Le Mans Le Mans 2015
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
Incubus
Champion Elect
Have we heard anything from them about the cause of the crash at all?
When I saw it I was reminded of something once read about unexplained crashes in motor racing where the driver simply steers the same way as je has been doing for hours, the tyres aren't particularly worn and there is nothing wrong with the car and weather conditions haven't suddenly changed.
Something to do with micro-sleep, where some brain functions temporarily shut down due to fatigue and the driver literally falls asleep for a nanosecond or so without even having been aware of it.
I wonder if this is something that is commonplace at Le Mans but hardly ever results in a crash and it's just plain bad luck when it does.
When I saw it I was reminded of something once read about unexplained crashes in motor racing where the driver simply steers the same way as je has been doing for hours, the tyres aren't particularly worn and there is nothing wrong with the car and weather conditions haven't suddenly changed.
Something to do with micro-sleep, where some brain functions temporarily shut down due to fatigue and the driver literally falls asleep for a nanosecond or so without even having been aware of it.
I wonder if this is something that is commonplace at Le Mans but hardly ever results in a crash and it's just plain bad luck when it does.
Last edited:
I haven't heard anything, and so given that I would lean towards driver error, since if something had broken, in the circumstances they would normally want to take it off his shoulders. It was an odd looking crash and the RLM commentators speculated about a mix up on the pedals - foot slipping off the brake or something - which was totally unsubstantiated but a possibility, I suppose.
Go on, I'd like to read that.
That accessibility makes it far easier to attract new fans, as the drivers are real people to the youngsters rather than a somewhat mysterious figure that they can only read about in magazines or see on tv shows. That human connection makes a world of difference, IMO. Our nieces and nephews were ardent Kristensen fans for nearly a decade, starting before they were 10 years old, because he spent a little time with them at an autograph sessions at Le Mans. They were crushed when he retired. I doubt that they will ever feel the same about any F1 driver, who seem more interested in getting out of town the instant the race is over than in spending time with their fans.
DaveD
Learner
Gallahad,
Totally agree regarding Porsche success = 8MJ with same weight. The Fox coverage mentioned they'd also gone to a single piece tub rather than a two piece and they had shaved somewhere near 30kg off the total weight of the car. They were actually overweight last year but down to 870kg for 2015.
But you could watch them come out of slow corners and leave the Audi like it was standing still. That 8MJ system is incredible and I would expect to see them drop the weight another 10KG or so this year and put it as ballast down on the floor.
I'm curious if all that savings was from batteries alone or if they also moved from Silicon to SiC or GaAs for the inverters and other electronics. I've seen some new specs where they say they can cut down the weight/volume of the electronics by 50-70% and boost the efficiency up over 98% as well as reducing a huge chunk of the cooling needed because they generate less heat AND they can run at higher temps anyway.
That's one hell of a combination of win/win/win/win for racing so I'd be surprised if they haven't already done at least some use of SiC or GaAs.
Totally agree regarding Porsche success = 8MJ with same weight. The Fox coverage mentioned they'd also gone to a single piece tub rather than a two piece and they had shaved somewhere near 30kg off the total weight of the car. They were actually overweight last year but down to 870kg for 2015.
But you could watch them come out of slow corners and leave the Audi like it was standing still. That 8MJ system is incredible and I would expect to see them drop the weight another 10KG or so this year and put it as ballast down on the floor.
I'm curious if all that savings was from batteries alone or if they also moved from Silicon to SiC or GaAs for the inverters and other electronics. I've seen some new specs where they say they can cut down the weight/volume of the electronics by 50-70% and boost the efficiency up over 98% as well as reducing a huge chunk of the cooling needed because they generate less heat AND they can run at higher temps anyway.
That's one hell of a combination of win/win/win/win for racing so I'd be surprised if they haven't already done at least some use of SiC or GaAs.
IMHO, this year's Le Mans was in stark contrast to current F1. From the drop of the flag to start to race to the finish 24 hours later there were myriad battles constantly being waged throughout the entire field. This is in stark contrast to F1 where, barring unforeseen circumstances, the final result is determined at the first turn of the first lap. This has been true for the last 10 years and only becomes more true with each successive season. At Le Mans a driver can make a HUGE difference, whereas in F1, it basically seems to all be determined by which team a driver is employed by, as the driver seems to be an increasingly small part of the equation.
As a consequence, we intend to carry on as we have for over a half-century and always attend Le Mans, while, sad to say, it may well be that we have attended our last F1 GP. Even our daughter, who has attended approx a dozen GPs over the last 4 years (without our accompaniment to influence her) says that F1 is, beyond doubt, the most boring of all motor racing forms that she has attended (and the plummeting live audience and tv numbers for F1 seem to prove the validity of her opinion).
As a consequence, we intend to carry on as we have for over a half-century and always attend Le Mans, while, sad to say, it may well be that we have attended our last F1 GP. Even our daughter, who has attended approx a dozen GPs over the last 4 years (without our accompaniment to influence her) says that F1 is, beyond doubt, the most boring of all motor racing forms that she has attended (and the plummeting live audience and tv numbers for F1 seem to prove the validity of her opinion).
Plummeting audiences are to a large extent down to Sky and other like companies who charge the earth for exclusive viewing.
How does Sky effect the crowd numbers at the races?
DaveD
Learner
I think pay-per-view destroys the fan base as it keeps young fans away from ever learning the sport and becoming interested in F1. I have no problem with it being AVAILABLE if people want to pay to see the race with extra coverage and no adverts as I would gladly pay for it myself that way. But we need the option of free to air for most people to grow the fan base. And why would sponsors pay more money if the total number of eyeballs is dropping? That's the whole reason they get in the sport: for more exposure.
But what does Bernie care? He gets more money from some oil sheik in Qatar and he gets to line his pockets.
But what does Bernie care? He gets more money from some oil sheik in Qatar and he gets to line his pockets.
F1Brits_90
World Champion
just a question as i couldn't find a technical area to place this in, but what is the difference between the hybrid LMP1 engine that powers porsche & the Hybrid F1 engines. as was thinking could an f1 team that wants a new engine supplier more red bull than mclaren have thats as an option or is majority differences making them no gos
Last edited:
The LMP1 hybrid power output is calculated as a total power based on the fossil fuel engine and battery power. For example, Porsche have a 2 litre V4 turbo petrol engine with an 8 mega joule hybrid system whilst Audi have 3.7 litre V6 diesel turbo with a 4 mega joule hybrid.
The F1 engines are far more prescriptive with limits on the energy recovery (or energy use per lap), max revs, fuel type, engine size and design. The energy recovery is similar but in LMP1 they use the Hybrid energy to drive the front wheels and 4 wheel drive is forbidden in F1.
The F1 engines are far more prescriptive with limits on the energy recovery (or energy use per lap), max revs, fuel type, engine size and design. The energy recovery is similar but in LMP1 they use the Hybrid energy to drive the front wheels and 4 wheel drive is forbidden in F1.
This race is hard to visualise! So in lieu of the all-singing and dancing version, here's an analysis of the cars that finished first and second: Porsche #19, driven by Hülkenberg, Tandy and Bamber, and Porsche #17, driven by Bernhard, Hartley and Webber.
The following chart tracks the gap between the two cars (the black line) as the laps count down the middle from top to bottom. The size of the gap is measured in seconds (top axis) When the black line is on the right of the central axis, car #17 (Bernhard/Hartley/Webber) is ahead.
The red shading on the left-hand side shows which driver was behind the wheel of the #17 car; the blue shading on the right likewise for the winning #19. The four Safety Car periods are indicated by grey shading.
The #17 car took the lead on lap one and pulled clear, while Hülkenberg lost ground to the Audis. An early Safety Car brought them back up to the pack, but once running freely, again Timo Bernhard could pull out a gap.
By the end of lap 47, Hartley had a lead of 32 seconds over Nick Tandy, enough of a gap for them to be picked up by different Safety Cars, greatly increasing the advantage of the #17 car. Furthermore, Tandy was due a pitstop, and knowing the car would be held at pit exit, Porsche took the opportunity to change the tyres and driver. By the restart, the ultimately winning car was 2m30s in arrears.
Things settle into something of a stalemate, with the gaps fluctuating according to pitstop sequence, until Webber takes over #17 on lap 84 (8:23pm). Both Bamber and Hülkenberg are able to take huge chunks out of the gap, bringing it from 60s down to 20s, ensuring that when Webber's third stop coincides with a Safety Car period on lap 123, Hülkenberg can join the tail of the same train as the Australian (note at this point, Webber runs second to Audi #7).
At the restart, Webber is passed by Hülkenberg on the Mulsanne Straight for second on lap 128, although initially Hülkenberg cannot build an advantage, and pits to put Webber back in front. The #17 car has, however, been assessed a 1-minute stop-go penalty for overtaking under yellow flags during Hartley's stint. Webber finishes his stint with pitstops on successive laps, and Hülkenberg leads by 2m10s.
Nick Tandy takes over with a lead of 1m02s on lap 146 at a quarter past midnight, and has a slight edge on Timo Bernhard during the night. The gap ebbs and flows with the drivers catching slow zones out of sequence, but Earl Bamber returns to the wheel with a lead of 1m15s.
In the next stint, Hartley matches Tandy and Bamber through his first three stints, but on old tyres loses time in the fourth, before handing back to Webber. Again the current F1 driver is substantially quicker than the former F1 driver, but this time a Safety Car deployment is advantageous for the Australian as Hülkenberg pits under yellows. The team take the opportunity to repair light damage sustained lapping a slower car.
Timo Bernhard takes over at 9:15am but is engaged in battle with the #9 Audi over second place, and cannot make any inroads on the leader. Over this spell the Audi falls away, but a gap of almost a lap is unbridgeable. Porsche hand the car over from Bamber to Hülkenberg early for best use of the tyres, and Nico can romp home to victory.
Conclusions? Both cars received equal treatment by the Safety Car, and the stop-go penalty cost around 1m25s in total, considering time lost due to the pitlane speed limit. So, happily, the difference was made by the winning crew of drivers in the end.
The following chart tracks the gap between the two cars (the black line) as the laps count down the middle from top to bottom. The size of the gap is measured in seconds (top axis) When the black line is on the right of the central axis, car #17 (Bernhard/Hartley/Webber) is ahead.
The red shading on the left-hand side shows which driver was behind the wheel of the #17 car; the blue shading on the right likewise for the winning #19. The four Safety Car periods are indicated by grey shading.
The #17 car took the lead on lap one and pulled clear, while Hülkenberg lost ground to the Audis. An early Safety Car brought them back up to the pack, but once running freely, again Timo Bernhard could pull out a gap.
By the end of lap 47, Hartley had a lead of 32 seconds over Nick Tandy, enough of a gap for them to be picked up by different Safety Cars, greatly increasing the advantage of the #17 car. Furthermore, Tandy was due a pitstop, and knowing the car would be held at pit exit, Porsche took the opportunity to change the tyres and driver. By the restart, the ultimately winning car was 2m30s in arrears.
Things settle into something of a stalemate, with the gaps fluctuating according to pitstop sequence, until Webber takes over #17 on lap 84 (8:23pm). Both Bamber and Hülkenberg are able to take huge chunks out of the gap, bringing it from 60s down to 20s, ensuring that when Webber's third stop coincides with a Safety Car period on lap 123, Hülkenberg can join the tail of the same train as the Australian (note at this point, Webber runs second to Audi #7).
At the restart, Webber is passed by Hülkenberg on the Mulsanne Straight for second on lap 128, although initially Hülkenberg cannot build an advantage, and pits to put Webber back in front. The #17 car has, however, been assessed a 1-minute stop-go penalty for overtaking under yellow flags during Hartley's stint. Webber finishes his stint with pitstops on successive laps, and Hülkenberg leads by 2m10s.
Nick Tandy takes over with a lead of 1m02s on lap 146 at a quarter past midnight, and has a slight edge on Timo Bernhard during the night. The gap ebbs and flows with the drivers catching slow zones out of sequence, but Earl Bamber returns to the wheel with a lead of 1m15s.
In the next stint, Hartley matches Tandy and Bamber through his first three stints, but on old tyres loses time in the fourth, before handing back to Webber. Again the current F1 driver is substantially quicker than the former F1 driver, but this time a Safety Car deployment is advantageous for the Australian as Hülkenberg pits under yellows. The team take the opportunity to repair light damage sustained lapping a slower car.
Timo Bernhard takes over at 9:15am but is engaged in battle with the #9 Audi over second place, and cannot make any inroads on the leader. Over this spell the Audi falls away, but a gap of almost a lap is unbridgeable. Porsche hand the car over from Bamber to Hülkenberg early for best use of the tyres, and Nico can romp home to victory.
Conclusions? Both cars received equal treatment by the Safety Car, and the stop-go penalty cost around 1m25s in total, considering time lost due to the pitlane speed limit. So, happily, the difference was made by the winning crew of drivers in the end.
DaveD
Learner
!!! I just dated myself badly! I just realized that I said GaAs when I meant GaN! Gallium Nitride is one of the new candidates for wide band electronics, Gallium Arsenide was one of the materials we were playing with when I was a young engineer back in the late 80's and we were trying to find something faster than silicon to speed up computer circuits.I doubt anyone else cares, but if there are any EE's in the crowd, I'm sure they got a good laugh at me on that one.
Last edited:
