[WEC Race] 2013 FIA WEC - Round 7 - 6 Hours of Shanghai

[kober]

TOYOTA Racing - 6 Hours of Shanghai Highlights - the commentator at 2:27 said that the frequent tire changes were due to the high abrasiveness of the track. I was under impression that the conditions were rather slippery, on a contrary.

[Maelochs]

Indeed the track was slippery and sliding over an abrasive surface wears away the tires. If the cars weren't sliding so much they would have lasted longer, even on an abrasive track.

It doesn't matter if you rest your finger on 80-grit or 800-grit sandpaper, but if you press down and drag your finger it matters a lot.

[chernaudi]

Also telling was that Toyota, if I remember correctly, were able to double stint last year, but couldn't this year, not without the drop off making enough of a difference to favor single stinting tires. Toyota had Alex do a double stint for the last run out of the fact that it was their only chance to win at that stage--hoping that the time saved would buy Alex enough time to hold Ben off.

But the time saved wasn't enough, and Ben was on a tear, had better tires, and, at that stage of the race, had the faster car. But what other choice did Toyota have? Changing tires wouldn't have put them much better off. They lost the race by 16 seconds. If they changed tires, that would've added about 20 seconds to the stop, and they'd have lost by about 16-20 seconds, depending on how close the lap times were to the #1 Audi.

By either strategy, Toyota stood to not gain much by choosing one over the other. They lost the race when their fast car (#8) had to be withdrawn.

This also seems to back up my reasoning that the '13 Toyota isn't as economical on it's tires as the '12 cars were. But what is making the difference: longer stints compared to last year, aero package, chassis/suspension geometry changes, the tires themselves, or the drivers having to push more because of the performance gains that Audi made this year? I don't believe that the surface at Shanghai changed much over the past 12 months, considering that the climate there is fairly stable, and the track isn't much used outside of the WEC or F1, which is why the track is also very dirty until it gets some laps on it.

And as much as lower downforce or mechanical grip causes sliding and tire wear, there also comes a point where too much grip can cause the same issues.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Also telling was that Toyota, if I remember correctly, were able to double stint last year, but couldn't this year, not without the drop off making enough of a difference to favor single stinting tires.

Last year Toyota only did one double stint at the end of the race. During the 6 first stops they always toke new tyres. See http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/Res...Stops_Race.PDF

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Mal

.... And if Toyota could use all the power available from its hybrid system they too would be faster. But they all have to work to the rules and this year it has produced some very even racing.
Remember the choice between petrol and diesel is free and either company could use either system.

The point Im making is Shanghai's activation zones favored the rear drive system. It is true you have a choice on engine/fuel. The thing is, no team entering should have to use a certain fuel to be able to win races. Thats not my statement, thats the aco saying this. The equivalence between the different tech should be... equal. Hopefully in 2014 it is, because for almost the past decade it hasn't been, imo of course.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Sounds like some diesel disciple is upset that after 13 years the FIA finally has a reasonable balance between the two engine types.

Hardly they could do that without invalidating diesel as a solution... you can thank "hybrid", the Toyota implementation is clearly superior to Audi (since comparing with diesel resorts only to one team now, for which we can thank the discipline lol).

All thinks equal or better all things "free" and no hybrid... petrol will lose badly, but it will take a century for most ppl to accept it ( but its the way of technology, the older the former ends up getting obsolete )

[ as example the same fuel flow, the same tank capacity as petrol... everybody stops at the same number of laps to avoid pit wining... and Audi would jump immediately to a V8 like Toyota ( or a V10)... then imagine the differences lol ]

[Maelochs]

Sounds like some diesel disciple continues to ignore the realities of why factories build race cars.

[hcl123]

I don't know about factories... we must enter in theories... but in the end they would be forced to build what consumers demand.

About the "discipline" it has nothing to do with "science".

In all this debate diesel vs petrol one thing ppl ignore is RPM, as if its free a given not a factor. As example it would be fair to compare 2.4L F1 petrol with a 5.5L V12 Le Mans diesel ?... perhaps... but only if we give the diesel 6L or something (lol), the reality is that a F1 V8 2.4L has at any time more fuel burning, more power strokes than a Diesel V12, it consumes more fuel either per volume or gavimetry. It can do up to 20k RPM and average between 14 and 16K RPM, while diesel average less than 4K RPM.

Fairness ? yes... lets restrict petrol to 5K RPM, which is already above what diesel can do... then pretty much invalidates petrol as a racing engine lol

Just for "comparison" with the same fuel consumption, the same fuel flow... at 5K RPM (it could be possible for diesel), and as "leaked" a V12 pushed hard could have 1400Nm, a more modern efficient optimized could have 1500Nm, and at 5K RPM...

http://www.convertunits.com/from/ft+lb/to/N+m ( 1500Nm = 1106.343ft-Lb)
http://www.calculatoredge.com/new/horsepower.htm

... that V12 diesel will have more than 1000 HP... and almost the double torque(almost triple compared with that F1 2.4L)... a "very" severe beating lol

( in perspective to our road cars and factories, transmissions would have to be completely different... which now they are not... not really... (diesel would always be faster in 0-60mph) )

[gwyllion]

Shanghai debrief by McNish and Treluyer

McNish describes vidivly how he was taking things very cautiously

I don’t think I’ve ever been so risk-adversed in my entire career. I was probably not within six feet of any car through the whole race.

Normally, I’m reasonably decisive at the start. I think most people are probably aware of that!

...

For us, it was about being clean and tidy. Clean, traffic-free laps were fast enough. But when we came to the traffic, we were all very careful. Especially for Loic, because a GT car spun in front of him and he had to take to the escape road out to the fast Turn 13.

The only thing Tom and I saw on the TV screen was a spinning GT car and then our R18 flying straight off, which had our hearts in our mouths for a little bit.