[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[TF110]

The fuel loss is true in the way that works is the fuel gives you a certain amount of energy per liter depending on how efficient the car and engine is. But electric energy is way more efficient than fuel. Getting the extra 2mj per lap of hybrid power is the better deal than getting a couple more mj of fuel. It's more efficient more effective and more powerful. If teams can meet the weight limit, it's a no brainer. That's why both Porsche and Toyota are in the 8mj class now. It works as a double whammy in the sense that it takes stress off the engine doing all the work and helps fuel economy.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

However, harvesting that 2 MJ/lap additional under braking may make you faster enough that it's worth it to lose the 2.3 MJ of fuel energy.

It is supposed to make you faster. Because of the "ERS incentive."

[GasperG]

Going by the energy formula then there may be no benefit in running ERS-H, but when you add aditional electric power then relesing 10 or 8 MJ certanly makes a diference.

[TF110]

Unless the brake energy is enough, teams may have to use ers-h as there will be 3 ers's allowed in 2018. What I wonder is if the 3 systems means there's also 3 ways to deploy the energy? If that were the case might we see the rear wheels with individual motors instead of a single motor to run the rear axle coupled with the one on the front?

[chernaudi]

If that happens, then Audi might go back to running two motors on the front wheels like 2012-13. It depends on how the ACO chooses to interpret that rule. If not, then it'll be one ERS on each axle, with provision for an engine mounted ERS-H. That would apply to all LMP1H entries.

[Articus]

In the best system, the method for deployment should be decoupled from method for recovery.

If deploying energy to an individual wheel is a performance advantage, then they will do as so whether they have 4 or 10 different energy recovery systems on the car.

Also, just because there is only 1 motor does not mean they cannot independently power each wheel . I think there is a regulation banning torque vectoring but haven't looked closely.

[roderick]

Originally Posted by TF110

Unless the brake energy is enough, teams may have to use ers-h as there will be 3 ers's allowed in 2018. What I wonder is if the 3 systems means there's also 3 ways to deploy the energy? If that were the case might we see the rear wheels with individual motors instead of a single motor to run the rear axle coupled with the one on the front?

I'm not quite sure what you meant as energy deployment but as far as I know, 3rd ers will be exhaust related which could only be electric turbo charger. they can be used to generate electricity and use electricity from controlling airflow on the exhaust

[Flo aus N]

First of all, there are some things to clarify:

1. Dont make the mistake and cout the loss in energy 1:1 on the track. What is really important is the loss "at the wheels", which is around 37-40% (depending on inner fraction losses) of the reduced fuel energy.
2. Yes there will come a further reduction in energy for the ICE but it will be very difficult, cause this would reduce overall top speed and the LMP2 are getting a boost of around 120 bhp, which should result in at least 10 kmh more topspeed on the mulsanne straight, which will make it very difficult to overtake them.
3. With the introduction of the 10 MJ subclass. I doubt that you have to go to a 3rd ERS for, atleast for Le Mans. Porsche will be racing with the 8 MJ for 3 years. They needed only one year to go from 6 to 8 MJ with their combination of exhaust energy recorvery and KERS. I have it quite good in hands, that they wanted to go for a further subclass like a 12 MJ hybrid. Audi is recovering 6 MJ under braking at Le Mans. They did not stop developement of their exhaust system, which was tested prior to the 2014 season. With it, they would be able to do at least 8 MJ at Le Mans.
Toyota is able do recover at least 8 MJ under braking at Le Mans, so a step to 10 MJ would not be this great deal. In fact, their system should be able to recuperate at least 400-500 kW at Le Mans with their 2 KERS-Systems. The limitating factor their is the power density of their battery package, because now its designed (cooling, etc.) for around 300kW, so they would have to increase their power handling of their battery package, but thats possible if you see the power density of the Porsche or Audi, which are running at least at 450kW. They are developing a exhaust energy recovery system, but this would have to have major adjustemens to their ICE. It would be possible with the current configurations, but just under very very bad circumstances ( going for 2 wastegates, connecting them with an additional exhaust pipe to feed the MGU-H, but this would have a big impact in drivabilty, weight and even more in packaging of the engine and the internal air flow). So, for just Le Mans, they would not need the 3rd ERS to go for the 10 MJ class or 8 MJ diesel. They can stick with their 2 current ERS (and Audi can go to ERS-H). Going with a KERS and ERS-H for Le Mans into the 10 MJ subclass also gives you the benefit for not having to increase your battery-pack massivly to accomplish the needed power-capability, because this is the limiting factor of the current battery-packs. They are power-limited and not energy-limited.

[TF110]

I thought the rules stated there's only 2 motors allowed because there are 2 energy recovery systems? If that's the case and there's going to be 3 energy recovery systems (that's a known fact) I assumed there would be 3 motors or 3 ways to 'deploy' the energy. That's why I was talking about with the individual motors driving a separate wheel.

On Toyota news, DSC reporting about Jose Lopez openly talking of running a third Toyota next year at Le Mans.

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by TF110

I thought the rules stated there's only 2 motors allowed because there are 2 energy recovery systems? If that's the case and there's going to be 3 energy recovery systems (that's a known fact) I assumed there would be 3 motors or 3 ways to 'deploy' the energy. That's why I was talking about with the individual motors driving a separate wheel.

On Toyota news, DSC reporting about Jose Lopez openly talking of running a third Toyota next year at Le Mans.

But you can not go for Torque Vectoring, because its very clearly banned.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Flo aus N

But you can not go for Torque Vectoring, because its very clearly banned.

It is this year. But will that be the case in 2018?

[GasperG]

My guess is it will remain baned because ACO is doing everything to keep cornering speed low.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by TF110

On Toyota news, DSC reporting about Jose Lopez openly talking of running a third Toyota next year at Le Mans.

so there isn't as much of a budget gap afterall between audi/porsche and toyota, since audi and porsche are already sure they won't afford it...

[Hawkwood]

Porsche and Audi won't be bringing 3rd cars because of diesel-gate and the subsequent fall out, not because they suddenly can't afford it.

The budget gap is pretty real.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

so there isn't as much of a budget gap afterall between audi/porsche and toyota, since audi and porsche are already sure they won't afford it...

They probably dropped the budget a little for the VAG two, but i'd bet it's still significantly more than what Toyota has. I don't think Toyota is even in the 9 digits while an article on racer.com from a couple seasons ago said Audi is over $200 million. That's F1-level money!

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

They probably dropped the budget a little for the VAG two, but i'd bet it's still significantly more than what Toyota has. I don't think Toyota is even in the 9 digits while an article on racer.com from a couple seasons ago said Audi is over $200 million. That's F1-level money!

Is there any real reason that Audi or any other LMP1 WEC team shouldn't be spending F1 level money to be at the top? Conceptually, the challenges of F1 and WEC are identical. The development cost should be similar.

If it cost 200 million to develop a very good aero package (or 2 or 3), chassis, and hybrid powertrain, and staff teams for the races, then it explains why Toyota are so far behind. They just are being out developed by Audi and Porsche because those teams have more money to spend which allows them to develop their packages much more than Toyota can.

Its not like Audi Carbon fibre is any more expensive than Toyota carbon fibre or that a TS050 is cheaper to buy and operate than an R18.
Audi, Porsche are just spending all of the money doing MORE development than Toyota. More money gets you more engineers, more days at the windtunnel, more dyno runs etc....You already knew that.Since the people working at these companies are very similarly talented, the best cars tend to be the ones that have had the most extensive (and expensive) development cycle.

[TF110]

It drives away competition, that's why. You don't need to spend an F1-size amount to be competitive. Toyota may not be quite as fast, but they aren't absolutely slow and off pace. If you can be within a few tenths of the current pace spending a little more than half the usual amount, that should be fine. I think the ACO see a little bit of this and are limiting aero configurations to just two next year. I don't care that there's a lot of money in the sport, but it doesn't need to be so high that no one wants to come in because you can do an F1 program for near the same amount.

I think Toyota gets away with spending what they do because of the size of their group and thanks to the TMG facilities. Most of the parts they use are from the Toyota group of companies. The brakes (Akebono) are owned by Toyota, the battery is made by Toyota etc. I'm not certain on what Porsche and Audi do as far as developing the car and who they contract for things like windtunnel and cfd, but that must not account for difference in spending. So what else is it aside development that makes the scope so large?

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

It drives away competition, that's why. You don't need to spend an F1-size amount to be competitive. Toyota may not be quite as fast, but they aren't absolutely slow and off pace. If you can be within a few tenths of the current pace spending a little more than half the usual amount, that should be fine. I think the ACO see a little bit of this and are limiting aero configurations to just two next year. I don't care that there's a lot of money in the sport, but it doesn't need to be so high that no one wants to come in because you can do an F1 program for near the same amount.

I think Toyota gets away with spending what they do because of the size of their group and thanks to the TMG facilities. Most of the parts they use are from the Toyota group of companies. The brakes (Akebono) are owned by Toyota, the battery is made by Toyota etc. I'm not certain on what Porsche and Audi do as far as developing the car and who they contract for things like windtunnel and cfd, but that must not account for difference in spending. So what else is it aside development that makes the scope so large?

Toyota seemingly only spent enough time to put together a very good Le Mans aero package. A result directly related to having 1/3 the budget of Audi/Porsche. a shame....

[chernaudi]

Well, if you want budgets lowered, get rid of the huge hybrid system, fuel flow restrictions, and basically go back to 2013 rules. I'd bet that the 85 million USD that Audi spent in '13 is probably half of what they're spending now, and I'd be surprised if Toyota are funded to Audi 2013 levels.

And it's not like cost caps or restricting on track testing or wind tunnel time, etc, are really gonna save Audi, Porsche, or Toyota any money. They'll still spend what they feel like spending, they'll just spend what's left on something else. Factory backed teams' budgets are like Government budgets. You get something done ahead of schedule and under budget, it's not really a good thing, because when you need more budget, the less you spent the last time, the harder you have to fight for increases. I'm pretty sure that TMG have been down this road the whole time the WEC has existed.

The problem is that a lot of fans and the ACO/FIA want high tech. But other car makers are unable or unwilling to spend the money on said technology.

[TF110]

Hybrids aren't what's making the budgets super expensive. Only Toyota makes their own battery, and they spend the least money. Porsche took over A123 and Audi uses Samsung. If another manufacturer joined they could do the same thing. It's the other rules that are to blame. Porsche and Audi spend huge money perfecting 3 bodykits with limited scope to find ways to be inventive. No ground effects, no blown diffusers, no active aero, no torque vectoring, no vvt... just like F1, they have a few areas (mostly the front wing) to find gains. With the fuel flow there's at least the chance to do your own thing on the engine.

[chernaudi]

Toyota were off the pace in the day by nearly a second for their fastest car in the day. However, they at least gained on Porsche during the night session. The #6 was competitive with both Porsches during night practice.

[ederss7]

Another unlucky race for the #5. They had waste gate problems, a puncture, a FCY bad luck and then a penalty.

[Articus]

Not sure if this as just race damage but I noticed that the Toyota didn't have the brake lights on the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates? I thought that was an LMP regulation?

[TF110]

Thought I saw that and the Porsche didn't have working lights on the cheese wedges?

[Akrapovic]

I'm glad both of you saw those, as I was questioning my eyes. There was no lower lights on a Porsche and no upper lights on a Toyota at one point.