The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga

[CTD]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It's been admitted by TMG personnel that they are using the old Pug LMP1 tires similar to the 2011 spec because TMG have yet to develop their own tires with Michelin.

As far as I know, there were 3 basic "wide front" tire specs, the Audi R18 spec, the Peugeot 908 spec, and the "basic" spec, which is for customer teams (Rebellion and, this year, Pescarolo) and AMR, which isn't tailored to a particular car like Audi's and Peugeot's tires were last year, but are a basic broad spec based primarily on a basic LMP1 diesel tire that Audi and Peugeot derived their specs from, so it's basically a "detuned" LMP1 diesel tire that's perhaps a compromise between what a diesel needs and what a gasoline car needs--Michelin, like most companies, won't build something unless there's a demand for it or someone pays for it. After all, they've virtually pulled out of LMP2 as a tire maker because of a lack of demand and only maybe a couple of teams right now (Dempsey and Loeb?) are willing to special order their tires.

I think that lack of development time and areo considerations (the Toyota TS030 was heavily influenced by the Pug in that area) were the main motivators, and just like with Audi now focusing on the R18 e-tron quattro, Toyota will probably use this time between LM and Silverstone to try and develop tires more suited to their car.

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

With the torque from the hybrid I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually pretty close to a diesel characteristic. No idea how close, but probably the petrol car that has the best chance of making a diesel compound work.

Again. Toyota told us, when asked, that the Toyota TS030 is not aerodynamically influenced by Peugeot. The car is heavily influenced by their F1 experiences.

With the torque from the hybrid, yes, i think they are close to the diesel torque. However when not, a more petrol oriented tyre should be the better choice (no matter if it's tailored for petrol, or a mixture)

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by CTD

As Rebellion was the first petrol car (besides the Acura) to run wide fronts, the petrol wide fronts has probably been designed with great help from Lola (Rebellion).
The Toyota TS030 have not been influenced by the Peugeot in any way. The TS030 was designed heavily with TMG's knowledge from F1. Besides, the Peugeot wasn't that aerodynamic, it was always the engine which "carried" the car. (Of course this is compared to Audi which is much better aerodynamic). I asked Toyota at the pit visit how much of Oreca's Peugeot experience and knowledge they had used, and got the answer almost none.
The weight balance of the Toyota is likely 50/50.
You miss the point of the Peugeot compound being designed for the Diesel torque instead of Petrol.

sincerly disagree almost in everything:

1. The arx-02a was the first car to use wide tyres on front! so at least we should talk about "acura compound"! lola just developed a new front section bodykit of 2011 b60 for rebellion, as consequence of the wider front tyres used by the team so
cause: usage of wider tyres
effect: new front section bodykit by lola
this is the right sequence of events, not the reverse as you said.

2. As i wrote, is really hard to say, watching the "january bodykit" of ts030, that the car wasn't influenced by peugeot (wurz itself said that during initial test the ts030 reminded him the initial version of 908)
and sure... the 908HDi had a so bad aero package that basicly was used also successfully on 908... that just won the ILMC... and almost all other races but le mans against audi cars since 2007.
Maybe you would say that the r18 aero package gives to the car a better and aggressive look, ok i agree, but this is a really ignorant sentence: "Besides, the Peugeot wasn't that aerodynamic, it was always the engine which "carried" the car"

3. Apparently the only car that has a wr of 50/50 is the dome 102.5, all the other cars have an around 54% value on rear (in past year this value was bigger because of higher displacement and heavier engines). Surely the r18 etron quattro maybe has a value of 52% because of hybrid system on the front (the ultra too because of ballasts placed to simulate the presence of hybrid). About ts030 because of rear hybrid, i think that has a wr of over 56% on rear because some stuff and gear of hybrid surely is placed on the rear section of the car.

4. about audi/peugeot compound, i guess that audi and peugeot cars have been designed because of the kind of transmission that these cars had to use because of their diesel unit.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

sincerly disagree almost in everything:

1. The arx-02a was the first car to use wide tyres on front! so at least we should talk about "acura compound"!

The Acura didn't have a special front compound. It used the same compound as on the rears, which is one of the reasons why it never really worked.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

The Acura didn't have a special front compound. It used the same compound as on the rears, which is one of the reasons why it never really worked.

premitting that here we are talking about of audi compound, lola compound etc... that basicly are things that concretly we don't know,
the acura arx-02a started to use wide fron tyres in a conjunction research project with michelin in 2009, so they didn't just use rear tyres on front...

it didn't work? do you work for michelin? the two teams that used the arx-02a did a great season in 2009, also against audi and peugeot in sebring reaching the pole! it's hard to say that something didn't work well in the arx-02a.

[chernaudi]

Problem with the Acura was that it used the rear tires on the front, literally, which caused them several issues because the tire design wasn't what was needed or desired, but HPD never paid Michelin to build them the proper "wide" front tires like Audi and Peugeot and, presumably, Toyota did/are/will.

Aero-wise, the original TS030 was based heavily on Peugeot principals, and even with the modified car, the Pug influence as far as simplicity is still there, albeit to a much more limited extent. Also, I'm not really willing to call the Toyota's nose an "Audi R18 inspired" solution--it looks a lot more like the Audi R10 or big engined 908s to me. Aside from the raised nose--which is universal with LMPs now to one degree or another--I can't see a ton of F1 influence, as the demands of an F1 circuit and Le Mans and sportscars are often quite different. In F1, downforce drives everything, while with an LMP1 car, you want as much downforce as possible with as little drag as possible, and because of LM being a unique track, a compromise has to be reached.

And even with as low drag as the Toyota was, I'll bet you that the Rebellion tires wouldn't work on the Toyota, because even with the low drag bodywork, it was probably producing considerably more downforce than the Lola was, the same could be said of the 908, too, even in LM spec.

As far as the hybrid system, Toyota will doubtlessly keep that in mind when they're getting their tires designed. The only thing that they have to be careful of is that they don't go too far in one direction (hybrid systems can only be used when/where the FIA/ACO designate is one parameter that has to be remembered), or compromise too much, but with that hybrid system and how it works and such, and the characteristics of the upcoming circuits, finding that balance might be difficult, but certainly not impossible.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

sincerly disagree almost in everything:

I really don't know wether to reply or ignore this.
I'm going to reply once, and then leave this discussion with you, as it is moving away from my original question.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

1. The arx-02a was the first car to use wide tyres on front! so at least we should talk about "acura compound"! lola just developed a new front section bodykit of 2011 b60 for rebellion, as consequence of the wider front tyres used by the team so
cause: usage of wider tyres
effect: new front section bodykit by lola
this is the right sequence of events, not the reverse as you said.

I wrote:

As Rebellion was the first petrol car (besides the Acura) to run wide fronts

So i clearly recognize that Acura presented this first. But it didn't become "popular" before later.
I'm not sure your right in your "cause and effect".
Rebellion (perhaps Toyota) wanted to run wide fronts. And then ordered the parts from Lola and Michelin.
None of us of course know this with certain, so we can only argue whats "most likely"

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

2. As i wrote, is really hard to say, watching the "january bodykit" of ts030, that the car wasn't influenced by peugeot (wurz itself said that during initial test the ts030 reminded him the initial version of 908)
and sure... the 908HDi had a so bad aero package that basicly was used also successfully on 908... that just won the ILMC... and almost all other races but le mans against audi cars since 2007.
Maybe you would say that the r18 aero package gives to the car a better and aggressive look, ok i agree, but this is a really ignorant sentence: "Besides, the Peugeot wasn't that aerodynamic, it was always the engine which "carried" the car"

I never said that Peugeot had a bad aero package. It was just never as efficient as Audi's. However the Peugeot Diesel V12 was an incredible engine, which was the base for most of it's success.
Just because a car's aero isn't as efficient as the competition, doesn't mean it's unsuccessful.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

3. Apparently the only car that has a wr of 50/50 is the dome 102.5, all the other cars have an around 54% value on rear (in past year this value was bigger because of higher displacement and heavier engines). Surely the r18 etron quattro maybe has a value of 52% because of hybrid system on the front (the ultra too because of ballasts placed to simulate the presence of hybrid). About ts030 because of rear hybrid, i think that has a wr of over 56% on rear because some stuff and gear of hybrid surely is placed on the rear section of the car.

Audi R18 Ultra has a 50/50 weight balance.
And again, i believe the Toyota has it too, as the petrol engine is lighter than the diesel, which gives the "room" for the hybrid weight.
But again, none of us knows, so it's just who's guess is better.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

4. about audi/peugeot compound, i guess that audi and peugeot cars have been designed because of the kind of transmission that these cars had to use because of their diesel unit.

The Audi/Peugeot compounds was specially designed as there probably is a difference in the way they deliver the power to the wheels. (V6 and V8) and of course. They could afford to get their tires custom made...

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by CTD

I really don't know wether to reply or ignore this.
I'm going to reply once, and then leave this discussion with you, as it is moving away from my original question.

well this is toyota topic, toyota uses wide front tyres, so isn't an off topic matter...

I wrote: So i clearly recognize that Acura presented this first. But it didn't become "popular" before later.
I'm not sure your right in your "cause and effect".
Rebellion (perhaps Toyota) wanted to run wide fronts. And then ordered the parts from Lola and Michelin.
None of us of course know this with certain, so we can only argue whats "most likely"

is easy to understand that the original front section of b11/60 wasn't developed to work with wider front tyres... for this reason is easy to rebuild the order of events...
rebellion decided to use wider tyres and a new bodywork part was needed! they called lola that supplied them. Surely TMG influenced this choice and catalyzed the lola decision!

I never said that Peugeot had a bad aero package. It was just never as efficient as Audi's. However the Peugeot Diesel V12 was an incredible engine, which was the base for most of it's success.
Just because a car's aero isn't as efficient as the competition, doesn't mean it's unsuccessful.

who say this? it's a your opinion, then i think that the 908HDi had a better aero package than the r10 in 2007 and 2008; then again with the 2009 regulations changing i think that the 908HDi shown a better and more efficent aero package than the r15... infact audi heavily reworked the bodykit in 2010 introducing the r15+.
In 2011 audi r18 TDI was faster than 908 in porsche sector at le mans, so here i could say that r18 TDI had a better aero than 908! but then you must think about engine setting! audi was using a more powerfull engine setting than peugeot.

Audi R18 Ultra has a 50/50 weight balance.
And again, i believe the Toyota has it too, as the petrol engine is lighter than the diesel, which gives the "room" for the hybrid weight.
But again, none of us knows, so it's just who's guess is better.

source please or i'll be with my opinion (opinion that i could however proof searching in the right places)

The Audi/Peugeot compounds was specially designed as there probably is a difference in the way they deliver the power to the wheels. (V6 and V8) and of course. They could afford to get their tires custom made...

partially agree, last year audi tyres shown the best performance during the night at le mans; peugeot tyres shown the berst performance in the hot afternoon of imola race! i think that the development of their tyres was about also because of other reasons, not only the diesel torque.

is not to attack you, but just a consideration of mine: if you really think that lmp1 cars (or a mid-engine car in theory) wr is 50/50, maybe you should think about your knowledge about cars and motorsport...
just tell me why a mid-engined car should shift all that weight on the front? for what reason? to have understeering problems that the mid-engine structure prevents?... a mid-engine racecar is balanced with a different rideheight between front section and rear section and other suspension/splitter-diffuser setting! no need to shift weight to the front of the car.
A 50/50 wr can be found in cars like the c6r or vantage, that have front heavy engines placed longitudinally to take weight on the center of the car! for the reason to avoid all kind of handling problems.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

premitting that here we are talking about of audi compound, lola compound etc... that basicly are things that concretly we don't know,
the acura arx-02a started to use wide fron tyres in a conjunction research project with michelin in 2009, so they didn't just use rear tyres on front...

it didn't work? do you work for michelin? the two teams that used the arx-02a did a great season in 2009, also against audi and peugeot in sebring reaching the pole! it's hard to say that something didn't work well in the arx-02a.

You are quite simply wrong. We do know. Mulsanne's Corner states that it were actual rear tires on the front, and if I remember correctly Nick Wirth (it may have been someone else involved with the car) confirmed that on Radio Le Mans a while ago, and also said that because of that they always had problems with the front tires. And I'm not sure what a season racing against itself and an old Lola (except for Sebring, where it never stood a chance against the Audis and Peugeot in the race) is supposed to prove. They could have continued using it in 2010 and didn't...

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Problem with the Acura was that it used the rear tires on the front, literally, which caused them several issues because the tire design wasn't what was needed or desired, but HPD never paid Michelin to build them the proper "wide" front tires like Audi and Peugeot and, presumably, Toyota did/are/will.

Aero-wise, the original TS030 was based heavily on Peugeot principals, and even with the modified car, the Pug influence as far as simplicity is still there, albeit to a much more limited extent. Also, I'm not really willing to call the Toyota's nose an "Audi R18 inspired" solution--it looks a lot more like the Audi R10 or big engined 908s to me. Aside from the raised nose--which is universal with LMPs now to one degree or another--I can't see a ton of F1 influence, as the demands of an F1 circuit and Le Mans and sportscars are often quite different. In F1, downforce drives everything, while with an LMP1 car, you want as much downforce as possible with as little drag as possible, and because of LM being a unique track, a compromise has to be reached.

And even with as low drag as the Toyota was, I'll bet you that the Rebellion tires wouldn't work on the Toyota, because even with the low drag bodywork, it was probably producing considerably more downforce than the Lola was, the same could be said of the 908, too, even in LM spec.

As far as the hybrid system, Toyota will doubtlessly keep that in mind when they're getting their tires designed. The only thing that they have to be careful of is that they don't go too far in one direction (hybrid systems can only be used when/where the FIA/ACO designate is one parameter that has to be remembered), or compromise too much, but with that hybrid system and how it works and such, and the characteristics of the upcoming circuits, finding that balance might be difficult, but certainly not impossible.

i think that toyota won't obtain their custom compound before the next season! for the simple reason that they still need to know better their own car! but i think that using the peugeot compound is a good starting point! maybe they should use it as template and change something to optimize their performance.
(I repeat in 2009 was a joint collaboration between HPD and michelin to experiment this solution! none paid none... it was an experimental season/year)

[TF110]

These aren't GT cars. The prototypes are very long to spread the weight out evenly. 50/50 is probably the split of weight on each axle, I don't see why you'd question it. More than weight balance can cause understeer/oversteer. And 50/50 balance is probably ideal for tire usage. Anyway, any videos of them @Goodwood?

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

You are quite simply wrong. We do know. Mulsanne's Corner states that it were actual rear tires on the front, and if I remember correctly Nick Wirth (it may have been someone else involved with the car) confirmed that on Radio Le Mans a while ago, and also said that because of that they always had problems with the front tires. And I'm not sure what a season racing against itself and an old Lola (except for Sebring, where it never stood a chance against the Audis and Peugeot in the race) is supposed to prove. They could have continued using it in 2010 and didn't...

i've reat that page too in the past, and if you read well, mike said " It has been indicated that (for now at least) the tire compound for the front is the same as the rear".
Me too think that in the inital stage of their michelin conjuction work, a less developed compound (a way to say that was the rear compound) was used, but during the season i'm sure that michelin delivered to de ferran and highcroft teams developed and updated front tyres.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by TF110

These aren't GT cars. The prototypes are very long to spread the weight out evenly. 50/50 is probably the split of weight on each axle, I don't see why you'd question it. More than weight balance can cause understeer/oversteer. And 50/50 balance is probably ideal for tire usage. Anyway, any videos of them @Goodwood?

first you saide "probably" complaining a possibility; then you said "why you'd question it" complaining a certainty. philosophical parradox in motorsport.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

i've reat that page too in the past, and if you read well, mike said " It has been indicated that (for now at least) the tire compound for the front is the same as the rear".

Yes, and now, years after, we know that these bespoke tires never appeared. Why would they? They had no competition in the ALMS anyway.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Yes, and now, years after, we know that these bespoke tires never appeared. Why would they? They had no competition in the ALMS anyway.

who knows, arx-02a teams had problems during the season, but this doesn't automaticly mean that there weren't updated tyres.
Infact there was not competition in michelin plans, it was just to experiment.
In 2009 audi and peugeot didn't run in ALMS/LMS, but just in selected events, they couldn't develope these tyres (at least not in races)... was the natural choise to use a good car in a easy championship.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by CTD

Toyota told us, when asked, that the Toyota TS030 is not aerodynamically influenced by Peugeot. The car is heavily influenced by their F1 experiences.

Two thoughts. First I would expect then to say the design is based upon their own knowledge and experience (in this case F1 and I have no doubt that is true at some level). That is the more PR friendly answer IMHO. Second, I would expect anyone who is designing a car would also be looking at other current and past solutions to the same problems. If you are smart you should be able to realize that others are smart as well and may think of things that you haven't. So in short I am sure they have been influenced by Peugot...... and Audi, Dome, etc. What I am also sure is that they havent blindly copied features without understanding how they work, the pros and cons, etc. Additionally they will have their own unique ideas. Wouldn't any top team operate like this?

Richard

[deggis]

Originally Posted by TF110

Anyway, any videos of them @Goodwood?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E5lrbJ06W4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Hyh7MjoyM

[Articus]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

3. Apparently the only car that has a wr of 50/50 is the dome 102.5, all the other cars have an around 54% value on rear (in past year this value was bigger because of higher displacement and heavier engines). Surely the r18 etron quattro maybe has a value of 52% because of hybrid system on the front (the ultra too because of ballasts placed to simulate the presence of hybrid). About ts030 because of rear hybrid, i think that has a wr of over 56% on rear because some stuff and gear of hybrid surely is placed on the rear section of the car.

Toyota have already said the car is a little front heavy due to to the Super capacitor system sitting in the cockpit. The electric motor is irrelevant in terms of weight. And there are no "gears" that areant already part of the gearbox. That was a design goal. The elctric motor is well incorporated into the gearbox. There is no separate driveshaft like on the Audi.

Acura did not have special tires. They used the same exact tires front and rear and that was the problem...The rear designed to withstand the stresses of the engine so was very stiff....This meant that the front tires would not heat up for a long time which is why it was always said that the 02a got faster and faster through a stint. It was that bad with the tire temps not coming up..

I think your suggesting too much that the Peugeot is liek the Toyota but they are very different cars. The Peugeot was rear biased. The Toyota is on the edge of being too heavil front biased. Drivers commentent in initial impression about the understeer.

There is a great RaceCAr engineering article about the Toyota that oyu should see. Im not sure where the claims you make are coming from.

[alexkiller8]

about toyota hybrid stuff in the cockpit, i knew about this, and because of this they aimed to find a way to balance the right/left wr more than the front/rear.

[TF110]

They haven't said that. When I said 'probably' I meant the weight split over each axle, not 'probably' 50/50. Does it really matter? As long as it's fast and driveable with good tire life, the weight balance is a small issue.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by TF110

They haven't said that. When I said 'probably' I meant the weight split over each axle, not 'probably' 50/50. Does it really matter? As long as it's fast and driveable with good tire life, the weight balance is a small issue.

i guess that something matter, i don't think that is a coincidence if ferrari, aston martin and other manufacters build their front engined cars with however a wd on the rear (just to give an example the new f12 berlinetta even if has a heavy 6.2 v12 on the front has only 46% of weight on front). Ok here we talk about lmp cars, but as i repeated more than once, can't be denied that have more weight on the rear (in the right and most usefull proportion i mean) gives more handling advantages. Surely, actually because of smaller and lighter engines, engineers can shift better and with more freedom the ballasts to balance the car in different way track by track; so if until 2010 the 908HDi had almost 60% on rear because of the heavy V12 engine, in 2011 the 908 could easily change the destribution to adapt better the car track by track (ex. in a track like imola or road atlanta with a lot of braking in downhill is better to have a wd of 48/52 than a track like le mans that can be good a 46/54).

[Articus]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

i so if until 2010 the 908HDi had almost 60% on rear because of the heavy V12 engine, in 2011 the 908 could easily change the destribution to adapt better the car track by track (ex. in a track like imola or road atlanta with a lot of braking in downhill is better to have a wd of 48/52 than a track like le mans that can be good a 46/54).

In what world could the Peugeot 908 change its weight balance "easily" track by track....On an LMP car 48/52 vs 46/54 is a huge difference because they are only 900kg or so. The kinds of things you are suggesting are unfeasible. Its not as though they are moving the engine around in the back...Those things are designed from the beginning to stay in one place as a stressed chassis member. There are small amounts of ballast that they team can move around but nothing as significant as you suggest. Those numbers look made up as well. There are no facts behind any of this.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Articus

In what world could the Peugeot 908 change its weight balance "easily" track by track....On an LMP car 48/52 vs 46/54 is a huge difference because they are only 900kg or so. The kinds of things you are suggesting are unfeasible. Its not as though they are moving the engine around in the back...Those things are designed from the beginning to stay in one place as a stressed chassis member. There are small amounts of ballast that they team can move around but nothing as significant as you suggest. Those numbers look made up as well. There are no facts behind any of this.

i more than you about what you have written. Last year ullrich and audi sport personell, more than once said that because of audi ultralight technology the dry weight of R18 TDI was a lot ligther than the min. required 900kg. This let them to use the ballasts not only to reach the weight of 900kg but also to use different setting of weight balance according to various situations (the concept that i explained before). Then think also that even if the 2012 r18 ultra has a bit different tub than the 2011 one, basicly, not having the hybrid, the car has the same structure and layout of the r18 TDI! but meanwhile this, audi placed a lot of ballast in the front of the car to simulate the presence of "something/hybrd" changing the weight distribution as consequence if we want to compare to the 2011 r18 TDI.
There are no fact behind any of this? i behind this see only you a childish way to do.... is already problematic when in a discussion with different point of views (as far currently i can't proof my opinion, is however true that until now none has been able to prove beyond doubt that i'm wrong) an user tries to taunt anonther one... still more pathetic when this user pretends to be cool writing something that make laughing the others...

[alexkiller8]

if you really think that ballasts can't change the weight distribution of a racecar to adapt the car for the best set-up, well... make some searches about mc12 GT1 history and then ask your self why more than once maserati/ferrari asked the permission to FIA to move the weight ballast in different places during the years...

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Articus

In what world could the Peugeot 908 change its weight balance "easily" track by track....On an LMP car 48/52 vs 46/54 is a huge difference because they are only 900kg or so. The kinds of things you are suggesting are unfeasible. Its not as though they are moving the engine around in the back...Those things are designed from the beginning to stay in one place as a stressed chassis member. There are small amounts of ballast that they team can move around but nothing as significant as you suggest. Those numbers look made up as well. There are no facts behind any of this.

It's a difference of exactly 18 kgs. Which sounds reasonably possible. Not sure how much the race engineers change the front to rear balance depending on the track but it is possible. i think Audi's ability to place ballast better than others certainly helped the R18 Ultra to be quicker than last year's version and be competitive with the E-Tron.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Articus

I think your suggesting too much that the Peugeot is liek the Toyota but they are very different cars. The Peugeot was rear biased. The Toyota is on the edge of being too heavil front biased. Drivers commentent in initial impression about the understeer.

Sorry, but I believe the suggestion that the weight distribution of the TS030 is too much forward, is wrong.

In the RCE article it is clearly explained that Toyota had to put ballast weight in the nose, when they put the car in the rear hybrid configuration, in orer to compensate for the missing weight of the front electric motors and driveshafts. If the TS030 is too front heavy, they would have put the ballast weight at the rear