Apex Magazine Issue #001

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

TECHNOLOGY

ISSUE #001

LE MANS PROTOTYPES

JUNE

4

DEBATE A QUESTION OF FUEL

10

CLUB

IN NUM8ER5

BRITCAR ROUND ONE

NURBURGRING 24 2012

13

NEXT ISSUE

15

ISSUE #002 ON SALE JULY 1ST

LE MANS

PLUS

INDY 500 CADWELL PARK BEHIND THE SCENES

2

EDITOR

Dan Bathie - Nurburgring 24 Hour Photographs Getty Images - Debate Section Photographs Christopher M.K - Writer Adam Pigott - Designer, Photographer, Writer

A

busy month was in store for this first issue of Apex Magazine, with the split magazine means twice the amount of work! In this start-up issue we send Christopher M.K to find out what really makes modern Le Mans Prototypes tick, we ask if the penalty applied to Lewis Hamilton at the Spanish Grand Prix was justified, take a look at Britains premier club level GT racing series – the MSA British Endurance Championships and to round off the issue we look at how the Nurburgring 24 Hour can simply boggle the mind.

For me the highlight of this issue is definitely Chris’ look at the Le Mans premier class, whilst Le Mans has been growing in popularity I don’t believe that everyone truly appreciates the amount of effort (and money!) that goes into these cars. Works teams like Audi, Peugeot and Toyota put so

much time into each element of the car – I won’t go into too much detail as Chris will explain more later!

In our sister publication ‘Apex Retro’ we take a look into some of the more iconic elements of the sport.

This month we ask why the powder blue and orange colours of the Gulf Livery are an icon of motorsport. We also take a behind the scenes look at the Donington Historic festival – what’s it like to be a photographer for a weekend? Well I decide to record a day in the life of a media photographer. We also take a photographic review of the HSCC Wolds Trophy Meeting – this was a superb event with some beautiful machinery, this section is definitely worth a look.

Its been a real joy compiling this issue of Apex, and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I’ve done creating it.

Join us next time to continue getting an in-depth look into the world of motorsport.

TECHNOLOGY LE MANS PROTOTYPES ARE PACKED WITH TECHNOLOGY, CHRISTOPHER M.K LOOKS INTO WHAT MAKES THEM TICK.

O

ne of the turning points in modern Le Mans prototypes was Audi’s switch to a diesel powerplant for the R10 prototype which debuted in 2006.

This was a risk, and it took a large manufacturer with great technical skills (and great funding) to develop the more complicated engine and chassis. Diesel does offer benefits over gasoline power, and with their risk they provided a further development to motorsports and its relevance to the world.

Previously, Audi had secretly tested other developments with their

4

SPACE-CRAFT

TECHNOLOGY

engines, such as direct-injection in 2001 on the R8, and variablegeometry turbochargers on the R15 in 2010 – and only informed about its development after the fact. There were rumours in 2011 that the latest Audi prototype the R18 had been secretly homologated as a hybrid and was now in place. This turned out to be most likely untrue due to safety concerns – however it leads into the current year 2012 – when not only Audi has two diesel-hybrid R18s on the grid at the Le Mans 24 hour, but there are two gasoline-hybrids from Toyota, who has decided to return to Le Mans as a manufacturer after an absence of more than a decade.

The rules and regulations have been altered over the years to try to equalize the performance between the new diesels and other gasoline powered entrants. So far, these restrictions placed on the diesels in the Audi (and Peugeot) have seemed less than effective – as the diesel-powered manufacturers teams have dominated in both speed and efficiency. However some of this dominance is due to the large amount of funds the large manufacturers have access to in comparison to smaller racing outfits. In 2012, there have been a further restrictions on diesels, perhaps in concession to Toyota.

Toyota’s new TS030 Hybrid utilizes a gasoline 3.4 liter V8 along with a super-capacitor hybrid system. This eschews batteries in favour of a capacitor which holds the electrical energy for shorter period of time.

The rules for the hybrid system are that they can power the front wheels (making the car 4 wheel drive), but only at speeds greater than 120 km/h. Audi has chosen to make their electric drive system power the front wheels, whereas Toyota has yet to decide in testing.

Aerodynamics is a critical component of a prototypes development. Often there are aerodynamic adjustments made to each car based on the demands of different circuits in the form of alternate whole sections of the car. One of the key concepts to be applied is the design of a prototype, is the the downforce gained versus drag added benefit analysis. This of course is not just a concept for prototypes, they share this with other aerodynamically dependant series such as Formula 1.

The general idea is figuring out ways to increase the downforce of the car while creating a minimum amount of drag. The downforce pushes the car into the tarmac at speed to increase cornering speeds, but the drag it creates only slows down the car on straight portions. This is especially important on circuits with high top speeds, such as the Sarthe which holds the Le Mans 24 hour race.

Toyota’s overall system seems to be lighter – allowing lenience in where they place their hybrid system. Diesel engines are heavier, so Audi has gone to great lengths to lighten other portions of the car, such as a carboncomposite subframe/gearbox carrier and bellhousing which were included into the car in 2011 in advance of the hybrid system: especially since they had weight-distribution problems with the R10 due to the weight of the engine. When they developed the R15 after their experience with the R10, the cylinder count was reduced to 10 to reduce some of the problems of the V12 in the R10.

One of the ways to create downforce is to use a diffuser underneath the body. This is used in other forms of racing as well, such as Formula 1, though Le Mans Prototypes have a distinction in that they can run

6 “ONE OF THE MAIN TURNING POINTS IN LMP1 WAS AUDI’S SWITCH TO DIESEL”

Petrol runners Aston Martin, HPD, Lola, OAK and Oreca have been significantly slower than the diesels in the past.

REBELLION LOLA B10/60

TECHNOLOGY

PEUGEOT 908 HDI

8

diffusers located in the front section, while F1 cars cannot because of their open front section. To describe a diffuser simply, it exploits laws explained in Bernoulli’s principle. The pressure beneath the car decreases while the velocity increases: and since the pressure below the car is lower than on the side and above the car, downforce is produced if properly executed. The diffuser “drives” the underbody, which produces the downforce. It is important to note that this is more difficult to achieve with a front diffuser than one located rearward, and problems can occur with the handling of the car.

There are other ways to improve its effectiveness also, such as using the front wing and nose to try and keep clean air flowing around, and more importantly under, the car. The rear wing can also be used if separated into two sections, such as in the 1991 Jaguar XJR-14 in order to drive the flow underneath the car.

During Le Mans in 2011, there was a 6 km/h difference in top speed between the Audi R18s and Peugeot 908s due to different configurations in terms of the higher downforce

R18 versus a more aerodynamically trimmed Peugeot 908. This is a difference in philosophies and benefit analysis based on the strength of the car itself, rather than a difference in technology: and is a critical part in terms of race strategy. Can the top speed be sacrificed for more speed in the corners, and what is the perfect balance for each track? That is what teams have to decide. There are so many members of a team; some are dedicated to analyzing data to configure the car in a way to optimize its performance, sometimes even before the team reaches the track.

Some of the developments lately have been based upon safety, the implementation of a large fin located behind the cockpit, and large rectangular holes over the wheels in particular. These safety features have been affectionately nicknamed the “big honking fin” and the “big honking holes” and are mandatory for ACO competition. Their aim is to reduce yaw-flip (such as what occurred to the number 7 Peugeot in 2008 at Le Mans and McNish in 2011) and increase safety in general with a reduction in top speed.

“DURING 2011 LE MANS THERE WAS A 6KPH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUDI AND PEUGEOT.”

DEBATE

A

[OR LACK OF]

FUELLED DEBATE

Lewis Hamilton was sent to the back of the grid due to a ‘technical’ infringement, we discuss if it was the right choice...

Photographs: Getty Images/McLaren

10 “WHY SHOULD HAMILTON BE PLACED ABOVE CARS THAT HAD LEGIMATELY QUALIFIED? ” Adam Pigott

A few weeks back the Formula One circus was the Spanish Grand Prix, whilst the race itself saw a surprise win from Pastor Maldonado some other interesting things happened across the weekend. The main focus of which being Lewis Hamilton. In qualifying Hamilton had made it into the final qualifying session (Q3) and in the last few minutes of the session managed to set the fastest lap time of the session putting him on a provisional pole for the race.

He would then stop on the cool down lap with Mclaren claiming force majeure. He was then penalised for not completing his lap and was sent to the back of the grid. Let’s have a debate!

AP: So, I think that Hamilton’s grid penalty was justified. He qualified with a technically illegal car (at least in Formula One terms) so why should be be placed above cars which had legitimately qualified?

CK: I believe although he did have enough fuel to test - he did not have enough to make it back to the pits.

When has there ever been found to be a illegal fuel anyway? But the most critical point to me is that he qualified in Q1 and Q2 legally - he made it back to pits. Why wipe out those results? If he had wrecked the car at the end of Q3 it would have counted, wouldn’t it?

AP: Well, McLaren claimed that it was force majeure - this means that was unavoidable. I don’t know about you but to me not putting enough fuel into the car is not unavoidable.

If Hamilton had crashed on the his cool down lap that would have also been his fault and he would have been given a similar treatment.

CK: I think that simply sealed their fate. Since they have done it previously - they have changed the rules. And what they have changed it to is too far in the other direction. I think if you couldn’t finish the lap because you got stuck in the gravel or something - your last qualifying time still counts.

AP: I think there’s a fine line between force majeure and having a unavoidable accident. As an example, if Hamilton had managed to put himself into the gravel on his cool down lap that would have been his fault - he shouldn’t have been pushing the car? Right? Whereas if a wheel had fallen off he would have been. There would have been nothing he could have done to avoid it. The point is Mclaren essentially pulled a move which could be classified as cheating.

CK: I don’t believe McLaren did it on purpose. They know the rules. As for Hamilton putting himself in the gravel - it would be his fault. But it would

Christopher M.K

“I HONESTLY DON’T THINK THAT THE SEVERAL POUNDS THE FUEL WEIGHED WOULD HAVE ADDED HALF A SECOND TO HIS LAPTIME.”

DEBATE

AP: As I’ve said from the moment this situation appeared, how do we know Mclaren didn’t do it on purpose?

We all know how Formula One cars run so much better on lighter loads of fuel. The decreased weight and lower centre of gravity means they would have a distinct advantage – he finished the session with 1.3 litres in the tank, they need a litre for testing. Essentially this means he could have been running 3-4 litres less than everyone else. Mclaren can monitor everything in the car; they knew how much fuel he had. If they knew he didn’t have enough and had under fuelled him by accident, why didn’t they get him to abort his qualifying lap?

CK: Well. The rules do say what would happen if it was underfuelled.

And unless their memories are the equivalent of a Goldfish’s they likely remember - since it was action against them particularly! And I honestly don’t think that the several pounds the fuel would have weighed to get him back would have added a half second. Maybe a tenth, but not that much. I think they didn’t get him to abort because...what would be the point? It’s already a problem. It’s possible they didn’t understand that the rules stipulated the very back of the field. Maybe simple back of Q3.

Which is the only thing that makes sense really. After all, he qualified in

0.5 SECONDS QUICKER THAN SECOND PLACED MALDONADO

1:21.707 1.0 LITRE OF FUEL REQUIRED FOR TESTING

1.3 LITRES LEFT

OVERALL LAPTIME

have counted. Alonso spun into the gravel in Q2 and managed to keep his time. Granted, it is on a cool-down lap. But I would be intrigued into what would happen there.

12

Q1 and 2 legally so he already proved he was quick.

AP: That’s true. However, Hamilton did qualify 0.5 seconds quicker than Maldonado, in F1 terms that’s a fair amount. To wrap this up, I think Hamilton’s penalty was completely justified. If anything it proved to other teams that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable - the teams are supposed to be the best in the world and mistakes are not looked upon lightly. What are your final thoughts?

CK: I agree it was a large amount too much to simply had to do with underfuelling. But that is not the issue. I believe the rule governing this behaviour is too harsh. If they wanted to make an example to make sure no one does it - that’s fine if you really want to bethat sadistic. But in Formula 1 terms - in a series where passes are tough to come by - moving the person back to their previously legally qualified position (when they moved on from Q2 into Q3), is the only fair thing to do, not throwing out all of what they previously had done following the rules. That is not justified.

In conclusion, the jury is out! I’m still in firm belief that whilst the punishment may well have been harsh on Lewis - it was also the right choice to make for the sport.

Cheating has never been looked upon lightly within the sport and I don’t think it should change now. However, he did have enough fuel for testing and his fuel was in order so you do have to wonder if this penalty was perhaps a step too far.

“I THINK IT WAS JUSTIFIED. IF ANYTHING IT PROVED TO OTHER TEAMS THIS BEHAVIOUR IS UNACCEPTABLE.” Adam Pigott

SO THAT’S WHAT WE THINK, BUT WE WANT YOUR OPINION, WRITE TO US AND WE’LL PUBLISH THE BEST COMMENTS.

CLUB RACING FOCUS

BRITCAR ummer did appear to arrive early this year. In this month’s club racing focus we are taking a look at the opening round of the MSA British Endurance Championship, also known as BritCar. A wide range of cars took part in the two races across the weekend including Moslers, Ferrari’s, and other GT machinery.

The second race of the weekend with the big GT cars had a tremendous battle for first place between the three leading cars, a Mosler, Ferrari F430 and the Rapier. I think that for any budding GT fans this is a must see championship, it’s going from strength to strength and a range of rounds from across the UK means there are many opportunities to see the cars race. Of course the crown jewels for the series is the BritCar 24H race also at Silverstone – this is a must see event for anyone. We’ll be running a preview for this before the event starts.

14

ROUND 1 SILVERSTONE

MARCH 24TH

#N24

NURBURGRING 24 HOURS

EVENTS 1N NUM8ER5

T 40TH edition

2012

he 40th edition of the ADAC Zurich N端rburgring 24 Hour seemed to do everything on the biggest scale possible. A recorded 230,000 spectators were in attendance for the biggest race in Germany this year.

We take a look into the numbers that make the N24 so unique.

8:18.382 POLE POSITION #19 BMW Z4 GT3 TEAM SCHUBERT

16

6.8 CARS PER KM

1,000FT OF ELEVATION CHANGE

25kM Photographs: Dan Bathie / l’endurance

155 LAPS

3875 170 KILOMETRES

170 CORNERS

CARS

600

DRIVERS

DIFFERENT CLASSES:

28

Mclaren MP4-12C GT3 - Blancpain Endurance Series, Silverstone, United Kingdom, June 2nd 2012. Canon EOS 60D + 70-200mm f/2.8

FINISHED? Now visit Apex Retro for more features, diaries, interviews and more...