Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by NelisB

I've given up sarcasm for lent so that's why I missed it

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by CTD

Audi's experience with their Quattro systems aids them nothing with the R18 e-tron, as the Quattro system is using the main engines power and the R18 uses the Hybrid only. A whole different concept.

But yes i would believe that Audi is superior to Toyota in the wet. Simply on the basis that Toyota has zero experience in the wet with their new car.

Yeah, just realised how stupid my Quattro statement was.

But even so, the e-tron must have a natural advantage in the wet. Audi haven't raced the R18 much in properly wet conditions so they don't have an experience advantage.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Yeah, just realised how stupid my Quattro statement was.

But even so, the e-tron must have a natural advantage in the wet. Audi haven't raced the R18 much in properly wet conditions so they don't have an experience advantage.

Yes, AWD is a huge advantage in the wet, as they can put down more power through the corners than a pure rear wheel drive cars.

No, Audi don't have any real experience with the R18 in the wet, but they have loads of experience of building cars which perform well in the wet. Toyota have no experience at all with a wet Le Mans.

[MitchZ06]

In the wet they usually drive slower right? So how could they build up enough charge in the system to have a big enough power boost from the hybrid system?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

In the wet they usually drive slower right? So how could they build up enough charge in the system to have a big enough power boost from the hybrid system?

True . But the braking zone is elongated, so it might compensate for some of the loss.

[MitchZ06]

Wouldn't it be a slower and less intense event compared to what would occur under normal circumstances in the dry or does it only matter that the generator is being spun?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Wouldn't it be a slower and less intense event compared to what would occur under normal circumstances in the dry or does it only matter that the generator is being spun?

I think we need the experts on that one

[MitchZ06]

That's why I'm asking

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

I'm still wondering how the balance is going to work, how much smaller will the fuel tanks be on hybrids? Are the ACO and/or the FIA going to try and balance it so that a petrol, diesel and the equivalent hybrid combination will all be good for a single stint (like 45 minutes to there abouts) at la Sarthe?

The fuel tank of a hybrid car is 2 liter smaller. That means 73 vs 75 liter for petrol engines and 58 vs 60 liter for diesel engines.

The performance balance question is a bit more tricky. The LMP technical regulations contain the following vague sentence about the energy recovery system (article 1.13):

The Endurance Committee may adjust the performance of any car using such a system, should it enable the vehicle to improve its lap times in a significant manner.

Then there is the 2% rule in the WEC sporting regulations:

17. Balance of performance between the different LMP1 propulsion technologies.
In order to keep the differences between the various propulsion technologies within a 2% margin of the lap time, the Endurance Committee will be able to adapt the performance of the slowest technologies of the cars in accordance with the following conditions:

I assume that this latter rule not only balances the performance of diesel and petrol engines, but also of hybrid and non-hybrid cars.

The big problem is that the performance of a hybrid system will be track dependent. More braking means more potential KERS activations. At Le Mans the performance advantage of the hybrid system will probably be the smallest of all WEC rounds.

[cmk]

Originally Posted by Audi R10

This is a love declaration not an interview

Indeed, but it does remind us of one of the reasons Audi was likely attracted to him - they like good relationships between their drivers and his friendship with 2 of their team can't hurt.

[Audi R10]

Autosport magazine confirms Lotterer-Treluyer and McNish full WEC.

[Mal]

It will be interesting to see how they use it is the wet - it may be that they build the charge up and use it more through the Porsche curves I know there is a maximum discharge between braking points but there are at least 2 in the curves) as the AWD should have a big advantage for longer their?

Also I noted they have entered 3 cars for Sebring - I hadnt previously clocked that

[TRuss]

Considering the loss of traction in wet conditions, if there is less power being developed then it probably keeps everything consistent.

[chernaudi]

Interesting that Audi has yet to do an actual endurance test with the e-Tron since they've had the car since October if their press release is to be believed. I don't imagine that Audi hasn't been to Sebring unless to test for reliability (their main purpose for testing there), so could've they have been also testing the Ultra to endurance test other components (gearbox casing and new front suspension) for the sake of some endurance tests since as it doesn't have the hybrid system on it and is more of a known quantity? Or has Audi yet to do serious endurance testing at all with either car, since they seem to haven't done much as far as a 24-30 hour test yet, certainly with the hybrid?

I also read the comments about the R18's front visibility not changing much in the front right of the windshield. Two comments I found interesting is that the drivers learned to look though the fender louvers--wouldn't the lack of louvers help with that now. I also liked the suggestion that Toyota may have the same issues and that the ACO and FIA are partly to blame for the situation. In a way, they're not, but also to an extent are. No one made Audi or Toyota design closed cars with the drivers sitting so far back and low, and they didn't make Audi or Toyota per rules make the teams run the wide wheels and tires.

But the power sapping regs basically forced the hand of Audi and TMG to run the wider tires, because with limited straightline speeds, they had to make up the speed and time somewhere, and if they didn't, someone else would. The rules didn't make them, but how the rules have been applied forced their hand, since Acura did it, and it was a matter of time before someone--even a private team--exploited it.

I also noted rumors of Audi using the rear view camera equipment to give a clearer RF view--anyone know if TMG are running similar rear view equipment?

Edit: new video in English at Audi Sport Facebook page. Video quality isn't great, but it is in English, at least. Hopefully it'll be on You Tube soon, since I at least don't really like Facebook's video player.

[MihokS5]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Interesting that Audi has yet to do an actual endurance test with the e-Tron since they've had the car since October if their press release is to be believed. I don't imagine that Audi hasn't been to Sebring unless to test for reliability (their main purpose for testing there), so could've they have been also testing the Ultra to endurance test other components (gearbox casing and new front suspension) for the sake of some endurance tests since as it doesn't have the hybrid system on it and is more of a known quantity? Or has Audi yet to do serious endurance testing at all with either car, since they seem to haven't done much as far as a 24-30 hour test yet, certainly with the hybrid?

I also read the comments about the R18's front visibility not changing much in the front right of the windshield. Two comments I found interesting is that the drivers learned to look though the fender louvers--wouldn't the lack of louvers help with that now. I also liked the suggestion that Toyota may have the same issues and that the ACO and FIA are partly to blame for the situation. In a way, they're not, but also to an extent are. No one made Audi or Toyota design closed cars with the drivers sitting so far back and low, and they didn't make Audi or Toyota per rules make the teams run the wide wheels and tires.

But the power sapping regs basically forced the hand of Audi and TMG to run the wider tires, because with limited straightline speeds, they had to make up the speed and time somewhere, and if they didn't, someone else would. The rules didn't make them, but how the rules have been applied forced their hand, since Acura did it, and it was a matter of time before someone--even a private team--exploited it.

I also noted rumors of Audi using the rear view camera equipment to give a clearer RF view--anyone know if TMG are running similar rear view equipment?

Edit: new video in English at Audi Sport Facebook page. Video quality isn't great, but it is in English, at least. Hopefully it'll be on You Tube soon, since I at least don't really like Facebook's video player.

So can we assume that the new R18's do not have a new windscreen?
I know Mike Fuller and others said the windshield was new, but to be honest it looks exactly the same as the old car and I couldn't tell a differnece

[chernaudi]

I don't think that the issue is the windscreen, which is enlarged a bit on account of the wider upper tub--it's the width of the tires combined with the height of the tires. The diesel LMP1s ran 680mm vs 650mm diameter in 2006, and Michelin standardized on 680mm diameter tires for all LMP1s in 2007. When the normal 13" tire width/13-13.5" wheels were used, it wasn't a major issue.

When the 14+" tires and 14.5" wheels started to be used, that's when it became an issue, and it seems that the taller drivers like Fassler, Ben and Andre, and Wurz have dealt with it better since they sit higher in the cars in regards to the sight line--guys like McNish and Kristensen have taken a hit because they can't get their sight line up high enough to clear the wider inboard fenders.

The taller tires don't help much, but it's the width and having to have wider inner fenders to allow for the steering lock that's an issue, and with how far back the drivers have to sit in the Toyota, they might have similar issues with left side vision.

[MihokS5]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I don't think that the issue is the windscreen, which is enlarged a bit on account of the wider upper tub--it's the width of the tires combined with the height of the tires. The diesel LMP1s ran 680mm vs 650mm diameter in 2006, and Michelin standardized on 680mm diameter tires for all LMP1s in 2007. When the normal 13" tire width/13-13.5" wheels were used, it wasn't a major issue.

When the 14+" tires and 14.5" wheels started to be used, that's when it became an issue, and it seems that the taller drivers like Fassler, Ben and Andre, and Wurz have dealt with it better since they sit higher in the cars in regards to the sight line--guys like McNish and Kristensen have taken a hit because they can't get their sight line up high enough to clear the wider inboard fenders.

The taller tires don't help much, but it's the width and having to have wider inner fenders to allow for the steering lock that's an issue, and with how far back the drivers have to sit in the Toyota, they might have similar issues with left side vision.

I agree and always thought it was a tire/body work issue especically after spending a good amount of time with the R18's at Petit.
I wondered what changing the windscreen really would improve to be honest ,and thats why I didn't expect a night and day difference with a newer screen-

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The Audi press article stressed that they reduced the base weight of the car compared to last year. One example is the carbon fibre gearbox housing. According to http://www.lemans.org/en/news/audi-t...rted_6340.html they were able to reduce the weight 100 pounds.

In http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan12.html Mike points out that the R18 has had a composite gearbox housing since the car's debut last year. In all fairness in 2011 the housing was partially made from aluminum. So perhaps this year it is made completely from carbon fiber? I guess we will have to wait for the first pictures without the engine cover.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Edit: new video in English at Audi Sport Facebook page. Video quality isn't great, but it is in English, at least. Hopefully it'll be on You Tube soon, since I at least don't really like Facebook's video player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNZd_Q_C-is bundles most of the (English) video footage of the presentation.

[chernaudi]

I don't think that carbon and polymer technology is advanced enough to make an "all" carbon gearbox casing in the literal sense. I'll bet that most F1 "all carbon" gearboxes still used a hefty amount of aluminum or magnesium reinforcing members and components to give structural integrity to the casing assembly.

This basic polymer technology has been around for many years now, and I'd have to say that it'll be a while before we see this in firearms or aircraft, or race cars for that matter--there's as much steel in the slides and barrels of most polymer framed pistols as there is in most conventional pistol's frames, and the same goes for rifles with polymer receivers, with there again being large amounts of metal in the barrels and bolts.

The enemy with the all CFC gearbox casing is the same as for firearms and high performance aircraft, namely high speed military combat planes, such as jet fighters--heat. There are probably polymers that might be flame or heat resistant enough under work and R&D, but such items are prohibitively expensive to use for much of anything until the bugs get worked out.

One thing that might help Audi is that the gearbox casing isn't a fully stressed member of the car's structure in the way that the engine is. But I still think that an entirely CFC gearbox is a stretch, and I'd bet that for reliability, if nothing else, there's plenty of high-tensile lightweight metal in that casing, maybe ingeniously arranged or assembled to get the "Ultra" light weight desired.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan12.html Mike points out that the R18 has had a composite gearbox housing since the car's debut last year. In all fairness in 2011 the housing was partially made from aluminum. So perhaps this year it is made completely from carbon fiber? I guess we will have to wait for the first pictures without the engine cover.

Note the distinction: The gearcase was aluminum, the housing that carries the case was carbon. Recall that the gearbox nests into a carbon fiber structure that actually carries the suspension load. This allows for a thinner (lighter) gearcase. The Audi R18 e-tron PR talks about a "gearbox housing" and a "carbon-fiber composite housing." It also indicates the gearbox has been redesigned ("new gearbox"). Looking at the schematic image showing the hybrid drive, the shape of the gearbox is different than what we saw at Spa last year; last year's box had a distinctive round shape around the final drive, this one is square. Have they gone all CF for the case?
It's my understanding that the a CF LMP gearbox still has to overcome the long duty cycle issue. When CF was common in F1 box casings regulations weren't in place mandating mulit-race usage. Thus they could be chucked after each race if need be. You really don't want to have to chuck you LMP 'box after every 2 hours during the 24. Sure, the resins are better now, but I'm not so sure they are so much better that we've turned the corner and now are capable of 24 hour reliable CF boxes, though we might be getting close. Another thing to consider is the higher torque loads a diesel box needs to withstand. Thus we might not see it in a diesel LMP but could see it in a gas powered LMP if the budget and motivation (design necessity) existed.

[TF110]

Toyota hasn't gone that route. Perhaps they follow these words?

[chernaudi]

I saw the cutaway illustration, and I definitely saw quite a bit of metal around where the axles/half shafts come out. I wouldn't rule out that Audi replaced some of the parts on the actual casing with carbon, but I'll bet that in areas where there's a lot of heat or stress, they're probably aluminum or magnesium, or maybe a carbon skin bonded to aluminum.

I doubt that Audi will have an "all" carbon gearbox--I think that the Dome composite carbon/aluminum solution is more viable and probably closer to the approach that Audi has taken with the R18 e-Tron/Ultra. Basically, in lesser stressed or heated areas, go with carbon, but elsewhere, lightweight metal.

Overall, I don't think that the principal is significantly different than last year, but is an evolution/refinement, especially when you consider that the R10's and R15 gearboxes were lighter than the R8's, and that the R18's engine is now as light as if not lighter than the R8's, and that it probably wasn't much heavier to start with, either.

And on the engine front, Baretzky said that they're refined the combustion and intake/exhaust cycles and systems on the car, obviously to improve efficiency and increase power--could this explain the possibly slightly different engine note, and the rounder, perhaps larger exhaust pipe? It seems that if the pipe's larger, it would reduce back pressure, especially when you consider that the R18 seemed in the videos to smoke less than last year, so maybe a different filter design as well?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The Audi R18 e-tron PR talks about a "gearbox housing" and a "carbon-fiber composite housing." It also indicates the gearbox has been redesigned ("new gearbox"). Looking at the schematic image showing the hybrid drive, the shape of the gearbox is different than what we saw at Spa last year; last year's box had a distinctive round shape around the final drive, this one is square. Have they gone all CF for the case?

If you understand a bit of German, you should listen to these comments with Wolfgang Appel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8d6wsrhnNE#t=3m43. First he explains that complete chassis is made from carbon fiber and this means not only the monocoque but also the transmission. Then he clarifies that the gears are still from steel and run in oil, but the gearbox housing is all carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (= CFRP in English, CFK = "Carbon-faserverstärkter Kunststoff" in German).

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

It's my understanding that the a CF LMP gearbox still has to overcome the long duty cycle issue. When CF was common in F1 box casings regulations weren't in place mandating mulit-race usage. Thus they could be chucked after each race if need be. You really don't want to have to chuck you LMP 'box after every 2 hours during the 24. Sure, the resins are better now, but I'm not so sure they are so much better that we've turned the corner and now are capable of 24 hour reliable CF boxes, though we might be getting close.

Yes, some teams returned to aluminum and titanium, because the gearboxes have to last 4 consecutive race weekends. However, carbon fiber is still used. E.g., the gearbox of the McLaren MP4-27 is made from "McLaren-moulded carbon-fibre composite".

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I don't think that carbon and polymer technology is advanced enough to make an "all" carbon gearbox casing in the literal sense. I'll bet that most F1 "all carbon" gearboxes still used a hefty amount of aluminum or magnesium reinforcing members and components to give structural integrity to the casing assembly.

That is why McLaren use the term "carbon fiber composite" and not "carbon fiber"

In case you want to see a picture of the all carbon fiber Red Bull gearbox, you should have a look at http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...sion-detailed/

BTW the Ferrari gearbox is hybrid titanium/carbon fiber, Renault/Lotus uses titanium and Mercedes and Williams use aluminium.