USCC (leave your axe outside)

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by belt driven

Those are 2 glib answers…

If we were to assume 2.5 hours of continuous running (no pit stops/cautions) to make up 2 laps and 2:00/lap; you would need to AVERAGE 3.2 seconds/lap faster than the class leader(s). Timing/scoring would probably notice many fastest laps. Sorry guys; “good strategy” doesn’t cover that!

I was asking of whomever attended what specific mechanical problems, bad pit stops, time penalties, “bad strategy”, etc. that cost the other guys 2 laps.

Seeing as you can't do 2.5hrs in a GT car, your math is incorrect.

They also don't do 2min/lap.

They had two very, very quick pitstops timed well and managed to work their way back. If the point you are trying to make here is that they benefitted from a wave by, then why not just say that?

What you need to understand is that the race strategy is fluid, not fixed, and it encompasses everything from traffic, to brake changes. It's not as simple as, oh, we got a wave by...now we can push...

[belt driven]

The theoretical 2:00/lap is appropriate: #4 Corvette FL was 2:00.216. Class FL was the #97 AM at 1:59.780.

As the theoretical problem is stated, my math is correct.

Some other car(s) had to lose 4-odd minutes more somehow.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by jasonjessica09

Remember that Tuesday is April 1 (april fool's day). I would be careful not to speculate anything you read or hear about tommorrow.

I'm going with what Graham says... and whatever Graham says.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by belt driven

The theoretical 2:00/lap is appropriate: #4 Corvette FL was 2:00.216. Class FL was the #97 AM at 1:59.780.

As the theoretical problem is stated, my math is correct.

Some other car(s) had to lose 4-odd minutes more somehow.

Yes only if you could do 2.5hrs in a stint, and it was pure green flag running. That's physically impossible so your theory is completely flawed, and your theoretical problem is wrong. When trying to do scientific things, you can't ignore the facts. There were yellows, they probably had a wave by, they probably had better pit stops...

2.5hrs is basically three stints. 50-55 minutes is maximum distance on a tank of fuel. If you pit off sequence of the lead groups, get a few yellows, double or triple stint tires and drivers...you can make that time up.

Short of watching the last few hours, I can't explain further how they made the time back....I still have no idea what point you are trying to make here...

[Maelochs]

The lap-down wave-by was Not in the rules in ALMS. Not in the Rules--Not In Effect. Wasn't there.

If in some way you are trying to say otherwise ... well, speech is free.

I was at the race but I don't recall how Corvette made up that time when it did. I am sure if your point is really to understand that aspect of the race and not just debate, that you can find lap charts, maybe see if you can dig up Daily Sports Car's hourly coverage ... (I might have copies of the pdfs of the ALMS pit notes ... go to the Pit Notes site and see if they do ?) In fact, if your passion to learn is as great as it seems to be, I am sure you will google the race and read every published English-language race report to see if anyone said anything relevant.

I have done the same when I wondered "What happened to that car?" after a race, and sometimes I find a brief note in some odd article from partway through a race which sheds light.

I am eager to hear what you come up with.

here, however, people are discussing specifically the Lap-Down Wave-By, which was a rule in Rolex and is now a rule in TUSC. It was never part of ALMS and thus did not affect the 2013 Sebring 12 Hours.

On a hopefully unrelated note: There is Zero need to resurrect he ALMS/Rolex argument. If the LDWB had been used in ALMS I would have protested it then. And there were several penalty calls made in ALMS, several managerial decisions ... shoot, I spent years on the ALMSfans site tearing the series up because it wouldn't priomote, wouldn't improve its TV production ... But All That Is Over.

Regardless of what Corvette did or didn't do at Sebring in the ALMS years, I want the LDWB Not to be in the rulebook come Sebring 2015.

Anyway, eager to see what you come up with on that Corvette thing.

EDIT:: http://pitnotes.org/tusc.php I checked and they at least have headings for every ALMS year back to the start, so if you peruse the pit notes for that stretch of the 2013 12 Hours you might get some good info.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The lap-down wave-by was Not in the rules in ALMS. Not in the Rules--Not In Effect. Wasn't there.

If in some way you are trying to say otherwise ... well, speech is free.

I was at the race but I don't recall how Corvette made up that time when it did. I am sure if your point is really to understand that aspect of the race and not just debate, that you can find lap charts, maybe see if you can dig up Daily Sports Car's hourly coverage ... (I might have copies of the pdfs of the ALMS pit notes ... go to the Pit Notes site and see if they do ?) In fact, if your passion to learn is as great as it seems to be, I am sure you will google the race and read every published English-language race report to see if anyone said anything relevant.

I have done the same when I wondered "What happened to that car?" after a race, and sometimes I find a brief note in some odd article from partway through a race which sheds light.

I am eager to hear what you come up with.

here, however, people are discussing specifically the Lap-Down Wave-By, which was a rule in Rolex and is now a rule in TUSC. It was never part of ALMS and thus did not affect the 2013 Sebring 12 Hours.

On a hopefully unrelated note: There is Zero need to resurrect he ALMS/Rolex argument. If the LDWB had been used in ALMS I would have protested it then. And there were several penalty calls made in ALMS, several managerial decisions ... shoot, I spent years on the ALMSfans site tearing the series up because it wouldn't priomote, wouldn't improve its TV production ... But All That Is Over.

Regardless of what Corvette did or didn't do at Sebring in the ALMS years, I want the LDWB Not to be in the rulebook come Sebring 2015.

Anyway, eager to see what you come up with on that Corvette thing.

EDIT:: http://pitnotes.org/tusc.php I checked and they at least have headings for every ALMS year back to the start, so if you peruse the pit notes for that stretch of the 2013 12 Hours you might get some good info.

Hmm, as I recall in the ALMS Prototypes pitted first, then GT, if a car stayed out and did not pit, before going green the leader of the race (prototype) was picked up for the restart by the safety car, everyone in front of the race leader was let go to join the back of the pack before the green was given. Putting them up a lap from the one they were on, period. Sounds like semantics to me.





L.P.

[Canada ALMS fan]

One of my press contacts told me IMSA sent a message asking to give them a break. That's right, instead of trying to fix the product let's try to censor the coverage we get.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, as I recall in the ALMS Prototypes pitted first, then GT, if a car stayed out and did not pit, before going green the leader of the race (prototype) was picked up for the restart by the safety car, everyone in front of the race leader was let go to join the back of the pack before the green was given. Putting them up a lap from the one they were on, period. Sounds like semantics to me.





L.P.

I don't want to start an argument as I have caused enough headaches for our moderating staff, but I agree.

[Frank Grimes]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I don't want to start an argument as I have caused enough headaches for our moderating staff, but I agree.

In this case, the GT car does get its lap back. It does not however get to pit so is taking a big chance.

[Maelochs]

The difference between the two types of wave-by have been explained several times in great detail. No need to continue discussing this ...for me at least. I am sure I am on everyone's last nerve on this topic.

[jasonjessica09]

Johnny D just tweeted no bombshell announcement today. So I guess we can back off the withdraw speculation for now.

[EricS]

Originally Posted by Frank Grimes

In this case, the GT car does get its lap back. It does not however get to pit so is taking a big chance.

Exactly, therein lies the difference. You do not get to pit.

[Ginaro Zukovsky]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, as I recall in the ALMS Prototypes pitted first, then GT, if a car stayed out and did not pit, before going green the leader of the race (prototype) was picked up for the restart by the safety car, everyone in front of the race leader was let go to join the back of the pack before the green was given.

Actually, the leader was not necessarily picked up after the pitstops - it was the leader of a class that was picked up and led them to the green (I think it was Boris Said in GT leading them to the green early in Sebring 2012).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Ginaro Zukovsky

Actually, the leader was not necessarily picked up after the pitstops - it was the leader of a class that was picked up and led them to the green (I think it was Boris Said in GT leading them to the green early in Sebring 2012).

Yep, it was always interesting when a GTC car was at the head of the queue for a restart.

[EricS]

Originally Posted by belt driven

Could somebody who went to Sebring in 2013 explain how the #4 Corvette went 2 laps down in hour 3 and had the lead again at the 6 hour mark? There was one 3 lap caution in the interval. They did not set fastest lap.

IMSA has the raw data available if you really care: http://imsatiming.com/Results/2013/A...on%20Times.csv

I don't see where they went down two laps, only 1 lap. And there were also 2 caution periods, starting at @3h45m (4laps) and @5h30m (6laps)

So, looking at the data...I'm only focusing on the 4, 91, and 62, as they were the ones battling for lead at this point:

1. @3h45m: Yellow flag pitstops for #4 and #91. The data doesn't show #62 does, but they most likely do.
2. @4h21m: #4 passes the 2nd in GT #62 on track to get on same lap as all but the #91. Youtube video of the pass (can see the Viper just ahead).
3. @4h42m: #4 passes the 1st in GT #91 on track to get on same lap Youtube vid, not of the pass, but can see the #4 got ahead of the #91. And Jeremy makes mention of #4 now being on lead lap.
4. All 3 do green flag pit stops
5. @5h30m: Yellow flag.
6. @5h43m: #4 gets a wave by, along with 6 other GT cars, 12 total who were ahead of the first class leader, Treluyer. (Note: This is the waveby before pitting that was/is common to ALMS, GA, and TUSC)
7. @5h45m: The #4 and #91 pit. The #4 had a quicker pit stop, and got around him. (Again the data is f'd and doesn't show the #62 stopped, but they most likely did.) So 1st is #62, 2nd is #4.
8. @6h50m: GT leaders do green flag pit stops, with #62 doing a driver change. The #4 has quicker stop to both the #62 and the BMW and assumes the lead. Vid of pass of the BMW in the pits. Vid of pass of the #62

So there ya go.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Frank Grimes

In this case, the GT car does get its lap back. It does not however get to pit so is taking a big chance.

But most did/do pit after they got the wave by en route to the back of the field.







L.P.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

But most did/do pit after they got the wave by en route to the back of the field.







L.P.

And the green flew and they had to fuel the car, THEN change tires, thereby negating most, if not all of an advantage they gained.

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by BullMan

And the green flew and they had to fuel the car, THEN change tires, thereby negating most, if not all of an advantage they gained.

That is a very important difference - engine off, separate fuel and tire change, much longer and riskier (timewise, safer otherwise) pit stop.
And the pace car didn't stay out a couple of extra laps to wait for this to happen either.

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

One of my press contacts told me IMSA sent a message asking to give them a break. That's right, instead of trying to fix the product let's try to censor the coverage we get.

To an extent I understand where they are coming from, it is not helping when they are constantly having to deal with all directions blasting away at them or every subject---The big HOWEVER: They are having major problems in race management, which has little or nothing to do with BoP, or new events, or a mix of different cars. They should have core race management sorted before they ever have a car turning a wheel for the first time. There is no excuse at all, the cars are not totally different, as a group the race managers have dealt with all the tracks and track staffs (and should be able to from prior experience in procedures and process be able to stage an event at a totally new track to any of them).

If you volunteer to take the seat in a dunking booth, you should not be surprised to get wet.

Funny, you had to wonder how the GA and ALMS teams would get along in the paddock at first, but they seem to have united in their dislike with the front office/control tower.

[ttdriver2009]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

One of my press contacts told me IMSA sent a message asking to give them a break. That's right, instead of trying to fix the product let's try to censor the coverage we get.

No suprise there. When IMSA is sending out this message to all of the press (probably with a threat to yank their press passes too), there is just no news about TUSK. If you can't report anything good, then don't report anything at all.

When PWC gets the most press and coverage at Long Beach, maybe Indycar and IMSA will notice? Doubt it but a TUSK news blackout might get their attention.

[nkoske]

Moved from the Schedule Thread. To make sure MoMedic is in the appropriate place to make a full comment.

Originally Posted by nkoske

Wait a sec...if BoP is truly equal and correct they should not have been able to catch the leader. Equal means the same...if both cars turn the same laps then they just hold position. The only BoP that would have allow Ryan to catch the 01 would have been one favoring the LMP2. Are you arguing that the LMP2 should have an advantage over the DP?

Here's a plot of the Gap from P1 to P2



Looks pretty even to me. Not really a surprise Ryan lost almost 4 sec on the as he was behind to GTD and the lead GTLM car on the restart, so there was no way he was going to be able to keep up with Marino until he got clear.

Clearly there's an argument about length of caution, number of cautions, blah blah blah, but BoP...I'm sorry...that dog don't hunt.

The only good thing about Sebring was that it seems the BoP was pretty damn good. Yeah yeah, the DP makes time differently LMP2, so and LMP2 could never pass a DP. I saw P2 pass DPs so it can happen. I thought one of the things we're all suppose to like about sports cars is variety. Isn't two cars make time differently but ending up with the same lap time variety? I sure wasn't complaining about the P1/P2 battle of 2008.

[Canada ALMS fan]

New IMSA procedures released.

[Scooter185]

MWM is reporting that IMSA has released a press release about changes being made because of the blowback from the first two rounds.

[Salamus]

http://www.imsa.com/articles/imsa-in...ion-procedures

[spectre200]

Details here:

http://www.imsa.com/articles/imsa-in...ion-procedures