[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

It's debatable I assume. As far as I am concerned, I prefer when innovation is used to the benefit of real and visible performance when the cars are racing each other on the racetrack, rather than when the cars are standing still in the pit-lane and are being refuelled.

I agree with you on the fact that Porsche did a better job than Audi and Toyota in that respect, but it is not ideal from an entertainement perspective when competitors are faced with a 30-second deficit compared to others over the duration of a 6h race solely as a result of a pitstop advantage.

Now, even if this pitstop advantage were to be cancelled through the enforcement of stricter rules, this year's Porsche would still be very much unbeatable.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It's debatable I assume. As far as I am concerned, I prefer when innovation is used to the benefit of real and visible performance when the cars are racing each other on the racetrack, rather than when the cars are standing still in the pit-lane and are being refuelled.

Me too, but as we all know, racing is not just about track performance. It encompasses a host of other factors.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I agree with you on the fact that Porsche did a better job than Audi and Toyota in that respect, but it is not ideal from an entertainement perspective when competitors are faced with a 30-second deficit compared to others over the duration of a 6h race solely as a result of a pitstop advantage.

I agree , but we must also recognize and respect that the teams are in it to win. The entertainment factor is secondary to them.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Now, even if this pitstop advantage were to be cancelled through the enforcement of stricter rules, this year's Porsche would still be very much unbeatable.

Agreed, but as a general rule, the less regulators intervene; the better IMO.
The last thing I want to see are regulated pit stop to the extent the they must all be the same length for each team. After-all it is a team sport. If the team is slower in one area of its performance, it needs to improve and/or innovate. It should not rely on the regulators to guarantee outcomes.

[J Jay]

In principle I agree with you Spyderman, but I think the point Nigel is making is that this could be quietly banned for next year with little public complaint from Porsche. However, we've seen the FIA-ACO go all three ways on this - for instance, the flexible rear deck on the 919 last year was immediately banned and had to be changed, but the rotating wing on the TS040 was allowed to compete but didn't show up after Le Mans, and then there was the TS040 brake-by-wire system which was okayed has since been imitated by Audi and Porsche. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from across the factories (before anybody accuses me of bias) but these are the first ones that came to mind.

Personally I want to see the cars on-track for as long as possible (more time racing = better efficiency), so I would hope that this is allowed and that the other factories develop similar systems, but to borrow the football parlance, "I've seen those [penalty appeals] given".

[MyNameIsNigel]

It's worth having a closer look at Appendix A ("Refuelling") of the LMP1 Technical Regulations.

It is explicitly provided that the diameter of the flow restrictor (which is fixed at the outlet on the bottom of the supply tank used to refuel the car - it's not part of the car as such but of the refueling system) "shall be adapted, at the discretion of the Endurance Committee, for equalization of time to achieve compete fill in of tank for different fuels".

Porsche have evidently found a way to reduce the "time to achieve complete fill in of [the] tank" by optimizing the fuel flow downstream of the mandated "flow restrictor". In that respect, they circumvent the "equalization of time" that the rules are supposed to guarantee.

If the Endurance Committee were to really enforce the rules, it should actually impose a smaller flow restrictor diameter specifically for Porsche in order to guarantee proper "equalization of time to achieve complete fill in of [the] tank" for all competitors.

I do wonder if the ACO-FIA are planing anything in that respect.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It is indeed deemed legal (until the ACO-FIA change their mind...) and neither Audi nor Toyota are challenging the legality of the design. They are just frustrated by the fact that there appeared to exist some commitment to ensure equivalence in the refueling times at the beginning of the season and that Porsche have now followed a different route.

It's fully legal, but not necessarily very fair. This area of development could be left open, but I believe that the ACO-FIA would be well advised to impose stricter rules, possibly a fully standardized refueling system, all the way through to the tank internals.

I don't know details beyond what has been posted in this thread. I did do a very quick read through of the rules around the refueling rig, restrictor device, piping, tank, etc. I see no way that Porsche could legally modify the restrictor device, so I assume it was all optimization of items before and after that device to increase flow through the device.

Basic shapes are roughly defined for the various parts and there is wording to stop the addition of "parts" inside the tank to increase flow (I assume that is aimed at something like a pump). However it does specifically call out the items that can be in the fuel tank. So I assume it is all about optimal shaping of the piping, vents, etc. Frankly I have always assumed that teams would be spending time optimizing this flow? Use of CFD is not surprising to me.

There is catch all wording that allows them to adjust the dimensions of the restrictor to equalize flow rate between fuels. So that is clearly about ensuring correct petrol vs. diesel flow rates. However the problem with this is that unless you have a complete spec fuel rig, coupling and tank that there will be measurable differences between solutions even when using the same regulator. In short, who is to say a team might accidently implement a poor design that flows slower than the theoretical maximum? Personally I think the regulations are fine as is especially as a flow regulator is already being used.

Overall, I applaud Porsche for attending to the details.

I need to go back and look at my COTA photos as I specifically took some photos of the Porsche refueling rig (I hope I got the prototype rig and not the GT rig). I had wanted to look at it later to see if there was anything visually special about it given the talk of the fast refueling rates.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

If the Endurance Committee were to really enforce the rules, it should actually impose a smaller flow restrictor diameter specifically for Porsche in order to guarantee proper "equalization of time to achieve complete fill in of [the] tank" for all competitors.

I do wonder if the ACO-FIA are planing anything in that respect.

I was slow in my typing and editing of my post above, so I only saw your post after I posted mine, otherwise I would have addressed this in my post...

I can't find the specifics of the restrictor device other than the technical drawings and it doesn't seem to list the diameter "D". I don't know if diesel and petrol use the same restrictor (same diameter) or if there are diesel and petrol specific diameters. Note that the regulation talks about equalization of "different fuels" and not "different teams". So any restrictor specific to Porsche would be unfair.

I can imagine they might adjust the petrol restrictor to bring Porsche back in line with... what? A target time? The time it takes Audi (being the only diesel team) to refuel? Lets assume the other teams (both petrol and diesel) are at or above a "target time" and Porsche is below that same time. Then it might make sense to adjust the "petrol" device to bring Porsche back in line to a "target time", but if Toyota (and Nissan) are already meeting the target, they would also get the new petrol restrictor and in effect, increase their refueling times. However they could engineer a better solution to get back to the target time. This is similar to the "best in fuel class" concept around BSFC.

Now what would be unfair is if Audi was slower than a target time and Porsche (or rather petrol) was adjusted to match the Audi time instead of an ACO/FIA target time. My point there is that maybe Audi just has an inefficient design, so why penalize the petrol teams?

Richard

[chernaudi]

Toyota are also miffed by this, since it seems that Porsche can refuel at a faster rate similar to what they gain over Audi; the ACO did set up the refueling rig restrictors so that refueling time is roughly the same (within a couple of tenths of each other).

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Toyota are also miffed by this, since it seems that Porsche can refuel at a faster rate similar to what they gain over Audi; the ACO did set up the refueling rig restrictors so that refueling time is roughly the same (within a couple of tenths of each other).

Indeed, and so are Rebellion Racing and ByKolles I would expect.

The ACO-FIA are faced with a dilemma. They have to ensure "equalization of time to fill in the tank" one way or another. Which one of the petrol cars is supposed to be used as reference for the equalization ? Porsche ? Toyota ? And what about Rebellion Racing and ByKolles ?

I can't see the ACO-FIA impose a smaller refueling restrictor to all petrol cars to ensure equal refueling times between Porsche and Audi as all the other petrol players will be the victims of such an adjustment.

Which other solution is left to the ACO-FIA ?
- do nothing (possible)
- ban the solution used by Porsche (very unlikely as the system is formally "legal"; Porsche are not infringing the rules; it's an ACO-FIA issue)
- impose a specific refueling restrictor to Porsche (nothing seems to prevent this it would seem; it's at the discretion of the Endurance Committee)

One thing now looks pretty clear IMHO. The ACO-FIA will very likely impose stricter rules next year.

[Ephaeton]

- explicitly document the solution as developed by porsche as one possible legal interpretation. This way nobody has to spend development $$$ and everybody can benefit from the solution in '16, privateer, diesel or gasoline.
IMHO they should be doing a lot more of this (document and publish engineering solution down to the finest detail).

[chernaudi]

The ACO taking a shot at Porsche and their fuel tank flow manipulation? Looks like it...

The ACO published revisions to their 2016 rules, but of note is Article 6.9.5 of the ACO's technical regs, which take effect this weekend:

http://www.fia.com/file/34642/download?token=QUDSEC8u

This seems to be, awkward English wording aside, aimed at Porsche's fiddling with their refueling receptical and fuel tank inlet, and also seems to make what Porsche has done basically illegal from this weekend onward until the end of the 2016 season.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The ACO taking a shot at Porsche and their fuel tank flow manipulation? Looks like it...

It looks rushed given the odd English translation. Given the focus on ensuring gravity feed only, I assume Porsche may have been using some type of air pressure differential (vacuum pump to reduce air pressure in the tank?)

Richard

[chernaudi]

It was something to do (I'm thinking) with the refueling buckeye and the feeder pipe that goes into the tank. It's not the restrictor, rig hose, or the refueling nozzle, since I'd bet that there's rules on that stuff, and foiling the restirctor itself would get Porsche into a world of trouble with the ACO/FIA.

This is just like the Toyota rotating wing--Porsche are being asked, basically told, actually, to stop using it starting this weekend.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Does the new provision of Article 6.9.5 really put Porsche's solution into question ? Strictly speaking, Porsche have apparently optimized the fuel flow all the way from the refueling restrictor (which complies with rules) up to and including the tank internals. Unless I am mistaken, refueling still very much takes place by gravity only. No additional pump or the like is apparently used. I assume that thanks to this optimization, Porsche have managed to reduce turbulence in the fuel flow during refueling, thereby possibly allowing the fuel to flow more quickly into the tank. Now if this is the case, that may very well lead to a difference in pressure between the tank internals and the refueling rig, which could go against the new provision that has just been introduced. I am not an expert in fluid dynamics though :P

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Does the new provision of Article 6.9.5 really put Porsche's solution into question ? Strictly speaking, Porsche have apparently optimized the fuel flow all the way from the refueling restrictor (which complies with rules) up to and including the tank internals. Unless I am mistaken, refueling still very much takes place by gravity only. No additional pump or the like is apparently used. I assume that thanks to this optimization, Porsche have managed to reduce turbulence in the fuel flow during refueling, thereby possibly allowing the fuel to flow more quickly into the tank. Now if this is the case, that may very well lead to a difference in pressure between the tank internals and the refueling rig, which could go against the new provision that has just been introduced. I am not an expert in fluid dynamics though :P

A few things come to mind...

(1) I still haven't read the RCE article, but assuming it talks to only optimization of flow by Porsche, it could be that in addition to that optimization, Porsche may have other things going on that is legal but they want to keep the solution secret from other teams so it was not exposed in the article. The FIA/ACO would know the details as they have grudgingly blessed it. So maybe this is targeting a hidden part of the Porsche solution?

(2) Maybe it is not targeting the current Porsche flow optimization but rather a team (maybe even Porsche) has approached the FIA/ACO with another solution to get it blessed and while it might technically be legal, they are going to stop it before it gets implemented as they don't like the development direction?

Overall the timing of this quick rule change can't be a coincident. Somehow it is tied to what is going on with Porsche.

Richard

[chernaudi]

The fact that the rule came out this week and is being implemented at Fuji, it's easy to suspect that the ACO got wind of what Porsche were doing, be it from the RCE article or elsewhere, and they want to nip this in the bud. And it seems to be that the ACO are going after Porsche after seeing the shortened refueling times and the now know why.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The fact that the rule came out this week and is being implemented at Fuji, it's easy to suspect that the ACO got wind of what Porsche were doing, be it from the RCE article or elsewhere, and they want to nip this in the bud. And it seems to be that the ACO are going after Porsche after seeing the shortened refueling times and the now know why.

They homologated the thing, for Gandhi's sake!
How can we assume that they only now got wind of it without assuming they're ignorant idiots?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

They homologated the thing, for Gandhi's sake!
How can we assume that they only now got wind of it without assuming they're ignorant idiots?

Maybe because the homologation process does not necessitate having a look at the refuelling system ? Just asking.

It is interesting to note that the refueling time advantage only became apparent at LM, which may suggest that the refueling system currently being used is different from the one used at the beginning of the season.

There is evidently room to further develop the cars during the season and only those elements which are subject to homologation are basically "frozen" at the beginning of the season. The refueling system is possibly an area which is not subject to homologation in each and every detail.

[chernaudi]

Only thing that can be sure is that Porsche and their refueling stuff is at the center of it--either this rule bans/restricts what they're doing or can do, or it clarifies it/legalizes it. But from the connotation I got from the wording of the rules--screwy translation not withstanding--is that the ACO want Porsche to go back to their pre-LM refueling buckeye/filler neck specs.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Looks like Porsche have brought the HD package to Fuji:

[MyNameIsNigel]

Based on this recent DSC report, Porsche have actually brought both packages to Fuji and still appear to be undecided as to which package will be raced. Both solutions will apparently be tried during FP1.

[Spyderman]

I had to miss the race, but many congratulations Porsche!

[Spyderman]

I think there is a tyre test in Aragon currently going on.

[Spyderman]

Montoya having a seat fitting for test on November 22

[Victor_RO]

And JPM's view: https://twitter.com/jpmontoya/status/656445944905494528

[Acid09]

Would be really cool to see JPM getting picked up for the race, what a story that would be if he could win the triple-crown!