[WEC Race] Portimão 8 Hours 2021

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is a known fact that at my age, I have to pit more regularly than in years past......

Originally Posted by J Jay

The genesis of the hypercouch era.

As always, a trailblazer........

[canaglia]

I didn't watch the whole race, but if you write that toyota team said that during the last part of the race I believe you, I actually thank you because if they said that, it basically confirms that a green flag 58 minutes period is the limit (or however close) of toyota 90L fuel miliage. It is even impossible they didn't full refuel the car at the beginning of the 7th hour since with about an hour still to run, they were anyhow on limit with their stint length range.
This is a big revelation indeed, it basically means that in 58 minutes toyota is about to consume 90L being however able to stay under the MJ/stint limit, and as consequence being 007 in the same MJ/stint range, it indirectly confirms that 007, that should have a less efficient engine, can stay longer on track because of the larger fuel tank and that the larger tank let them to stay out longer however before reaching the MJ/stint limit.
If you told me about this before, I would had avoided writing walltexts.

And anyway the fuel tank size importance is pretty clear now, don't you think?
at same MJ/stint range and at their best

GR010 -> 90L -> about 58 minutes
007 -> 110L -> about 63 minutes (I'd cut the 2m of FCY)

58m x 6 -> 348m / 360m
63m x 5 -> 315m / 360m

in ideal conditions, with just 4/5m extra a stint, 007 could realistically end a 6H race with 5 refuel instead of toyota needing 6.
After this are you still convinced that fuel tank size doesn't matter?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

After this are you still convinced that fuel tank size doesn't matter?

What is your actual conclusion here? You can only think the tank size is important if you think that is the limiting factor. The energy allowed is the limiting factor. Other than Alpine the cars simply have enough tank size for their car.

Do you accept that both the Glickenhaus and the Toyota have fuel tanks big enough to be able to utilise all the energy they are allowed?

If so, no fuel tank is not the key here as both have the right size!

The actual conclusion should be that the Glickenhaus can go further on their respective allowed energy!

Different cars and drivers at different times in the race will have different stint lengths!

And what you present doesn't even show that Glickenhaus can do this, as their race was very disrupted.

[Adam43]

A few take-aways from the data from the last couple of races.

Glickenhaus's last stint was slow. 4.2s on average off their best stint pace.

All cars did longer (in time) stints at Portimao compared to Spa (including a P2 for reference). This is unsurprising. They are traveling slower.

We do not have any stint from 007 that is not influenced by going slow that shows us they can go longer than Toyota. They might be able to, but the evidence isn't here.

Because of the disrupted race we can not tell if the 007 can do a longer stint that the Toyota.

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

(ave -2 is the average lap time ignoring the out and in laps.)

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

... it basically confirms that a green flag 58 minutes period is the limit (or however close) of toyota 90L fuel miliage.

Why do you say it like this? This is the problem I have. It suggests that if Toyota just put, say, a 95l tank in it is OK. My point is that it wouldn't matter as they are limited by the energy. They could fit a 120l tank and it would make no difference to their stint length.

You do realise all I object to is the assertion that it is tank size that limits the stint? I am saying that it isn't, because we expect* teams to have big enough tanks for their energy allowance.

Therefore it is the energy allowance that defines it. Unless you are saying their tank is not big enough?

*And we more than expect this to be the case as we have been told there is no issue with the tank size and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.

If the 007 can go further then it will be the energy limit for their car that allows it.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

What is your actual conclusion here?

Do you accept that both the Glickenhaus and the Toyota have fuel tanks big enough to be able to utilise all the energy they are allowed?

If so, no fuel tank is not the key here as both have the right size!

The actual conclusion should be that the Glickenhaus can go further on their respective allowed energy!

Different cars and drivers at different times in the race will have different stint lengths!

And what you present doesn't even show that Glickenhaus can do this, as their race was very disrupted.

I still don't understand where did I write that toyota and 007 have small or unfit fuel tanks? or how do you deduce I wrote or was meaning that?
I actually don't minimally care if toyota has 89, 90, 92L etc...
I'm just pointing out how silly and useless is the MJ/stint system since it doesn't balance at all stint lengths of different cars and as 007 shows, a car equipped with a larger fuel tank has advantages.
I don't think your conclusion is true and I explained why, during the long final stint, but short FCY period, 007 was pushing all the time (proof is alkamel laptimes list), and a <0.5% difference between toyota and 007 energy allocation, simply can't justify that difference of stint lenght.


"And what you present doesn't even show that Glickenhaus can do this"
it's not what I present, it's what actually happened.

Anyway since thanks to your revelation I finally reached what was looking for, I conclude my contribution about this discussion with this meme:

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

I still don't understand where did I write that toyota and 007 have small or unfit fuel tanks? or how do you deduce I wrote or was meaning that?

Because you kept saying it was the fuel tank size that made the difference. And you seemed to suggest another competitor could just turn up with a bigger tank and have longer stints!

Sorry I misunderstood that!

I'm just pointing out how silly and useless is the MJ/stint system since it doesn't balance at all stint lengths of different cars and as 007 shows, a car equipped with a larger fuel tank has advantages.

I’m making no point about whether they got the energy allocation right. Frankly I’d be surprised if they got it spot on for these different cars.

You said it is the fuel tank size that has the advantage. Which is why you confuse me. It isn’t the tank size! It is that the 007’s energy allocation means (maybe) that it can go longer. It just happens (unsurprisingly as it isn’t a hybrid) that it needs more fuel to achieve that the energy.

I don't think your conclusion is true and I explained why, during the long final stint, but short FCY period, 007 was pushing all the time (proof is alkamel laptimes list),

See attached picture, on average it was a lot slower. But there was a FCY where it could dramatically use less energy during this period.

As with the Toyota it had to make a difference. Have a bit of time using a lot less energy and then it gives you license to nail it.

"And what you present doesn't even show that Glickenhaus can do this"
it's not what I present, it's what actually happened.

*sigh*
There is nothing in what happened that lets us know yet. We don’t have an undisrupted stint from the 007 that was longer than the Toyota. We have a stint from the Toyota were it did 39 laps averaging 1:32.1 and a 39 from Glickenhaus averaging 1:34.4 (and a FCY effected stint 40 lap at 1:38.4)

And what happens to the number of laps if the Glickenhaus did 1:32.1 on average, or the Toyota 1:34.4 on average?

But as I said it wouldn’t surprise me if one car can go a lap longer in a stint. Not because of the fuel tank, but because the energy allowance hasn’t been BoPed well enough.

Although credit where credit is due, the ACO, have done a decent job on lap times.

[cavalo_mORTO]

Toyota is heavier than the Glick. To run at the same pace it should require more energy, no? So it makes sense that it would produce a shorter stint, right?

[Adam43]

Could well be. The cars are so different. Hybrid, drivetrain, etc...

Could also be at some circuits it is enough to grab an extra lap and others it just doesn't fall that way - no point in being able to do a 11.9 lap stint at Le Mans

We need more examples to know though.

We only have two stints that might be representative for the 007. They were 38 and 39 laps, albeit at a pace 2s slower than the #8's 39 lap stint.

Only then will we know if the energy sums from the ACO are right. They might be way off for the Alpine, but that has a different limit.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by cavalo_mORTO

Toyota is heavier than the Glick. To run at the same pace it should require more energy, no? So it makes sense that it would produce a shorter stint, right?

nope, a heavier car may have worse consumes but is the concept of allocated energy which is easily misunderstandable, the MJ/stint energy is an indirect measurement of the torque released by ICE/ERS during an interval of time (the stint length). Independently by the mass of the car, a driver needs however to push hard to be competitive, so the torque is however released anyhow, the extra weight ballast makes just the car slower likely consuming more.
The matter is simple: stating that none ever received penalties, so none ever exceeded the MJ/stint limit so far; once noted that this max energy allocated is an excess value that, even pushing at their best, alpine can't reach due the smaller fuel tank size, toyota can't reach because 90L give to the car a 58min stint and 007 can stay on track a bit longer because has more fuel due a larger fuel tank, what the conclusion?
That the real empiric "balancing" factor of stint length isn't the MJ/stint value but the fuel tank size.
Case closed.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Case closed.

I somehow doubt that.....

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canaglia

That the real empiric "balancing" factor of stint length isn't the MJ/stint value but the fuel tank size.
Case closed.

Could Toyota fit a bigger tank and have a longer stint?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by canaglia

toyota can't reach because 90L give to the car a 58min stint and 007 can stay on track a bit longer because has more fuel due a larger fuel tank, what the conclusion?
That the real empiric "balancing" factor of stint length isn't the MJ/stint value but the fuel tank size.

I'd like to re-open the case if I may, and query the conclusion reached?

The fitting of a larger tank will only increase your stint length up to the point that your energy/stint quota has been reached surely?

Taking each car in isolation - if the Toyota has a 90L tank and has not used all of the 962MJ when the tank is empty, then it must be close to that. Let's be generous and say that the Toyota has only deployed 900MJ - then they are getting 10MJ/L. So this gives a theoretical tank limit of 96.2L. Fitting a 120L tank will not give them any extra stint length, because the 962MJ would have been deployed once 96.2L of fuel are used - the additional 23.8L are just ballast.

Now looking at the Glick - if you work on the assumption that their longer stint was achievable because of a larger tank, then let's hypothetically assume it is 100L. Again, being generous, let's assume they had only deployed 900MJ before needing to refuel, this amounts to 9MJ/L. Fitting a 108L tank would give them enough fuel to deploy 972MJ - anything over this in tank size is again ballast.

The evidence suggests that you ideally want a tank that gives you enough fuel to deploy your MJ/stint figure. But, once this tank size is fitted, anything larger gives no benefit. So in the case of Alpine, their stint length is tank limited - but Toyota and Glick were limited due to MJ/stint figure, not tank size.

[greenmachinets040]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'd like to re-open the case if I may, and query the conclusion reached?

The fitting of a larger tank will only increase your stint length up to the point that your energy/stint quota has been reached surely?

Taking each car in isolation - if the Toyota has a 90L tank and has not used all of the 962MJ when the tank is empty, then it must be close to that. Let's be generous and say that the Toyota has only deployed 900MJ - then they are getting 10MJ/L. So this gives a theoretical tank limit of 96.2L. Fitting a 120L tank will not give them any extra stint length, because the 962MJ would have been deployed once 96.2L of fuel are used - the additional 23.8L are just ballast.

Now looking at the Glick - if you work on the assumption that their longer stint was achievable because of a larger tank, then let's hypothetically assume it is 100L. Again, being generous, let's assume they had only deployed 900MJ before needing to refuel, this amounts to 9MJ/L. Fitting a 108L tank would give them enough fuel to deploy 972MJ - anything over this in tank size is again ballast.

The evidence suggests that you ideally want a tank that gives you enough fuel to deploy your MJ/stint figure. But, once this tank size is fitted, anything larger gives no benefit. So in the case of Alpine, their stint length is tank limited - but Toyota and Glick were limited due to MJ/stint figure, not tank size.

I do not understand why hould Toyota fit a 120 l tank. They should fit a 97 l tank - to be sure they do not run out of fuel - and so they can use the allowed energy per stint. At LM it hould have a big effect.
Anyway,the car is now homologated,they can not change it I assume.

BTW how do we know what tank size have the Toyotas?

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Could Toyota fit a bigger tank and have a longer stint?

No - their tank size is homologated

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

No - their tank size is homologated

Thanks, so tank size is homologated. Let’s hope the ACO don’t suddenly give everyone another 100MJ

So even if they could find room Alpine couldn’t fit a bigger tank then. Or do you think that ACO would allow despite it being technically in the rules and if everyone else agreed? Hypothetically.

And, my understanding is that the tank Toyota has is plenty big enough to allow them to use all their stint energy allocation. Or have you heard different?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Thanks, so tank size is homologated. Let’s hope the ACO don’t suddenly give everyone another 100MJ

So even if they could find room Alpine couldn’t fit a bigger tank then. Or do you think that ACO would allow despite it being technically in the rules and if everyone else agreed? Hypothetically.

No and no, I suspect.

Why would anyone agree anyway.....?

[canaglia]

without considering the spec freeze, R13 has no room for a larger fuel tank, and even if it had (considering 07 based arx05 can use a >75L fuel tank) I don't think alpine/signatech or oreca are gong to spend money and resources for an old grandfathered car.
Anyway ACO rules aren't written in stone, if next week peugeot will show its hypercar with a >90L - 120L fuel tank, I'm sure toyota will find a way to get a waiver to enlarge GR010 fuel tank next year.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

No and no, I suspect.

Why would anyone agree anyway.....?

For the good of the racing?!!!

Toyota did agree to some Changes last year, which hurt them.

Originally Posted by canaglia

without considering the spec freeze, R13 has no room for a larger fuel tank, and even if it had (considering 07 based arx05 can use a >75L fuel tank) I don't think alpine/signatech or oreca are gong to spend money and resources for an old grandfathered car.

Quite. There is no room. It’s hypothetically.

Anyway ACO rules aren't written in stone,

Agree, never have been. Hopefully ACO will maintain some flexibility otherwise they won’t be able to react to the unforeseen consequences of the rule book.

if next week peugeot will show its hypercar with a >90L - 120L fuel tank, I'm sure toyota will find a way to get a waiver to enlarge GR010 fuel tank next year.

A bigger tank isn’t needed by Toyota as they can use the maximum energy allowed in a stint already.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

For the good of the racing?!!!

Toyota did agree to some Changes last year, which hurt them.

Quite. There is no room. It’s hypothetically.


Agree, never have been. Hopefully ACO will maintain some flexibility otherwise they won’t be able to react to the unforeseen consequences of the rule book.
A bigger tank isn’t needed by Toyota as they can use the MAXIMUM energy allowed in a stint already.

I guess you can say that toyota can use the max energy allowed with absolute certainty because you're a TMG engineer, am I right?
why not 94% of max energy? or maybe 97%? or 91-92?
I still can't understand if you're just trolling or you just can't understand a simple concept... maybe both. Since toyota didn't receive any penalization during the spa and portimao races, the only thing we can say is that toyota didn't run over the energy allocated limit staying on track for about 57-58 minutes using about 90L, while glickenhaus with basically the same energy allocated was able to stay on track without running over energy allocated limit for >60 minutes using about 120L.
A larger fuel tank would let toyota staying on track some minutes longer, keep on staying in the energy range limit as 007 is able to stay, it's easy to understand... since torque is an absolute value
toyota running for 58m = close to the energy limit but more limited by fuel tank
007 running for >60m = even closer to energy limit but less limited by a larger fuel tank.
Few minutes longer a stint = 1 refuel saved in a 6H race
few minutes longer a stint = 4 refuel saved in a 24H race

Having a 90L this year is not a problem for toyota because R13/alpine will need to do extra refuel anyhow while 007 is for now nowhere close to their pace, so it doesn't matter if 007 can stay on track longer and refuel less.
Next year will enter a serious contender of equal level and if peugeot will have a 120L, it will likely mean that will be able to stay on track longer, eventually saving one final refuel, turning toyota in the 2021 alpine.
Class dismissed.

[Adam43]

Sorry, I assume that you were trolling

All I am saying is that they have built a car with a suitably sized tank. Every time I say that you seem to disagree.

Please just simply answer me this.

Do you think Toyota’s tank is too small to allow them to run their full energy allocation?

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Sorry, I assume that you were trolling

All I am saying is that they have built a car with a suitably sized tank. Every time I say that you seem to disagree.

Please just simply answer me this.

Do you think Toyota’s tank is too small to allow them to run their full energy allocation?

I think that opposite to what you write, toyota can't reach maximum energy allocated in their stint, otherwise would had been penalized and as long they can get close to the energy limit, their stint lenght is however mainly given by the autonomy given by their fuel tank size. So yes, if toyota had a 100L fuel tank at example I think they could stay a couple of minutes longer on track without going over the energy limit, as 007 is able to do for the same reason despite pushing the best they can.
The fact toyota/TMG designed and built the car doesn't mean the car is future bulletproof... TMG is the same company that designed 2013 TS030 and 2015 TS040 that revealed to be uncompetitive cars.

And at the end I think you're trolling because your argument is based on an absolute and totally arbitrary concept:
"they can use the maximum energy allowed in a stint already"
something based on nothing but your personal cognition, assuming any other opinion wrong if opposite to this dogma.
This is not dealing with a constructive discourse, it's just arrogance if you ask me.
I have never wrote to have an absolute certainty, just speculated putting together possible scenarios and their causes and consequences.
I speculated that despite same energy limit, 007 may had longer stint due larger fuel tank and well... that happened in reality. It isn't even about being right or wrong, it's just empiricism.

[Adam43]

Just to add this isn’t a biggy. and I apologise for my part in making it bigger than it is.

I think that Toyota have built a car suited to the regulations and if they had put in a bigger tank it would make no difference to how long they run. Because of the rules. That’s it.

(Stint lengths may still vary, a car may sometimes go further, different cars may go different lengths, teams may chose to run shorter or longer, but never using more energy than allowed because that is the limit in the rules)

If I have not expressed it like that before it’s due to my poor posting.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Do you think Toyota’s tank is too small to allow them to run their full energy allocation?

Originally Posted by canaglia

I think that opposite to what you write, toyota can't reach maximum energy allocated in their stint, otherwise would had been penalized

Just for clarity, I’m not saying they run to exactly the maximum. Obviously that would be quite a coincidence if a whole number of laps in a stint did exactly this.

and as long they can get close to the energy limit, their stint lenght is however mainly given by the autonomy given by their fuel tank size.

Obviously fuel useage and energy used is related by efficiency of the car and that can change with they way it’s driven.

Is that where the misunderstanding is here?

But fundamentally you are saying that the fuel tank size limits it. But they are using close to the energy limit.
So if they had a bigger tank, they would change the effeciency (driving style, deployment?) to be able to run bigger. Is that it?

Either way my point is that it is reasonable to expect Toyota to have crunched these numbers correctly and also to have built in a little wiggle room.

Whether I am a Toyota engineer (I am not), or I know people in the team is irrelevant.

And when you say case closed or class dismissed that, in a way, is saying that to those Toyota engineers who designed the car. Effectively it is saying they did it wrong!

I hope you have seen that I am trying to change the style of this discussion. But on that last point, I think that shows a certain arrogance.

And on that point please see my smilies, I mean no malice

To sum up. And in case I’ve written too many words and some of these are poorly expressed and open to misinterpretation:

My only real point is that I think it is reasonable to assume that Toyota have built a car that allows them to run to the rules. I think that they have done this and the tank size is suitable.

You think they haven’t done this and could have/should have built a car with a bigger tank.

That’s it. No biggy.

[Adam43]

And to distract from two idiots who disagree on the internet.

https://twitter.com/fiawec/status/14...587021316?s=21

That’s a fun few corners.