The race fan sees far fewer spectacular engine blow-ups than they us to. How much is that better technology and materials and how much is the built in fail-safe mechanisms?

I would say it is a reasonable split. The level of expertise in building engines, the metallurgy, and the effort that goes into making the engine correct off the drawing board, is much better now than it has been in the past. Historically, it would have been collecting all the components to build an engine, do some finger in the air calculations and then design your engine. Now you start with an engine that should work well from its initial design and you can go into a dyno program to make sure the engine works under all conditions. Before a Formula One engine ever gets to the track it will have done thousands and thousands of kilometers of reliability running.

What else makes engines more reliable in racing today?

As a result of aerospace and industry advances, better metals and materials are freely available, and compared to 20 or 30 years ago, at comparatively low cost. So you can afford to put good quality materials into “lower end” racing engines: they are not as exclusive as they once were. A good example is DLC (Diamond Like Carbon) coatings which were the domain of Formula One ten years ago. We can now DLC coat camshafts and camshaft followers and it removes almost all the friction. You can have low friction coating on your valves and pump shafts for example, plus we have low friction coatings seals with PTF (Teflon) lips on them rather than just rubber. What was once the domain of aerospace and F1 are now freely available to all levels of motorsports.

The other thing that has improved is reliability testing. In the past, you ran the engine in the car till it broke, worked out why it broke, and then made a stronger part. It used to be quite literally back of a cigarette pack type of calculations. Whereas now, almost all engine design companies are using the cad package CATIA. Most people in motorsport engine manufacturing use it along with chassis manufacturing as well. It has built in FEA (Finite Element Analysis) so before you have a single rod made or a single crank, you can actually analyze it if it is going to break or not. You do not have to go through the pain of making something that may end up lasting only five minutes. Most things that are manufactured and produced are close to the finished product. We use 1D modeling for performance development, and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) for gas and fluid flow in combustion chambers and ports. A long time before anything is forged or machined or cast, you have a very good idea if your engine is going to fundamentally work or not. And that carries over into the quality of the engine. For example, machining tolerances: having a CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machine that is accurate to five microns is common place now. You only have to go back twenty years when buying a new car required that you had to run it in. You do not break in new cars anymore; you get in them and drive them. That is basically because the standard tolerances in engineering are so much higher today.

Testing and simulation?

Once again, you have so many more sensors available to you today. For example, in measuring pressures in the cylinder is standard today. You also have mobile piston crown temperature sensors so you can actually measure your crown temperature using radio wave sensors. You have sensors that can establish if you have torsional vibration in the engine. So you can determine if you have any deficiencies in the engine at numerous levels and deal with it at the early stages.

How does dyno testing add to the reliability equation?

There are several stages of dyno testing. At the very early stages, you can rig test individual components. For example, to develop your valve train, you would have a head rig with a Perspex cam cover so you could see what is going on and you would run that and develop your valve train and make sure you do not have valve bounce and make sure you do not wipe cam noses or have any other kinds of damage. The lists of things that you can rig test are endless. That is one example. You can also have a pump rig, a head rig, and various other rigs to test parts of the engine in isolation.

Another level of testing is the single cylinder model. When you are trying to develop your engine in the initial stages, it is very cost effective to develop a single cylinder and measure the effects of that cylinder. So larger engine companies have a series of single cylinder dynos and create single cylinder versions of the engine.

The next stage after that is a steady-state dyno where you run tests on the engine at fixed RPMs and you can run to a schedule. So you ramp-up from RPM to RPM and simulate transient running to a certain degree or just spend extended periods of time at RPM levels to test the duty of the engine at those levels. For example, if you took a lap of Le Mans and did a histogram of the times spent at various throttle positions, engine RPM levels, and engine load levels, you could multiply that by a stint and multiply that by 24 hours and then divide it back into rpm load levels, so theoretically, you could prove your engine out in terms of distance alone on a steady-state dyno – X minutes of 8,000 rpms 50 per cent throttle, etc. and write a schedule to test that. Ultimately, that is not the real thing so the next step is transient running where you actually have a model of a lap of the circuit. F1 companies typically use Monza for wide open throttle time and Spa for a more generic circuit. In sports car racing, at AER for example, we have a model of Sebring, a model of Spa, and a model of Suzuka, and we can run these on the dyno and then you would set your dyno to run for a given distance. If you are trying to simulate Le Mans, you would target a minimum of a 36 hour test to give yourself a 50 per cent margin. Depending on the quality of your dyno and your budget, that will set how accurate your testing is. As an example, the dyno facility at AER does not have dynamic air speed. So we have a fixed speed air supply which does not represent the track since at the track, your car goes from 0 to 300 kph and our air is probably fixed in the region of 50 kph. The next step to a transient dyno with dynamic air. Typically only an F1 team or related engine company would have that kind of facility. Also the transient dyno testing that is done at AER is a simulated transient test. We can control to simulate load, but on the upshifts, you are tricking the dyno into slowing the engine down, and coordinate that with an engine cut off of some type, whereas on a true transient dyno, you would actually have the car gearbox doing shifts and you are a lot closer to simulating the whole car. So depending on where you are in motorsports, defines the quality of your dyno: whether it is a full transient dyno, a simulated transient dyno, or a steady-state dyno. You replicate as much as you can, but for example you cannot change the ambient pressure the day you are testing the engine. So if you know you are going racing in Salt Lake City, at 5,000 feet, you cannot simulate that very well. If your engine company is sitting on the Thames Estuary, and you are at sea level, than you are at sea level. You can modify the temperature, you can modify the air inlet to some degree, water temperature, and oil temperature. Certain conditions can be controlled for repeatability, but you come up with the best compensation you can for the things you cannot recreate.

As an example, how much work would be involved in doing a Sebring simulation on the Mazda AER engine?

To do a twelve-hour Sebring test represents a full week of engine build and a whole week of engine strip time, so you have a hundred hours of preparation and strip down plus the test itself. You have periodic inspections of the engine since you have the luxury of doing that. That is the advantage over a track test. At the track, if you have a problem half way through the test, you have to live with it, whereas on the dyno you can study your sensors and if there is something which does not look normal, you can stop and inspect. So typically a twelve-hour test could take two or three days of running time which would mean two or three personnel to make sure the test is properly supported.

This is all very high tech. So the days of making engines by the seat of the pants are a thing of the past? Could anyone open an engine shop if they had enough money?

Theoretically, but you need the practicality of knowledge. It is a balance of the technology and using that technology with experience. Ultimately, there is still no substitute for experience. For example, if you were to set up a brand new engine shop and hire a whole raft of geniuses with all the computer tools in the world, it is very likely they would design in lots of teething problems in your new engine. That would not happen if you had experienced engine people with hands-on expertise in your new company. Technology without experience only creates problems.

When you talk about failsafe mechanisms, what exactly are you referring to?

There are basically two main areas of failsafe strategies. The first is to protect the driver and the second is to protect the mechanics of the car: the engine, gear box, drivetrain, etc. In today’s race cars, where everything is controlled by electronics, you have to make sure that any problem fails to the safe strategy mode in order to keep the driver safe. For example, with drive-by-wire, you want to make sure the driver cannot at any time have more power than he is expecting otherwise he will lose control of the car. So the first line of defense are the gas pedal sensors – the pedal has two sensors and the sensors are compared with each other. There is a logic carried out and if they fall outside of an accepted range, the drive by wire system is shut down. That sensor than goes to the ECU which measures sensors on the throttle system whether it be butterflies or a barrel system. Once again, there are two sensors and if one sensor disagrees with the other sensor, it will shut the system down. We always default to protecting the driver rather than assuming it might be a faulty sensor and carry on racing. And beyond that it goes even further. There are strategies to compare brake pressure with gas pedal position and throttle position and again it is a simple logic program – if the throttle is wide open and the driver is pushing hard on the brake, than there is something wrong and you shut the engine down to protect the driver from unwanted engine power. So these are some of the driver protection aids which boil down to if the ECU senses that the engine is delivering more power than the driver wants, it shuts the ECU down.

There are numerous other failsafe mechanisms. The engine is protected against low oil pressure, high crankcase pressure, high water pressure, low water temperature, high water temperature, low oil temperature, high oil temperature, over boosting, over speeding, over speeding in the pit lane. There are almost too many strategies to count. In the case of the Dyson car, there is an ECU with over 80 inputs. We sense all wheel speeds, and all engine conditions so there is continuing logic being carried out on all those conditions and calculating if that is a safe set of circumstances for the engine to be in, and if it is not, we can cut the level of fuel and we can cut the level of spark. We can also artificially close the throttle. That is the irony – we will never give a driver more than he asks for but we will certainly close it if he is asking for more than is safe for the mechanics and condition of the car.

When did all these failsafe mechanisms and logic programs start?

It has grown over the years: systems expand as problems arise. For example, one of the earliest system is the combined monitoring of the brake pressure and throttle position sensors. That strategy works even in a non-electronic throttle car with a throttle cable. When you sense that you have too much throttle position and brake pressure at the same time, you simply turn the fuel off or turn the spark off. And when you have drive by wire, you can also close the throttle. That strategy goes back to when engines first started being ECU controlled. I think a lot of strategies evolve as a result of a failure. I remember working for a different engine manufacturer ten years ago, and we sent out a brand new engine for a test prior to the Melbourne race. The team had not connected the water pipe properly and it blew off and we lost all the water pressure and before the engineer noticed, we had heated the engine to over 266 degrees and failed it. The very next day, we wrote low water pressure protection. It basically looks at water pressure, water temperature and engine load and a simple logic strategy calculates if it is safe to continue running the engine, and if not, it shuts off.

You also protect for fuel pressure. Once again, your logic program compares your fuel demand with your pressure, and with your pump currents and establishes if the fuel demand exceeds what the engine could possibly be using or the pressure drop suggests that a hose has come off. You can turn off the fuel pumps and shut the car down in case there is a fire. All of these things are born from a real problem, a real fire, a real engine failure and you sit down the following week with your software engineers and come up with a strategy to protect it from happening again. Occasionally people are smart enough to think of them upfront, but by and large, they tend to be borne of necessity.

You mentioned 80 inputs – does that mean there are 80 different sensors?

Pretty much – there are 80 sensors around the car and around the engine. The engine has four crankcase pressures, two throttle position sensors, two gas pedal position sensors, multiple knock sensors, three different oil pressure inputs, four different air pressure inputs, an air temperature sensor, turbo speed, boost pressure, the speeds of each wheel, front brake pressure, rear brake pressure – the list is pretty endless. There are not many things that are not monitored!

And this is just the engine – this does not include all the sensors on the chassis.

Exactly. You have the chassis data logger which is capable of another 100 inputs and it is logging damper position, strain gauges, steering wheel angle yaw, lateral g forces, longitudinal g forces, and so forth. That is a whole different set of performance parameters being monitored. Typically on the chassis logger, you don’t have so many protection strategies. It is primarily a logging device. Whereas an engine ECU is primarily a control device with an amount of logging capacity built in. A chassis logger is designed to log data and display it in a user friendly way with a very small amount of processing capability.

Any situations this year or last year that led to new failsafe mechanisms?

Yes. In the past, brake pressure inputs were in the chassis logger – so that we were not able to do the driver throttle demand vs. brake pressure logic. The brake pressure inputs are now routed to the engine ECU to allow us to run that safety strategy and then the data is forwarded to the chassis logger so the chassis guys also get to see the information. So that is a protection strategy we added over the last year. We have also added a new information strategy. We now have a constant air box temperature and pressure sensor which is a new feature. Last year we suffered from a new air box design on the car which was not as efficient and cost us lap time for two or three races while we redesigned it. As I mentioned before, necessity often drives new features, so now we have added a new sensor to monitor the temperature and pressure in the air inlet box so that no matter what the aero design of the car or air inlet scoop may be, you can make sure that you are getting the correct positive air pressure in the air box.

So with all these sensors, logic programs, and electronic inputs, ultimately the primary focus is driver protection?

Absolutely – driver protection comes first and protecting your product is second and there is also a third consideration of budget protection. In sports car racing, there is a budget for two engines per car at any one time. But if we blow one up there is a good chance we will arrive at a race a fortnight later one engine short. In Formula One, that will not happen – they have multiple engines lined up at the factory worth half a million pounds each so the level of protection they would run would be lower than us since they can afford to fail an engine. But as you go down the ladder of budgets in motorsport, the protection strategies actually become a financial consideration as well as a protective consideration.

Faced with a set of 2014 ACO regulations that provide distinct advantages to those with access to KERS technology, privateer LMP1 teams were readying their own Occupy Wall Street movement against the likes of Audi, Porsche and Toyota, the figurative “one percent” able to afford the frightening levels of funding required to produce such systems.

With major technical partnerships in place and eight-figure budgets at their disposal, the benefits of KERS were reserved for factory P1 programs, and threatened to drive away the independent entrants – until a UK-based technical firm saw an opportunity to intervene.

Founded by a group of ex-Renault F1 engineers with a healthy giant-killing complex, Flybrid Automotive analyzed the factors that led to the extreme costs associated with KERS and formulated a plan – an antidote, if you will – that would shift a technology reserved for the privileged few and share it with the masses.

While F1 teams and P1 manufacturers spent small fortunes on coming up with ways to harness kinetic energy under braking, convert it to electricity and deliver it back to the wheels in the form of a power boost, Flybrid went retro tech, forsaking electricity with a genius alternative the other 99 percent could afford.

“Our system is purely mechanical,” says Flybrid’s Tobias Knichel. “It fits between the engine and transmission and is driven [by the input shaft]. We don’t use any batteries, super-capacitors or electric motors. It’s different from what people have seen in F1 and sports cars so far.”

Think of Flybrid’s P1 product as a group of F1 engineers having a Back To The Future moment with a torque converter. More accurately, think of it as advancing 50-year-old drag racing technology to suit the modern-day needs of harvesting kinetic energy and turning it into power through mechanical means.

Flybrid embraced metal and carbon fiber over electrons, fabricating a trick cylindrical flywheel that operates in a vacuum, assembling clutch packs in a compact unit that delivers a similar performance boost to what the factory prototypes get – at a fraction of the cost.

“What we have is basically a little gearbox, and it works with little clutches to capture energy under braking,” Knichel explains. “We have three slipping clutches that are connected to the vehicle with three different gear ratios. When we start to close the clutches, it increases the speed of the flywheel so we are releasing acceleration energy through the car’s transmission.

“The system is tied into the car’s ECU, and the rules dictate when the power is delivered to give the driver additional acceleration. This part is policed by the ACO rules, but the Flybrid system itself, in principle, is quite a simple concept.”
This side of the pond, in Poughkeepsie, NY, Flybrid found it had kindred spirits at Dyson Racing. The family-owned team had spent decades taking the fight to factory programs and, with an eye on the 2014 regulations, sporting director Chris Dyson knew finding an affordable KERS solution would be key to being competitive in P1.

“The regulations have an incentive built into them for regenerative technologies,” says Dyson, whose team uses the diminutive, AER-built, 2-liter Mazda 4-cylinder turbo to power its Lola B12/66, “so we quickly got together with the Flybrid guys to see what their technologies were and what their timing was. It was a pretty symbiotic relationship from the outset.”

The partnership made its debut at the Sept. 15 ALMS round at Virginia International Raceway, delivering a trouble-free run for Dyson and teammates Guy Smith and Johnny Mowlem on their way to second overall with the extra 135hp boost the Flybrid KERS unit gives.

Beyond the result achieved, VIR served as an even greater milestone – a clarion call – for sports car entrants. For what Dyson reckons will add 10 to 15 percent to a team’s annual drivetrain budget, bridging the KERS gap to the factories is now possible. In 1960s parlance, it’s “power to the people, man…”

Despite its numerous merits, Flybrid’s KERS alternative isn’t perfect. But with a price tag somewhere in the low six-figure region, it would be unreasonable to expect complete parity with what the factory P1 teams have spent untold millions and manhours to create.

At 40kg (88lbs), it isn’t especially heavy compared to the custom KERS unit in Audi’s R18 e-tron quattro, for example, but with all of its weight positioned towards the back of the car, chassis balance is certainly affected.

With the e-tron, which uses a pair of electric motors to drive the R18’s front wheels (see page 42), the forward bias of those motors can actually improve the car’s handling, while the Dyson team has had to make setup adjustments to mitigate some of the undesirable heft its KERS unit places across the rear axle.

And with 150hp or more on tap, the factory KERS units also possess a slight power advantage. But while more power and less weight is expected to come from Flybrid, overcoming the lack of centralized weight isn’t an option.

“With our engine being the lightest P1 engine out there, coming in at about 75kg (165lbs), we had room to accommodate the 40kg of mass that the Flybrid unit brings,” Dyson says. “Even with the extra weight, we’re still at or around where most other drivetrain packages are with just their engine alone. That was an advantage for us in going to the Flybrid, but we’ll have some work to do to the car over the winter – weight distribution, aero – to tailor everything to get the most from the chassis.”
Like most budget-minded solutions, Flybrid’s KERS technology isn’t perfect, but it does throw a lifeline to the privateers who were perhaps eyeing the exits for 2014. Factory prototype teams will continue to have a distinct financial advantage, but with its utilitarian KERS product, Flybrid makes a significant step towards leveling the playing field.

Practice

It was Wednesday, the first formal practice day, and the peach-like sun shone brightly all day with little wind. As race day nears, the paddock is filling up and a full count will be available tomorrow. Right now it looks like we`ll have at least 3 LMP1s, 7 or more LMP2 shining in black and gold Lotus grandeur or retro orange and light blue badges, French teams, English teams, American teams and drivers from all over the world.

Several notables include Indy champion Ryan Hunter-Reay (lovely Beccy is well along with their first baby due in January 2013), Dario Franchitti and his folically challenged younger brother, Marino, and of course in the car department, the slender-nosed Nissan Delta Wing car is here to compete.

Thursday showed up with showers at night and such heavy clouds through the morning that the track didn`t dry out until right before lunch. Two of us used the session to just peddle around getting used to the very heavy traffic, practicing anger management techniques that could save our race. The afternoon session let Chris McMurry do lots of push-ups until he was up to speed and comfortable pushing the car. By this stage all drivers thought they had a pretty good grip on the car, the buttons, switches, steering controls…until they switched the lights out in Gieeorgah for the mandatory all-driver night practice. Holy cow, I felt like Ray Charles just getting out of pit lane with the pit speed limiter still on. Ridiculous how you can go from full-testosterone to all-petticoat mode in a nanosecond in these violently fast cars. With hot tires and chilly blood running through your veins, nothing shows your ineptitude more quickly that the blind black turn-in point into the downhill esses. It`s tough to get the rhythm right in full daylight and at night it`s a complete stab in the dark. This is a driver`s track in any car, but at night, it requires the eyes of night owl, reflexes of a bat and the lunatic fringe courage of a Kamikaze pilot.

Friday brought back the impeccable 45 degree morning`s heavy with dew and a chill to the air, unfolding into 70-75 degree late summer skies and winds not difficult to drive in. Again our engineer Vince Wood pushed Chris McMurry into the car for more than half the session. I went out on Chris` tires and found the car very good to drive but still a little pushy through the fast corners. Adjustment, new tires and out for 4 or 5 more fast laps. Traffic was in heart attack mode, so I could only feel the car in places, with no really great lap time at all. But the car felt a lot better and I`d had a chance to feel the car with a light fuel load and fresh tires, just perfect as the last memories before jumping in to Qualify. Tony Burgess has to stand down for this session, but will get tomorrow morning`s 20 minute warm-up stint to himself with full tank, readying himself for the start of the race. Rather him than me.

Vince threw some Tennessee twayanggg at me about: “We be breaking into an 11 t`day, son” which in English means I will cut your head off if you qualify at 1 minute 12 seconds or higher. Our 3 drivers hadn`t reached lower than a 1:12.7 yet. The front of the LMP1 grid had put in amazing laps like 1:10 flat or 1:10.4, which is more than cause for pulling out the respect-o-meter again. It was tense, but Vince had added a little rake to remove the last hints of understeer and it worked like a charm. I tucked James Weaver and Steven Kane hints into the inner folds of my brain, made tiny adjustments to the turn-in points at 3 corners and used 4th gear in 2 corners instead of 3rd and before too long we`d broken down below the magic 1 minute 12 second layer and put 3 of the final 4 fast laps at 11.8, 11.9 and 11.8. This felt so good, though we had to settle for 4th on the grid behind the Dyson #16 car driven by pro driver Guy Smith with their first ever lap down at almost a 10-flat, the previous best of the week for any car. P1 and P2 poles went to drivers with 1:09 flat and 1:09.4, truly insane lap times. The LMP2 cars qualified right up our tail pipes within a hair of each other, so the race will be a glorious thing to behold tomorrow. Final tally is 4 LMP1s, 7 LMP2s and maybe 7 LMP9s, not to mention the army of GT cars in the field, all spelling traffic with a capital “T.”

Race Report

Quick 20 minute warm up session with heavy fuel loads and fresh tires for our starting drivers and then an hour-plus on the grid where every undecided Georgia voter and the entire hoard of ALMS fans camped out all over this 2.5 mile track, and swarmed all over, shooting shots of the slender lines, sculpted curves and gorgeous smiles of our flag girls. They also took pictures of our race cars.
Outrageously strong start by Tony Burgess for the first 4 laps hanging onto Chris Dyson`s 16 car like glue. Unfortunately he lost power and had to restart the engine, losing 10 seconds on that lap alone and getting passed by 3 or 4 LMP2 cars, causing another 1.5 to 2 second slippage per lap until he made it back past all these drivers. Chris had a challenging set of tires so couldn`t hold the pace of the P1 Rebellion LMP1 nor the # 6 Muscle Milk driven by Lucas Luhr. Just before the hour, in for fuel, both drivers stayed in, but our 20 car was awarded a stop and go penalty for exceeding the pit speed limit of 60 kph. Ouch.

Chris McMurry took the wheel under yellow flag conditions when the # 6 car was trucked back to the pits after contact with a slower car, and was holding P3 in class and P9 overall when he came in for fuel at the 2 hour mark.

After my stint, all 3 drivers shared the dummy award for having a speed limiter incident in pit lane. One driver making that mistake is normally a no-no, but all 3, now that takes some practice, lots of coordination and IQs well below room temperature. These are tiny incidents with ugly consequences – drive-through time at 60 kph plus the 20 second hold in the penalty box cumulatively put us 4 laps down at this short and speedy track. Other than the IQ problem, the car was running great and all 3 drivers enjoyed double stints of about 90 to 100 minutes, given the limits of the fuel tanks.

During my stint we moved up from about P12 to P5 or P4, maintaining our P2 position in the LMP1 class. Vince kept up a chorus of input about the next position and the seconds to close the gap – great short term goal setting and we had the car to reach each of the goals he kept setting. In my drive in an LMP2 car last year, the traffic was irritating but manageable. In the LMP1, the speeds are so high we can`t get a single clean lap ever. Really a challenge not to blow your stack or get involved in an incident after being robbed, lap after lap, of a good lap time. It`s actually not the same for everyone, as all other classes are slower and therefore have a closing speed differential way lower than we do and hence deal with lower number of GT and LMPC passes than we do.

Tony Burgess finished his 2nd stint in our car and right now Chris McMurry is clocking the latter half of his 2nd stint. We`re on Lap 274 versus the Rebellion Lotus leading from the 280th lap. Overall P2 and P3 are LMP2 cars, so there`s work to do with some of them 3 to 4 laps ahead of us….see IQ reference above.

Frustratingly long yellow flag situation with both drivers reporting no track work, but this ain`t racing as we crawl toward the last 3 hours of the race. Just heard from race control as the green flag dropped to restart the real race we all came to compete in: the delay was a software/data glitch where the accuracy of everyone`s laps and who was leading which class was subject to question. Can`t keep compounding that problem with hot laps, but now it`s all sorted out and lunacy is legal again. In fact, one LMP2 car only made it into Turn 1`s wall, dropping 3 laps before getting under way. And once again a yellow parade was called to rearrange everyone`s drink bottle, restarting on lap 297. Everyone`s lights are on, the sun is down and the last wispy clouds reflect pink and purple in the distance while the drivers enjoy the remaining visible laps of this epic race. It`s 7:30 PM and in half an hour or less the curtain comes down and it`s pitch back racing till 9:30.

Chris McMurry hustled around like a man committed to making history with only 2 hours to go, while Vince gave me the “10 laps to go sign”, so I jogged up without going to the port-a-john this time and waited nervously behind the spread of mechanics ready to leap across the wall with air guns, tires, driver water bottles, tire gauges and as much optimism and commitment as the drivers themselves. Chris brought the rubber-splattered nose into the pit box after more than 7 hours of racing, leapt out for what turned out to be our last driver change and I blasted out of the pits on new tires, focused only on keeping out of trouble and getting us that P2 trophy. Keeping out of trouble to a race car driver is not the same concept off the race track. You can`t help trying to brake later, getting on the gas earlier in Turn 5, pushing harder out of Turn 10b, but you take fewer chances passing slower traffic and fool yourself you`re protecting the team`s podium chances, while in truth you`re trying to beat Baumgarten`s free fall speed record.

The tires came in surprisingly quickly and I got to hustling around like in the mid-afternoon stint in no time at all, enjoying every moment. Ripping out of the slow 2nd gear Turn 7 and trying to haul in the Muscle Milk car, we suddenly had bright red lights filling the top of the steering wheel.

I recall as the crew wheeled the car behind the wall remembering the gracious comment made to my wife Elena and me by Greg Pickett, the owner of the Muscle Milk car after their early accident: “That`s racing” – no complaints, no bitterness, just head down and plow on to the end. This was our turn to have fortune`s switchblade stick one in our ribs and all we needed were another 18 laps on the track to make the P2 podium finish out of range for both the Dyson # 16 and the Muscle Milk # 6 cars. Under the tent the diagnosis was permanent electrical issues and there would be no more racing today. So Elena and I thanked the team for their effort and wandered up to Vanessa`s wonderful tented dining hall to watch the remaining laps tick by on TV, still registering the 20 car as OUT but holding vainly onto P2, losing that precious safety margin one lap at a time until, like the ocean`s unmovable tides, our castle was washed away forever with a few laps left to run. The impressive black and gold Lotus Rebellion team took overall victory, the Dyson #16 took our P2 trophies (I know they`ll forward them to Tony, Chris and me in due course) and Muscle Milk claimed P3. (The #20 car took home third place ALMS P1 points).

Win or lose, it`s hard to beat these amazing endurance racing experiences, especially with a team as friendly and welcoming as the Dyson family operation. We all had a ball preparing the car, defining the setup, practicing, qualifying, racing, and of course visiting with friends from far and wide: Ryan Hunter-Raey, Luis Dias, Marc Goosens, Chip Ganassi, the Franchitti brothers, Bill Riley, Michael Shank, Max Angelleli, Wayne Taylor, Dave Donohue, Antonio Garcia and all the fans who have followed us around the Grand Am and ALMS paddocks for almost a decade.

The #20 Dyson Racing entry of Tony Burgess, Mark Paterson and Chris McMurry were third in ALMS P1 points after the conclusion of the 394 lap race. They held down second place in P1 for over six hours of the nine-hour thirty-seven minute race until electrical problems retired their car an hour and a half from the end.

Chris McMurry summed up their race: “We ran a good strong race, with good lap times. Nobody put a wheel wrong and everybody was super smart and it was paying off. It was a shame we could not run to the end, but all three drivers said the exact same thing which is we all had a great time.” Tony Burgess echoed similar sentiments: “We were in very good position to have a good result but unfortunately our race ended with something beyond our control. But overall we had a very disciplined and good race.” Mark Paterson, who set the car’s fastest time, said “Tony and Chris drove fantastically. There was no ego and everyone was sharing. The three of us very much enjoyed driving with each other.”

This was the second race for the Flybrid KERS Hybrid system on the #16 car. “We made good strides with the system this week and will continue to work with it over the winter,” said Smith. “Its little bursts help when you are trying to work your way through the slower cars.” This was the first time Steven Kane has driven a car with a hybrid system. “My main focus this weekend was doing the best job I could for Chris and Guy and help them in their fight for the championship,” he said. “So my main battle was getting through traffic cleanly and the KERS helped make that a more confident exercise.”

The 2012 ALMS P1 championships came down to the last race of the year. The team came to Road Atlanta with a mathematical chance to repeat their 2011 titles, but Pickett Racing clinched the championship by virtue of completing seventy percent of the race distance. Chris Dyson and Guy Smith finished second in the Drivers Championship. Dyson drivers occupied the next five championship positions with Eric Lux third, Michael Marsal fourth, Steven Kane fifth, Tony Burgess sixth, Johnny Mowlem seventh and Mark Paterson and Chris McMurry ninth. The team took second in the Team Championship and Mazda took home second place in the Engine Manufactures Championship as did Dunlop in the Tire Manufacturer Championship.

“Our congratulations to Klaus Graf and Lucas Luhr on their championships. And for Greg and Penny and the whole Pickett family and race team, this is a great accomplishment and is well-deserved. There is no one else in racing that we have more respect for and they are great friends and competitors,” said Chris Dyson. “Having won the championship last year, we know the week in and week out focus it takes and how much work it requires and how very special it feels when you win it. We are very happy for them.

“We would not have been able to take the fight to them as we did this year without the support of our partners who share our passion for competition at the highest level. This is our fourth year with Mazda and they have been supportive throughout. Advanced Engine Research (AER) has been providing our winning horsepower for eight years and Dunlop has worked hard throughout the season.

“Our thanks and appreciation to all the drivers in the 20 car who contributed to our championship fight. Michael Marsal and Eric Lux showed they have what it takes to win races with their victory at Baltimore and our seasoned mix of Johnny Mowlem, Tony Burgess, Mark Patterson and Chris McMurry were a pleasure to work with and we welcome them to the Dyson family.”

In addition to taking home first place ALMS P1 points at the 12 Hours of Sebring and the 15th Annual Petit Le Mans Powered by Mazda, the team was one-two in P1 at Baltimore and won at Road America. Guy Smith set a record with the closest ever overall finish in ALMS history at Road America with his 0.083 margin of victory over Lucas Luhr, while Chris Dyson celebrated his 100th ALMS start at the following race at Baltimore. The team had a total of seventeen podiums this year and won their 200th podium at Mid-Ohio in August.

“I am proud of this team. Michael White, Peter Weston, Vince Wood and everybody who makes this organization such a special group,” Team Principal Rob Dyson said. “They all put in long hours and worked tirelessly. With their effort, we were able to take the championship down to the last race of the season. I am very happy for Greg Pickett. It is competitors like him whose passion makes this sport possible. They are worthy victors and share our view that these cars produce the most exciting racing in the country. I am optimistic that we will be able to keep the brightness that makes our sport unique in the future. The 2013 season starts tonight.”

You can follow Dyson Racing at: dysonracing.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Guy Smith qualified in third place in the #16 Mazda-powered ModSpace/Thetford entry, one second off pole. “We knew that we would not have the ultimate pace in qualifying but we have done enough ten-hour races to know that anything can happen,” said Smith. “All three of us, Chris Dyson, Steven Kane and myself, have been comfortably fast in the car and are confident of a good race tomorrow. We have a good race car and will focus on what is in our control, our own performance, and the results will come.”

Mark Patterson qualified the #20 Dyson Racing entry fourth. Sharing the car with veteran drivers Tony Burgess and Chris McMurry, he joked “that between us, we have 164 years of driving experience in this car! Seriously, it was a very satisfying qualifying session. Vince Wood, our race engineer, said we would break into the 12’s and we did. He deserves all the credit. He made simple little changes one at a time and he gave us a great car.”

New to Dyson Racing this weekend is Chris McMurry. He noted that “to be perfectly honest, this is the easiest car I have driven. It is so responsive. Things that I have had to diligently think about in the past, such as doing turn twelve flat, is just a no brainer in this car. The Dyson team has done an amazing job with this car. I think the “geriatric trio” will do very well tomorrow.

“This is my first time driving for Dyson Racing and it is different than what I thought. The difference is the hospitality, the character of the people and the friendliness. They embrace you with open arms and are supportive and encouraging and focused on helping everyone get the result we want. I have not experienced that with any team at this level.”

Commenting on the championship battle, Dyson said, “If this year has taught us anything, it is until the checkered flag drops, it is not over. We will execute as we have been doing all year. Both cars have been immaculately prepared and are ready for the second longest race of the year. Besides, we have Steven Kane with us, who drove with us for our first win of the year at the 12 Hours of Sebring. We think of him as our Irish good luck charm! It has been an amazing year with good competition the whole way with some great races. We will close out the season as we started by pushing the Muscle Milk guys and showing the fans what top-level prototype racing is all about.”

The 15th annual Petit Le Mans powered by Mazda airs on ABC from 1:00 to 3:00 PM ET on Sunday October 21. The 1,000 mile/ten-hour race begins at 11:30 AM tomorrow with full live coverage starting at 11:15 AM on ESPN3.

You can follow Dyson Racing at: dysonracing.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Returning to join Dyson and Smith in the #16 Mazda-powered ModSpace/Thetford entry will be Steven Kane while Chris McMurry will partner Tony Burgess and Mark Patterson in the #20 Dyson Racing entry. This will be the inaugural Dyson race for McMurry.
McMurry commented, “The combination of one of the world’s leading teams and one of the world’s greatest sports car races was too hard to pass up. I’m very familiar with Petit Le Mans having run it about ten times. And I know Dyson all too well having competed against them for so many races over ten years. I’ll say that I’m glad to be on their side this time around!”

“We’re very happy to have Chris join the team,” Chris Dyson said. “He’s a very proven driver, with a solid pair of hands and we have seen firsthand over the years how steady he and Tony are as a pairing. Adding Mark to the mix, the 20 car has a good chance to score a solid result at the Petit.”

Chris McMurry brings experienced competence to the Petit Le Mans race weekend. He has raced in sixty-four races in the American Le Mans Series since his first Petit in 2001. The ALMS veteran finished fourth in the P1 championship last year with five consecutive P1 podiums to his credit including a second in P1 at the Petit Le Mans. He started racing in 1998 in the Star Mazda Series and recorded his first wins in the ALMS in 2002, taking three wins in nine starts in P2. He added three more P2 wins in 2005, including the class win at the 12 Hours of Sebring and finished second in the championship. He moved to P1 in 2006 with three class podiums his first year. No stranger to endurance racing, he has raced twice at the 24 Hours of Le Mans: his first in 2003 and again in 2008.

Mark Paterson made his Dyson Racing debut last month at Virginia International Raceway and returns to the #20 car line-up for the season ending race. Like McMurry, he brings Petit Le Mans expertise to the mix, including a second place P2 finish last year with Stefan Johansson and Zak Brown. Rounding out the driving trio will be Tony Burgess. He first drove with the team at his home track at Mosport, where he finished third in P1, followed by a third place finish at the four-hour Road America race.

Steven Kane will be back again sharing Dyson driving duties. Kane co-drove earlier this year with Dyson and Smith at the season-opening 12 Hours of Sebring, where they won first place ALMS P1 points. “Kaney” is a fan favorite who made a big splash in the series when he co-drove the sister #20 car last year and won the Baltimore Grand Prix in only his fifth race with the team.

“It’s great to come into the last race of the season with a shot at winning the championship,” team principal Rob Dyson said. “It’s not going to be easy, but I’m confident we have two strong cars and the team is executing better than ever. It’s a long race and we have seen over the years, anything can happen at the Petit—one of our favorite events.”

You can follow Dyson Racing at: dysonracing.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

The #16 Mazda-powered ModSpace/Thetford car qualified second and ran second for 92 laps of the 135 lap race. Chris Dyson started the car and drove the first 45 minute stint. Johnny Mowlem did a yeoman’s middle stint of over two hours and handed it over Guy Smith who took the checkered flag.

Dyson commented that “at the end of the day we did not have the pace today to really contend so our strategy was to execute and make sure we got both cars home in the points, which we accomplished. We introduced the Flybrid KERS hybrid system this weekend and our first impressions are very favorable. It is in its early days yet, and we will continue to optimize it for the Petit (Le Mans).”

The #20 Dyson Racing entry had a more eventful race. It spun at the first turn on the first lap and eventually retired towards race end with a heat-damaged wiring harness. It just missed completing the 70 percent of race distance needed to earn third place P1 points by .0038 percent. Mark Patterson started the race. “The front two cars went side by side into the first turn,” said Patterson. “I did not want to run into them and affect the championship race. The brakes and tires were cold and I spun around slowly and with the close quarters at the beginning of a race, a couple of cars made contact with us.” Patterson brought the car in and the crew replaced the front nose and rear clip and resumed with a solid double stint. Mark’s co-driver Michael Marsal commended the team on getting the car back out quickly. Marsal added “it was a pretty decent race car when I got into it after Mark’s first two hours in the car and I just wanted to do well for the team and get back as much time I could. Mark drove a very fast stint and my hats off to him for his first time in the car.”

The 2012 ALMS season ends in five weeks’ time at the ten-hour, thousand miles, Petit Le Mans. “The championship is still to be decided and anything can happen,” noted Guy Smith. “We are the current champions and we will take the fight to the Muscle Milk team at Petit.” Chris Dyson added, “We kept the championship alive today and we will go to Petit and continue on with relentless execution, and push for a strong finish to the year.”

The internationally recognized Petit Le Mans will be held at Road Atlanta on October 20th.

You can follow Dyson Racing at: dysonracing.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Chris Dyson qualified third in the #20 Dyson Racing entry driven by Michael Marsal and Mark Patterson this weekend. “I will start the 16 car and will only get points in that car, but with this being a four-hour race, I will be in reserve if needed on our sister car,” explained Dyson. “I have to say it is like getting back with an old friend. I have not driven last year’s car in over eight months, but credit goes to Vince Wood and the guys who have done a really good job of evolving the set up. Mike and Mark should have a great run tomorrow as they have been remarkably fast and consistent all weekend.”

“The driver in me would have liked to been on pole, but we have a car that is comfortable to drive and will be benign on this high speed course tomorrow,” said Smith. “We will make sure we have a clean race, execute on the pits stops and driver changes and think in terms of the championship.” Dyson Racing is the reigning ALMS Champions. After eight races with two to go, the team is nine points out of first in the driver’s championship and five out in the team championship. Dyson drivers occupy second through sixth in the championship tally.

Joining Dyson Racing this weekend for the first time is Mark Patterson in the #20 car. “I have raced here probably a dozen times in cars ranging from Star Mazda to Daytona Prototypes,” noted Patterson. “But this is the first time in a P1 car. What an experience! It literally changes the track. It is a fast track, 170 mph on the back straight, but the car is good with good speed in the tough stuff.” Michael Marsal will be co-driving with Patterson tomorrow. He won his first P1 victory two weekends ago in Baltimore and has finished on the podium in all his races for Dyson Racing. “I have never had more fun driving a race car than this weekend,” added Marsal.

Returning to the Dyson line-up is Johnny Mowlem who will share driver duties with Dyson and Smith in the 16 car. “This is an amazing track. It is very fast and the speed differential between us and the slower cars through the Hurry Ups at the top of the hill is phenomenal – it is almost like an arcade game out there,” commented Mowlem. “We are pulling close to four g’s going through that sequence of corners, the quickest set of corners I have ever driven. It is like the famous Eau Rouge corner on Belgium’s F1 track but having an extra Eau Rouge right after it.”

Dyson Racing is running the Flybrid KERS hybrid system for the first time at VIR. Guy Smith noted that “it is in its early stages yet and we have just started developing the system. As a driver, it does not really feel any different than normal which is a compliment to the guys at Flybrid. I have not had to change my driving style or car set up to accommodate it, so that is good credit to them.”

Saturday’s VIR 240 is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. ET. ESPN2’s broadcast begins at 5 p.m. ET on Sunday, Sept. 16. Full, live coverage starts tomorrow at 2:15 p.m. ET on ESPN3.

You can follow Dyson Racing at: dysonracing.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

“We have been researching and working on the KERS hybrid system with Flybrid since the end of last season,” said Chris Dyson, Vice President and Sporting Director. “We have done extensive dyno testing and have tested the system in the car. We had encouraging enough results and will be running it in the car this weekend at VIR and at the season-ending Petit Le Mans. We are in close contention for the championship, and as a race team, we are always looking to better our performance.”

“The ALMS is the leader in green racing and the perfect series to showcase this technology,” Dyson added. “The regulations are encouraging of regenerative technology and up until this point, there have been very few customer-friendly options. Flybrid was very interested in developing their product and linking up with a front-line organization. We were looking for the right partners for this kind of project and we when we found each other, it was a very natural fit from the beginning.”

The Kinetic Energy Recovery System used in the Dyson P1 car is the first of its kind to race outside of Europe. Developed specifically for this application by UK based Flybrid Automotive, the KERS uses a small high speed rotating flywheel to store otherwise wasted braking energy and return it to the wheels to assist the car’s next acceleration.

The steel and carbon fiber energy storage flywheel weighs just 11 lbs. (5kg) and can rotate at up to 60,000 RPM inside an evacuated chamber to allow storage of up to 134 BHP (100 kW) for up to five seconds during each braking maneuver.

Transmission of power to and from the energy storage flywheel is managed by a three speed clutch-based transmission developed and manufactured by Flybrid Automotive. This transmission is fitted inside the gearbox casing of the car and is connected to an engine speed shaft in the vehicle’s gearbox.

Energy storage and release is automatically controlled by an onboard computerized hydraulic system that does not require any special driver inputs. Energy is stored every time the car brakes and released again every time the car accelerates back up to speed, boosting acceleration without burning any additional fuel.

This performance boost is slightly offset by the additional weight of the system which with all its accessories and fluids weighs around 88 lbs. (40kg).

Commenting on the collaboration with Dyson Racing, Flybrid Managing Director Jon Hilton said, “We are delighted to have been selected as KERS supplier by the reigning ALMS champions and look forward to a long and successful relationship with this highly professional team. It is clear that energy management is going to play a significant role in the future of endurance racing and both Flybrid and Dyson Racing are now well positioned to make the most of the exciting opportunities that lie ahead.”

“We are very excited about this new technology,” added Rob Dyson, Team Principal. “This fits in perfectly with the innovation that IMSA and the ALMS have encouraged, and Dyson Racing has always been interested in new technology. We are hot rodders at heart, always looking to go faster. Our competition has been pushing us hard all year, and while it is early days for the KERS, we hope that we can develop it to help us win another title.”