The Le Mans General Discussion Thread

[Furinkazen]

@hsv010 you're given data from the series organisers no less and claim it is unreliable? Are you a master timekeeper?

 

[Ninners]

It's speed trap figures taken from the series organizers and it's unreliable? Lol.

 

[Bo]

Not really if you are stating it's not reliable then you have to take into account air temp, air density which will vary each time of the day, was the car in a draft or wasn't it, what fuel load it was carrying.......

These are factors that are encountered during a race situation. Not perfect, but having them from different sessions with completely different trims is about as useful as comparing top speeds from different tracks.

@hsv010 you're given data from the series organisers no less and claim it is unreliable? Are you a master timekeeper?

It's speed trap figures taken from the series organizers and it's unreliable? Lol.

Do you not get that it doesn't matter who it comes from? You cannot, ever, use unrelated data to back up a point in a specific situation. End of, no arguments.

In order to show representative race top speeds, you can't us practice data. That is unreliable data.

 

[Furinkazen]

These are factors that are encountered during a race situation. Not perfect, but having them from different sessions with completely different trims is about as useful as comparing top speeds from different tracks.



Do you not get that it doesn't matter who it comes from? You cannot, ever, use unrelated data to back up a point in a specific situation. End of, no arguments.

I think you should start listening to people with a lot more knowledge and experience than you, and I am not directly referring to myself.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

These are factors that are encountered during a race situation. Not perfect, but having them from different sessions with completely different trims is about as useful as comparing top speeds from different tracks.



Do you not get that it doesn't matter who it comes from? You cannot, ever, use unrelated data to back up a point in a specific situation. End of, no arguments.

How is it unrelated it's the same cars on the same track at effectively the same time, in certain series it's been known to change suspension set ups mid race in nascar and aussie v8s.

 

[Ninners]

We're talking about the top speeds of the cars, we're not just talking about the race speeds either, we're combining them to see how far Audi are off, Holden is posting them up(and he is entitled to) just to get an idea and then you come in.

 

[SilverArrow]

There! Now that is data that has controlled factors. These are the only things that can represent the race top speed of each car.


In order to show race top speeds, the only top speeds which end up meaning anything in terms of results, you can't show practice top speeds. It completely invalidates the data.

How does the data from one session have controlled factors? Do you have access to the onboards from every car on every lap to know if they had slip streams on their best speed achieved for example. The factors you listed that could affect the data are just as likely to be present in the race as they could be all throughout the weekend. The only difference is you have a smaller sample if you limit data to one session than all through the weekend. (making it less accurate) Why would they post the combined speeds at all if they were unrepresentative?

 

[UnkaD]

Amazing race and another victory for Toyota. I'm so excited for Le Mans this year!

I see what point you're trying to make, hsv010. The thing is, there are factors that can create fluctuations of top speed within the 6-hour time span of the race itself. There can be drafts, shifts in the wind, differing air pressure and temperature variations and so on. So, though I know where you're coming from, it's not necessarily fair to get bent out of shape over posting speed trap readings for the whole weekend.

 

[Ninners]

Yeah, posting them is better than not posting them is better because some of us don't know the speed traps.

 

[Bo]

I think you should start listening to people with a lot more knowledge and experience than you, and I am not directly referring to myself.

I use what is accepted as being the definition of reliable data. I know how to control data, and this isn't considered reliable.

How is it unrelated it's the same cars on the same track at effectively the same time, in certain series it's been known to change suspension set ups mid race in nascar and aussie v8s.

Because what somebody achieved on Friday afternoon doesn't show how they performed on the Saturday, which is all that matters in terms of gathering race data. I am not saying the FIA/ACO is unreliable. I'm saying showing practice top speeds to represent race top speeds isn't right.

How does the data from one session have controlled factors? Do you have access to the onboards from every car on every lap to know if they had slip streams on their best speed achieved for example. The factors you listed that could affect the data are just as likely to be present in the race as they could be all throughout the weekend. The only difference is you have a smaller sample if you limit data to one session than all through the weekend. (making it less accurate) Why would they post the combined speeds at all if they were unrepresentative?

It's not perfectly controlled, as no race data can ever be. Every session has too many variables to be truly considered perfect representations. Put it this way:

If I was conducting an experiment on how high a kite flew, I would know there are things I can't control, like wind speed. In order to show the most accurate data possible, I would need to fly each kite in as similar conditions as possible, like running them on the same day in a similar time span.

If I then gathered some figures from last Tuesday, I could not use those figures to give me as fair a representation as possible on the height of flight. The same person could collect both sets of data, but that doesn't mean they would stand up against each other in as fair a way as possible.

We are talking about how fast the R18's go in the race, which is where it matters. Showing a top speed it once achieved in a practice session to show that point is just crap data collection.

 

[Ninners]

Nobody said we're gathering race data...it's just something that you started.

 

[Furinkazen]

I use what is accepted as being the definition of reliable data. I know how to control data, and this isn't considered reliable.

Because what somebody achieved on Friday afternoon doesn't show how they performed on the Saturday, which is all that matters in terms of gathering race data. I am not saying the FIA/ACO is unreliable. I'm saying showing practice top speeds to represent race top speeds isn't right.

It's not perfectly controlled, as no race data can ever be. Every session has too many variables to be truly considered perfect representations. Put it this way:

If I was conducting an experiment on how high a kite flew, I would know there are things I can't control, like wind speed. In order to show the most accurate data possible, I would need to fly each kite in as similar conditions as possible, like running them on the same day in a similar time span.

If I then gathered some figures from last Tuesday, I could not use those figures to give me as fair a representation as possible on the height of flight. The same person could collect both sets of data, but that doesn't mean they would stand up against each other in as fair a way as possible.

Err technically by your standards all data is void. As during a six hour race track conditions and temperatures change, car reacts differently, fuel is different. So by your logic reliable data does not exist.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Because what somebody achieved on Friday afternoon doesn't show how they performed on the Saturday, which is all that matters in terms of gathering race data. I am not saying the FIA/ACO is unreliable. I'm saying showing practice top speeds to represent race top speeds isn't right.

So are you saying that the Toyotas and #14 Porsche aren't fast in the race as they listed their fastest in practice? Because basicly that's what that comes down to.

Also do you now admit that the #3 Audi isn't slow in the straight as you thought?

 

[SilverArrow]

If I was conducting an experiment on how high a kite flew, I would know there are things I can't control, like wind speed. In order to show the most accurate data possible, I would need to fly each kite in as similar conditions as possible, like running them on the same day in a similar time span.

If I then gathered some figures from last Tuesday, I could not use those figures to give me as fair a representation as possible on the height of flight. The same person could collect both sets of data, but that doesn't mean they would stand up against each other in as fair a way as possible.

We are talking about how fast the R18's go in the race, which is where it matters. Showing a top speed it once achieved in a practice session to show that point is just crap data collection.

When you do experiments at school, don't you repeat them to find an average? There is no greater chance of getting unreliable data over 6 hours than the total track time all weekend, you're just limiting yourself to a smaller sample.
EDIT: What you're basically saying is you're data is more reliable if you took an average of how high a kite flew in 6 different points in the day than if you took an average of 10.

 

[Bo]

Err technically by your standards all data is void. As during a six hour race track conditions and temperatures change, car reacts differently, fuel is different. So by your logic reliable data does not exist.

No data, ever, can have zero flaws in it's measuring. Using the greatest equipment in the world, you will always have microscopic variations. It's simply about minimising all variables to provide the most precise data possible.

Nobody said we're gathering race data...it's just something that you started.

We're talking about how a car does in a race. It's all that matters. Anything else means zilch to the championship and overall results.

So are you saying that the Toyotas and #14 Porsche aren't fast in the race as they listed their fastest in practice? Because basicly that's what that comes down to.

Also do you now admit that the #3 Audi isn't slow in the straight as you thought?

If say Porsche went 308kph in practice, but then 298kph in the race, you couldn't show the 308 overall fastest as representative data on the race top speeds. If another car got 305kph in the race, but 295 in practice, it wouldn't be right to use the overall fastest as the race representation. You need to use data from the thing you're measuring it on.

When you do experiments at school, don't you repeat them to find an average? There is no greater chance of getting unreliable data over 6 hours than the total track time all weekend, you're just limiting yourself to a smaller sample.

We do, but it doesn't work like that here. In order to have a bigger sample of race top speeds, you would need to repeat the race. That's a tiny bit difficult. (Hey, it'd be cool, i'm open to it ).

 

[Ninners]

We're talking about how a car does in a race. It's all that matters. Anything else means zilch to the championship and overall results.

Nobody said we couldn't talk about how it did in the race.

 

[LancerEvo7]

We're talking about how a car does in a race. It's all that matters. Anything else means zilch to the championship and overall results.

Speed is only part of how a car does in a race, especially one of this length.

We do, but it doesn't work like that here. In order to have a bigger sample of race top speeds, you would need to repeat the race. That's a tiny bit difficult. (Hey, it'd be cool, i'm open to it ).

Because 6 hours of racing in varied conditions doesn't give a big enough sample size?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

No data, ever, can have zero flaws in it's measuring. Using the greatest equipment in the world, you will always have microscopic variations. It's simply about minimising all variables to provide the most precise data possible.


If say Porsche went 308kph in practice, but then 298kph in the race, you couldn't show the 308 overall fastest as representative data on the race top speeds. If another car got 305kph in the race, but 295 in practice, it wouldn't be right to use the overall fastest as the race representation. You need to use data from the thing you're measuring it on.

How can the top speed not be precise data? It ether did it or it didn't.

 

[Tired Tyres]

@hsv010

Chronological Analysis

Every lap by every driver, every sector time, every top speed on every lap. Enough data for you to say, okay that's accurate enough?

 

[Bo]

Speed is only part of how a car does in a race, especially one of this length.

The discussion is on the top speed of the R18 during the race.

Because 6 hours of racing in varied conditions doesn't give a big enough sample size?

When gathering data, you can always get bigger samples, as they only help to get a more precise average. The only way to get race samples is from the race though.

Nobody said we couldn't talk about how it did in the race.

Nobody said that. That's all we're talking about. What a car achieves in practice can't be used as valid data against the race top speeds. It's fun to look at what they have been able to achieve at one point, but it doesn't give you a precise table of data.

How can the top speed not be precise data? It ether did it or it didn't.

This:

If I was conducting an experiment on how high a kite flew, I would know there are things I can't control, like wind speed. In order to show the most accurate data possible, I would need to fly each kite in as similar conditions as possible, like running them on the same day in a similar time span.

If I then gathered some figures from last Tuesday, I could not use those figures to give me as fair a representation as possible on the height of flight. The same person could collect both sets of data, but that doesn't mean they would stand up against each other in as fair a way as possible.

And this:

If say Porsche went 308kph in practice, but then 298kph in the race, you couldn't show the 308 overall fastest as representative data on the race top speeds. If another car got 305kph in the race, but 295 in practice, it wouldn't be right to use the overall fastest as the race representation. You need to use data from the thing you're measuring it on.

@hsv010

Chronological Analysis

Every lap by every driver, every sector time, every top speed every lap. Enough data for you to say, okay that's accurate enough?

It's more accurate than the overall weekend top speeds to show race data, because it was all taken from the race.

 

[SilverArrow]

We do, but it doesn't work like that here. In order to have a bigger sample of race top speeds, you would need to repeat the race. That's a tiny bit difficult. (Hey, it'd be cool, i'm open to it ).

Forget the term race. Race, qualifying, practice, it doesn't matter. Just think of the 6 hours as a longer time period to collect data (speed trap info). By including data from Friday you increase sample size, it's not like they're running a different track or driving backwards in FP1. What would make the data so anomalous in practice for them to be discounted? Conditions doesn't count since they were changing in the race too.

 

[Ninners]

So then the #1 car was 0.7 slower in the first sector than the #3 in the race, #3 did a 34.3, #2 a 35.0 and Toyota got a 33.8. Porsche had the fastest 1 & 3 sectors.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

So if someone asked you how high you've managed to fly a kite you wouldn't just quote your highest height of 30 metres?

You would say well on Tuesday the 13th at 12:09 with air pressure of 2500 and wind speed of 13m/s it reached 30 metres but on Tuesday the 13th at 16:58 with a pressure of 1850 it reached 28 metres.

 

[gtone339]

Just got up this morning and had a look at the results sheet at fiawec. 👍

 

[G.T.Ace]

Just finished watching the race as a recording, extremely exciting stuff.
Not a single crash, only one retirement (which didn't came as a surprise) and fantastic racing.
The speed differences were quite shocking, Audi still need to work on their Le Mans package,
but if they can get it right, it might be one of the most exciting 24h du Mans since ages.

By the way the R-One sounds brutal.

 

[Spirit]

Does anyone happen to know where I can re-watch online? I missed the live race due to the SAT test.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

A good pit strategy and the failure of other cars does not make your car fast.

There is a great story you should read called the Tortoise and the Hare it's a quite a great analogy for endurance racing to a good degree.

Why is that a jumble of practice and race? Not consistent or reliable data.

How is it not consistent or reliable, was it not from the same track, similar conditions, over the same time period and on and on. Thus the data is reliable and proves that the cars over average aren't as far of as people think. Also I'm curious because lately you seem to spouting off "knowledge" as if some well educated person beyond most here at times, yet your 14. So unless your some prodigy in the wings we're unaware of I'd like to know your background. Because it seems more like naivety of someone your age that thinks they know the world already, to be honest.

 

[SagarisGTB]

There is a great story you should read called the Tortoise and the Hare it's a quite a great analogy for endurance racing to a good degree.


How is it not consistent or reliable, was it not from the same track, similar conditions, over the same time period and on and on. Thus the data is reliable and proves that the cars over average aren't as far of as people think. Also I'm curious because lately you seem to spouting off "knowledge" as if some well educated person beyond most here at times, yet your 14. So unless your some prodigy in the wings we're unaware of I'd like to know your background. Because it seems more like naivety of someone your age that thinks they know the world already, to be honest.

*you're 14.

I had to.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

*you're 14.

I had to.

It's fine I tend to rush my post and miss simple errors, and I do the same to people who say I could care less instead of couldn't.

 

[Bo]

Just because i'm 14 doesn't mean I can't be educated. This is the correct way to collect data, it's not a "hunch", or an opinion, but the scientific and mathematical standard for data collection. I get annoyed when age becomes a factor of the discussion, as if it makes your points less valid.

So if someone asked you how high you've managed to fly a kite you wouldn't just quote your highest height of 30 metres?

You would say well on Tuesday the 13th at 12:09 with air pressure of 2500 and wind speed of 13m/s it reached 30 metres but on Tuesday the 13th at 16:58 with a pressure of 1850 it reached 28 metres.

If I had a table of data from today, I couldn't use last Tuesday's height if I was asked how far it flew today. Because it's a lie.

Forget the term race. Race, qualifying, practice, it doesn't matter. Just think of the 6 hours as a longer time period to collect data (speed trap info). By including data from Friday you increase sample size, it's not like they're running a different track or driving backwards in FP1. What would make the data so anomalous in practice for them to be discounted? Conditions doesn't count since they were changing in the race too.

I know what you're saying, but if we're discussing how it goes in a race, it'd be a flat out lie to go and use a potentially completely anomalous top speed from another day/session. We were talking about what happened in the race, so you can only used what happened in the race - quite simply because practice top speeds don't make for the same race top speeds.

If we were watching practice, and somebody said "that R18's slow", get speed trap figures from practice. They'd show how slow it was then.
If we were watching qualifying, and somebody said "that R18's slow", get speed trap figures from qualifying. They'd show how slow it was in comparison to others in qualifying.
If we were watching the race, and somebody said "that R18's slow", do you understand that getting a mix of figures from practice does not show it's top speeds in the race? Just because it was able to achieve it at one point, doesn't mean it did it in the race.

I'll end up by saying i've enjoyed the debate, and whether you want to use the correct way of collecting data or not, i'm not bothered. I know this is the correct way to do it, so I won't change my mind on it.

I don't want to drag this off topic, so if you think i'm an idiot who knows nothing, we can leave it at that. All i've said above is all there is to it, because i'll just end up repeating myself.

To get it back, who's excited for Le Mans?