|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
25 Mar 2009, 17:18 (Ref:2424592) | #1001 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,623
|
I don't mean they were short filling the tank. I mean they were filling the tank but not having to put in as much because there was more left in the audis tank after a stint of running because they were coming in early to be on the safe side
|
|
|
25 Mar 2009, 17:25 (Ref:2424602) | #1002 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,623
|
i pretty sure its true that Audi did not come to Sebring with the car setup to do a blistering pace. You notice that they ran double dive planes on the car when TK did a 1:43. As soon as they switched to one set of diveplanes they struggled with the setup. They sacrificed that speed through the corners to have a chance against the peugeot if they were ever behind it since less downforce gave more topend. they only ran like 65 percent of the cars full potential at sebring. They won the green challenge handily over peugeot. They were not saving tires and the pace was pretty much equal with peugeot. That leaves the fuel. They have way better economy even though they did not show it. The audi was actually doing shorter stints than the peugeot by a lap or two. They used way more tires. And the pace was equal. fuel economy is the only variable. We saw the tire usage and the pace. what we could not see was inside the feul tank. I guarantee if the audi and peugoet came in at the same time and the fuel men put the hose into the cars at the same time the audi would come out first because they weren't coming in on empty(like the peugeot) they were being safe.
|
|
|
25 Mar 2009, 18:00 (Ref:2424629) | #1003 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Then they probably would have stopped later at the end.
|
|
|
25 Mar 2009, 18:57 (Ref:2424663) | #1004 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 285
|
I would tend to agree that neither Audi nor Peugout went all out the first half of the race. Any 30 second advantage or so, was bound to be wiped out by the inevitable full course cautions. Just stay on the lead lap, and get some mileage.
But in the second half, certainly after the Peugout puncture, i am sure both cars were going flatout. And i still don't buy that Audi had plenty of fuel to spare. They were just 5 minutes short of being able to make it on one stop less, yet they did not do that (most likely because they simply were unable to go much further than they already did). |
|
|
25 Mar 2009, 22:20 (Ref:2424816) | #1005 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,880
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Mar 2009, 23:16 (Ref:2424862) | #1006 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,589
|
That is pretty much spot on!
|
||
__________________
Le Mans Christian Bakkerud, Team Kolles Formula Renault 2.0 NEC Mikkel Mac DTC Martin Marrill, M-Sport |
26 Mar 2009, 00:31 (Ref:2424907) | #1007 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 99
|
what i have learned from this weekend is that:
Porsche has futher imroved the 997 RSR it's balance & suspension,which translates into longer tire life & more consistent pace.they have also moved the radiator back,so the car is not as fragile as the 2007 & 2008 RSR.the car it's fastest race lap in 2009 was as fast as last years fastest race lap,impressive considering the 2009 rules.but they need to work on the car it's reliability.the F430 & RSR are still the cars to have in GT2 and they barely lost race pace.audis V10 diesel engine is very impressive,but i 'm looking forward to lemans to see what it does against peugots V12 diesel engine on the long straits.and the acuras v8 petrol engine needs turbos.looking forward to round 2 at st.pete. |
|
|
26 Mar 2009, 00:45 (Ref:2424916) | #1008 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
Reliability? Really? Where were the cars unreliable, rather than being unreliable about not being driven into hard objects?
I thought David Murry had tons of race pace in the Doran Ford GTR, by the way. The car lost race pace on the ultimate scale because its other drivers are slower, but David was definitely keeping up with the joneses in his first stint. |
||
|
26 Mar 2009, 13:38 (Ref:2425257) | #1009 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 285
|
The Farnbacher Porsche lost the race because of a purely non-driver related technical problem i think.
|
|
|
26 Mar 2009, 14:09 (Ref:2425287) | #1010 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Yes, the #87 car lost its differential.
...but to go from a mechanical mishap in one car , to declaring the new 997 RSR as "unreliable" is a stretch of the imagination. |
||
|
26 Mar 2009, 14:55 (Ref:2425323) | #1011 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,910
|
I noticed that too, but I thought he did lose a little time at the end of his first stint - i just chalked that up to tire wear on the Dunlops compared to the cars chasing him on Michelins.
|
||
|
26 Mar 2009, 15:05 (Ref:2425328) | #1012 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 99
|
Nurburgring LMS last year broken differential,Fia Gt Silverstone & Spa 24 hours leaking front schock,Sebring this year farnbacher-loles broken differential.the RSR is fast but these things are costing it race victories & podiums.even my source said that.the ford gt and the panoz have improved and david,ian & dominik are fast drivers,but in a race the F430 & the RSR are still faster.porsche is also looking at the rear suspension design(to make it stronger).
|
|
|
27 Mar 2009, 01:25 (Ref:2425723) | #1013 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
It was not clear at the time whether the component that failed had been replaced after Lietz's spin into the barriers in the morning warmup. Has it been made clear? It was definitely on the corner he smacked...
|
||
|
27 Mar 2009, 03:48 (Ref:2425823) | #1014 | |
Rookie
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 94
|
Which of the joneses was Murry keeping up with in his first stint? Not the Risi, the 87 or the 95. First of the "Others" is how I saw it, and pushing more than the tires would take to do it.
I believe that Murry took the J. Melo course in "Passing into 7", but maybe not: Melo at least was on the inside. In the dirt, but inside. On the other hand, the car was reliable, even after contact with 3 other cars during the race, and, if Murry had had better co-drivers, it probably would have bettered the Panoz. But that car is a long way from the top rank over a full stint or even a qualifying lap. |
|
|
27 Mar 2009, 04:07 (Ref:2425830) | #1015 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,299
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 Mar 2009, 11:18 (Ref:2426034) | #1016 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
Sure, the Ford is probably not on Porsche or Ferrari level just yet. But comparing to what a joke the car has been for the last couple of years, it was a very encouraging and impressive performance at Sebring! |
||
|
27 Mar 2009, 11:50 (Ref:2426054) | #1017 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,744
|
They made a big step in the right direction.
I am also surprised by the old Panoz. |
|
|
27 Mar 2009, 12:28 (Ref:2426086) | #1018 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Let's not forget that the Ford, Panoz and Viper got some help from IMSA in the form of rule breaks: http://www.imsaracing.net/2009/alms/...ms%2009-03.pdf
|
|
|
27 Mar 2009, 14:50 (Ref:2426183) | #1019 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
Quote:
How the car was a long way off on a qualifying lap when his qualifying lap was not a long way off is a mystery to me. Is that Porker in your avatar blinding you to reality? I agree with Canada ALMS Fan - that team has a lot to be proud of. I hope that the notion of putting a pro alongside Murry for a couple of races that David Robertson was discussing comes to fruition. gywliion, you're right, they got some help, but they had the help for a while without doing anything like this, so it's to their - and Primetime's - credit that they have capitalized on it. Wonder why the Ford hasn't had its benefits rescinded like the Viper's? What's the point in breaks to make a car more competitive if they lose them when they get there? |
|||
|
27 Mar 2009, 14:57 (Ref:2426193) | #1020 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,306
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 Mar 2009, 17:08 (Ref:2426277) | #1021 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,910
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 Mar 2009, 17:42 (Ref:2426303) | #1022 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
27 Mar 2009, 19:03 (Ref:2426351) | #1023 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22
|
Ferrari got zero in terms of "help" with homologation, in fact, this year they had to reduce the restrictors even more because they were no longer allowed to use the air conditioning "waiver" that allowed the use of a larger restrictor when air condition was in use as had been possible in previous years.
In 2008 with no A/c the Ferrari had to use a 28.1 mm restrictor. The use of A/c allowed it to use 28.3 mm. This year they must use 27.4 mm. Of all of the current cars in GT2 the Ferrari is the "weakest" in terms of restrictors Vs weight etc. |
||
|
27 Mar 2009, 20:55 (Ref:2426417) | #1024 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 Mar 2009, 21:31 (Ref:2426448) | #1025 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ALMS Rnd 1: 12 hours of Sebring 19 Mar 2005 | Fab | North American Racing | 64 | 1 Apr 2005 11:30 |
ALMS Rnd 1: 12 hours of Sebring 17-18 Mar 2005 Qualifying | The Badger | North American Racing | 100 | 24 Mar 2005 13:23 |
ALMS Rnd 1: Sebring 12 Hour 18-20 Mar 2004 (closed: comments in "after race" thread) | rdjones | North American Racing | 825 | 21 Mar 2004 12:57 |
ALMS Rnd 1: 12 Hours of Sebring 16-18 Mar 2000 | marcus | North American Racing | 2 | 20 Mar 2000 20:34 |