|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
7 May 2018, 10:03 (Ref:3820554) | #1951 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 486
|
Can't they get the data from the FIA fuel flow sensor and display the used fuel to the driver at least?
|
|
|
7 May 2018, 10:06 (Ref:3820557) | #1952 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,414
|
I don’t know if the FIA can let them or not
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
7 May 2018, 10:53 (Ref:3820565) | #1953 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
Difference between 2.66 and 2.60 is only 2.3%, so they were accurate to some extent, but yes every little thing counts in the end.
I doubt 10s-15s pit stop diference is down to refuelling only. They must fuel 34% more than Toyota but they are allowed to use faster fueling (fuel rig restrictor diameter 20.4 mm vs. 22.3 mm). And Toyota does their refuelling in less than 30 seconds. Did anyone time the refueling, I would guess it should come out around 5s longer for Rebellion? |
|
|
7 May 2018, 12:10 (Ref:3820580) | #1954 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,369
|
That fuel use thing is kind of ridiculous. How can they be expected to guess? Especially if the FIA knows what they are actually using.
|
||
|
7 May 2018, 21:15 (Ref:3820658) | #1955 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,396
|
I think it's ridiculous to blame the rule makers for this. If Toyota has software to use that shows them that information, what is stopping teams like Rebellion? If they are being denied then that is a different story. But that wouldn't make sense seeing as Toyota has it and Porsche had it too.
|
|
|
7 May 2018, 21:26 (Ref:3820663) | #1956 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,369
|
Fair point
|
||
|
8 May 2018, 02:15 (Ref:3820713) | #1957 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,698
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
8 May 2018, 02:29 (Ref:3820719) | #1958 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,396
|
||
|
8 May 2018, 07:17 (Ref:3820748) | #1959 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,053
|
I agree with you on this one, it is a ridiculous situation. I'm wondering if this is an oversight by the privateers, or if the necessary software is simply not available to buy off the shelf. It's a seriously bizarre situation, when fuel usage is fundamental to them racing within the rules. It could simply be down to money, but I doubt it somehow, when the teams are already throwing millions into their programmes. Having to resort to guesswork is 100% ridiculous.
|
|
|
8 May 2018, 11:30 (Ref:3820776) | #1960 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
Fuel usage and fuel flow have been set not according to each other and hence the issue. They (or their engine management supplier) can surely develop a system to coast automatically, but it needs time and this change was proposed by the Aco a few days before Spa. Such a system need to be designed, developed and tested....hence time and money that were not planned initially...hence issues. To be honest i see their point very well. |
||
|
8 May 2018, 12:08 (Ref:3820778) | #1961 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,053
|
Quote:
So not an oversight, nor (in all probability) money, simply that such a system does not, as yet, exist for privateers. |
||
|
8 May 2018, 14:28 (Ref:3820808) | #1962 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
This is not true. EoT values were last adjusted on April 16th. Before that they were set before the Prologue. I don't know where people get this wrong idea from, but please get the facts straight.
I do not believe for a second it came as a surprise to a team like Rebellion that they would have to run to a fuel number at Spa. I can believe howerver not being able to develop a fuel flow regulation system in time because of how late the programme for this year came together. So it's a problem solved by time. |
|
|
8 May 2018, 14:31 (Ref:3820811) | #1963 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,582
|
|||
__________________
44 days... |
8 May 2018, 14:36 (Ref:3820813) | #1964 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Let's hope so!
|
|
|
9 May 2018, 05:52 (Ref:3820956) | #1965 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
It would be a short time even with both cars fully operational. Also considering how few km testing Rebellion did before the race and the performance they had, i think they did an amazing job, but this is OT. Nobody, with all the complications that come before the first race of the season would be able to test and develop such a system in two weeks. Testing, in particular, is of course out of questions and it is really no option to test such a system in a race weekend. If FIA/ACO don't understand this, then they should do something else, not trying to be a governing body. My opinion, anyway, is that they simply don't care, because they HAVE TO MAKE TOYOTA WIN LE MANS, for their future interests. But this is again OT. Plus, even if you know that a change could come, you don't start investing money, time and headcounts in developing such a system before the rules don't say explicitly that you need one. It would make NO SENSE from a business perspective and no company would do it. It would simply be a waste of money and time. Also because, knowing ACO, it could well happen that they change their mind again and again and again and again... |
||
|
9 May 2018, 14:46 (Ref:3821049) | #1966 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Again, you read wrong. The latest adjustment to the numbers was on the 16th of April. The fact that the privateer cars would have to run to a fuel number was known the very first time the new regulations and stated EoT goals were outlined. Again, that last adjustment was a tweak to the numbers, not a fundamental change in the regulations. Please get this right, it invalidates the entire rest of your post.
|
|
|
9 May 2018, 15:01 (Ref:3821050) | #1967 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,414
|
Really they can’t complain, they were told they needed to run to a number and they’ve got the number. That’s my view
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 May 2018, 17:17 (Ref:3821087) | #1968 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,396
|
Just need some software to tell them what those numbers are real-time I guess. How will they find that or buy it is up to them it seems.
|
|
|
9 May 2018, 17:30 (Ref:3821095) | #1969 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 May 2018, 17:33 (Ref:3821098) | #1970 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Quote:
The EoT was apparently unbalanced. We had Toyota on one set of rules and everybody else on another. We also have Toyota with vastly more resources than all the other teams (not a criticism - just how it is). So if you were going to adjust one of these sets of rules and attempt to cause minimal disruption, would you not choose the set that only requires one team to readjust and the team that can cope with it best...especially because it was for their benefit? Does that not seem the most difficult way of doing it? Almost like pandering. Or stupid middle management. Either are quite possible. |
||
|
9 May 2018, 18:04 (Ref:3821103) | #1971 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
Once again, for clarity, the privateers have known since the start that they would have to run to a fuel number. The only change has been that actual number. Which in fact makes no difference whatsoever in this case. Rebellion had to run to 2.66L a lap if I recall at Spa. The problem is not the number, the problem is Rebellion has at the moment no system to accurately represent that number real time so the drivers have to make an educated guess. Say there had been no change in April and they could use say 2.8L per lap. That would have made no difference because they still would not have been able to represent that number real time either. You misunderstand the situation. The changes made to the EoT in April are not changes to the car itself, but to its running conditions. No changes to the car itself, so your comment about them being on the trucks is invalid. I am sounding like a broken record but it would be very nice if people would stop listening to hacks like Dagys and got the facts straight |
||
|
9 May 2018, 18:11 (Ref:3821106) | #1972 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
The deal made is that Toyota is left alone because Toyota is who asked for this in the first place. They wanted privateers to be closer. This is not pandering at all, you seem to already forget what an enormous 'gift' the privateer cars are being given. They get less weight, more fuel and more aero configurations. If anyone is being pandered to it's the privateers. And you can see already that the privateer cars are faster than they have ever been. Furthermore, at the moment there is no EoT difference between naturally aspirated engines and turbo engines. The idea is that this would have perhaps been necessary to balance the different privateer LMP1 cars. So far that seems to not be the case, but as laid out beforehand after Le Mans the EoT will be evaluated based on data from Spa and that race and if necessary adjustments will be made. Last edited by EffectiveSprinkles; 9 May 2018 at 18:17. |
||
|
9 May 2018, 18:20 (Ref:3821111) | #1973 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Not sure what else there is to read.
silente: The change was a few days before spa EffectiveSprinkles: It was 2 weeks silente: This seems like enough time to you? Akrapovic: 17 days is closer to 2 weeks than anything else EffectiveSprinkles: Do try to read better. The adjustment was 2 weeks ago. Aye ok mate. It was 2 weeks. I think we've all established this. Broken record indeed. However, I don't think that's a particularly sensible amount of time to knock off 14% of your energy allocation before you've even run the first event, and expect the teams with the least resources to be able to manage that, whilst the team with the most resources (and who benefits from the change) has to make no changes. I may be crazy. But then that'd also make the motorsport engineers in this thread crazy. I know who I'll continue to listen to |
|
|
9 May 2018, 18:30 (Ref:3821114) | #1974 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I mean, if you simply refuse to get the point then there's nothing else I can do. S Griffin and TF110 seem to grasp it just fine.
|
|
|
9 May 2018, 18:45 (Ref:3821116) | #1975 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Ah I get it - someone disagrees and they are refusing to get the point. Not that someone could possibly hold a different opinion, or that silente may be slightly more involved with the situation than what appears to be on the surface. It's just refusing to get it. Glad we sorted that out
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rebellion Chassis Numbers | WMUCarGuy | Sportscar & GT Racing | 2 | 14 Aug 2011 23:47 |
Toyota/Rebellion Racing - Le Mans/ILMC/LMS - 2011 (merged) | 92scotland | ACO Regulated Series | 686 | 16 Jun 2011 12:15 |
[Books] American Racing: Road Racing in the 50s and 60s | KC | Armchair Enthusiast | 2 | 28 Apr 2001 22:25 |
Dale Coyne Racing and Project Racing Group join forces | KC | ChampCar World Series | 2 | 6 Mar 2001 20:58 |