Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

For those who like CGI videos and wanna know how things work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpkydRNL74Y

Interesting CGI shots in there highlighting inter alia the LM-spec exhaust layout and the particular LED+Laserlight assembly.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Le Mans point: When Kristensen had to pit for the injector rail issue, Audi had him on a plan to do 5 stints.

I assume that this article is your source: http://sportscar365.com/features/com...-mans-debrief/

[chernaudi]

Yep. But the injector issue spoiled that.

And there's more Toyota complaining about Audi being advantaged by having a diesel. I already posted my thoughts in the Toyota thread, but in short, if Toyota are gonna criticize Audi for having a weak hybrid system, maybe someone should point out that Toyota have the weakest engine based on the oldest technology in the field. IMO, the reliance on "trick" aero and the hybrid systems would seem to back that up.

But to be fair, it's not like Toyota were driving away from Audi at LM (the #2 Audi was in fact catching up to the #7 Toyota before the fire, and much of the separation was down to the pace car stuff), and the #2 Audi won the race, set the races fastest lap, and had the fastest long run stint.

Based on Le Mans and the other WEC races, Audi and Toyota both are lobbying for BOP breaks and that's what the ACO gets for following on with the ALMS' 2006 BOP crap.

[MyNameIsNigel]

A look at the MGU of the 2014 Audi R18 e-tron quattro:


(source: Audi Media)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Since the WHP has been sold, it really seems that the situation is even worse for Audi next year. Unless they jump the sinking ship and choose either similar system, say, Flybrid or build one in house.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

As for the Audi hybrid system manufacturing, that depends on if GKN (who are controlling owners of WHP now) want to continue next year. If not, could Audi just get a license to build their own flywheel system, or maybe mate the flywheel to some additional storage system, like an ultracap system or a batter storage?

Gordon Day General Manager, GKN Hybrid Power, suggests that GKN are still keen on continuing with endurance racing applications:

Gordon Day General Manager, GKN Hybrid Power, said: ‘Congratulations to the Audi Sport team on their third consecutive win for the R18 e-tron quattro in the most demanding endurance race in the world. GKN Hybrid Power is delighted to be working in close technical partnership with the team and to have played our part in this run of success.
We are looking to further improve the thermal efficiency, energy storage and power of the system to ensure we remain at the forefront of this technology in endurance racing going forward.’

(source: GKN press release)

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Yep. But the injector issue spoiled that.

And there's more Toyota complaining about Audi being advantaged by having a diesel. I already posted my thoughts in the Toyota thread, but in short, if Toyota are gonna criticize Audi for having a weak hybrid system, maybe someone should point out that Toyota have the weakest engine based on the oldest technology in the field. IMO, the reliance on "trick" aero and the hybrid systems would seem to back that up.

But to be fair, it's not like Toyota were driving away from Audi at LM (the #2 Audi was in fact catching up to the #7 Toyota before the fire, and much of the separation was down to the pace car stuff), and the #2 Audi won the race, set the races fastest lap, and had the fastest long run stint.

Based on Le Mans and the other WEC races, Audi and Toyota both are lobbying for BOP breaks and that's what the ACO gets for following on with the ALMS' 2006 BOP crap.

Saying they have the weakest least advanced engine doesnt make it true. Just like Audi saying theyre disadvantaged. No, Toyota is not lobbying for breaks. It looks like Audi must have missed the ers incentive memo that Porsche and Toyota received.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

A look at the MGU of the 2014 Audi R18 e-tron quattro:


(source: Audi Media)

When did these get released? I haven't seen these as of yet.

And you can definitely pick out the front differential. Seems a lot smaller than what you'd think, but it only has to handle 230+bhp for relatively short burst as opposed to the gearbox differential which has to handle 550-600 or so bhp constantly.

[chernaudi]

And as far as I'm concerned, both Audi and Toyota doth protest too much. Was Toyota disadvantaged at LM? No, they did just fine while their cars were running at/near the front.

Was Audi disadvantaged at LM? Again, I'd say no. They were catching the #7 Toyota slowly but surly before it went out, they had the race's fastest lap, and the fastest long run stint, and the #1 Audi didn't do that badly, either.

As I said, thanks to David Richards and AMR in GT1 in '06 in the ALMS, it seems that instead of trying to engineer your way to the front, you have to lobby for BOP breaks instead, and it's so bad that it can be argued that everyone has been tarred by the same brush to one degree or the other now.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

When did these get released? I haven't seen these as of yet.

And you can definitely pick out the front differential. Seems a lot smaller than what you'd think, but it only has to handle 230+bhp for relatively short burst as opposed to the gearbox differential which has to handle 550-600 or so bhp constantly.

Mulsanne Mike at his FB group page also has engine pics from Audi Sport:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...6789099&type=1

Biggest visual changes from the 3.7 from '11-'13 are re-shaped intake plenums and no air restrictor/runner from said restrictor.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Superb issue of the Encounter/Dialoge magazine:

(Digital version of Encounter magazine)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

When did these get released? I haven't seen these as of yet.

Yesterday.

Also available on Encounter.online (and in the Encounter / Dialoge magazine) with additional details:


There is also an interesting shot of the new 7-speed transmission:

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And as far as I'm concerned, both Audi and Toyota doth protest too much. Was Toyota disadvantaged at LM? No, they did just fine while their cars were running at/near the front.

Was Audi disadvantaged at LM? Again, I'd say no. They were catching the #7 Toyota slowly but surly before it went out, they had the race's fastest lap, and the fastest long run stint, and the #1 Audi didn't do that badly, either.

As I said, thanks to David Richards and AMR in GT1 in '06 in the ALMS, it seems that instead of trying to engineer your way to the front, you have to lobby for BOP breaks instead, and it's so bad that it can be argued that everyone has been tarred by the same brush to one degree or the other now.

They werent catching the #7. The gap was consistently around 90 seconds. Why do you say Toyota is asking for breaks or protesting? I havent seen the story, you have a link to that? If Audi is good, they shouldnt have an issue with the rules. They set the fastest lap twice this year out of 3 races. They dont need help, imo no team does.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Yesterday.

Also available on Encounter.online (and in the Encounter / Dialoge magazine) with additional details:


There is also an interesting shot of the new 7-speed transmission:

Great stuff.

Also interesting is this picture with the amount of braking in Le Mans:

That means 36.5 sec in total (assuming 5 sec for both chicanes).

[deltawing]

The braking times in that diagram are too long for an LMP1-H.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by deltawing

The braking times in that diagram are too long for an LMP1-H.

It's not just braking, it's also lift-and-coast, and as far as I'm aware all the LMP1-H cars harvest energy on lift-and-coast before braking.

[deltawing]

I must have misread the post then...

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by deltawing

I must have misread the post then...

You probably didn't, I'm making the assumption based on the harvesting time. Braking can't take that long, so I suspect the harvesting time and distance includes the lift-and-coast period before braking.

[GasperG]

IMHO, those 36.5 s of "harvesting" is just too much, even if the harvesting happens when they lift off it can not happen at full power, because that would mean:
170 kW * 36.5 s = 1.72 kW = 6.2 MJ on the generator and only 2 MJ released (32% efficiency???), I doubt that.

Do we know official rated power of Audi hybrid system, I think it can not be more than 120 kW.

[chernaudi]

Audi claim 170+kw, which is about 230+bhp.

[TF110]

Theyre not fully harvesting during the coasting events, its more that they are doing it to save fuel than regenerate energy.

[GasperG]

Some more info on Audi from this site:
http://audi-encounter.com/magazine/t...-at-the-limits

- "The new flywheel accumulator has a usable capacity of more than 600 kilojoules"
- "The new MGU now has an electric motor with more than 170 kW (230 hp) that is connected to the front wheels via a differential"

There are 4 big, 3 medium and 2 small braking zones from that picture. The hybrid system is probably sized so that it gets full on a big braking zone so we have something like 4 * 600 KJ + 3 * 400 KJ + 2 * 200 KJ = 4 MJ. Add the efficiency in the equation and we get less than 4 MJ. IMHO It would be a really small step for Audi to stretch to 4 MJ class next year. This year they didn't because of the initial Apendix B table, It just didn't get them any lap time benefit to go for 4 MJ.

[gwyllion]

Yes, those are the official specifications of the hybrid system. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3388246

You are probably right that Audi could have done 4 MJ at Le Mans with their current hybrid system.

However, Audi did explain that their decision was based on the complete WEC season. That suggests that for other tracks they would have struggled to harvest enough in the 4 MJ ERS class.

[J Jay]

That makes sense; the 2013 system was close enough to 4MJ that it was surprising it wasn't scaled up. However, 4MJ is still going to leave them in a similar situation to this year, with the petrol cars going for 8MJ. Can GKN/Audi get the flywheel system to 6MJ and keep the car under 870kg?

I reckon they can get the weight down if the 2011 -> 2012 R18s are anything to go by, so it depends on what they need to do to that flywheel accumulator to accomodate the larger flywheel/higher revolutions.

[GasperG]

The situation for Audi will get even worse:
- 2 MJ diesel vs. 6 MJ petrol is currently 138.7 MJ vs. 139.5 MJ or only 0.5 % less fuel energy
- 4 MJ diesel vs. 8 MJ petrol is 135,2 vs. 138 MJ or 2 % less fuel energy

I think that current numbers for current cars are OK, but they should adjust the 4 MJ diesel and 8 MJ petrol class both to something like 137 MJ.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by GasperG

The situation for Audi will get even worse:
- 2 MJ diesel vs. 6 MJ petrol is currently 138.7 MJ vs. 139.5 MJ or only 0.5 % less fuel energy
- 4 MJ diesel vs. 8 MJ petrol is 135,2 vs. 138 MJ or 2 % less fuel energy

I think that current numbers for current cars are OK, but they should adjust the 4 MJ diesel and 8 MJ petrol class both to something like 137 MJ.

We will see what happens with the EoT in the coming weeks, but it may ultimately turn out that diesel has no chance to be competitive anymore in the future.

That evidently already leads Audi to rethink their entire power-train concept and possibly contemplate a return to the petrol category, not in 2015, but possibly as early as 2016 as reported by motorsport-total.com.