Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Velociraptor]

Originally Posted by deltawing

. If they could go with 0 MJ, they would, but by the rules they can't.

Probably... R18 Ultra was just as fast as e-trons over 1 lap, was better on the tires... without air restrictors they can improve on both power and economy and also they now have one gear more to play with.
With no flywheel system they would also have better balance and more aerodynamic efficieny up front.

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

..... It shall furthermore be recalled that a "dissuasive penalty" is to be applied at LM in case a manufacturer has declared data "too far from reality" (whatever that means...). It would therefore be quite advisable to be fully transparent with the ACO-FIA and I am sure Audi have all reasons to comply.

You always bring very interesting points!

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by deltawing

10 MJ can power a 100W light bulb for one day..... 10 MJ is also, according to data I found, the normal human daily diet, which is apparently equivalent to one day of heavy manual labor.

Thank you, DeltaWing. That really helps to put the amount of energy we are talking about into a practical reference.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Velociraptor

Probably... R18 Ultra was just as fast as e-trons over 1 lap, was better on the tires... without air restrictors they can improve on both power and economy and also they now have one gear more to play with.
With no flywheel system they would also have better balance and more aerodynamic efficieny up front.

Sorry to hear that Audi will be/has stepped away from the flywheel and hybrid technology rather than finding new innovations. That diesel ICE is a monster. It is going to be very interesting to see how the ideas and strategies of Audi, Toyota and Porsche play out.

[chernaudi]

Audi are still running the flywheel--how else (other than batteries) would the front hybrid system get any power at all? The question is how powerful is it relative to the last generation and and how effective will their strategy be.

Obviously, this isn't just about not getting the ERS-H to work as they wanted/get the advantages they wanted out of it. If you do opt for a less powerful MJ range, you do get a larger fuel allocation.

Also, I believe that all LMP1 teams have to run a 54.8 liter fuel tank, regardless of fuel choice. 54.8L isn't that much less than the 58 liters that the R18 had last year, certainly relative to the 73/76 liters that Toyota had last year.

Even if Audi opt for a low end MJ rating (less than 4MJ), it seems that they might have power to burn as long as they stay within the efficiency ratings that they and the ACO/FIA agree to.

I think you confused the R18 Ultra with this year's car. The R18 Ultra was a 2012 only car, and was basically just an e-tron quattro without the hybrid system on board, but other than that were the same car--they shared the same tub and power train, and could be converted back and forth between specs.

We do have to remember that Audi opted for the e-tron quattro full time after Sao Paulo in '12 because they felt that it had the edge in traffic and consistency on lap times because of the extra 200+hp, and that was improved last year with more power and much better adjust-ability between circuits.

[Velociraptor]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

We do have to remember that Audi opted for the e-tron quattro full time after Sao Paulo in '12 because they felt that it had the edge in traffic and consistency on lap times because of the extra 200+hp, and that was improved last year with more power and much better adjust-ability between circuits.

But things are different with new rules. They're now energy restrained. Which means in theory at least, the total energy per lap they're entitled to stays the same, but you can choose which ever way you want to split it between the hybrid system and ICE.

And herein lies the rub... do you give more power to the diesel engine, giving you more power more of the time over one lap, or invest in a more powerful hybrid system which will give you somewhat more power than the lesser hybrid energy allocation option, but only over cca 10-15% of one lap (in Le Mans) and you'll probably have some fuel savings also?

In my opinion, I think the 2MJ option makes sense for Audi - it will give them aero advantage over petrol competitors, it will be a better balanced car in the corners, and with the rules now allowing AWD from all speeds they will be able to match petrol hybrids out of the slow corners giving time for the turbo diesel to spool up and ride that mountain of torque, now also helped by one gear more.

[chernaudi]

Fourtitude have a gallery up of the COTA test.

[MyNameIsNigel]

2 MJ/lap ERS option for Audi is confirmed by AutoHebdo.

The article further indicates that the new V6 TDI now has a displacement of 4.0 litres.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Fourtitude have a gallery up of the COTA test.

It also has an article: http://fourtitude.com/news/motorspor...cuit-americas/

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

2 MJ/lap ERS option for Audi is confirmed by AutoHebdo.

The article further indicates that the new V6 TDI now has a displacement of 4.0 litres.

Let me get this straight. Audi have gone for 2MJ ERS because:

1) The removal of the front axle MGU speed limit means they can power the front axle at any speed, and they believe that 2MJ is enough to provide sufficient acceleration out of the corners until the diesel kicks in (I think McLaren are calling this "torque fill"?)
2) They want to maximise the torque/power available from their enlarged diesel by giving it the highest fuel allocation possible, which is effectively a smaller "boost" that can be used at all times compared to having an extra 300+HP for a limited amount of the lap

I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACO give some effusive praise to Toyota come June!

EDIT: Having said that, you could also say this is good for the FIA/ACO as the vastly different choices made by Audi/Porsche/Toyota shows how the rules allow for such a diverse range of solutions, and hopefully how well balanced they are with a season of wheel-to-wheel racing!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The article further indicates that the new V6 TDI now has a displacement of 4.0 litres.

That disproves hcl123's prediction that Audi would decrease the displacement

Originally Posted by hcl123

[ R18 : less weight, better front aeros, more turbo in spite of probably a little less displacement ( ~3.5L or less, but this engine can "breath", no more restrictores, and commom rail injectores for diesel now can do up to 9 events with extra precision ) so more efficient, less fuel, yet more powerful specially after slow(er) corners with turbo compounding ( electric)].

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Let me get this straight. Audi have gone for 2MJ ERS because:

1) The removal of the front axle MGU speed limit means they can power the front axle at any speed, and they believe that 2MJ is enough to provide sufficient acceleration out of the corners until the diesel kicks in (I think McLaren are calling this "torque fill"?)

They probably don't even need those 2 MJ as the diesel "kicks in" well enough everywhere, but as to comply with the rule they have to pick a number and so 2 it is, because it is the lightest approach. With 2 MJ option they could still be underweight, which would give them possibility to further balance. But what you wrote is in general how perhaps it will be all explained by the media.

Originally Posted by J Jay

2) They want to maximise the torque/power available from their enlarged diesel by giving it the highest fuel allocation possible, which is effectively a smaller "boost" that can be used at all times compared to having an extra 300+HP for a limited amount of the lap

Pretty much. I continue to suspect they can do with fuel a lot more than anyone of us can speculate. And now I am getting quite convinced it is not just us who don't know what they can do with fuel, but ACO does not know either

Originally Posted by J Jay

I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACO give some effusive praise to Toyota come June!

I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota starts complaining big time at the first race! This season will be heated on the track, but off the track too

[J Jay]

Well it was telling that the first thing Audi did when Peugeot packed up was to hire their engine guys. A 4L racing spec diesel with no restrictors to contend with, even it has a fuel flow limit, must still produce substantial power/torque.

[deltawing]

Audi should start a satellite racing company to participate in the privateer LMP1-L class. Can you imagine what that 4.0L V6 TDI would do with no 100+ kg energy recovery system and in a 850 kg car?

That would be great marketing for their entire TDI line..... "Hey, look, we don't need Hybrids - we can do better with just a diesel, even in "lesser" chassis, we can beat the top dogs!"

[TF110]

Its not true that theyre better than everyone thinks. Im not bragging or trying to sound like a know-it-all, but Ive suspected for a while now, theyre thermal efficiency is probably close to 50%. This is something Toyota had brought up while discussing the new regulations. Their set target efficiency for diesel has been beaten for decades. The goal post for petrol on the other hand may be a bit harder to achieve. This is why Toyota said "let us use the hybrid freely". Im convinced they are very capable of producing in excess of 8mj per lap at LeMans. Probably over 10mj. The theory is they could have done double last year's total (3.5mj circa 2013= 7mj) with just the one axel recovering braking energy. If thats the case what can they achieve with both axels? The only problem would be the size of the electric motors. But they seem to have that covered. It will be interesting to see the balancing the fia will do to equalise the teams.

[ciscotex]

Please forgive me if this has been discussed ad nauseum, but in the article about the Audi test at COTA, reference was made to having to drive to the engineered pace for the entire race duration with excessive speed one lap having to be compensated for within the next two laps, and no carry over for laps below the max spec. Is this as distressing to y'all as it is to me? I can understand driving to a pace at times, or even for the majority of the race, but this isn't racing. What the hell is going on with these meddlesome rules makers? Give the teams x calories of fuel and let them figure out how to use it. At least leave us with the illusion that at times we might actually see the cars in full flight.

Agree, disagree?

If this has been beaten to death elsewhere, could someone please provide a link?

Paul

[Spyderman]

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately the age we live in is all about "control".... in all aspects.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Its not true that theyre better than everyone thinks. Im not bragging or trying to sound like a know-it-all, but Ive suspected for a while now, theyre thermal efficiency is probably close to 50%. This is something Toyota had brought up while discussing the new regulations. Their set target efficiency for diesel has been beaten for decades. The goal post for petrol on the other hand may be a bit harder to achieve. This is why Toyota said "let us use the hybrid freely". Im convinced they are very capable of producing in excess of 8mj per lap at LeMans. Probably over 10mj. The theory is they could have done double last year's total (3.5mj circa 2013= 7mj) with just the one axel recovering braking energy. If thats the case what can they achieve with both axels? The only problem would be the size of the electric motors. But they seem to have that covered. It will be interesting to see the balancing the fia will do to equalise the teams.

Let's assume that your suspicion is correct and that Audi can indeed run closer to 50% fuel efficiency with their new V6 TDI, this will in any case form the new baseline in the "diesel class" for the purpose of the computation of the relevant figures in Appendix B of the regulations. Currently, Appendix B is computed with an hypothesis of 41.37% for the "best" petrol engine and of 43.90% for the "best" diesel engine. If Audi happen to beat that hypothesis, this will necessarily lead to an adjustment of the relevant figures in Appendix B as part of the whole EoT process.

I therefore believe that it is more likely that Audi are operating closer to the current fuel efficieny target of 43.90%. There is currently no incentive for Audi to do better than this target and there would simply be no point for them to beat that target (for the time being at least) as it involves development on the engine side which would inevitably lead to an adjustment of the diesel baseline. What would be the point of investing in such a development if this inevitably leads to equalization ? Audi are once again competiting alone in the diesel class.

By contrast, Porsche and Toyota do compete against each other for the best-in-class position, and it is quite possible that either Porsche or Toyota can manage to beat the 41.37% target.

What I do expect is that we will see further changes in Appendix B in relation to the fuel efficiency targets. If that happens to be the case, we will in particular see a further adjustment of the Fuel Technology Factor which is currently set at 1.061 (= 43.90% / 41.37%).

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

Please forgive me if this has been discussed ad nauseum, but in the article about the Audi test at COTA, reference was made to having to drive to the engineered pace for the entire race duration with excessive speed one lap having to be compensated for within the next two laps, and no carry over for laps below the max spec. Is this as distressing to y'all as it is to me? I can understand driving to a pace at times, or even for the majority of the race, but this isn't racing. What the hell is going on with these meddlesome rules makers? Give the teams x calories of fuel and let them figure out how to use it. At least leave us with the illusion that at times we might actually see the cars in full flight.

Agree, disagree?

If this has been beaten to death elsewhere, could someone please provide a link?

Paul

"Sport and spectacle do not suffer": That is one of the six basic principles that guided the definition of the 2014 regulations according to the ACO. I do still hope that this "promise" is going to be fulfilled.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Let's assume that your suspicion is correct and that Audi can indeed run closer to 50% fuel efficiency with their new V6 TDI, this will in any case form the new baseline in the "diesel class" for the purpose of the computation of the relevant figures in Appendix B of the regulations. Currently, Appendix B is computed with an hypothesis of 41.37% for the "best" petrol engine and of 43.90% for the "best" diesel engine. If Audi happen to beat that hypothesis, this will necessarily lead to an adjustment of the relevant figures in Appendix B as part of the whole EoT process.

I therefore believe that it is more likely that Audi are operating closer to the current fuel efficieny target of 43.90%. There is currently no incentive for Audi to do better than this target and there would simply be no point for them to beat that target (for the time being at least) as it involves development on the engine side which would inevitably lead to an adjustment of the diesel baseline. What would be the point of investing in such a development if this inevitably leads to equalization ? Audi are once again competiting alone in the diesel class.

By contrast, Porsche and Toyota do compete against each other for the best-in-class position, and it is quite possible that either Porsche or Toyota can manage to beat the 41.37% target.

What I do expect is that we will see further changes in Appendix B in relation to the fuel efficiency targets. If that happens to be the case, we will in particular see a further adjustment of the Fuel Technology Factor which is currently set at 1.061 (= 43.90% / 41.37%).

Is that a rhetorical question? You may believe Audi is running to a target efficiency rating, and I bet the ACO are duped into believing that as well. Where did that number come from? Who came up with that figure? Thing is, there isnt any reason to suspect Audi were below that 43.9% in the first place. I know there will be tweaks. I cant see why not. I believe fuel factor will change. I think youre being a bit presumptive thinking that Audi would not seek gains. Any fuel taken away from them or added to Petrol will indeed have cause for them to invest in seeking efficiency gains. Theres still plenty reason left to invest in making their car more efficient. If auto hebdo is correct and they increased engine size to 4 liters, is that not another example of reaching for more efficiency? Diesel engines have been reaching 40-50% efficiency since the 1960's, if Audi isn't midway or higher in that range there must be something wrong.

[Velociraptor]

So... 4.0 TDI without air restrictors and in the 2 MJ hybrid class... 700 + hp on diesel alone?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Is that a rhetorical question? You may believe Audi is running to a target efficiency rating, and I bet the ACO are duped into believing that as well. Where did that number come from? Who came up with that figure? Thing is, there isnt any reason to suspect Audi were below that 43.9% in the first place. I know there will be tweaks. I cant see why not. I believe fuel factor will change. I think youre being a bit presumptive thinking that Audi would not seek gains. Any fuel taken away from them or added to Petrol will indeed have cause for them to invest in seeking efficiency gains. Theres still plenty reason left to invest in making their car more efficient.

I don't get your point.

There is no point for Audi to play games here. They have to be fully transparent with the FIA-ACO as regards their actual fuel efficiency figure, whatever that figure is (43,90%, 45%, 50%, ...). It could be that it is easier for them to achieve the target currently contemplated by the FIA-ACO, but there would be no point for Audi to dupe the ACO into believing that their fuel efficiency is of 43.90% if it is actually any different.

You are apparently suggesting that Audi will try to play tricks with the ACO, but how can they do that considering that the ACO-FIA now have all the tools to properly measure the actual BSFC for both fuel types ?

Do you recall that any manufacturer could face a "dissuasive penalty" at LM if they happen to provide data that is "too far from reality" ?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Velociraptor

So... 4.0 TDI without air restrictors and in the 2 MJ hybrid class... 700 + hp on diesel alone?

I doubt that. Peak power will be limited by the maximum allowable fuel flow rate which is currently set at 83.3 kg/h for that particular ERS option that Audi have chosen. That theoretically means a peak power output of the order of 430 kW, i.e. approximately 580 HP.

[gwyllion]

Unless Audi can do better than 195 g/kWh, as suggested by TF110

However, in that case the FIA will just impose a lower maximum fuel flow rate, lower fuel allocation per lap and smaller fuel tank.

BTW I totally agree with your assessment of the situations. The FIA will equalize the performance of the different drive train configurations based on the BSFC numbers provided by the three manufacturers. The manufacturer can not cheat with these numbers, because the FIA has sensors on the car (fuel flow sensor, revs and torque) to measure the real BSFC during race conditions.

The only incentive for Audi to improve the fuel efficiency is that they have to run with less diesel in the tank, which means a bit less weight on average. However, Audi is already seriously disadvantageous with respect to engine weight.

[TF110]

They dont have to be fully transparent. The article from fortitude just explained they can get away with going 'over the limit' as long as they dont consistently do so. I dont think you understand what I mean by duped. Theyre the only diesel car, so its them setting the targets with talks to the ACO/FIA. These numbers came from the manufacturers. Audi reaching 44% efficiency is a walk in the park compared to Petrol hitting 41-42%. To get the ruling in your favor of that target efficiency imo is duping the rule makers. Its possibly just Audi agreeing to a number others felt fair, but its not hard for them to reach that target, and what Im saying is they already have! Probably for quite a while now. But we'll see how that plays out.