Q: We’ve heard (and seen) much about the impact of banning tire warmers in the WEC this year. Many probably think this is whining. OK, the tires are cold, just deal with it. IMSA does. But are there nuances there are between the WEC and IMSA that make this a legitimate issue? From what I can tell, the tires are the same construction for everyone between both series, with Peugeot being the exception — they seem to run a slightly different size to everyone else, and use that same size front and rear.
I know power can be delivered in different ways between LMH and LMDh. I’m curious to know how a team like Penske or Ganassi feel about the lack of tire warmers in WEC, given they use essentially the same car in IMSA without them. Is this more an LMH-specific problem? Are there aspects we do not think of that magnify the issue in the WEC?
Mark, Mississauga, Ontario Canada
MP: It is indeed a culture change for the WEC teams who’ve relied on tire warmers for decades, and it’s nothing new for the IMSA-bred teams who’ve never had them.
The part I’m struggling to grasp is how Hypercars like the Ferrari 499P that wrecked at Spa, which makes use of all-wheel drive, is traction limited on cold tires. Throw in the ability to dial up traction control to 11, and yes, the explosive complaining is a bit out of place. AWD Hypercars should be in the happiest place of all the prototypes; if anything, the two-wheel-drive GTPs/LMDhs should be in a really bad way.
There’s no doubt that with the cold track, cold tires, and reduction in downforce in this new prototype era, life is especially tough for drivers on their out-laps. But we can’t pretend this is the first time race cars and race car drivers have had to deal with this situation; if there’s a change after Spa, I’d guess it might be in the form of implementing extreme caution and traction intervention when they find themselves in similar conditions.