The Longest Day is Back! 24 hours at Nelson

[Bill Miller]

For the sake of discussion then, what's an optimum stint length? At one point when I suggested a 25-gal. cell, one learned individual said, "I sure as hell don't want to be in the car for 3-1/2 hours!" - or words to that effect.

If the tank is too big, the maximum time-in-car rules at most events will make it impossible to double-stint a driver. If that's a factor, the magic number at VIR would have been 2 hours' worth of gas.

K
[/b]

Nothing personal to the person that made the comment, but if they're not prepared to do a 3 - 3.5 hr stint, they're not the person that you want for a 24 hr race. Double-length stints like that are pretty much required for a 24 hr race if you want any chance at a win.

[JohnRW]

Nothing personal to the person that made the comment, but if they're not prepared to do a 3 - 3.5 hr stint, they're not the person that you want for a 24 hr race. Double-length stints like that are pretty much required for a 24 hr race if you want any chance at a win.
[/b]

Disagree, a whole bunch.

If you've got a driver who can remain consistant thru a 3 hour shift, great. If not, no big deal. Consistancy is worth more than 'ass-in-seat time'.

[Bill Miller]

Disagree, a whole bunch.

If you've got a driver who can remain consistant thru a 3 hour shift, great. If not, no big deal. Consistancy is worth more than 'ass-in-seat time'.
[/b]

John,

How many 24hr races have you run or been a part of?

Let's do the math. If you cut stint time from 3hrs to 1.5 hrs, you've just doubled the number of pit stops. Figure you're going to lose at least one lap on a long course like VIR (~2:30 lap times) and probably 2 laps on a shorter course like Summit Point (~1:30 lap times). So, if you run 3hr stints, that's 8 stints and 7 pits stops (24hr race, assuming no unscheduled pit stops). Cut the stint time to 1.5hrs, and you kick your number of stints up to 16, but more importantly, you kick your number of pit stops up to 15. That's 8 more pit stops, which means 8-16 'lost' laps. That's at least 20 minutes that you 'give away'. So, yes, it is a big deal.

To my way of thinking, what we might do differently than some folks is replace failure-point pieces proactively - hubs, bearings, CV joints, stub axles, etc. - rather than waiting until the bust. That costs, of course.[/b]

You forgot to add transmissions to that list!! :P

[JohnRW]

Considering it just a "time on tank" math problem is a gross simplication. Just because you CAN put a big cell in a car doesn't mean that you SHOULD put a big cell in there. Adding a bigger cell creates other problems...weight, handling and driver fatigue.

Most club racers are pretty much 'well-done' at the 2 hour mark. They don't do this often, and don't have experience pacing themselves. We watch lap times and will call for a driver change if lap times get erratic. In previous years, we'd pulled 'time cards' on rival driver's cars in other enduros, and run them thru a spreadsheet to see who the consistant drivers were...because we knew that consistancy and stability was more important than outright speed. At the Summit Point 12 Hour, the only year we were ever beaten in Showroom Stock, I had walked down pitlane pre-race and told one other team "YOU are our competition", even though there were 3 RunOffs winners running in several other SS cars. Ask Joe Leonard/5-Star of the DC Region...we knew that THEY would be the guys to beat us, based on their ability to perform. We told them pre-race that if we got beat, it would be by them...and it was them at the checker.

It's romantic to think that you'll have a team of drivers who will all perform well with 3+ hour shifts in the car, but it's fantasy. Somebody will end up on their roof, or stuck in a wall. That's a sudden reality-check that maybe it's not such a hot strategy, after all. Driver fatigue, and the inevitable problems that that will cause will more than eat up any benefits of "going long" on fuel.

Having all your drivers doing 3+ hour shifts, or even as a "passport to entry", is not a good idea. I'll stand by that.

How many 24hr races have you run or been a part of?[/b]

Driven as a part of a 4-driver team at two 24 hour races. Driven as half of a two driver team at fifteen 12-ish hour races. And you ? Anytime you'd like to publicly compare racing resumés, let me know.

[mgyip]

It's romantic to think that you'll have a team of drivers who will all perform well with 3+ hour shifts in the car, but it's fantasy. Somebody will end up on their roof, or stuck in a wall. That's a sudden reality-check that maybe it's not such a hot strategy, after all. Driver fatigue, and the inevitable problems that that will cause will more than eat up any benefits of "going long" on fuel.[/b]

Romantic or otherwise, building an endurance team around drivers who can't (sorry for the horrible pun) endure is silly. I've worked with one team that has had drivers who are more than capable of sitting in the car for 3+ hours without a mishap. Said team won the 12-Hours at the Point a few years back and took a 2nd at Moroso in '99 or '00 - I can't remember anymore. The same team ran the Tropical 12-Hour this year in Homestead and the Nelson 12-Hour with only 2 drivers and finished 2nd to an SRF at Homestead and 2nd to a Miata at Nelson. It is certainly possible.

The idea of using a monster-cell and making few stops is a race strategy that clearly works. Adding a large cell can have drawbacks BUT it's all about car preparation. If you just drop a 25 gallon cell in the back of a car that wasn't intended for that kind of weight, you'll have problems - no sh*t. As a friend always says to me PPP = PPP - Piss Poor Preparation = Piss Poor Performance.

Matthew

[slydrite]

Nothing personal to the person that made the comment, but if they're not prepared to do a 3 - 3.5 hr stint, they're not the person that you want for a 24 hr race. Double-length stints like that are pretty much required for a 24 hr race if you want any chance at a win.
[/b]

completely agree!