[LM24 Race] LMP2. Team Essex wins the forgotten class.

[Adam43]

Less interest in LMP2 this year because of the lack of the Boss

The Porsches were the class of the field, with a good battle in the early stages. It grew gradually and with a few jumps too. Eventually the Goh car went out in a big crash near the end.

Team Essex were the class of the field, sneaking into the top 10. The Speedy Lola Coupe was second 15 laps down, with the Oak Pescarolo another 17 laps behind. There was a nice bit of variety through the field and probably as healthy a grid as I remember.

Did it grab your attention?

[AndrewF31]

Between the overall victory challenge, and everything else going on, good and bad, in the P1s, and the interesting fight in GT2, the P2s (not to mention GT1's Corvette parade) did get a bit forgotten in my case, although I frequently went to check how that was going.
For a good part of the race Goh and Essex went at it. I remember at one point at night Collard came into pit and the Goh was right behind them and Kunimoto handed over to Maassen and I was thinking "well, if Kunimoto could stick with Collard, Goh's got a good chance to win".

In terms of pace, it seemed the Ara and Kunimoto had a bit of an edge for Elgaard and Poulsen. However, possibly Collard has a bit of an edge over Maassen.

It was a shame, as well as scary, to see the Goh exit the race, and also a shame that many of the P2's fell over the way side, reminding everyone of the way the class was not soo long ago.

Was negatively surprised by teams like Quifel ASM (never got it going and ended up retiring early), Racing Box (fantastic crew but a car that just wasn't there).
In the end, the Porsche were just too much ahead of the rest and that kind of spoils the party. If they're gonna let Porsche into P2, might was well not restrict P2's performance because at least then you could see these P2 Porsches taking on the P1 guys.

[Dani Filth]

sure did . in the early hours was watching the gaps between the porkies. Goh even managed to lead for a while with Kunimoto i think .. which was quite a nice surprise
Poulsen was the "weak" link in Essex but it didn't break
after goh lost those 3 laps .. the race in lmp2 was kinda over


LE .. Gt1 actually was quite nice for a few stints but ..

[zac510]

Yeah Goh led for a while on Saturday evening.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

There was a nice bit of variety through the field and probably as healthy a grid as I remember.

Did it grab your attention?

Yes it did! I actually thought the #33 Speedy Racing Team Sebah Lola B08/80 was the most beautiful car in the field taking into account body style and livery. Even though the 2 Porsches ran away from the field most of the race, the LMP2s put on a great show and kept my interest.

DK

[isynge]

For me the battle between the two RS Spyders was one of the highlights of the race, seeming locked together for a long time and not a lot to be drawn between them. The RML vs Speedy Sebah battle also was pretty compelling. The meltdown at the end was undeniably disappointing though - the struggle to get any LMP2 running just to get on the podium at the end wasn't really representative of what the class should be about.

[Dunlop Corner]

Essex clearly had the edge, but the early safetycars made Goh get back to them. When Poulsen did his first stint, Kunimoto took the lead for a while. Apart from that, Elgaard and Collard slowly drove away.
Then just after the Treluyer SC, there was the incident with Goh hitting Essex from behind. Essex was faster on their repair, and had a healthy lead. Goh was never really able to threaten to get back, and unfortunately their race ended early. Essex deserved the win, but equally Goh deserved to be on the podium.

A good race for the LMP2, probably the best the class has ever seen. But Essex was simply a bit above Goh. Poulsen was only in the car twice for a total of 3 stints, but he seemed happy just to be a part of it. Well done to Casper and Manu, who spent alot of time in the car.

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by dxk1

Yes it did! I actually thought the #33 Speedy Racing Team Sebah Lola B08/80 was the most beautiful car in the field taking into account body style and livery. Even though the 2 Porsches ran away from the field most of the race, the LMP2s put on a great show and kept my interest.

DK

Wow, do I agree with you!

The P1 Speedy car was an awesome looker too!

[Fab]

If I always have been against the "under classes", I have to admit that P2 entries were a major improvement this year, in comparaison with what I saw in the early 2000' - it was a survival at this time.

The cars are really great at all points, and the Porkers were able to match part of the P1 field. The Lola Coupes were really great too.

All in all, a good field for privateers.

[Mike Sweeney]

Another standard, disappointing year for P2. Four cars out of twelve actually still going at the end (only two of them really racing) - sorry, that's rubbish in 2009. Huge disappointment to see RML not make it again, got to laugh at the prospect of them having even contemplated F1. I feel for Mike and Tommy who've ably demonstrated their ability to win this event given reliable equipment..

Big up to Speedy Sebah though. Well done guys

[gwyllion]

Except for the Porsch RS Spyder, the reliablity of LMP2 is still very poor. The minimum weight for LMP2 has constantly increased: 750 kg (2005) -> 775 kg (2006) -> 825 kg (2008). However, nobody seems to be using this extra weight to build a stronger car.

Perhaps it is all down to the engine rules: either you use a high reving V8 which causes a lot of vibrations or you use a (too) small turbo charged engine (more than 250 bhp/liter). I don't understand why the Sodemo BMW M3 V8 never matured.

[FIRE]

I hope the switch to GT2 engines will bring more reliability.

[Mike Sweeney]

The Judd has proven to be reliable enough many times over..and a V8 should be nowhere near stressed at the bmep required and rpm used in P2.

Don't see why a 2.0 turbo shouldn't last in this day and age, much as I dislike them - back in the '80's the Spa 24 was a touring car race, where the Cosworth Sierras managed to last ok - and we've had over twenty years of technology to help with reliability issues since then.

[zac510]

The previous AER 2 litre turbo finished le mans a few times didn't it? So definitely odd that the AER Mazda variant should fail so spectacularly.

[isynge]

The turbo issue with the Mazdas may be down to the fuel issues - although it was only around hour 22 that it all seemed to go wrong for them, which indicates to me that progress is being made.

I can see that the pressure imposed by the RS Spyders has driven the other teams to really up the tempo at which they run, which might impose an additional level of attrition - although all of this improves the spectacle of Saturday afternoon / evening. I'd much prefer the teams to go out there and be spectacular than run to the sort of conservative programme that this year might have netted them second in class.

[MCWB]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Less interest in LMP2 this year because of the lack of the Boss

For sure, I'm always more interested when Bruce Springsteen is involved.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Mike Sweeney

Don't see why a 2.0 turbo shouldn't last in this day and age, much as I dislike them - back in the '80's the Spa 24 was a touring car race, where the Cosworth Sierras managed to last ok - and we've had over twenty years of technology to help with reliability issues since then.

As isynge mentions in a later post, the issue this year is largely down to the regulation fuel being incompatible with turbocharger technology. It's a long story, and covered on several other threads over recent weeks, but in a nutshell, the 10% bio-formulation fuel used last year in the Le Mans Series and at Le Mans proved to be unsympathetic to the turbo-charged engines. Appeals to the ACO were met with assurances that the formulation would be looked into. It was, but the 2009 fuel is reputedly even less compatible than previously, so the problem is exacerbated.

Teams such as KSM, Radical, RML and Oak have all suffered from blown engines this season, some of them (such as RML) more than once. At Le Mans, KSM encountered repeated problems, RML's engine finally blew (but not until some 18 hours plus), one of the Oak cars retired, and the Radical never had chance to prove itself. Only one; the #24 Oak Pescarolo reached the flag, but its pace was never truly competitive (typically 10 seconds slower than RML). That, perhaps, is why it managed to go the distance.

It is a great shame that LMP2 is not an even playing field, and that the only way the turbo-engined cars can reach the chequered flag is not to race at all, but simply plod along at the back and pick up the pieces.

Prior to Spa, the turbocharged teams were offered mild compensation in the form of a slightly larger restrictor. I think the theory was that they could generate a similar amount of power with less stress on the engines, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.

Interestingly, an E10 95 octane formulation is starting to become more widely available from service stations in France, and there have already been warnings to French motorists to check that their engines are compatible before they fill up their tanks with the stuff. Sounds as though it's a more universal problem, perhaps.

[isynge]

The Oak car certainly was having issues in the last hour or so with a lot smoke and some flame coming from the region of the engine when it came in for its last stop. So here we've got an instance of a car that probably isn't being pushed right to the limit (it's LM result notwithstanding I think we can probably all agree that it's not crewed by the third fastest squad on the LMP2 grid) is still having engine related problems.

One would have thought that given the circumstances the LMS could adopt the ALMS control fuel - where Dyson don't seem to have had similar issues with their Mazda powerplants.

[Mike Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Thumper

As isynge mentions in a later post, the issue this year is largely down to the regulation fuel being incompatible with turbocharger technology. It's a long story, and covered on several other threads over recent weeks, but in a nutshell, the 10% bio-formulation fuel used last year in the Le Mans Series and at Le Mans proved to be unsympathetic to the turbo-charged engines. Appeals to the ACO were met with assurances that the formulation would be looked into. It was, but the 2009 fuel is reputedly even less compatible than previously, so the problem is exacerbated.

Teams such as KSM, Radical, RML and Oak have all suffered from blown engines this season, some of them (such as RML) more than once. At Le Mans, KSM encountered repeated problems, RML's engine finally blew (but not until some 18 hours plus), one of the Oak cars retired, and the Radical never had chance to prove itself. Only one; the #24 Oak Pescarolo reached the flag, but its pace was never truly competitive (typically 10 seconds slower than RML). That, perhaps, is why it managed to go the distance.

It is a great shame that LMP2 is not an even playing field, and that the only way the turbo-engined cars can reach the chequered flag is not to race at all, but simply plod along at the back and pick up the pieces.

Prior to Spa, the turbocharged teams were offered mild compensation in the form of a slightly larger restrictor. I think the theory was that they could generate a similar amount of power with less stress on the engines, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.

Interestingly, an E10 95 octane formulation is starting to become more widely available from service stations in France, and there have already been warnings to French motorists to check that their engines are compatible before they fill up their tanks with the stuff. Sounds as though it's a more universal problem, perhaps.

Sorry - it's not up to the ACO to ensure engine suppliers and racing teams do their homework and preparation thoroughly enough..and this wasn't sprung on them two weeks before the event either. If the parties concerned can't make a turbo engine using the control fuel powerful enough and able to last 1000km, 24 hours or whatever distance is needed, then perhaps they'd be better either sitting it out or using a more familiar, reliable engine package which can.

E10 is widely available in France, as you mention. The compatibility warnings are for a wholly different reason - a sort of legal disclaimer, in case Pierre accidentally fills up his R5 diesel (or one of the millions of other cars which cannot use it).

As for Isynge comments -preferring them to be there and "be spectacular" - I must have missed that bit - unless it was referring to the flames coming from the Oak car?

Seriously, if some of the teams spent a bit less on the gloss and a bit more on the engineering, the on-track show would be exponentially better for the viewer. Because currently, save Porsche and to some extent Speedy, LM P2 was downright embarrasing - again.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Mike Sweeney

Sorry - it's not up to the ACO to ensure engine suppliers and racing teams do their homework and preparation thoroughly enough..and this wasn't sprung on them two weeks before the event either. If the parties concerned can't make a turbo engine using the control fuel powerful enough and able to last 1000km, 24 hours or whatever distance is needed, then perhaps they'd be better either sitting it out or using a more familiar, reliable engine package which can.

Seriously, if some of the teams spent a bit less on the gloss and a bit more on the engineering, the on-track show would be exponentially better for the viewer. Because currently, save Porsche and to some extent Speedy, LM P2 was downright embarrasing - again.

I'm not going to get embroiled in this, so only a brief reply. I think you've missed the point. This, in effect, was sprung on the teams. There was no advanced warned of the exact formulation of the fuel. Teams had, I believe, two weeks' sight of samples before the Paul Ricard test. The control fuel in the ALMS (where most of these engines have been initially developed and tested) is different and does not have the same incompatibility issues.

Futhermore, you blame the teams, but with one or two exceptions (Porsche & Zytek come to mind) the teams are customers of the engine manufacturers, and have neither the resources nor the responsibility for undertaking the kind of development work you suggest. It is also not easy for these teams to duck out of an engine deal with their current supplier and find "a more familiar, reliable engine package" mid-season. Many are committed to deals over a period of years, as well as a chassis package that would be equally costly to modify. It's just not that easy.

I'm not sure what "gloss" you refer to, so I'll overlook that, but the two teams you select for faint praise both use normally aspirated engines. I'm told that tests on the fuel, when compared to normal (non bio) suggest that, wheras the turbocharged engines lose as much as 40 horsepower through its use (with all the associated reliability issues as well), n.a. engines actually benefit to the tune of 10-12 horsepower. They win hands down.

[Mike Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Thumper

I'm not going to get embroiled in this, so only a brief reply. I think you've missed the point. This, in effect, was sprung on the teams. There was no advanced warned of the exact formulation of the fuel. Teams had, I believe, two weeks' sight of samples before the Paul Ricard test. The control fuel in the ALMS (where most of these engines have been initially developed and tested) is different and does not have the same incompatibility issues.

Futhermore, you blame the teams, but with one or two exceptions (Porsche & Zytek come to mind) the teams are customers of the engine manufacturers, and have neither the resources nor the responsibility for undertaking the kind of development work you suggest. It is also not easy for these teams to duck out of an engine deal with their current supplier and find "a more familiar, reliable engine package" mid-season. Many are committed to deals over a period of years, as well as a chassis package that would be equally costly to modify. It's just not that easy.

I'm not sure what "gloss" you refer to, so I'll overlook that, but the two teams you select for faint praise both use normally aspirated engines. I'm told that tests on the fuel, when compared to normal (non bio) suggest that, wheras the turbocharged engines lose as much as 40 horsepower through its use (with all the associated reliability issues as well), n.a. engines actually benefit to the tune of 10-12 horsepower. They win hands down.

Ok - point(s) taken. However

If the fuel specification was seen two weeks prior to the test, that's February. Sufficient time before the first event, let alone LM24 to analyse it/test it and decide. It's just not that hard these days - honestly.

I don't blame the teams, just disappointed in them. I mentioned engine suppliers and teams as being responsible for their package. If the fuel chemistry was tested and found to be incompatible to the engine package, clearly the engine would no longer be fit for purpose and would give a team sufficient cause to walk away or re-assess their objectives based upon that evidence.

Faint praise is a bit harsh; I was truly pleased for Speedy and noted that; I expect a professional performance from a Porsche product and any team who they deem fit to support.

Before this nonsense goes on and on I'll butt out and we'll have to agree to disagree. With any luck Algarve might be better for all of them.

[isynge]

Just to clarify Mike, my comment about turning up and being spectacular had absolutely nothing to do with catching fire in the last 90 minutes.

From where I was watching in the daylight hours of Saturday there was genuine worth watching competition in LMP2. While it might be possible to disprove this by a lap-by-lap analysis using live timing the acid test of whether I was pleased by seeing the LMP2s lap close to each other from my trackside viewpoint was passed in my book. In particular RML might have taken a long view, backed it all way off and guaranteed themselves third (as it transpired), they didn't, instead going out and trying to go as fast as possible, and I take my hat off to them for that.

I've no real axe to grind about where responsibility lies, and I have no engineering background to enable me to make comments about why the turbos are struggling this year beyond what's been gone into already in this and other threads. I do think however that the expertise of some of the teams involved makes it somewhat less likely that this is a basic preparation failure on their part - to take one example, and I'm sure there may be more, RML again springs to mind - this isn't a fly by night outfit bodging together a race car hoping, but one that's run hugely successful concurrent racing programmes in such high profile series as the LMS and WTCC. I wouldn't have laughed at them having an F1 programme (there have been plenty worse) and I genuinely don't think we can point the finger of why LMP2 is unreliable at them either.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Mike Sweeney

Ok - point(s) taken. However

If the fuel specification was seen two weeks prior to the test, that's February. Sufficient time before the first event, let alone LM24 to analyse it/test it and decide. It's just not that hard these days - honestly.

I don't blame the teams, just disappointed in them. I mentioned engine suppliers and teams as being responsible for their package. If the fuel chemistry was tested and found to be incompatible to the engine package, clearly the engine would no longer be fit for purpose and would give a team sufficient cause to walk away or re-assess their objectives based upon that evidence.

Faint praise is a bit harsh; I was truly pleased for Speedy and noted that; I expect a professional performance from a Porsche product and any team who they deem fit to support.

Before this nonsense goes on and on I'll butt out and we'll have to agree to disagree. With any luck Algarve might be better for all of them.

What? The fuel sucks if you are running a turbo engine! So you either sit out the year, as you have a contract with the engine supplier or you put out more money to purchase a second engine lease program for a n/a engine, or you run around the back of the pack with a goober eating smile on your face to convey the joy with the ACO/LMS for not using Vaseline (petroleum jelly) while they give you a good shagging up the back side!
Two weeks before, you already have your ducks in a row, or should, so what do you decide? You bring it to the attention of the party responsible for the formulating of said fuel, which was, and is being done continually, to get it reformulated to work for all of the contestants. Its just not that hard these days- honestly. The fuel formula in the ALMS works just fine for the turbo engines, hmm, imagine that.
The disappointment is misplaced I believe, it should lie with the ACO/LMS for not rectifying the fuel problem.





L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by FIRE

I hope the switch to GT2 engines will bring more reliability.

That's a good point, but looking at this years results it better be a Ferrari engine you are throwing in the back of that P2 chassis!

[The Badger]

Why do you call it the forgotten class Adam ?

I thought the battle in LMP2 was a great fight , between the 2 Spyders and then for the rest of the field .