'09 ALMS Round One Sebring Mar.18-21

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

They would have used any advantage in fuel mileage at the end (and filled it up all the way at the second to last stop if they hadn't before). I don't think the stint before the last pitstop was longer than any of others.

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

[Audi Racer]

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.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

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

Then they probably would have stopped later at the end.

[Dunlop Corner]

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).

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Dunlop Corner

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).

Well, when McNish was fighting Montagny I think he was at 110%!

[Aslak Vind]

That is pretty much spot on!

[b555]

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.

[cmk]

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.

[Dunlop Corner]

The Farnbacher Porsche lost the race because of a purely non-driver related technical problem i think.

[Spyderman]

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.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by cmk

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.

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.

[b555]

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).

[cmk]

Originally Posted by Dunlop Corner

The Farnbacher Porsche lost the race because of a purely non-driver related technical problem i think.

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...

[fjn356]

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.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by fjn356

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.

Compared to where this car was 12 months ago Dick Barbour has a lot to be proud of. With an all pro driver line up this car could be a dark horse after a little more development.

[Dunlop Corner]

Originally Posted by fjn356

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.

The Farnbacher and AF Corse car was some way ahead, but the Ford was actually ahead of the Risi car that started from the back. For a few laps he was all over the back of the all-pro Lizard, which is certainly not what i would describe as an "others". Also it was ahead of the BMW and Panoz, both of these cars were contending for podium finishes.

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!

[FIRE]

They made a big step in the right direction.
I am also surprised by the old Panoz.

[gwyllion]

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

[cmk]

Originally Posted by fjn356

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.

How in god's name can the car ahead going into the safety pin take the Melo approach? Jorg thought he would back out and let him through, but he held his line, and Jorg paid the price for expecting that one of the 'others' would roll over and supplicate to the mastery of Porsche. It was not as fast as the 62 or 87 but it sure did not seem a mile away either.

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?

[TWK]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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

As long as you are talking about "rule breaks," Porsche is not in full ACO trim either. And the ACO homologation for BMW allowed moving the the engine and the rear suspension mounts; both could be considered "rule breaks," though since they are included in the homologation, no bulletin need be issued.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by TWK

As long as you are talking about "rule breaks," Porsche is not in full ACO trim either. And the ACO homologation for BMW allowed moving the the engine and the rear suspension mounts; both could be considered "rule breaks," though since they are included in the homologation, no bulletin need be issued.

So did Ferrari get any breaks through homologation? or are they the only car not to have any breaks or bulletins?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

So did Ferrari get any breaks through homologation? or are they the only car not to have any breaks or bulletins?

I truly doubt that there is a single homologated car that is not given some leeway in the process. But seeing as how we do not get to see the homologation paperwork it is always a wonder.



L.P.

[td2001]

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.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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

Those are very significant performance breaks, less weight and way more restrictor. But this is IMSA's problem, they are quick to help out teams that are slow. But this obviously creates problems as those teams pick up some pace with development. Sebring was a perfect example of the problems that such performance balancing causes.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by td2001

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.

I don't see the problem. Porsche has to run with A/C as well, and they also get a 5% smaller restrictor compared to last year.