[WEC] Rebellion Racing

[Irie]

Can't they get the data from the FIA fuel flow sensor and display the used fuel to the driver at least?

[S griffin]

I don’t know if the FIA can let them or not

[GasperG]

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?

[Mike E]

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.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Mike E

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.

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.

[Mike E]

Fair point

[joeb]

Originally Posted by TF110

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.

Probably money.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by joeb

Probably money.

Could well be. If that is indeed the case, I don't see what complaining about it does but maybe the ACO helps them out if they plead their case?

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Mike E

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.

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.

[silente]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

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.

They have a fuel flow, regulating how much fuel they can use for each hour. This determines the engine max power. Anyway, if they would use this amount of fuel the whole time, they would be out of the regulated maximum amount of energy allowed per lap, ergo coasting before braking.

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.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by silente

They have a fuel flow, regulating how much fuel they can use for each hour. This determines the engine max power. Anyway, if they would use this amount of fuel the whole time, they would be out of the regulated maximum amount of energy allowed per lap, ergo coasting before braking.

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.

Thanks for that!

So not an oversight, nor (in all probability) money, simply that such a system does not, as yet, exist for privateers.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by silente

and this change was proposed by the Aco a few days before Spa.

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.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

So it's a problem solved by time.

5 and a bit weeks?

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Let's hope so!

[silente]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

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.

2 weeks before a race, with preparation going full steam and one car still to complete is not a short time for you?

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...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by silente

2 weeks before a race, with preparation going full steam and one car still to complete is not a short time for you?

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.

[S griffin]

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

[TF110]

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.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

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.

Just to point out, then the 16th of April through to 2nd May, when the cars arrived at Spa, is 17 days. That's closer to 2 weeks than 3 weeks. So no, he didn't read it wrong - he was as accurate as you can be without adding decimal points to the weeks and remembering that a race does not begin on race day morning and no adjustments can be made to cars when in the back of trucks.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by S griffin

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

Ok, just putting my devil's advocate hat on here - but why can't they complain?

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.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Just to point out, then the 16th of April through to 2nd May, when the cars arrived at Spa, is 17 days. That's closer to 2 weeks than 3 weeks. So no, he didn't read it wrong - he was as accurate as you can be without adding decimal points to the weeks and remembering that a race does not begin on race day morning and no adjustments can be made to cars when in the back of trucks.

Please do try to read better. The latest adjustment was on that date. The original numbers were published in 2017 and later adjusted before the Prologue.

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

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Ok, just putting my devil's advocate hat on here - but why can't they complain?

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.

No, it's neither. This is the FIA/ACO going along with the plan laid out way beforehand. Toyota is the benchmark, that has been stated multiple times. Neither are they running to different regulations, they are now in fact since this year for the first time running to the exact same regulations. The difference is made in the EoT tables.

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.

[Akrapovic]

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

[EffectiveSprinkles]

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.

[Akrapovic]

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