me see if I have this right: The ACO are very concerned with safety (so much so that they are willing to meddle with excellent rules until they have drained all the life from the goose that laid the golden eggs) yet they want the cars out longer on the track with used tires! Surely this is counter productive? The cars may be going slightly slower, but the drivers will still be pushing them to the limit. They will be on the ragged edge with worn tires. Does the ACO also recommend that the public drive around on worn tires (or only change them very decade or so)because it will force us all to drive slower?
If on the other hand, the objective is to cut costs, then lets give the "safety" argument a break and we can then eliminate the 3:15 barrier for Le Mans. The materials (or lack there of) will determine the time barrier: It may be more dangerous, but they will all have saved enormous amounts of money! (being facetious)

[chernaudi]

The problem is that the ACO have been on the whole "use less tires" deal for a while. They've been trying to get it back to where Audi with the R8 was running quadruple stints at LM as standard operating practice.

That's why they have that one wheel gun at a time rule for pit stops. Problem is that teams will still burn up tires if you let them because there's still a time advantage at tracks over saving 15-20 seconds on a pit stop by not changing tires.

Besides, we have to remember that Porsche double stinted rain tires on a drying track, the drivers said they were junk, but they were still running competitive times against Audi who went onto treadless intermediates. It wasn't until late in the stint that Audi gained a notable advantage.

But if you have 8 sets of tires at a place like Shanghai or Bahrain, and you only expect to make 7 pit stops, what incentive is there to double stint unless you can keep most of that 15-20 seconds that you gain by double stinting?

[cokata]

If they were so concerned with safety and it's the number 1 priority there wouldn't be AM drivers allowed in the FIA World Endurance Championship. It's the single thing that will improve safety the most.