Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Chiana

But R15 was just worse than 908 by design, in 2014 we can blame both design and (IMO more) BoP-EoT-AoP

It's a bit unfair to blame the design of the 2014 Audi R18, at this stage at least. The whole picture is artificially distorted as a result of the EoT (and the ERS incentive that comes with it) that clearly does not favour the lowest ERS class.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It's a bit unfair to blame the design of the 2014 Audi R18, at this stage at least. The whole picture is artificially distorted as a result of the EoT (and the ERS incentive that comes with it) that clearly does not favour the lowest ERS class.

Agreed...

There was this piece on one of the recent DSC articles:

http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=29498
So what we have are the most technically advanced and relevant racing cars on the planet with pure technology doing the job that other series are increasingly looking to driver aids and gimmicks to provide, close racing and overtaking options.

Pure technology doing the job? Is EoT part of the pure technology?

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

To me R15 wasn't so worse compared to 908HDi, at le mans peugeot simpy had too much power compared to audi.

I'd say the fact that R15 managed to beat factory 908 HDI FAP only two times in nine attempts speaks which model had the upper hand.

[Bandicoot17]

Just because Audi dominated the last era of racing does not give them an inherent right or any sort of advantage in this new era. I'm getting the vibe that because Audi have been so good this sudden downturn (If you can even call it that) it 100% cannot be Audi's fault, it has to be these evil rulemakes at the ACO/FIA.

It seems to me that because Audi have been so good since the early 2000's that people just expect that they will turn up with the fastest car and breeze past everyone, if Audi isn't winning or can't reach the same top speed it instantly becomes a rule issue, rather than Audi have done x or y wrong, which is exactly what happened when Toyota's car was a touch slow last year, everyone just blamed the TMG budget and nothing more was said.

At what point does Audi even become 'off the pace'. They showed they can run in the lead and push Toyota to the limit at Silverstone, and at Spa they finished 2nd, running a HDF package at what is to all intents and purposes a LDF track.
If that's 'off the pace' I really am flabbergasted.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Just because Audi dominated the last era of racing does not give them an inherent right or any sort of advantage in this new era. I'm getting the vibe that because Audi have been so good this sudden downturn (If you can even call it that) it 100% cannot be Audi's fault, it has to be these evil rulemakes at the ACO/FIA.

It seems to me that because Audi have been so good since the early 2000's that people just expect that they will turn up with the fastest car and breeze past everyone, if Audi isn't winning or can't reach the same top speed it instantly becomes a rule issue, rather than Audi have done x or y wrong, which is exactly what happened when Toyota's car was a touch slow last year, everyone just blamed the TMG budget and nothing more was said.

At what point does Audi even become 'off the pace'. They showed they can run in the lead and push Toyota to the limit at Silverstone, and at Spa they finished 2nd, running a HDF package at what is to all intents and purposes a LDF track.
If that's 'off the pace' I really am flabbergasted.

That's the thing. How can we know for sure now that the ACO-FIA have decided to artificially favour the performance of "big" hybrids over "small" hybrids ?

Had the ACO-FIA opted to ensure a true equivalence between the various ERS classes, we would at least have had a chance to properly evaluate, measure and compare the performance of all players. This is not objectively possible as a result of this obscure ERS incentive provision. The only legitimate and objective comparison can only be made between Toyota and Porsche as they are running in the same ERS class.

Are Audi doing a good, bad, better, worse job ? I do not know. How can we know ? They could well be doing an outstanding job and still end up behind Toyota and Porsche. I can imagine how frustrating this could be for all the people at Audi Sport and Joest Racing who are surely working hard to make the most out of the package they have (like Toyota and Porsche).

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It's a bit unfair to blame the design of the 2014 Audi R18, at this stage at least. The whole picture is artificially distorted as a result of the EoT (and the ERS incentive that comes with it) that clearly does not favour the lowest ERS class.

Agree, to me the R18 has the best overall package... but if the post paul ricard test eot has been clearly modified to penalize audi, what could you expect?
It will be an epic fail for FIA, ACO and WEC credibility if after the post le mans eot revision, audi will be back again the car to beat!

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

It will be an epic fail for FIA, ACO and WEC credibility if after the post le mans eot revision, audi will be back again the car to beat!

Not really, they can do the adjustment in silence without publically speaking of it and just camourflage-marketize the change in performance with "R18 is clearly better suited for the more technical circuits that are left on the remainder of the calendar" or sth

Non-diehard fans wouldn't bother to look it up

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

That's the thing. How can we know for sure now that the ACO-FIA have decided to artificially favour the performance of "big" hybrids over "small" hybrids ?

Had the ACO-FIA opted to ensure a true equivalence between the various ERS classes, we would at least have had a chance to properly evaluate, measure and compare the performance of all players. This is not objectively possible as a result of this obscure ERS incentive provision. The only legitimate and objective comparison can only be made between Toyota and Porsche as they are running in the same ERS class.

Are Audi doing a good, bad, better, worse job ? I do not know. How can we know ? They could well be doing an outstanding job and still end up behind Toyota and Porsche. I can imagine how frustrating this could be for all the people at Audi Sport and Joest Racing who are surely working hard to make the most out of the package they have (like Toyota and Porsche).

But a big hybrid should be favoured imo, the teams are pushing harder than if they'd gone for 2MJ/4MJ, and there is disadvantages that come with running one. I personally thing that the ACO didn't think anyone would go for anything lower than 4MJ (hence 4MJ diesel being equivalent to 6MJ petrol as it says in the slideshow) and they probably want to push Audi into moving to 4MJ.

From what we saw at Silverstone and Spa, all 3 cars are close on the track and can race together. Audi apparently pushed Toyota to the limit at Silverstone, and if the ERS incentive is having a 'major impact' then imagine how boring and unfair the racing would be without it. Audi ran the HFD package and got 2nd, ran the LDF package in a fuel saving and tire strategy, and all of a sudden the rules have become broken.

I can't say I'm a massive fan of Audi, but I don't want to see anyone hamstrung by the rules, from what I've seen so far, I don't think the effect on Audi has been as catastrophic as people here are making it out to be. I have a different opinion on the stint length limitations (as they appear to be), as if all 3 manufacturers can run similar pace at the 24, then Audi will be put at a slight disadvantage.

Despite all the technical challenges and how interesting the new regulations are, the racing on track is the most important thing. So far the racing has been very good, we saw glimpses of it at Silverstone and although Spa posed some questions but Audi were running the wrong package so I don't think much can be taken other than they were still on the podium.

I honestly think that Audi will be right up there come race day, and that we'll have one the best opening few hours to the race in years with a frantic battle for positions. I've seen nothing on track to suggest that Audi will be falling backwards right from the off.

[Deleted]

Why is there an option to go for 2MJ if the ACO doesn't want you to have it and it means automatic disadvantage?

I don't think 'as long as racing on track is good' is a great description of anything, I mean GTE and GT3 can certainly claim that racing on track is great and it'd be true but it doesn't mean the concept is brilliant or that you have to agree with the ways it was archieved.

[MyNameIsNigel]

This ERS incentive is really messing all this up.

Even under the assumption that Audi would have opted to run in the 4 MJ class, they would still face a theoretical performance deficit of 0.4 s/lap at LM. Had they been able to run in the 6 MJ class and opted to do so, they would have ended up with a theoretical performance advantage of 0.6 s/lap at LM over Toyota and Porsche.

However you take it, you would always end up in a messy situation with one actor being disadvantaged over another one. Is this "Equivalence of Technology" ? Definitely not.

The worst thing in all this mess is that the ACO-FIA are sending the message to privateers that it's not even worth thinking running in the LMP1-H class. Imagine one moment that Rebellion Racing would have been confident enough to run in one of the lowest ERS classes, let us say the 2 or 4 MJ class, how would the ACO-FIA justify imposing a performance deficit onto them due to the "ERS incentive" considering that they have promised to "protect privateers" ?

[Bandicoot17]

d,

Originally Posted by Chiana

Why is there an option to go for 2MJ if the ACO doesn't want you to have it and it means automatic disadvantage?

I don't think 'as long as racing on track is good' is a great description of anything, I mean GTE and GT3 can certainly claim that racing on track is great and it'd be true but it doesn't mean the concept is brilliant or that you have to agree with the ways it was archieved.

I don't know why 2MJ exists, but personally I don't think it should, especially seeing as teams were running 3.5MJ in the 'old' rule-set. I can't see nissan going for anything lower than 6MJ is/when they turn up, and I couldn't see any other manufacturers opting for anything less than 4MJ. Audi has not embraced the new regulations in the same manor as the two petrol teams imo.

Of course you don't have to agree with the way the rules and racing are achieved but looking at it realistically I'd much rather see the racing we have seen even if you could make an argument that it's 'fake', than have one team completely domination like Red Bull did in F1 these past years.

I'm all for great technological solutions and the wide range of these, but ultimately, if the racing is crap then I have less reason to watch. I don't want to see any teams running away with it and so far this has not happened. Yes, Toyota have won both, but Porsche and Audi have had issues at the race where they were looking very strong and in contention to win.


The new racing has been really good and ultimately that is because of the rule-set. Now of course if Audi do get dominated and they've set the car up well and it's purely rule based, I'd be happy to concede that I have been wrong with my thoughts about the rules and how much of an advantage the petrol cars have. As of yet though, I see no real reason to complain about a problem that has not reared its head and to all intents does not actually seem to be causing any on track issues.

[MyNameIsNigel]

It could well be that the ACO-FIA's original motivation behind the 2 MJ (or even 4 MJ) option was to make it easier for privateers to have access to the LMP1-H class at reasonable costs, should privateers see any interest in running in that class. The ACO-FIA possibly thought (a bit naively ?) that manufacturers would all opt for the highest possible ERS option(s). That is evidently not what has happened.

If this was indeed the original motivation, then the ACO-FIA should have opted for a different strategy, namely giving more freedom to the privateers and making the lowest ERS option(s) available only to privateers. As far as manufacturers are concerned they should have imposed a minimum ERS option (let's say 6 MJ) and guaranteed a true equivalence between the various ERS classes (should they be more than one) and both fuel classes.

I am tempted to say that, under the current rules, the ACO-FIA have a "moral" obligation (if not more) to guarantee a true equivalence of technology between the manufacturers so as to let them fight on track, not elsewhere. This is key to persuading further manufacturers to join the fight. The "near-equivalence" is not a satisfactory solution from a regulatory point of view.

[Bandicoot17]

Ok then, say come qualifying Audi qualify 0.3 seconds of the leader, would you consider that a success for the EoT process, (given that the time differentials given are based on 'nothing')?

And to a larger extent at what point would you feel that Audi were 100% being hindered by the rules?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Ok then, say come qualifying Audi qualify 0.3 seconds of the leader, would you consider that a success for the EoT process, (given that the time differentials given are based on 'nothing')?

And to a larger extent at what point would you feel that Audi were 100% being hindered by the rules?

If Audi do qualify within 0.3 seconds of the leader at LM that would be quite an achievement for sure, but that would not demonstrate that the EoT is a success. As a matter of fact, one could argue the opposite.

And the rules do hinder Audi in the present instance. That's a fact that has been stressed by the ACO-FIA no later than on May 2nd:


How much of a handicap this is in practice is difficult to say, but it is fair to say at least that a 1.4 second/lap deficit, on top of inferior autonomy, is a rather substantial handicap.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I don't know why 2MJ exists, but personally I don't think it should, especially seeing as teams were running 3.5MJ in the 'old' rule-set.

Because the minimum weight down with 45 kg?

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Audi has not embraced the new regulations in the same manor as the two petrol teams imo.

Perhaps because Audi has to deal with a much heavier combustion engine than the others?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Because the minimum weight down with 45 kg?
Perhaps because Audi has to deal with a much heavier combustion engine than the others?

Perhaps it was because of the weight, but I imagine the FIA/ACO imagined that both Audi and Toyota were confident they could step up to 4MJ. Recent revelations about Audi not being able to use 3.5 show that they were incorrect in any assumptions they made.

Audi knew the regulations were changing and could have made an all new engine, heck, wasn't is slipped by Ulrich that the car is somewhere in the 700KG area anyway? Surely they could have opted for at least 4 and still had enough to mess around with ballast? Sticking with the flywheel was obviously a mistake imo.
Toyota have been able to get off lightly here as they haven't had to change engine though, and it probably was a bit much to expect them to radically change something that has been so very successful. Unless something happens after Le Man I can see them going up to a higher MJ allowance next year.

I see no reason to currently expect Audi to be off pace though, they have shown they can be very competitive and have a wealth of experience from battling Toyota and Peugeot, I will be very surprised if they don't lead portions of the race.

[Deleted]

They didn't feel the need to go for larger ERS as the originally announced regulations didn't wreck their chances. It was only when the whole EoT debacle and later adjustments come into force that it started to became clear where the wind was blowing and then it was too late

[Bandicoot17]

Their chances haven't been wrecked.

[Deleted]

Hampered. Whatever.

I'm sure when the changes were announced the faces in the Audi gang went from


to

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Hampered. Whatever.

I'm sure when the changes were announced the faces in the Audi gang went from


to

[TF110]

Wasnt the original rules speaking of a theoritical ers incentive? So they had their opportunity at the same time as the other teams. The eot isn't exact anyway. Imo, the equality of diesel should be brought further in compared to Petrol. Its really down to the hybrid systems imo.

The ACO says "ers incentive" in the rules then drops it from the wording. Supposedly Audi made their decision on 2mj before these new rulings. No team is infallable, nor are their decisions. Lots of teams get it wrong and then blame the rules for their decision making. But can you say the rules are at fault if a team closed off any option but one? If this incentive deal was in place in the beginning and only the words were removed in subsequent drafts, it would make more sense to keep your options open than just stick to one. How can you run calculations and say one specific category is best when the rules weren't final while making this decision?

Unless someone can prove for certain Audi were assured the rules were final then the ACO went back on their word after the "2mj decision" was made, I cant feel bad for a team closing the discussion. Anyone have a timeline on this decision can shed more light. Then you can compare Audi's choice to the time the regulations were altered.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Wasnt the original rules speaking of a theoritical ers incentive? So they had their opportunity at the same time as the other teams. The eot isn't exact anyway. Imo, the equality of diesel should be brought further in compared to Petrol. Its really down to the hybrid systems imo.

Sorry, but that is your personal opinion! The goal of the rules was to improve fuel efficiency. Hybrid systems are only one means towards that goal.

There are many other means: lower drag (narrower width), lower weight, lower roll resistance (e.g., narrower tyres), more efficient combustion engine (e.g., Diesel engine, downsized turbocharged petrol engine, ...). All these tricks are being used by car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emission without the need for a hybrid system.

[MyNameIsNigel]

An interesting interview of Dr. Ullrich in Donaukurier.

Dr. Ullrich still considers that the rules should provide equal chances between the various powertrain concepts (well... this is not the case) and that it may be necessary to sit together with the FIA if this were not to be the case (interesting that no reference is made to the ACO BTW):

Aber Toyota und Porsche waren schneller.
Ullrich: Von der Rundenzeit waren wir nicht da, wo wir sein wollten. Auf der Geraden beim Überholen haben sich die Wettbewerber leicht getan, zu überholen und dann wegzuziehen. Aber wir analysieren, wie viel an welcher Aerodynamik lag. Denn das Reglement will ja eigentlich den unterschiedlichen Antriebskonzepten ähnliche Chancen geben will.

Und wenn die Chancen nicht gleich verteilt sind?
Ullrich: Dann müssen wir uns mit der FIA zusammensetzen, damit jeder in etwa gleiche Chancen besitzt.

It is pretty clear to me however that nothing will change before LM. It is highly unlikely that the ACO-FIA will change course after their "clarifications" of May 2nd, even though there are legitimate reasons to question the late changes to Appendix B.

[Bandicoot17]

Audi's fastest lap was 0.8 slower than the fastest overall lap at Spa (Lieb).

Surely this puts them in a stronger position than some here are making out. Due to the way the energy levels are calculated at the shorter tracks Audi should close up a small amount at Le Mans. (The shorter the track the more power a 6MJ gets in relation to a 2MJ, right?)
With their fast drivers running on a 100% energy strategy (which the #3 doesn't seem to have done at Spa) and actually in a LDF car they will surely be a bit/lot(?) closer than they were on average at Spa.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Audi's fastest lap was 0.8 slower than the fastest overall lap at Spa (Lieb).

Surely this puts them in a stronger position than some here are making out. Due to the way the energy levels are calculated at the shorter tracks Audi should close up a small amount at Le Mans. (The shorter the track the more power a 6MJ gets in relation to a 2MJ, right?)
With their fast drivers running on a 100% energy strategy (which the #3 doesn't seem to have done at Spa) and actually in a LDF car they will surely be a bit/lot(?) closer than they were on average at Spa.

Actually, and based on Vasselon's admissions, at least Toyota had trouble recovering the maximum amount of energy that could be released by the ERS at Spa. They should have less difficulties at Le Mans. It's difficult to say for Porsche as they are less dependent on recuperating energy upon braking thanks to their ERS-H.

In other words, the gap may very likely increase at Le Mans.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Actually, and based on Vasselon's admissions, at least Toyota had trouble recovering the maximum amount of energy that could be released by the ERS at Spa. They should have less difficulties at Le Mans. It's difficult to say for Porsche as they are less dependent on recuperating energy upon braking thanks to their ERS-H.

In other words, the gap may very likely increase at Le Mans.

Yes but Lieb set the fastest overall lap (Which tbf was 0.7 quicker than the Toyota). Now if Toyota couldn't recover the full amount then I would also expect them to close up on the 919.
The Porsche can store the full amount and the lap was set in FP2, so I imagine that lap used the full allowance of Hybrid.

Now, if we assume that the Porsche will retain it's fast pace and be the fastest car at LM, then Toyota will be able to close up (as they get 100% hybrid), although we don't know how much they were getting at Spa so maybe not as much as you might think?

From what I can see, everyone seems to think it's doom and gloom because of what we saw at Spa (and ofc what is seemingly written into the regs)

However the ideal race lap times at Spa show Audi could have been just 0.5 off the fastest potential lap (and this is in HDF guise too).

In terms of real pace the Audi lost 2.2 seconds in the 1st and 3rd sector and took 1.3 back in the middle sector. The HDF package was obviously highly unsuitable from what I see, yet the Audi had the potential to be 3rd fastest (was 4th fastest)

In LDF trim I honestly expect an Audi running at 100% with full season drivers would have been right at the front. I don't see where Audi are going to magically lose lots of lap time when they are demonstrating that they can run a very strong pace in HDF at a LDF track. Unless of course Audi's LDF is actually crap. (In which case blaming the regs isn't on)

Now, as I've already said stint length is another thing entirely and if it is the case that Audi can run close lap times and lose the race simply because they have to spend longer in the pits then there is cause for complaint.