Fehan: “BoP Will Never Be Perfect But We Know It Can Be Better”
01-12-2016, 08:13 PM
#1
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Fehan: “BoP Will Never Be Perfect But We Know It Can Be Better”
Fehan: “BoP Will Never Be Perfect But We Know It Can Be Better”
Corvette Racing heads into 2016 following one of its most successful seasons yet, having achieved the triple crown of endurance race victories at the Rolex 24 at Daytona, Twelve Hours of Sebring and 24 Hours of Le Mans.
With updated GTE regulations — including the arrival of turbo-engined cars — a new Balance of Performance process and an evolution in machinery, Sportscar365 caught up with Corvette Racing Program Manager Doug Fehan for a wide-ranging Q&A.
Do you see the new GTE regulations as a big step forward?
“We’ve got some new challenges this year that we never encountered before and that’s the addition of turbo engines. We’ve got a turbo in the Ford, Ferrari and BMW, and we’ll probably have a turbo in the Porsche next year.
“As that has advanced, so has the technology. In my estimation, nobody has ever successfully balanced naturally aspirated and turbo engines competing together. They are affected dramatically different by air restrictors, altitude, relative humidity. It’s a really difficult thing to do.
“However as the engine technology has advanced, so has the electronic technology. The systems that were proposed and have been implemented here, which monitors the turbo engines and controls the boost as a function of the engine RPM, it has the capability of really creating a power curve that closer resembles a naturally aspirated engine.
“I think they’ve had some success in Europe and I believe we’re using essentially the same system here and I think that bodes very well.
“I’m looking forward to seeing how the balance works out. Do I have some reservations? Well of course but I’m sure the turbo guys do too.
“But at the end of the day, this is where we need to be. We can’t continue to operate in a Fred Flintstone world where we’re actually living in a George Jetson age. I welcome all this stuff.”
Do you think there could be a future for a turbocharged Corvette?
“Let’s look at it this way… We’re using a supercharger already in production [Z06], so we’re already there.
“I don’t think there’s any auto manufacturer in the world that has more complete engines sitting on the shelf that they could plug and play, at all different displacements and all different fuel induction systems, both naturally aspirated and turbo or supercharged.
“As you go forward, it’s really silly to say that you’re not going to go to a boosted motor when you already have one. Will it be turbocharged? I don’t know.
“Do we have them? Yeah, you witness that in the Cadillac in World Challenge. We run a twin-turbocharged, small displacement V6. It can make far more horsepower what we’re making here.
“It would be silly to exclude that from happening but not only do I not know about it, but I’m sure the production guys haven’t made any decisions.”
What are your thoughts on the evolution of the GTLM cars, which has seen a trend towards mid-engined layouts?
“I think we’re going to see [an engine placement change] in the Porsche. The history of Porsche is so strong. When you look back at the original Porsches, to the 356 days, there’s still that Porsche family resemblance.
“That has value but at some point, from a technological standpoint, you have to understand that if there’s a better way to do it that would yield a higher performance, you have to go there.
“I think Porsche may be at that crossroads right now. You look at the Cayman and Boxter and look at the driving and handling characteristics of a car that’s not rear-engined. I think they have recognized the time to move the ball down the field. I would expect their new car to not be as rear-engined as this one is.”
Do you support the alleged waivers that Porsche may have secured to re-locate the position of its engine in its 2017 GTE car?
“I don’t know if any of that has been decided yet. When you look at Le Mans, the BMW that races here is not approved to race there.
“I can’t imagine Porsche building and racing something that they can’t race at Le Mans. So there’s no reason to believe that Le Mans is going to change their position on it simply because Porsche’s doing it.
“We can go back to 1997 and 1998 when they built the GT1 car which had no relevance to a road car, other than it looked like a Porsche. That caused the demise of then-GT1 and the LMP class to be born but we already have a LMP class.
“It’s going to be very important if Porsche recognizes that you should race what you build. I think their new car will be reflective of any engine position change. That would be my guess.”
Could we see a mid-engined Corvette racing in the future?
“As far as Corvette is concerned, we’ve made a commitment to run what we sell. To rule out that the engine location would change would be foolish.
“But we have no commitment at all on anything other than our front-engined vehicle. We’ll run what they build. If they decide to build something, you can bet we’ll be racing it.”
Are you in support of IMSA’s new Balance of Performance process?
“I think its a powerfully good move [that the ACO is playing a larger role in IMSA BoP]. Anytime that you can combine technological resources and experiences, I think you get better as a sanctioning body.
“The openness and the willingness of both parties to participate is of key importance here. There’s not reluctance on either side. The FIA/ACO is not reluctant to participate with IMSA and vice-versa.
“When you have two parties that are like-minded like that and they begin to share data and methodology, I think it’s going to be a positive thing.
‘The key to this whole thing is IMSA recognizing that they can do better… and they have. When you recognize where your soft spots are, that’s the first step in getting them fixed. We’ve got that recognition from them and their expressed willingness to improve.
“We’re working with them to try and achieve that. We had a great Windshear wind tunnel test with all the manufacturers. It was a very, very, very productive test. It’s the starting point. Balance of Performance will never be perfect but we know it can be a lot better.”
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/fe...can-be-better/
01-28-2016, 07:17 AM
#2
Safety Car
Here's the latest update on BoP. New procedures.
I still wish we could have cars racing each other. I really hate all the BoP stuff. Maybe I'm just too old.
Richard Newton
I still wish we could have cars racing each other. I really hate all the BoP stuff. Maybe I'm just too old.
Richard Newton
01-28-2016, 10:04 AM
#3
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Two interesting articles that just came out:
IMSA Introduces New Balance of Performance Process
By John Dagys
Updated: January 28, 2016
As new regulations debut in the GT Le Mans and GT Daytona classes this weekend at Daytona, so too does a new Balance of Performance process, with IMSA implementing additional data-based measures aimed at closing the performance gap.
IMSA has rolled out with a new proprietary scrutineering data logger system — mandatory on all GTLM and GTD cars — that measures various things such as RPM, throttle position and airbox pressure.
Along with a newly implemented in-session scrutineering checks, the sanctioning body now has a significant amount of new data to work from in determining BoP, according to WeatherTech SportsCar Championship Senior Series Manager Geoff Carter.
“We were able to take the timing and scoring data, the vehicle data and the car configuration at that time, melt all that together and we have a much more clearer picture of what the car’s actually doing,” Carter told Sportscar365.
“Instead of going from a one-dimensional analysis, we’ve almost got this three-dimensional method now by adding two other elements.”
Previously, IMSA had primarily utilized timing and scoring data to determine BoP, but an overhaul has been made by its technical team heading into the 2016 WeatherTech Championship season.
Carter said the new Bosch logger systems — which costs $18,000 per car to outfit — mirrors the FIA’s recently introduced system that is being used for the same purpose.
“What that allows for us is to collect the car data in a pure, standalone form, so the channels have not been altered or modified,” Carter said.
“Not only do we know how it goes from A to B. We know the vehicle dynamics data of what it was doing from A to B.”
The second at-track component is the introduction of “spot checks” during sessions, which sees cars ordered to IMSA’s scrutineering bay to verify a car’s configuration.
A similar procedure, which generally takes 3 to 4 minutes, has been utilized in the FIA World Endurance Championship, most notably at the Le Mans Test Day.
“We pulled the cars straight off the track, ran them through the tech process, pulled some critical elements, such as wing angles, weight and ride height and did an updated [data] dump at that time,” Carter said.
Manufacturers have praised IMSA’s added BoP data measures, particularly after a season that saw one of the largest gaps in performance among the GTLM class cars in recent years.
“The key to this whole thing is IMSA recognizing that they can do better… and they have,” Corvette Racing Program Manager Doug Fehan told Sportscar365.
“When you recognize where your soft spots are, that’s the first step in getting them fixed. We’ve got that recognition from them and their expressed willingness to improve.”
IMSA also took all GTLM and GTD class cars to the wind tunnel late last year to determine the aerodynamic characteristic of each model. Carter said that data was used to determine the initial 2016 BoP.
“We had a great Windshear wind tunnel test with all the manufacturers,” Fehan added. “It was a very, very, very productive test. It’s the starting point.
“Balance of Performance will never be perfect but we know it can be a lot better.”
Defending GTLM class champions Porsche have also been in favor of the more data-based system, despite the added costs to outfit the cars with the data logger units.
“Like I said last year, the sport can’t survive if BoP isn’t working,” Marco Ujhasi, Overall Project Leader for Porsche GT Works Motorsport told Sportscar365.
“If you look at the different car concepts here, from one extreme of the Ford to the other with the BMW, it’s not easy to balance this.
“Therefore, if you want to have these cars running in the same class and the same competition, you must look at the performance windows and the reference engine curves.
“If it’s really working, then I’m quite confident that it will go in the right direction and it would stop some day, hopefully.
“One thing’s clear, you need the BoP if you want to run such different cars. It’s essential for GT racing.”
Carter said some of their first findings were quite revealing, with IMSA’s data from the Roar Before the 24 showing that every single car, for a lack of a better word — sandbagged — during the three-day test.
“Ultimately, what we found across the board was an element of underperformance that was pervasive,” Carter said.
“We simply took the top-five fastest laps of every car and we were able to identify in every single one of those laps, in every single car — all 54 of them — an area of underperformance. In every single one of them.”
The data was presented to manufacturers during video conference calls, with whitewashed graphics in order to prevent the identification of the offenders.
Carter said: “What we did was put up the [slides with anonymous data] and said, ‘Guys, here’s what we saw and you’re all guilty of it.’
“We did it in a group setting, with everyone on the call, and allowed all of the manufacturers to comment on what they had just seen.
“In the end, we took an extra day to understand it and got some additional feedback and by Thursday mid-day, we published the [pre-Rolex 24] BoP.”
While currently being used in the two GT categories, Carter said they will implement the same data loggers on the Prototype class next year, when the new P2/DPi formula debuts.
The ultimate test will come this weekend, to see how close IMSA has come with its new data points. So far, Carter has been pleased by the response from the manufacturers.
“The manufacturers have been asking for structure in their own way and have been very responsive to the changes IMSA has made,” he said.
“We’re all very encouraged from IMSA’s side and from the manufacturers’ side that things are going in the right direction.”
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/im...mance-process/
*************************************
Q&A With WeatherTech Championship Manager Geoff Carter
By John Dagys
As the 2016 IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season kicks off, Sportscar365 caught up with senior series manager Geoff Carter to get the low-down on the new Balance of Performance process and some changes that have been made for the coming season.
Will the new in-session scrutineering checks be utilized all season?
“At any point we’ll do that but we have to respect the fact that teams have run plans and have limited track time.
“We understand that this is a necessary component of us making sure we understand the configurations of the car but also not compromising their run time or test plans. We want to be as minimally invasive as possible. We need the information so there’s a balance there.
“We can do things like bringing in a car on a red flag, if we know it’s going to be a few minutes. We’ve got the checks down to 3 or 4 minutes, which isn’t bad. And we’re able to get the information we need in that amount of time.”
How have you been working with the FIA and ACO through the GTLM BoP process?
“We are in a position where we are sharing information with them. They were at our wind tunnel testing at Windshear in December. We put all of the cars through; the Ferrari went through on the first week of January.
“There were representatives from the FIA and ACO at that test. We ran their Le Mans body kits in that testing. We’ll be sharing data with them following the Rolex 24.
What’s different with the Windshear wind tunnel tests from the FIA BoP testing done at Ladaux last September?
“The Ladoux testing requires some post-acquisition analysis in that they have to do some math. It doesn’t give you the complete, thorough information Windshear does, just because it’s an older system.
“So [the FIA and ACO] were able to leave Windshear with complete wind tunnel information.”
Could we expect to see a global-spec BoP for GTE/GTLM?
“In a perfect world that would be good for both of us. But I think the applications might be slightly different. We’ll see what they come up with. They’ll have our information.
“We’re in a unique position here where in the IMSA WeatherTech Championship we run GT Le Mans and GT Daytona together.
“When they’re separate, you can almost have any BoP because you don’t have to worry about that inter-class stratification, which we do. We’re very conscious of that.
“Even to go one step further — here at Daytona — the class separation when you throw in the four classes, is different than what you’d see at Sebring or Laguna Seca.
“We have one extra element that the ACO and FIA doesn’t.”
What was the reason behind the performance changes to the PC class for this weekend?
“Since Daytona last year, we made a slight engine modification. We increased the horsepower by 12-15 horsepower. So the car they brought back this year is a little different than the one they had last year.
“What we found at the November test is that they were on the rev limiter for a pretty long time. So we made the top gear a little bit longer to protect the rev limiter and made a couple small modifications in the engine.
“We ported the heads and changed the damper size on the front of the engine to reduce some ringing in the engine on gearshifts because we were having some dog ring issues on shifting.
“As the car is a little bit different, we decided had some room to give them a couple of mph, so we’ve reduced the minimum wing angle slightly.
“That will give them the ability to have less interaction with the GT cars on the high-speed portion and not have to make an aggressive move under braking in the infield. That was the idea behind that.”
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/qa...-geoff-carter/
IMSA Introduces New Balance of Performance Process
By John Dagys
Updated: January 28, 2016
As new regulations debut in the GT Le Mans and GT Daytona classes this weekend at Daytona, so too does a new Balance of Performance process, with IMSA implementing additional data-based measures aimed at closing the performance gap.
IMSA has rolled out with a new proprietary scrutineering data logger system — mandatory on all GTLM and GTD cars — that measures various things such as RPM, throttle position and airbox pressure.
Along with a newly implemented in-session scrutineering checks, the sanctioning body now has a significant amount of new data to work from in determining BoP, according to WeatherTech SportsCar Championship Senior Series Manager Geoff Carter.
“We were able to take the timing and scoring data, the vehicle data and the car configuration at that time, melt all that together and we have a much more clearer picture of what the car’s actually doing,” Carter told Sportscar365.
“Instead of going from a one-dimensional analysis, we’ve almost got this three-dimensional method now by adding two other elements.”
Previously, IMSA had primarily utilized timing and scoring data to determine BoP, but an overhaul has been made by its technical team heading into the 2016 WeatherTech Championship season.
Carter said the new Bosch logger systems — which costs $18,000 per car to outfit — mirrors the FIA’s recently introduced system that is being used for the same purpose.
“What that allows for us is to collect the car data in a pure, standalone form, so the channels have not been altered or modified,” Carter said.
“Not only do we know how it goes from A to B. We know the vehicle dynamics data of what it was doing from A to B.”
The second at-track component is the introduction of “spot checks” during sessions, which sees cars ordered to IMSA’s scrutineering bay to verify a car’s configuration.
A similar procedure, which generally takes 3 to 4 minutes, has been utilized in the FIA World Endurance Championship, most notably at the Le Mans Test Day.
“We pulled the cars straight off the track, ran them through the tech process, pulled some critical elements, such as wing angles, weight and ride height and did an updated [data] dump at that time,” Carter said.
Manufacturers have praised IMSA’s added BoP data measures, particularly after a season that saw one of the largest gaps in performance among the GTLM class cars in recent years.
“The key to this whole thing is IMSA recognizing that they can do better… and they have,” Corvette Racing Program Manager Doug Fehan told Sportscar365.
“When you recognize where your soft spots are, that’s the first step in getting them fixed. We’ve got that recognition from them and their expressed willingness to improve.”
IMSA also took all GTLM and GTD class cars to the wind tunnel late last year to determine the aerodynamic characteristic of each model. Carter said that data was used to determine the initial 2016 BoP.
“We had a great Windshear wind tunnel test with all the manufacturers,” Fehan added. “It was a very, very, very productive test. It’s the starting point.
“Balance of Performance will never be perfect but we know it can be a lot better.”
Defending GTLM class champions Porsche have also been in favor of the more data-based system, despite the added costs to outfit the cars with the data logger units.
“Like I said last year, the sport can’t survive if BoP isn’t working,” Marco Ujhasi, Overall Project Leader for Porsche GT Works Motorsport told Sportscar365.
“If you look at the different car concepts here, from one extreme of the Ford to the other with the BMW, it’s not easy to balance this.
“Therefore, if you want to have these cars running in the same class and the same competition, you must look at the performance windows and the reference engine curves.
“If it’s really working, then I’m quite confident that it will go in the right direction and it would stop some day, hopefully.
“One thing’s clear, you need the BoP if you want to run such different cars. It’s essential for GT racing.”
Carter said some of their first findings were quite revealing, with IMSA’s data from the Roar Before the 24 showing that every single car, for a lack of a better word — sandbagged — during the three-day test.
“Ultimately, what we found across the board was an element of underperformance that was pervasive,” Carter said.
“We simply took the top-five fastest laps of every car and we were able to identify in every single one of those laps, in every single car — all 54 of them — an area of underperformance. In every single one of them.”
The data was presented to manufacturers during video conference calls, with whitewashed graphics in order to prevent the identification of the offenders.
Carter said: “What we did was put up the [slides with anonymous data] and said, ‘Guys, here’s what we saw and you’re all guilty of it.’
“We did it in a group setting, with everyone on the call, and allowed all of the manufacturers to comment on what they had just seen.
“In the end, we took an extra day to understand it and got some additional feedback and by Thursday mid-day, we published the [pre-Rolex 24] BoP.”
While currently being used in the two GT categories, Carter said they will implement the same data loggers on the Prototype class next year, when the new P2/DPi formula debuts.
The ultimate test will come this weekend, to see how close IMSA has come with its new data points. So far, Carter has been pleased by the response from the manufacturers.
“The manufacturers have been asking for structure in their own way and have been very responsive to the changes IMSA has made,” he said.
“We’re all very encouraged from IMSA’s side and from the manufacturers’ side that things are going in the right direction.”
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/im...mance-process/
*************************************
Q&A With WeatherTech Championship Manager Geoff Carter
By John Dagys
As the 2016 IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season kicks off, Sportscar365 caught up with senior series manager Geoff Carter to get the low-down on the new Balance of Performance process and some changes that have been made for the coming season.
Will the new in-session scrutineering checks be utilized all season?
“At any point we’ll do that but we have to respect the fact that teams have run plans and have limited track time.
“We understand that this is a necessary component of us making sure we understand the configurations of the car but also not compromising their run time or test plans. We want to be as minimally invasive as possible. We need the information so there’s a balance there.
“We can do things like bringing in a car on a red flag, if we know it’s going to be a few minutes. We’ve got the checks down to 3 or 4 minutes, which isn’t bad. And we’re able to get the information we need in that amount of time.”
How have you been working with the FIA and ACO through the GTLM BoP process?
“We are in a position where we are sharing information with them. They were at our wind tunnel testing at Windshear in December. We put all of the cars through; the Ferrari went through on the first week of January.
“There were representatives from the FIA and ACO at that test. We ran their Le Mans body kits in that testing. We’ll be sharing data with them following the Rolex 24.
What’s different with the Windshear wind tunnel tests from the FIA BoP testing done at Ladaux last September?
“The Ladoux testing requires some post-acquisition analysis in that they have to do some math. It doesn’t give you the complete, thorough information Windshear does, just because it’s an older system.
“So [the FIA and ACO] were able to leave Windshear with complete wind tunnel information.”
Could we expect to see a global-spec BoP for GTE/GTLM?
“In a perfect world that would be good for both of us. But I think the applications might be slightly different. We’ll see what they come up with. They’ll have our information.
“We’re in a unique position here where in the IMSA WeatherTech Championship we run GT Le Mans and GT Daytona together.
“When they’re separate, you can almost have any BoP because you don’t have to worry about that inter-class stratification, which we do. We’re very conscious of that.
“Even to go one step further — here at Daytona — the class separation when you throw in the four classes, is different than what you’d see at Sebring or Laguna Seca.
“We have one extra element that the ACO and FIA doesn’t.”
What was the reason behind the performance changes to the PC class for this weekend?
“Since Daytona last year, we made a slight engine modification. We increased the horsepower by 12-15 horsepower. So the car they brought back this year is a little different than the one they had last year.
“What we found at the November test is that they were on the rev limiter for a pretty long time. So we made the top gear a little bit longer to protect the rev limiter and made a couple small modifications in the engine.
“We ported the heads and changed the damper size on the front of the engine to reduce some ringing in the engine on gearshifts because we were having some dog ring issues on shifting.
“As the car is a little bit different, we decided had some room to give them a couple of mph, so we’ve reduced the minimum wing angle slightly.
“That will give them the ability to have less interaction with the GT cars on the high-speed portion and not have to make an aggressive move under braking in the infield. That was the idea behind that.”
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/qa...-geoff-carter/
01-29-2016, 08:22 AM
#4
Safety Car
Everyone was cheating at the test day where IMSA was trying to figure out the BoP.
Richard Newton
Richard Newton