Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by TF110

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

Using the ARX-02a as the originator of the wide front concept, that program got away with a thin wall metallic gearcase. Is there a minimum threshold where you take off too much weight at the rear? I don't really think so as you can always add it back on but lower. The overriding factors become gearbox durability and cost. Thus I think Toyota probably took a look and decided against the concept for the cost as I'm sure they could have designed a CF bellhousing/gear box structure that was reliable.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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).
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".

It's a terminology issue: "gearbox housing". Last year the metallic walled gearcase nested into a structure or housing that took all the suspension load. But the walls of the box, the case itself, was traditional light metal. So they have turned the corner?

And I'm not being pedantic here, it's ambiguous to say the "gearbox housing" is CF, especially considering the rear end architecture of last year's car. If the gearcase is CF...then the gearcase is CF, don't fart around with the wording!

"Audi R18 e-tron quattro brings many new innovations to the track but most of the media misses them because of terminology issues."

Just release an image already!

No, I don't speak German at all. My few years of Russian for my never pursued career with the CIA hasn't found much use. Would it be possible to send a transcript of the relevant bits to me gwyllion?

[chernaudi]

The only thing that I can see Audi maybe doing is using a type of carbon fiber weave like Pagani is using in their new supercar were the carbon fiber is woven with some strands of titanium. Titanium is known for it's heat resistant qualities, which is why its widely used in aerospace programs, and it's nearly as light as aluminum.

Still, though, just because this works in F1, doesn't mean that it necessarily transfers to sportscar racing. In F1, the cars have to fast for 2 hours and have to last that long, and even with the 8 engines a year rule and one gearbox for each 3-4 races rule, that's still less track time and distance than at Le Mans, and that may be only pushing 1000km-1500km, or ~600 to ~950 miles over all practice, qualifying, and race laps. At Le Mans, the winner usually travels at least the best part of 3500 miles in the race, or over 5000km.

I wouldn't put it past Audi to be running such materials in their gearbox casing, but according to their illustration (which might not be definitive of the final product), there still seems to be a fair amount of metal in that casing where they feel that they need it, namely around where the half shafts emerge.

As Mike has said, Audi in 2011 ran the carbon "casing" on the R18 that was basically a subframe that was stress mounted to the engine/chassis combination, allowing the gearbox case itself to be only semi-stress mounted to bellhousing, allowing for a possible "quick change" mechanism, and for a much lighter casing.

I'd bet on Audi running a composite casing with carbon panels (covers and such), with a mainly metal structure, and I'm going to have to stick to that guess until we get something definitive in the form of photos or more detailed info aside from Audi's illustration and our present confusion over Audi terminology on the subject. I wouldn't put it past Audi or TMG to eventually try something like this with both company's technical know-how, but it might be a while before they master this enough to use a CFC/CFRP gearbox casing in the car without using any metal reinforcements.

I do think that it's telling that TMG used an all aluminum casing on the TS030 and that the TF110 F1 car also was supposed to revert to such a casing design.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The only thing that I can see Audi maybe doing is using a type of carbon fiber weave like Pagani is using in their new supercar were the carbon fiber is woven with some strands of titanium. Titanium is known for it's heat resistant qualities, which is why its widely used in aerospace programs, and it's nearly as light as aluminum.

Still, though, just because this works in F1, doesn't mean that it necessarily transfers to sportscar racing. In F1, the cars have to fast for 2 hours and have to last that long, and even with the 8 engines a year rule and one gearbox for each 3-4 races rule, that's still less track time and distance than at Le Mans, and that may be only pushing 1000km-1500km, or ~600 to ~950 miles over all practice, qualifying, and race laps. At Le Mans, the winner usually travels at least the best part of 3500 miles in the race, or over 5000km.

I wouldn't put it past Audi to be running such materials in their gearbox casing, but according to their illustration (which might not be definitive of the final product), there still seems to be a fair amount of metal in that casing where they feel that they need it, namely around where the half shafts emerge.

As Mike has said, Audi in 2011 ran the carbon "casing" on the R18 that was basically a subframe that was stress mounted to the engine/chassis combination, allowing the gearbox case itself to be only semi-stress mounted to bellhousing, allowing for a possible "quick change" mechanism, and for a much lighter casing.

I'd bet on Audi running a composite casing with carbon panels (covers and such), with a mainly metal structure, and I'm going to have to stick to that guess until we get something definitive in the form of photos or more detailed info aside from Audi's illustration and our present confusion over Audi terminology on the subject. I wouldn't put it past Audi or TMG to eventually try something like this with both company's technical know-how, but it might be a while before they master this enough to use a CFC/CFRP gearbox casing in the car without using any metal reinforcements.

I do think that it's telling that TMG used an all aluminum casing on the TS030 and that the TF110 F1 car also was supposed to revert to such a casing design.

The big issue composite structures that have to deal with heat isn't the material (you can put an open flame to CF and it won't burn) but the resin. And it isn't necessarily the peak temps, but the temp cycles and dealing with heating and relative cooling over time. So you need a resin that maintains its thermal stability and toughness.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No, I don't speak German at all. My few years of Russian for my never pursued career with the CIA hasn't found much use. Would it be possible to send a transcript of the relevant bits to me gwyllion?

His exact wording in German is: "das Getriebegehäuse, das is das ganze Umfassung wo das Fahrwerk angebunden ist, ist voll auf CFK." Run that sentence through your favorite translation engine. I would translate it as "the gearbox housing, which is the whole enclosure where the suspension is attached, is completely from CFRP."

[chernaudi]

That doesn't solve the issue with terminology, exactly, as the structure to which the suspensions directly attaches to is that carbon structure that Mike has been referring to. We can maybe claim that the R18 uses two gearbox casings and imagine it that way--there's the structure which the suspension attaches to, and there the casing that contains the transmission and differential assemblies.

I refer to Mike's articles here, with some decent photos:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2011.html

The squared-off rear of the carbon structure, per the Audi illustration, is still there, but we don't know much more than that.

Could Audi have changed some of the specs of the actual gearbox casing (the metallic object in those photos)? Possibly, since we haven't seen into the actual engine bay yet, but right now we can only guess and try and decipher what Audi may be meaning by their statements. Detail changes might have happened that is for sure, but I don't think that Audi will have re-invented the wheel on their own system.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

His exact wording in German is: "das Getriebegehäuse, das is das ganze Umfassung wo das Fahrwerk angebunden ist, ist voll auf CFK." Run that sentence through your favorite translation engine. I would translate it as "the gearbox housing, which is the whole enclosure where the suspension is attached, is completely from CFRP."

As we all know, on last year's car the suspension didn't load into the gearcase, but the gearbox housing in which the case slotted in to... unfortunately this doesn't clear anything up.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

In F1, the cars have to fast for 2 hours and have to last that long, and even with the 8 engines a year rule and one gearbox for each 3-4 races rule, that's still less track time and distance than at Le Mans, and that may be only pushing 1000km-1500km, or ~600 to ~950 miles over all practice, qualifying, and race laps. At Le Mans, the winner usually travels at least the best part of 3500 miles in the race, or over 5000km.

Sorry, but you need to refresh your math skills.

The 8 engines/year rule means that the engine has to last 2000-2500 km.

As in 2005, in 2006 engines had to run two complete race meetings, which implied a mileage requirement of anything up to 1300 km. For 2009, the requirement was even tougher, the FIA now permitting only eight engines to be used for the entire 17-race season. This implied attaining a 2000-plus km engine mileage.

source: http://www.highpowermedia.com/mall/r...049_Sample.pdf

The regulations for the 2009 Formula One season will subtly change the way the cars look, drive and behave, but one of the more dramatic differences is the lifespan of the engine. The V8 inside the F60 needs to last up to 2,500km in 2009 - nearly double the distance of the F2008.

source: http://www.shell.com/home/content/mo...re/accessible/

Since 2011, a gearbox must last 5 consecutive race weekends, so only 4 gearboxes can be used during a complete season.

8 engines and 4 gearboxes implies that the gearbox must have double the lifetime of an engine. That means a gearbox lifetime of 4000-5000 km, which is fairly close to the race distance in Le Mans.

To conclude, the mileage requirement is not a big issue. The torque of the diesel engine, which Mike brought up, is something else.

[chernaudi]

The issue remains that F1 cars start and stop repeatedly all weekend, while to win LM, the winning car has to run at least 3500 miles in one shot over 24 hours. And I think that the internals and whatever the stresses of the suspension is channel though is the main enemy here, and Audi already used the carbon gearbox subframe to mount and transmit the suspension forces and stresses.

But I'm still with Mike--I have yet to see how the new gearbox is very much so different in concept than last years. After all, we do have to consider that the ACO considers the structure to which the suspension is mounted to be the gearbox casing, hence the confusion and the loophole that Audi is exploiting. Of course, this is what started the rumors of Audi possibly using a carbon gearbox casing (the actual transmission and differential casing) to begin with.

Also, what are the things with the yellow stickers on it between the diffuser and the catwalks--it looks like the extension of the front diffuser, but they look like carbon. All carbon diffuser, or just carbon skinning? I've seen similar yellow stickers on the R15's dive planes in the past, and the coloring of the rest of the diffuser doesn't extend that far back.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Eu5EMQ639r...tation%2B9.jpg

[alexkiller8]

well, during early '90 f1 NA 3.5 v12 were mandatory in end era of group C cars (at least for european races and world sportcar because IMSA champs and JSPC didn't use same rule). For sure mulsannemike knows much more than me but more than one i've read that actual 2.4 v8 still share a lot of stuff and structure with early 2000 3.0 v10, that share basic structure of old 3.5 v12. I don't want to say something wrong but if i remember well, old 3.5 v12 in f1 were able to reach around 650-700hp with a revlimit of around 12000rpm but were really unreliable and costs were rapidly increasing until 1994 where the ferrari 043 developed more than 800hp. To solve reliable problems, decrease costs and pressed by manufacters like renault after a transition year, all the cars were forced to switch to 3.0 v10 that because of lower displacement should garantue more reliability, but also this time the things start to go worse... manufacters started to use a different evolution of the engine race by race with power outputs that were touching the 1000hp and almost 20000rpm and a reliability matter that was worse than 3.5 units (i guess that you all remember the early 2000 mclaren mercedes engines that exploded almost in all races). For this reason fia started to use restriction of number of engines usable in a season and limiting updates and evolutions available. Finally in 2005 we got 2.4 v8 engines, that more or less in their structure are the old 3.0 v10 less 2 cilinders, with a mandatory revlimit first of 19000 now of 18000, these units can develope 750hp and because of new and insanely harsh regulamentation the actual 2012 engines that will be used this year are something more than a evolution of early 2005/2006 engines because of freezing spec engine rule. A really sad situation.
Well, during 2006, for the arx-01 engine, honda transfered a lot of knoweldge from f1! and for sure toyota will do the same! judging by this, won't be a so bad idea to use a 2.4 high rev engine spec similiar to f1 in 2015 or future specs for lmp1 cars... also because f1 next year will switch to 1.6 turbo, so for some manufacter won't be economicly so bad build "old tech" 2.4 v8 engines to sell to customers team!

[tyronnezx]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

Finally in 2005 we got 2.4 v8 engines,

Im sure the V8s came to play in 2006

if there's one area in which i expect Toyota to be reliable in it's the engine. i read somewhere that they used the engine from TF110 as adirect reference before going with the current setup that they have

[MitchZ06]

So alexkiller8 you're saying come 2015 manufacturers will sell old F1 V8s to customer teams? Or have I missed your point completely?

[TF110]

The TF110 engine being a base as the TS030's engine? I would think it'd be closer to the unit found in the Rebellion. I guess we'll find out later on (hopefully) about the gearbox's used by Audi and Toyota. I'm hoping we can learn more on the technology applied for the hybrids and their relation to the gearbox as well.

[CTD]

I don't see Audi selling their engines to privateers again. What Toyota does, should be discussed in the Toyota thread .

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

So alexkiller8 you're saying come 2015 manufacturers will sell old F1 V8s to customer teams? Or have I missed your point completely?

I also do no understand what the history lesson of alexkiller8 has to do with the Audi R18 and its potentially all carbon fiber gearbox

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

judging by this, won't be a so bad idea to use a 2.4 high rev engine spec similiar to f1 in 2015 or future specs for lmp1 cars... also because f1 next year will switch to 1.6 turbo, so for some manufacter won't be economicly so bad build "old tech" 2.4 v8 engines to sell to customers team!

Off topic comment alert I have to type this or my brain will explode! It will be a bad idea when you take into account the fuel formula. Consumption in the region of 200 liters for a 300km race is FAR too much for the ACO's intention of ~1600 liters for 24 hours. Thanks for reading, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to try the veal and tip your waitress. We now return you to the topic

[gwyllion]

It is time to get the discussion back on track.

A interview with Ullrich about the new R18s: http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publi...cle_7559.shtml. Mainly PR stuff and at the end some comments on the diesel-petrol equivalence:

The ACO and FIA are faced with a very difficult task here. The more different technologies there are in the game the more difficult it becomes to correlate them all. The biggest problem is that the Audi and Peugeot diesel cars were in a class of their own over the last few years – and not just because the TDI is the world’s most efficient engine, but also because no other competitor developed an LMP1 car with a gasoline engine to a similar level of detail and know-how. For this reason the diesel was trimmed again for the 2012 season, so that from our point of view the diesel is now at a real disadvantage on paper. We are, however, prepared to face this challenge and are convinced that the ACO and FIA will make the right decisions for the future. As far as the hybrid issue is concerned we can easily assess the pros and cons through our two-pronged approach, since the base of the R18 ultra and R18 e-tron quattro really is identical. The hybrid system alone makes the difference. The ACO and FIA will receive particularly meaningful data from us.

[Aysedasi]

....from our point of view the diesel is for the first time now at a real disadvantage on paper.

My added bit. Amusing. I really hope Audi aren't going to bleat about equivalency....

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

My added bit. Amusing. I really hope Audi aren't going to bleat about equivalency....

Under current conditions you have to put the diesels at a disadvantage in order to ensure real equality in terms of performance.

[deggis]

That is just so corporate PR-filtered "bla bla bla" that it's almost disgusting.

[chernaudi]

We have to remember that in '09 and '10 the ACO tried to take about a total of 13% power from the diesels, and they never really slowed them down. We all know that Audi and Peugeot got most if not all that power back. In reality, all the ACO probably did was make the cars slightly more efficient, and took away a marginal enough amount of power (which the teams gained back) that maybe the cars became somewhat more drivable, but any big power losses? Not a chance!

Audi is quoting 510bhp as the rated power of the R18 for 2012. That's based on the 6% reduction in power under the ACO's regs from their orginal "claimed" 540. Problem is that we all know that Audi and Peugeot easily made closer to 570-580+ last year, and time and time again, Audi and Pug found more power to make up the difference in the regs while refining the cars in other areas--hence, if anything, their cars go faster each year because of maintaining power, while improving areo, fuel mileage, handling, grip, and other areas that only factories can improve on to such a level.

Of course, my big long term worry is that this might start an arms race that might bankrupt the sport like it did in 1992-93. Audi has redesigned the upper tub of the R18 for '12, and TMG have said that if they have to, they'll design and built a whole new car just for '13.

Right now, that's my big worry--factory teams spending themselves broke or to the point where they don't want to play anymore, and the private teams leave because they're going broke just trying to keep up.

I don't think that the current cars have plateaued yet in terms of performance, but what price will everyone have to pay because of unstable regs that are good for only 3 years maximum that the factories can best exploit while the private teams have no real chance against the big factories unless a miracle happens. And I'm not saying that the ACO should overtly help private teams--if they come up with rules to suit them all the time, why would factories come in in the first place and spend their money if someone with a small fraction of the same budget has the same chance of winning. That's almost tantamount to spec racing, and we have NASCAR in the states for that. But at least throw them a bone every once in a while to spice things up a bit and at least make things interesting for them.

As for the R18, it's probably the lightest LMP1 car in quite a while when unloaded, and I don't think that they're taking a big hit as far as power. If anything, any power reduction leads to engine changes that make the cars easier to drive and drive fast, and leads to changes in other areas to increase performance--it's natural evolution in racing.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

My added bit. Amusing. I really hope Audi aren't going to bleat about equivalency....

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read that. Is he looking for sympathy?

[alexkiller8]

the meaning of my maybe too long post is that too see (again) an f1 engine in a lmp1 won't be so impossible as it seems, also because some engines that were used in recent past in lmp2 cars were directly developed taking as reference an f1 engine structure.
(v8 engines were used for the first time in 2006 but all manufacters and almost all f1 teams started to test it already in 2005)

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

the meaning of my maybe too long post is that too see (again) an f1 engine in a lmp1 won't be so impossible as it seems, also because some engines that were used in recent past in lmp2 cars were directly developed taking as reference an f1 engine structure.

That still does not explain why you brought this up in the Audi R18 thread and the discussion about its 2012 gearbox.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by joeb

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read that. Is he looking for sympathy?

The comment from Ullrich could be directed to the ACO/FIA in influence their decision in the BoP adjustment after Spa.

This could also be an attempt at mind gaming with Toyota. Audi probably also read about Nakajima's lap time (3m25) in the simulator and they are afraid