[WEC Race] Portimão 8 Hours 2021

[Adam43]

Which they won’t because the rules define that they can’t.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by TF110

Pretty good race, in the beginning. But the stint advantage of Toyota cant be overcome. Its too large and the Alpine Oreca wont be getting a bigger tank so it seems they have to have a serious pace advantage.

yes, alpine was clearly faster than toyota during the whole weekend but like spa (and likely all remaining events) the race was basically decided by fuel tank size and the consequent required refuelings...
007 was able to make a 67-65minutes final stint long, entered to refuel at 6H53m and was on track until the end of the race, running even in 1.32 4 laps before the end of the race, they weren't even saving fuel at all....
max MJ a stint limit is basically nothing compared to the advantages of a very large fuel tank...
wonder if next year peugeot will enter with a 120L fuel tank... they would automatically win all races

[Pandamasque]

I very much doubt Alpine's pace advantage will be retained at power circuits like Monza and La Sarthe.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

I very much doubt Alpine's pace advantage will be retained at power circuits like Monza and La Sarthe.

not so sure, like watched on portimao, alpine will likely run on parabolica much faster than LMH, so I think GR010 and 007 will take advantage of their better top speed only close to the end of the monza main straight.
Not to mention that alpine will be quicker on lesmo corners for sure.
About LM, LMH will be quicker on straights, alpine on porsche sector, but at the end of the day it doesnt' matter at all since doing quick maths:
24 x 60 = 1440 minutes, considering alpine has 47m stints and toyota up to 57m, alpine will require 30 refules at least, GR010 25...

sure, everything can happen in 24 hours with FCY, incidents, reliability issues etc... but competition isn't fair in its core because it's like if toyota would start with about 10 minutes of advantage...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

max MJ a stint limit is basically nothing compared to the advantages of a very large fuel tank...
wonder if next year peugeot will enter with a 120L fuel tank... they would automatically win all races

Peugeot wouldn’t be able to use 120L of (regular) fuel in a stint because they’d go over there maximum energy for the stint!

Unless it was really inefficient. And, if it was, then the stint wouldn’t be that long anyway.

The final stint was 40 laps. Compared to Toyotas best of 39 and there were some quite slow laps including the FCY.

It hints they might be able to go slightly further than the Toyota on their respective energy allocation. Of course they have different energy allocations. But the race situation means we can’t really tell.

Sorry everyone.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

but competition isn't fair in its core because it's like if toyota would start with about 10 minutes of advantage...

The rules are fair though. The rules allow they to use more energy per stint than they are. Alpine just can’t build a car to take advantage of the rules.

Similar to if they ran at a weight of, say, 1200kg. They’d be slow, but it wouldn’t be the rules that caused this as the rules would allow them to run much lighter.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Peugeot wouldn’t be able to use 120L of (regular) fuel in a stint because they’d go over there maximum energy for the stint!

Unless it was really inefficient. And, if it was, then the stint wouldn’t be that long anyway.

The final stint was 40 laps. Compared to Toyotas best of 39 and there were some quite slow laps including the FCY.

It hints they might be able to go slightly further than the Toyota on their respective energy allocation. Of course they have different energy allocations. But the race situation means we can’t really tell.

Sorry everyone.

well... actually not, according to bop GR010 had 962MJ/stint 007 965MJ//stint*, basically the same energy allocation... fore sure 3MJ extra can't justify a longer stint of several minutes (about 57m vs 65-67m), outbox lap aside is true that during last stint there was a single >3m lap but 007 pushed until the very end, so it's unlikely they were saving fuel or reducing pace.
We clearly think it differently about this matter, none of us can verify how many MJ a car gets during a stint, but the evidence suggests that a larger fuel tank gives a longer stint anyhow... guess also peugeot engineers noticed this "little" detail, so if peugeot will use a >90L fuel tank, will have some advantages no matter what.


Rules are fair in form, but there are technical handicaps that can'be overcame... as said 2021 WEC champ was basically decided the day back in 2017 or 2018 when oreca decided R13 didn't need a larger fuel tank.
The butterfly effect applied to motorsport.

*MJ are measured through torquemeters applied to driveshafts, it doesn't matter if a car is a hybrid AWD or RWD, overall torque release (AWD or RWD) is measured in any case. Having both cars the same energy allocation, GR010 and 007 had to basically have the same stint lenght... unless toyota could run >60m as well but they use to pit sooner because of strategy or who knows why.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

well... actually not, according to bop GR010 had 962MJ/stint 007 965MJ//stint*, basically the same energy allocation...

I know.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Comparison of the three LMH cars.
http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/Res...T_02062021.pdf

fore sure 3MJ extra can't justify a longer stint of several minutes (about 57m vs 65-67m), outbox lap aside is true that during last stint there was a single >3m lap but 007 pushed until the very end, so it's unlikely they were saving fuel or reducing pace.

As pointed out it wasn’t that unusual. It was only 1 lap more than the Toyota did and there was a FCY in that period. It’s also an interger measure. Maybe the Toyota can do 39.9 laps and Glickenhaus 40.1.

We clearly think it differently about this matter, none of us can verify how many MJ a car gets during a stint, but the evidence suggests that a larger fuel tank gives a longer stint anyhow... guess also peugeot engineers noticed this "little" detail, so if peugeot will use a >90L fuel tank, will have some advantages no matter what.

What evidence? Remember your maths previously? It shows you don’t have any evidence. You don’t know fuel tank size, engine/drivetrain efficiency, etc...

We have already seen that the two Toyotas ran different stint lengths. Sometimes one of them achieved 1 lap more than the others. Yet you are citing evidence of the Glickenhaus doing this in a stint that wasn’t that quick.

Or maybe they didn’t put big enough tank in car 7?

There is nothing to suggest that both Glick and Toyota are not maximizing the energy used each stint. Why would they not? And there in nothing to suggest that these two cars don’t have a fuel tank size suitable for their drivetrain/effeciency and energy allowed.

I know one of them hasn’t and the other confirmed on this very forum that their tank size is good!

We do look at it differently! Apologises for the tone, but I’m still smarting that apparently I don’t understand Maths

Rules are fair in form, but there are technical handicaps that can'be overcame... as said 2021 WEC champ was basically decided the day back in 2017 or 2018 when oreca decided R13 didn't need a larger fuel tank.
The butterfly effect applied to motorsport.

Chaos theory is not relevant here. Unintended consequences maybe. But I get what you mean.

But I agree it is that they have a car designed without knowledge of the rules in place in 2021.

The rules are fair. Alpine can not utilize what is allowed in the rules because their car is not suitable for this rule set.

Which is a shame.

However, I would not like the rest of the class to have to adapt because because someone has entered a car from an old rule set.

Also I like the longer stints.

*MJ are measured through torquemeters applied to driveshafts, it doesn't matter if a car is a hybrid AWD or RWD, overall torque release (AWD or RWD) is measured in any case. Having both cars the same energy allocation, GR010 and 007 had to basically have the same stint lenght... unless toyota could run >60m as well but they use to pit sooner because of strategy or who knows why.

I know. Why are you telling me things that I pointed out after the last race?!

Just because you used the same energy doesn’t mean the stint length is exactly the same. A variation of a lap or two is quite possible. Especially if there is a FCY in one period. And this is an integer measurement.

To summarise.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that both Glick and Toyota do not have a fuel tank suitable to using all their energy allocation in a stint.

It is expected that both would design the fuel tank so that it was possible.

Because of this your “can’t verify” argument should be putting the the onus on proof that they have designed their cars incorrectly.

Indeed we have evidence that they have designed it correctly.

There is no evidence to suggest Peugeot can steal a march on the competitors by simply fitting a bigger tank and being able to run further To suggest so shows that you think Toyota or Glickenhaus are so stupid that they designed a car that has too small a tank and can’t read the rules and do math.

[canaglia]

Evidence show that at same energy allocation, 007 had longer stints, even actually before the last extremely long one. And as said, during last stint there was a short FCY period, but 007 never actually stopped pushing to the very end reaching an extremely long stint. What I see is this:
007: same energy allocation -> larger fuel tank -> longer stint
I took 57m because was the usual stint lenght of toyotas (7 or 8) in green flag condition... they could do longer but as long they don't that, we can't know.

I never wrote that 007 and GR010 don't have a suitable tank, I'm just showing that a larger fuel tank gives longer stints despite same or similiar energy allocation, you're trying to correct me reporting things I never wrote when some hours ago you wrote "Of course they have different energy allocations" which is totally incorrect and wrong?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

I never wrote that 007 and GR010 don't have a suitable tank,

I have completely misunderstood you then and simply do not understand what your take is!

Why did you suggest that Peugeot should fit a 120l tank and simply go further? This makes no sense to me, it just isn’t how the rules work. They will fit whatever tank is required for their car.

I don’t think I am suggesting this something you said, but you didn’t.

I am saying that it would be pointless to do so if they use up their stint energy allocation after, say, 94l, or 97l, or whatever it will be for their car. Why fit a tank that gives them enough fuel to put out way more energy that they are allowed?

They could have a really inefficient drivetrain and need 120l I suppose. But there car will be inefficient and not go further for the same reason.

As you say we don’t know what they use - but it really is irrelevant if we assume that, other than Alpine, they have a suitable tank size for their energy allocation. Which you agree they do?

I'm just showing that a larger fuel tank gives longer stints despite same or similiar energy allocation,

So as we should assume Toyota and Glickenhaus do have a suitable tank to be able to use their full energy allocation in a stint I don’t see how anyone else can just fit a massively bigger fuel tank any get a superior stint length!

That is not to say that cars won’t have different stint lengths. Toyota demonstrated that with their two cars.

The rules prescribe energy per stint, not stint length. It is perfectly possible to run longer on the same energy. We should expect this!

Of course a team may chose to run a stint that does not use all the energy. They may get an advantage here. Quicker pitstop and lighter running.
As the Toyota’s were very close to not needing a splash in normal running it would be very unlikely they would chose to do this.

you're trying to correct me reporting things I never wrote when some hours ago you wrote "Of course they have different energy allocations" which is totally incorrect and wrong?

Just to be clear I am not.

FWIW it isn’t totally wrong as they do have a different energy allocation! I know it is small. I also pointed out that the race situation meant it wasn’t surprising they got a long stint in at the end.

New summary.

For cars developed to the new rule set they will have a fuel tank capable of proving enough fuel for their car to use the energy allocation in a stint.

Fitting a tank bigger than this would no give them a bigger stint as they would use too much energy.

Different cars/drivers can do different stint lengths even if they have the same amount of energy allocation.

[canaglia]

ok let's go back to the basics:
X driver on X toyota pushes on the throttle, the front and rear driveshafts deliver torque to the wheels, torquemeter detects the amount of torque released, turning them in J, 962MJ = 962000000Nm "releasable" in a delta T (interval of time). Y driver on Y 007 pushes on the throttle, the rear driveshaft deliver torque to the rear wheels, torquemeter detects the amount of torque released (turning them in J, 965MJ = 965000000Nm "releasable" in a delta T). The only way to "artificially" extend a stint would be driving in economy mode, short shifting or in general running slow... more time throttle off -> less torque released -> less torque detected by the device -> longer stint, but this is not the case of 007 because in last stint, outbox and FCY laps aside, the car was running in 1.33-1.34 (sometimes slower, sometimes faster).
The deficit from toyota 1.32 pace wasn't given by a slower run, but by other factors (aero, setup, tires etc...)... so we could be sure 007 was however running at its best during the last stint.
Once excluded a volountary slow pace, what else could be the reason of longer stints despite the same energy allocation? It's not there are many other factors to keep in mind... "by chance" at same/similiar conditions, only the car with the largest fuel tank managed to do that... (even if this doesn't exclude toyota couldn't do it, but they didn't so far).

About the 120L, mine was more a provocation about how a larger tank could alter rules that ACO/FIA created, I don't know how large peugeot fuel tank will be (maybe will be revealed in exact 3 weeks?) but yesterday race shown that the car with the largest fuel tank managed to get the longest stint anyhow and that's a fact (unless toyota will prove to be able to do the same, something I think absolutely possible of course).
Getting longer stints will require less refuelings, less refuelings will let the car spend less time on pit, in endurance racing the car that spends less time pitting, usually wins... it isn't even about maths, it's about logic.

"Different cars/drivers can do different stint lengths even if they have the same amount of energy allocation"

nope, torque is an absolute value, the only way to "trick it" is running deliberately slow to release less torque as possible... if both different cars push at their best possible pace under the SAME allocated energy based on torque release, despite their different fuel consumes, they would get the same stint lenght or however extremely close, difference is that one of them will be faster because is a better car, but that's another matter.

[Adam43]

Your maths just don’t add any value to the understanding of the situation. And for your information I get torque, energy etc. I have a PhD in Physics.

It is clearly possible to do a different stint length. Toyota, with identical cars, ran different stint lengths. And you point out you can by driving conservatively.

The 007 went further in the last stint yes. Nope, you can not exclude that it wasn’t running at a slower pace (maybe not voluntarily!). It had problems. So it probably wasn’t on the throttle as much as it would have been if it and the tyres were in tip top shape. If nothing else it had to get of the throttle earlier to slow down for corners and also get on the throttle later because of the tyres. There was also FCY.

Out of curiosity what is the tank size of the Toyota and the Glickenhaus? Not that it matters here. There are two cars and it isn’t surprising one went longer than another at some point in the race! Be a little odd if every stint for every car was the same. As one probably has a bigger tank than the other it is 50:50 which goes longer!

To summarise we don’t know the 007 was at full pace at all. It is actually unlikely it was for the two reasons above.

And the main point. Different cars/drivers can do different stint lengths even if they have the same amount of energy allocation. Sorry, but yep!

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Your maths just don’t add any value to the understanding of the situation. And for your information I get torque, energy etc. I have a PhD in Physics.

It is clearly possible to do a different stint length. Toyota, with identical cars, ran different stint lengths. And you point out you can by driving conservatively.

The 007 went further in the last stint yes. You can not exclude that it wasn’t running at a slower pace. It had problems. So it probably wasn’t on the throttle as much as it would have been if it and the tyres were in tip top shape. If nothing else it had to get of the throttle earlier to slow down for corners and also get on the throttle later because of the tyres. There was also FCY.

Out of curiosity what is the tank size of the Toyota and the Glickenhaus? Not that it matters here.

To summarise we don’t know the 007 was at full pace at all. It is actually unlikely it was for the two reasons above.

and here you're wrong again, it is possible to check WEC alkamel site to see tons of stats, including long final stint 007 timelaps. Aside the FCY half lap and next full lap and few occasional slow laps due traffic maybe, 007 in final stint was costantly running in 1.33-1.34 sometimes in 1.32, sometimes in 1.35, that's why I wrote they weren't saving fuel or going purposely slow... the last 1.32 was set 4 laps before the end of the race! the driver was pushing.
Toyotas were doing 57-58m stints in green flag periods, it could be strategy or the limit of their fuel mileage or energy allocation, but it was their longest stint length anyhow.
GR010 has a 90L fuel tank, 007 has a 110L fuel tank.

To summarise 007 wasn't running slow during the last stint.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

And the main point. Different cars/drivers can do different stint lengths even if they have the same amount of energy allocation. Sorry, but yep!

Is what I've written before, running purposely slower than usual extend the stint because the car is "using" less torque... but as shown, driver inside 007 car during last stint wasn't slowing at all.
http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/
analysis - hour 8 in hour 8 folder of the race section. Can be checked all timelaps of all cars of the whole race.

[Adam43]

Just re-read this and I still don’t know what your point is.

Mine is that all the teams have, or will have, an appropriate size fuel tank to be able to use the all their allocated energy (except Alpine).

An secondly, you can’t just fit a bigger tank and go then further.

And, as an aside, it is not unexpected that stints may vary a bit between cars, drivers and races. That one goes longer than another does not give us any indication about the fuel tank size. Which will not be the limited factor (see first point).

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Aside the FCY half lap and next full lap.

How much energy was saved during the FCY? You obviously feel this is unimportant.

I know that website you mention and noticed that during the FCY the first lap was 25s slower, the next 1m53s slower and the last influenced lap 6s slower (all v. 1m33 lap). Seems a lot to me, but I’m no doubt wrong.

Why is that not enough to make the difference? it was enough for Toyota no.8 to not need to save energy anymore.

[Aysedasi]

Can I just interrupt to say that I enjoyed the race.....? And that I saved a considerable amount of energy watching from my sofa.

[Adam43]

What size coffee mug did you have?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What size coffee mug did you have?

If I use a Sports Direct mug, and fill it with standard strength coffee - can I drink it slower until I have emptied the mug, or do I still have to refill the mug once I've used a standard mug's worth of coffee?

[Adam43]

What is the energy density of coffee?

Although I am thinking about this all wrong (again!). The stint length is not defined by the size of the the coffee, but the capacity of the bladder. Although it is true during period of SC or FCY it is more likely that a pit stop shall be taken.

During long races as they move from morning to later in the day I have been known to change fuel type.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The stint length is not defined by the size of the the coffee, but the capacity of the bladder.

Ah - so I need to design a larger bladder fitment, and then my stint can be longer?

In fact - it calls to mind the FJ pilot's approach to a lengthy dinner engagement, where they will install a larger bladder to achieve a longer stint during speeches.

[Adam43]

Shame they don’t work for Alpine

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

How much energy was saved during the FCY? You obviously feel this is unimportant.

I know that website you mention and noticed that during the FCY the first lap was 25s slower, the next 1m53s slower and the last influenced lap 6s slower (all v. 1m33 lap). Seems a lot to me, but I’m no doubt wrong.

Why is that not enough to make the difference? it was enough for Toyota no.8 to not need to save energy anymore.

sorry but also about #8 you wrote something incorrect... #8 did the last refuel at 07:02.46, once out of pits 1m and half later it was however in the 57-58m range, so it wasn't required any big managment to finish the race, FCY or not.
About 007, I considered the loss of pace due FCY, and it doesn't change a lot... at same energy allocation, during last stint 007 had however 63m of fast pace + about 2 minutes of slower pace due FCY, I don't consider very important the few slower timelaps because also toyotas in their 57-58m stints had few slower timelaps because... you know, sometimes also fastest cars can't avoid to lose time in traffic.
From every point of view, it's an extremely long stint that toyota couldn't (or didn't want) to match... and again "by chance" 007 is the car with the largest fuel tank. It's not about to find out who consumes more or less, it's about how a larger fuel tank (at same fast pace) can potentially give a stategic advantage... only 3-4min extra a stint x the numbers of total stint = a lot of time saved to potentially avoid last refuel.
Don't think there is much else to say about with hundreds of .pdf data speaking.


Personally have been a bit surprised to see toyotas doing 52-54m stint at spa and 57-58m at portimao, in theory it had to be the opposite since portimao has more slow corners and is in general a slower track while at spa cars spend most of the timelap in 4-5th or higher and longer speeds.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Can I just interrupt to say that I enjoyed the race.....? And that I saved a considerable amount of energy watching from my sofa.

The genesis of the hypercouch era.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

sorry but also about #8 you wrote something incorrect... #8 did the last refuel at 07:02.46, once out of pits 1m and half later it was however in the 57-58m range, so it wasn't required any big managment to finish the race, FCY or not.

Sorry. I’m afraid you’ll have to take that up with the team. The team said that they were in fuel saving, but the FCY took that need away. The expression said to me was that #8 needed big fuel saving.

About 007, I considered the loss of pace due FCY, and it doesn't change a lot... at same energy allocation, during last stint 007 had however 63m of fast pace + about 2 minutes of slower pace due FCY, I don't consider very important the few slower timelaps because also toyotas in their 57-58m stints had few slower timelaps because... you know, sometimes also fastest cars can't avoid to lose time in traffic.
From every point of view, it's an extremely long stint that toyota couldn't (or didn't want) to match... and again "by chance" 007 is the car with the largest fuel tank. It's not about to find out who consumes more or less, it's about how a larger fuel tank (at same fast pace) can potentially give a stategic advantage... only 3-4min extra a stint x the numbers of total stint = a lot of time saved to potentially avoid last refuel.
Don't think there is much else to say about with hundreds of .pdf data speaking.

That period under FCY is very important. Without it the 007 might not be able to do one more lap and then it is no different to the Toyotas. It was double the lap time for for over a lap, easily enough to knock it over to doing another lap.

I am not surprised that one car could, especially in those situations run more slightly longer than the another. Again, Toyota achieved that with the same car. I’m not surprised that two cars that are so different. Especially with one that was slower. If it ran at the Toyota pace…

Anyway, overall what are you getting at?

I am saying the following:

All the teams have, or will have when they enter, an appropriate size fuel tank to be able to use the all their allocated energy (except Alpine).

Different cars will have significantly different size tanks. As the cars efficiency varies (engine, hybrid, drivetrain).

Hence you can’t just fit a bigger tank and go then further if you already have an appropriate size tank. This really is the only thing I dispute with what you say (maybe you don’t say this?).

It is not unexpected that stints may vary a bit between cars, drivers and races.