Those watching any portion of the Rolex 24 on television didn’t hear a rather familiar word mentioned: fuel.
While some just dismissed this language as greenwashing the sport, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for the change in terminology that makes “energy” a fa…
I for one appreciate the explanation as I didn't fully understand it.
I still kind of hate it. Get off my lawn.
But the pictographs of "energy remaining" on the TV coverage were batteries. I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure they used that for every class.
That is sorta green washing, in my opinion. They're making it seem like electric power is involved where it isn't. And even in classes where electric power is involved, it's the minority contributor to the equation, so wouldn't have been my primary choice for how they'd show "energy remaining".
But I've been accused of being too literal before.
*Also, if they gave any detailed explanation of why they were using that nomenclature, I missed it, so I appreciate it being laid out here. Does at least make some sense now. Not all the sense, but some.
You lost me at requiring a $60k additional cost to a race car to basically monitor fuel efficiency.
Seems to me JG has been greenwashed himself, in trying to explain why this isn't greenwashing. 
I hate the whole thing.
What next? A "grip factor" for tires?
"Oh look, he's operating at only 10% of max grip -- better change those tires soon"
It seems like we're (once again) complaining about BoP here. This seems like a really elegant solution to BoP, and way way way easier than a million permutations of weight/fuel capacity/fuel flow/etc etc etc based on different powerplants across different tracks.
As silly as BoP is, it made for some VERY close racing this year.
Tom Suddard said:It seems like we're (once again) complaining about BoP here. This seems like a really elegant solution to BoP, and way way way easier than a million permutations of weight/fuel capacity/fuel flow/etc etc etc based on different powerplants across different tracks.
As silly as BoP is, it made for some VERY close racing this year.
I'm fine with the BoP usage. That's behind the scenes.
I'm not fine with the "energy" PR/Marketing speak from the talking heads.
And why are you back on my lawn again? I thought I told you already. 
As with any 'new' tech there can be problems. One of the Lexus RCF's had a data indication that it was at the end of its allowable energy range and was required to come to the pits despite only having used half of the 'energy' from the previous stop. The torque sensor'd drive axles also have potential issues and failure modes. All that is to say, when piling new tech on already complicated cars there are bound to be hiccups that may have effects to the larger participation of the manufacturers. These are not always considered by the sanctioning body.
The torques sensor'd axles have an interesting side effect to the BOP. From the table of the allowable weights, RPM's, wing angles, energy usage, and energy usage rate. there is set of power available versus vehicle speed. This effectively limits torque/power curves with some loose connection to aero configuration. There is also a footnote limiting power at low speeds, which would negate powertrains with very strong low end torque curves.
Based on the data in the table one could use the power usage rate (MJ/s), car weight and speed power allowances to create comparable acceleration curves for each vehicle, but you would have to ASSUME some drag numbers.
Energy limitations can also allow for different liquid fuel types to run in competition. The LeMans 24Hr race requires competitors to use the fuel they provide. The diesel cars all used the same fuel, the gas cars all used the same fuel. However the energy density of gas and diesel are not the same. Just for a quick recollection, the diesel fuel would evaporate off the ground faster than the gas, when spilled. That is not something I have EVER experienced at the local pumps. The energy density of the diesel may not have been the same as the fuel in the road cars in the paddock. This energy equivalency COULD allow custom fuels to be mixed by teams like it was in the F1 and 80-90's GTP days. We had to remap a Gurney Eagle GTP engine for modern fuel for Goodwood because the guy that mixed the fuel was no longer alive and the recipe was not documented...
Andy Hollis said:Seems to me JG has been greenwashed himself, in trying to explain why this isn't greenwashing.
I hate the whole thing.What next? A "grip factor" for tires?
"Oh look, he's operating at only 10% of max grip -- better change those tires soon"
Just be glad I wash myself at all
Someone needs to remind me the year they have fuel remaining as data.....
Complain all you want about it called energy remaining, this is data that was not available to viewers before. Now you can see how teams are balancing the performance with fuel usage. Something we all knew they did, but now you get to see it as a strategy live.
Does it really matter it's called energy?
(WRT combustion engines, putting it like that also forces the engine designers and developers to really push for maximum efficiency, too)
Rodan said:You lost me at requiring a $60k additional cost to a race car to basically monitor fuel efficiency.
Oh the $60k is just the hard parts. Actual implementation probably doubles or triples that.
The race to the bank is an underappreciated part of pro racing.
Show business. Period. I think the main reason it looks like close racing is the stupid process of re-aligning the cars in their classes with each yellow flag. As a competitor I work for an hour to get a 20 second lead with 5 backmarkers between me and the person in my class that is chasing... then a yellow flag comes out and my advantage is wiped out. The 24Hour has become a Crashcar race that is just show for 23 hours, then there is a one hour sprint race at the end.
BOP is the opposite of meritocracy.
I prefer racing where speed and durability are the goal.
The only economy a race car should consider is the economy that produces the most laps in a given period of time.
That is probably why I mostly don't watch any racing anymore. Speed isn't the goal unless there are a bunch of arbitrary rules to make sure everyone is equally handicapped.
$60k+ in parts to implement this makes it sound like someone figured out a way to make all the teams buy hardware from whoever offered the biggest kickback.
Toyman! said:I prefer racing where speed and durability are the goal.
The only economy a race car should consider is the economy that produces the most laps in a given period of time.
That is probably why I mostly don't watch any racing anymore. Speed isn't the goal unless there are a bunch of arbitrary rules to make sure everyone is equally handicapped.
$60k+ in parts to implement this makes it sound like someone figured out a way to make all the teams buy hardware from whoever offered the biggest kickback.
What you're asking for here is literally what's being delivered by this system. It's simply a more granular method to achieve those goals which gives the teams and the sanctioning body more data to work with and a more information rich environment to make competition adjustments with.
In reply to Toyman! :
Has there ever been a race longer than 2 hours where economy didn't factor in? Or extending tire life? When stops take as long as they do, not doing one can win you a race. And over a 24 hour race, saving multiple stops is a whole lap made up.
Purple Frog said:Show business. Period. I think the main reason it looks like close racing is the stupid process of re-aligning the cars in their classes with each yellow flag. As a competitor I work for an hour to get a 20 second lead with 5 backmarkers between me and the person in my class that is chasing... then a yellow flag comes out and my advantage is wiped out. The 24Hour has become a Crashcar race that is just show for 23 hours, then there is a one hour sprint race at the end.
BOP is the opposite of meritocracy.
The core problem with auto racing is that relying on a meritocracy ends up being who can spend the most money. Which then means one team dominating and winning by many multiple laps. How is that better racing?
All the teams know the rules, and if they don't factor in the obvious yellow flags and how they are dealt with, that's on them.
alfadriver said:Purple Frog said:Show business. Period. I think the main reason it looks like close racing is the stupid process of re-aligning the cars in their classes with each yellow flag. As a competitor I work for an hour to get a 20 second lead with 5 backmarkers between me and the person in my class that is chasing... then a yellow flag comes out and my advantage is wiped out. The 24Hour has become a Crashcar race that is just show for 23 hours, then there is a one hour sprint race at the end.
BOP is the opposite of meritocracy.
The core problem with auto racing is that relying on a meritocracy ends up being who can spend the most money. Which then means one team dominating and winning by many multiple laps. How is that better racing?
All the teams know the rules, and if they don't factor in the obvious yellow flags and how they are dealt with, that's on them.
Yeah this.
Everyone thinks they want "No rules, just race" until they realize how boring that is. The last couple years of old-school GTP was basically just a Toyota time trial demo. At its best, auto racing a a problem solving endeavor and I think adjustments like this give a lot of smart people more tools to solve those problems in more clever and complex ways.
In reply to JG Pasterjak :
My issue is it's being delivered by the sanctioning body, not the race team. What that gets you is a one-size-fits-all. If a team has a better idea that would result in more laps or faster times, too bad. They are stuck using whatever the sanctioning body decides. It squashes innovation, which used to be what racing was all about.
Now it's about the show and equality which makes for a better show. It is no longer a race to find out who is best or fastest.
That's fine for a spec class, but IMHO, there is not much that is more boring to watch than a spec class.
In reply to alfadriver:
Read what I wrote again. You missed part of it, like the entire second line.
In reply to Toyman! :
So what is the issue, then? Nothing has changed WRT economy and endurance racing. Do I need to get off your lawn? LOL.
Heck, back in the day, a slow diesel roadster almost won the Indy500 because it didn't pit. Very much not the fastest car.
Something kind of related: Can anyone name a totally no-holds-barred, wheel-to-wheel racing series that could be described as healthy and sustainable? Formula D has some pretty open rules regarding engine prep, but the tires seem to even things out. (Not sure that counts as W2W, either.)
Toyman! said:In reply to JG Pasterjak :
My issue is it's being delivered by the sanctioning body, not the race team. What that gets you is a one-size-fits-all. If a team has a better idea that would result in more laps or faster times, too bad. They are stuck using whatever the sanctioning body decides. It squashes innovation, which used to be what racing was all about.
Now it's about the show and equality which makes for a better show. It is no longer a race to find out who is best or fastest.
That's fine for a spec class, but IMHO, there is not much that is more boring to watch than a spec class.
So how is racing won by multiple laps because someone could spend more money better racing? Everyone likes to look back on CanAm as some special thing, but the racing really sucked. The team in front would win by multiple laps over a 500 mile race. And it was always the same team. It's funny how we look back on McLaren and Porsche and make them so special, but when it happens today, we all hate it as boring and predictable racing. I really don't get how that old racing is interesting.
And lets not pretend that this innovation is cheap, as it always comes at a cost, so the "best ideas" always end up as the "deepest pockets". Let alone there is innovation going on. It's just constrained a lot better.
Finally, when Toyota or Nissan were dominating the field- how many competitors did they have? And compare that with today. Big budgets killed racing, as nobody wanted to even try to compete. I get that it's frustrating that a pony car should not beat a super car and all. But at least there are more than a handful of cars out there trying.
alfadriver said:Toyman! said:In reply to JG Pasterjak :
My issue is it's being delivered by the sanctioning body, not the race team. What that gets you is a one-size-fits-all. If a team has a better idea that would result in more laps or faster times, too bad. They are stuck using whatever the sanctioning body decides. It squashes innovation, which used to be what racing was all about.
Now it's about the show and equality which makes for a better show. It is no longer a race to find out who is best or fastest.
That's fine for a spec class, but IMHO, there is not much that is more boring to watch than a spec class.
So how is racing won by multiple laps because someone could spend more money better racing? Everyone likes to look back on CanAm as some special thing, but the racing really sucked. The team in front would win by multiple laps over a 500 mile race. And it was always the same team. It's funny how we look back on McLaren and Porsche and make them so special, but when it happens today, we all hate it as boring and predictable racing. I really don't get how that old racing is interesting.
And lets not pretend that this innovation is cheap, as it always comes at a cost, so the "best ideas" always end up as the "deepest pockets". Let alone there is innovation going on. It's just constrained a lot better.
Finally, when Toyota or Nissan were dominating the field- how many competitors did they have? And compare that with today. Big budgets killed racing, as nobody wanted to even try to compete. I get that it's frustrating that a pony car should not beat a super car and all. But at least there are more than a handful of cars out there trying.
Well said!
Race results from Riverside, the final Can-Am race for 1973.
Results from the final event of the “original” GTP series: a two-hour contest in Phoenix.
You'll need to log in to post.
