[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[Artur]

Don't take me wrong, I'm not bitter about it or anything but Porsche fluked into this and, imho, their performance was quite disapointing and underwhelming.

I was expecting more reliability(the problem with the #1 was embarassing) and more pace from them. They were 3s slower than last year and that's looking into ideal laps as on actual laps it was more like 4s.

Taking the -10MJ into account, the car barely improved. At best, it was just a few tenths faster if you factor in the 3.5-4s of the -10MJ.

Toyota was the only car with the performance that I expected from it. The other two teams I(and Toyota tech staff too) expected to be lapping at least 1s faster than what Toyota was

"Cars will be faster again this year", "they will do 3.15", "they'll be as fast, or almost, as last year" all this kind of claims proved to be a huge joke, really!

The most conservative predictions here, that I can remember of, were from GasperG and I and we were expecting times close to 3.20.0 and even we were far from their true pace.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Porsche got it. Congrats to them... Snuck it right out from under Toyota. Here's to next year!

Don't mean to get into semantics, but Porsche didnt' steal this race from Toyota. Toyota had the fastest most trouble free car over the race and could run an extra lap on fuel. They were hard done. Porsche winning was a formality....

[Deleted]

Goodwin said "Porsche didn't win it, Toyota lost it".

I disagree. It's 100% won if you engineer a car that can last 100% of the way and do it first. Toyota lost it all right by not achieving that, but that doesn't make Porsche's win less deserved. It was the destiny of Porsche to win it.

As for the 'glassy'/non-glassy acting from the Porsche guys, it's refreshing to see real emotions from the teams upon winning the biggest race on Earth, rather than boring corporate responses. And they acted as gentlemen later anyway. ACO cameramen are less glassy in zooming into tears of despair though...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

Don't mean to get into semantics, but Porsche didnt' steal this race from Toyota. Toyota had the fastest most trouble free car over the race and could run an extra lap on fuel. They were hard done. Porsche winning was a formality....

Think you took my comment too literal.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Artur

I was expecting more reliability(the problem with the #1 was embarassing) and more pace from them. They were 3s slower than last year and that's looking into ideal laps as on actual laps it was more like 4s.

Taking the -10MJ into account, the car barely improved. At best, it was just a few tenths faster if you factor in the 3.5-4s of the -10MJ.

It somehow makes sense to compare to previous' years lap times, instead of comparing to the current year's competitors' times? (I guess so, since you have this fixation on these annual and hypothetically forever improving lap times.) Quite a bit easier for Toyota to improve since the previous car was a tortoise.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Artur

Don't take me wrong, I'm not bitter about it or anything but Porsche fluked into this and, imho, their performance was quite disapointing and underwhelming.

I was expecting more reliability(the problem with the #1 was embarassing) and more pace from them. They were 3s slower than last year and that's looking into ideal laps as on actual laps it was more like 4s.

Taking the -10MJ into account, the car barely improved. At best, it was just a few tenths faster if you factor in the 3.5-4s of the -10MJ.

Toyota was the only car with the performance that I expected from it. The other two teams I(and Toyota tech staff too) expected to be lapping at least 1s faster than what Toyota was

"Cars will be faster again this year", "they will do 3.15", "they'll be as fast, or almost, as last year" all this kind of claims proved to be a huge joke, really!

The most conservative predictions here, that I can remember of, were from GasperG and I and we were expecting times close to 3.20.0 and even we were far from their true pace.

No..I would say you are very bitter. Your comments are based on emotions and subjective perception.

Originally Posted by Hiro

Its great Porsche guys behaves so gently after winning LM this year

Sent from my XT1092 using Tapatalk

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Goodwin said "Porsche didn't win it, Toyota lost it".

I disagree. It's 100% won if you engineer a car that can last 100% of the way and do it first. Toyota lost it all right by not achieving that, but that doesn't make Porsche's win less deserved. It was the destiny of Porsche to win it.

As for the 'glassy'/non-glassy acting from the Porsche guys, it's refreshing to see real emotions from the teams upon winning the biggest race on Earth, rather than boring corporate responses. And they acted as gentlemen later anyway. ACO cameramen are less glassy in zooming into tears of despair though...

I agree 100% with you. I was disappointed with comments made by Goodwin and Hindy during the "commentary". Hindy was claiming 2 hours before the end that if Porsche won this it would be not through merit. It is an appalling thing to say, untrue, and it is not commentary but rather opinion journalism. I also dont remember him saying that Audi's win in 2014 was unmerited when Porsche had issues 2 hours before the end of the race.
Objectively there is no difference between breaking down 6:50 before the end and having a water pump break during the night when you are the fastest car and in the lead. The difference is only in the subjective expectations that we make for each event.


Sent from my XT1092 using Tapatalk

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Articus

Don't mean to get into semantics, but Porsche didnt' steal this race from Toyota. Toyota had the fastest most trouble free car over the race and could run an extra lap on fuel. They were hard done. Porsche winning was a formality....

Trouble free yes, fastest no.

If you look at laps under 3:30.(thus eliminating slow zones, yellows, SC's etc) you will find that Porsche #1 did 244 laps under 3:30 with an average lap time of 2:25.6. Porsche # 2 did 266 laps under the 3:30 mark with an average lap time of 3:25.7. # 5 Toyota did 261 laps under the 3:30 mark with an average lap time of 3:25.9 and car #6 did 243 laps under 3:30 with an average lap time of 3:26.4
Also: Ideal lap times:
Car #1 = 3:20.612
Car #2 = 3:21.008
Car#5 = 3:21.287
Car#6 = 3:20.831

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Stefvh

Anyone know why Dumas drove this little ?

You are right. Dumas drove 103 laps whilst Jani drove for 145 laps and Lieb drove for 136 laps.
What is quite strange is that he was substantially slower that both Lieb and Jani.
Looking at laps under 3:30.0 (eliminating slow zones, SC, yellow flags, etc), Dumas did an average lap time of 3:26.5 whilst both Lieb and Jani did an average lap time of 3:25.4 (They both had the fastest times in the entire Porsche squad)

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Goodwin said "Porsche didn't win it, Toyota lost it".

I disagree. It's 100% won if you engineer a car that can last 100% of the way and do it first. Toyota lost it all right by not achieving that, but that doesn't make Porsche's win less deserved. It was the destiny of Porsche to win it.

As for the 'glassy'/non-glassy acting from the Porsche guys, it's refreshing to see real emotions from the teams upon winning the biggest race on Earth, rather than boring corporate responses. And they acted as gentlemen later anyway. ACO cameramen are less glassy in zooming into tears of despair though...

If the Toyota hadn't broken down, Porsche wouldn't have won.

[Spyderman]

If the # 1 car had not had a problem, maybe Toyota would not have been in a position to win.
If ,if, if...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

If the # 1 car had not had a problem, maybe Toyota would not have been in a position to win.
If ,if, if...

Exactly.

[S griffin]

To finish first, first you have to finish, although it was bad luck that the last lap was one lap too many for Toyota. Porsche deserve it though

[Spyderman]

Some interesting numbers:http://www.endurance-info.com/en/por...-on-the-limit/

[Artur]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

No..I would say you are very bitter. Your comments are based on emotions and subjective perception.

Got butthurt with my comments?! Don't let fanboyism get the best of you

The estimations I posted(3.5 to 4s impact of -10MJ, at LM) came directly from predictions made by engineers of your team, NOT MY OWN.

My disapointment with the laptimes is my emotion, but the poor performance of the cars(meaning slow and unreliable including the #1) is pretty much a fact, not a subjective perception.

In a way I'm slightly surprised with this. I had you as a more critical and reasonable fan rather than such a passionate one.

I saw your prediction, on the appropriate thread, and it was a pole of 3.17.4 for Audi. Mine was a 3.18.2 by Porsche, so my subjective perception worked far better there but still didn't match the actual rather poor performance displayed by the cars

But then, please, continue to contradict yourself and claim that the cars were not slow(and unreliable) and that is only my subjective perception.

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I agree 100% with you. I was disappointed with comments made by Goodwin and Hindy during the "commentary". Hindy was claiming 2 hours before the end that if Porsche won this it would be not through merit. It is an appalling thing to say, untrue, and it is not commentary but rather opinion journalism. I also dont remember him saying that Audi's win in 2014 was unmerited when Porsche had issues 2 hours before the end of the race.
Objectively there is no difference between breaking down 6:50 before the end and having a water pump break during the night when you are the fastest car and in the lead. The difference is only in the subjective expectations that we make for each event.

Audi had the fastest car in 2014 and you can never say the fastest car didn't win on merit. Also, Audi already had their issues before and that's only why Porsche was still a contender with a couple of hours left. Not only that but even with Audi's issues and Porsche with no issues, Audi would likely still have won as they were much faster and, after hour 21, #2 Audi was just 5s behind the much slower leading Porsche.

When you're ultra passionate about something, it's very easy to think that you're the only one that sees things objectively while everybody else has weak opinions , when it's actually the opposite, obviously.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Artur

Got butthurt with my comments?! Don't let fanboyism get the best of you

The estimations I posted(3.5 to 4s impact of -10MJ, at LM) came directly from predictions made by engineers of your team, NOT MY OWN.

My disapointment with the laptimes is my emotion, but the poor performance of the cars(meaning slow and unreliable including the #1) is pretty much a fact, not a subjective perception.

In a way I'm slightly surprised with this. I had you as a more critical and reasonable fan rather than such a passionate one.

I saw your prediction, on the appropriate thread, and it was a pole of 3.17.4 for Audi. Mine was a 3.18.2 by Porsche, so my subjective perception worked far better there but still didn't match the actual rather poor performance displayed by the cars

But then, please, continue to contradict yourself and claim that the cars were not slow(and unreliable) and that is only my subjective perception.


Audi had the fastest car in 2014 and you can never say the fastest car didn't win on merit. Also, Audi already had their issues before and that's only why Porsche was still a contender with a couple of hours left. Not only that but even with Audi's issues and Porsche with no issues, Audi would likely still have won as they were much faster and, after hour 21, #2 Audi was just 5s behind the much slower leading Porsche.

When you're ultra passionate about something, it's very easy to think that you're the only one that sees things objectively while everybody else has weak opinions , when it's actually the opposite, obviously.

By the length, tone and agressiveness of you post, I would say the butt hurt is firmly yours.

Sent from my XT1092 using Tapatalk

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Artur

Got butthurt with my comments?! Don't let fanboyism get the best of you

I'm very proud of being a fan. These kinds of childish and pathetic comments and rebuttals are usually the tools of those that no longer have valid arguments....even if you use a smilie.

Originally Posted by Artur

The estimations I posted(3.5 to 4s impact of -10MJ, at LM) came directly from predictions made by engineers of your team, NOT MY OWN.

This is not being questioned here

Originally Posted by Artur

My disapointment with the laptimes is my emotion, but the poor performance of the cars(meaning slow and unreliable including the #1) is pretty much a fact, not a subjective perception.

The # 1 car was the fastest on track. It may not have set the fastest lap, but it had the fastest average time if you count normal racing laps (laps under 3:30), and furthermore it did more laps under 3:23.0 than any other car. There was nothing wrong with its performance. It had a water pump issue that was complicated to fix due to the positioning of the pump.

Originally Posted by Artur

In a way I'm slightly surprised with this. I had you as a more critical and reasonable fan rather than such a passionate one.

Can you get more sanctimonious?

Originally Posted by Artur

I saw your prediction, on the appropriate thread, and it was a pole of 3.17.4 for Audi. Mine was a 3.18.2 by Porsche, so my subjective perception worked far better there but still didn't match the actual rather poor performance displayed by the cars

Please award yourself a medal. You obviously take the prediction thread very seriously. how old are you again?

Originally Posted by Artur

But then, please, continue to contradict yourself and claim that the cars were not slow(and unreliable) and that is only my subjective perception.

Yes, I have not used up my quota of contradiction.

Originally Posted by Artur

Audi had the fastest car in 2014 and you can never say the fastest car didn't win on merit. Also, Audi already had their issues before and that's only why Porsche was still a contender with a couple of hours left. Not only that but even with Audi's issues and Porsche with no issues, Audi would likely still have won as they were much faster and, after hour 21, #2 Audi was just 5s behind the much slower leading Porsche.

You miss the point: What was said during the commentary was very unfair to all the men and women that worked extremely hard at Porsche to obtain a victory. It was an attempt to diminish their accomplishment publicly and on air.

Originally Posted by Artur

When you're ultra passionate about something, it's very easy to think that you're the only one that sees things objectively while everybody else has weak opinions , when it's actually the opposite, obviously.

Thank you for this pearl of wisdom. I'll learn and grow from it.

[TF110]

Best not to even bother replying to Arthur. He seems so disappointed with the lap times yet he still watches. It's not worth an argument. Porsche won. So what if they weren't as fast as last year. The race was great, up until the last half hour there was no clear favorite. And then in the last 5 minutes, Porsche took the win.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by TF110

Best not to even bother replying to Arthur. He seems so disappointed with the lap times yet he still watches. It's not worth an argument. Porsche won. So what if they weren't as fast as last year. The race was great, up until the last half hour there was no clear favorite. And then in the last 5 minutes, Porsche took the win.

Yes, extraordinary behavior.

BTW - You know that I had Toyota as firm favorites (see the Toyota Thread) and I always thought they would do well. What happened to them was very, very unfortunate and I think it is clear that they have all the respect in the world from their competition and fans around the world.

Oh! - What I was surprised by was Audi's performance, but then again I think Audi themselves were surprised by it too. I'm sure that it is only a temporary setback and they will sort their car out soon. I also think that their car will work far better in the shorter tracks and shorter races, so the rest of the season promises to be explosive.
My one concern is that I think the motivation levels of the #1 Porsche will be ...not as high as we would want it to be.

[TF110]

The amount of publicity they garnered from that last lap is amazing. I don't know if the bigger story is Porsche winning, or Toyota losing on the last lap. But there was and still is serious attention and a lot of talking about this race. It was an automatic classic.

[Gingers4Justice]

The behaviour of all three manufacturers this year has been incredible - and it makes me think that Peugeot pulling out maybe wasn't such a bad thing overall.

In all the fuss of the race though, it's easy to forget that the #2 Porsche carried out quite a rare feat at Le Mans this year - it converted a pole position into a win.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

and it makes me think that Peugeot pulling out maybe wasn't such a bad thing overall.

What are you implying?

[sssssssss]

i think the "not winning on merit" comments are absolutely unfair. especially about porsche this year. setting the fastest lap of the race with 60 cars on track seems to be significantly harder (you can also tell by the big difference between fastest lap per car vs. ideal lap per car), but in terms of average times, as well as ideal lap, which shows the true potential of the car, porsche have it over toyota. so i think it's fair to say porsche was the fastest car in this race - by a very small margin, but it was. anyway, it desn't matter if it's the fastest or not. it matters if it's the fastest to last the distance.

ultimately, i really believe there is no such thing as not winning on pure merit, unless you win it behind closed doors with the rule makers, which is a whole different type of story. again: this is ENDURANCE racing. that means a very simple thing: the fastest car to last the distance is the winner and, in doing so, it's got all the merit. if you last 23h57min, you do not deserve to win, because others last for 24h. if the porsche would have broken down too, audi, although 12 laps behind and having an awful performance, would deserve the win. they would win it on merit.

[chernaudi]

My feeling is that Porsche did luck into the win because the #2 didn't have the performance to keep up with the #5 Toyota. However, this was a 24 hour race, not a 23 hr 56 minute race (ironically, a day is actually 23 hr 56 minutes, but 24 hours is easier to keep record of, and it's also why we have leap year every 4 years). Luck and fate always have something to do with who wins and who doesn't. That's the "what if" factor.

What if the #1 didn't have engine problems? What if the #6 didn't spin and have to spend time in the pits for bodywork repairs? What if the #6 didn't bang into the Aston Martin GTE-Am car that caused the body damage in the first place? What if, what if, what if.

You can have the fastest car, but in the end, it matters little if you can't finish the race or lose too much time and track position because of problems, minor or major.

You can test and test and have no problems, but all three factory teams in LMP1 showed, you can't control fate and luck, and those two factors will do whatever they want, when they want. That's why it's never really over until the final lap is completed, and even then, that's not always 100% the case.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

My feeling is that Porsche did luck into the win because the #2 didn't have the performance to keep up with the #5 Toyota. However, this was a 24 hour race, not a 23 hr 56 minute race (ironically, a day is actually 23 hr 56 minutes, but 24 hours is easier to keep record of, and it's also why we have leap year every 4 years). Luck and fate always have something to do with who wins and who doesn't. That's the "what if" factor.

What if the #1 didn't have engine problems? What if the #6 didn't spin and have to spend time in the pits for bodywork repairs? What if the #6 didn't bang into the Aston Martin GTE-Am car that caused the body damage in the first place? What if, what if, what if.

You can have the fastest car, but in the end, it matters little if you can't finish the race or lose too much time and track position because of problems, minor or major.

You can test and test and have no problems, but all three factory teams in LMP1 showed, you can't control fate and luck, and those two factors will do whatever they want, when they want. That's why it's never really over until the final lap is completed, and even then, that's not always 100% the case.

Actually the #2 was slightly faster than #5. Toyota's were very lucky with yellow flags and slow zones and the #2 lost too much time and was not quick enough to gain it back on track.

If we look at the data, we find that the #2 did 12 laps under 3:23.0 whilst the #5 managed 3 laps below the same mark.
If we look at laps 3:30 and below, you will find that the #2 did 266 laps with an average time of 3:25.7. The # 5 did 261 laps with an average of 3:25.9.

As you can see from the data, the Porsche was faster when the cars were going fast. They lost time with the pit stops (about 1.5 minutes more in relation to the #5) and also when going through the slow zones.

BTW- The fastest car by far, was the #1.