An examination of the pit stops of the two LMP1 Audis at Sebring reveals different strategies for the two cars. For various reasons, the “Live Timing” screens did not allow a proper comparison to be made between the two R18 e-tron quattros. Maybe the combined effort of Paul Truswell and David Legangneux sheds a little more light on the matter.
Following my article last week, in which I tried to draw some inferences about the season ahead from the data arising from the Sebring 12 hours, David Legangneux has been in touch with his own analysis of the time spent by the two Audi R18s in the pits during the race.
I have altered his work slightly, but present it here as a means of comparing the strategies of the two Ingolstadt cars as the 12 hours unfolded.
As this is a “pit stop” table, “Driver in” is the driver who brought the car into the pits, and “Driver out” is the driver who re-joined the race at the wheel.
A “C” in the Lap column indicates that the pit stop was made during a full course caution.
A “C” in the Stint column indicates that there was a full course caution during the stint.
A “T” in the Tyres column indicates that tyres were changed during the stop.
| #1 Audi R18 e-tron quattro (2012) | ||||||
| Pit Stop | Driver in | Lap (end of) | Stint (laps) | Stop duration | Tyres? | Driver out |
| 1 | Tréluyer | 21 | 21 | 1m 07s | – | Tréluyer |
| 2 | Tréluyer | 44 | 23 | 1m 21s | T | Fässler |
| 3 | Fässler | 70 | 26 (C) | 1m 06s | – | Fässler |
| 4 | Fässler | 93 | 23 | 1m 24s | T | Jarvis |
| 5 | Jarvis | 116 | 23 | 1m 07s | – | Jarvis |
| 6 | Jarvis | 141 | 25 (C) | 1m 18s | T | Tréluyer |
| 7 | Tréluyer | 164 | 23 | 1m 07s | – | Tréluyer |
| 8 | Tréluyer | 172 (C) | 8 | 2m 08s | – | Tréluyer |
| 9 | Tréluyer | 196 | 24 (C) | 1m 07s | – | Tréluyer |
| 10 | Tréluyer | 219 | 23 | 1m 19s | T | Fässler |
| 11 | Fässler | 236 (C) | 17 | 2m 20s | T | Fässler |
| 12 | Fässler | 261 | 25 (C) | 1m 06s | – | Fässler |
| 13 | Fässler | 284 | 23 | 1m 18s | T | Jarvis |
| 14 | Jarvis | 307 | 23 | 1m 07s | – | Jarvis |
| 15 | Jarvis | 330 | 23 | 1m 18s | T | Tréluyer |
| 16 | Tréluyer | 353 | 23 | 0m 53s | – | Tréluyer |
| Finish | Tréluyer | 364 | 11 | |||
| TOTAL | 21m 06s | |||||
| #2Audi R18 e-tron quattro (2013) | ||||||
| Pit Stop | Driver in | Lap (end of) | Stint (laps) | Stop duration | Tyres? | Driver out |
| 1 | Kristensen | 21 | 21 | 1m 17s | T | Kristensen |
| 2 | Kristensen | 43 | 22 | 1m 17s | T | McNish |
| 3 | McNish | 60 (C) | 17 | 1m 11s | T | McNish |
| 4 | McNish | 83 | 23 (C) | 1m 05s | – | McNish |
| 5 | McNish | 105 | 22 | 1m 16s | T | di Grassi |
| 6 | di Grassi | 119 (C) | 14 | 1m 05s | T | di Grassi |
| 7 | di Grassi | 142 | 23 (C) | 1m 05s | – | di Grassi |
| 8 | di Grassi | 164 | 22 | 1m 16s | T | Kristensen |
| 9 | Kristensen | 190 | 26 (C) | 1m 05s | – | Kristensen |
| 10 | Kristensen | 213 | 23 (C) | 1m 18s | T | McNish |
| 11 | McNish | 236 (C) | 23 | 1m 16s | T | McNish |
| 12 | McNish | 260 | 24 (C) | 1m 08s | – | McNish |
| 13 | McNish | 282 | 22 | 1m 17s | T | di Grassi |
| 14 | di Grassi | 304 | 22 | 1m 06s | – | di Grassi |
| 15 | di Grassi | 326 | 22 | 1m 19s | T | Kristensen |
| 16 | Kristensen | 347 | 21 | 0m 59s | – | Kristensen |
| Finish | Kristensen | 364 | 17 | |||
| McNish | 87 | 1m 35s | Penalty | |||
| TOTAL | 20m 34s | |||||
Readers can draw their own conclusions, but the following thoughts occur to me:
(a) The number 2, “high downforce” Audi R18 is less economical on fuel than the number 1 car – it manages a maximum of 22 green laps on a stint, compared to 23 for the number 1 car.
(b) The number 2 car is also harder on its tyres, getting through 11 sets of tyres during the race, compared to 8 for the number 1.
(c) The penalty for McNish just about cancelled out the two longer pit stops for the number 1 Audi to repair the underbody during the caution periods.
You can be sure that the people at Toyota will be examining the implications of this just as much as those at Ingolstadt.
Paul Truswell
