[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Another point on Vasselon's comments vs. Luepen's; Vasselon was speaking of the balance between the fuel tech, Luepen was speaking on Audi using only 2mj of hybrid power. Two totally different aspects. The 'ers incentive' is apparently "higher mj, faster lap time". Thats got nothing to do with the equality of Petrols performance to Diesel's.

You consider these two factors independent, but they are clearly not

This has been explained repeatedly: diesel engine heavier, less weight for bigger hybrid. It is much more difficult for Audi to run in the higher MJ classes.

[chernaudi]

And 17:1 compression for gasoline racing engines isn't anything new, either; NASCAR Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) engines were pulling similar numbers in the mid-1990s and I'd bet that F1 engines from the same period weren't too far from that figure, either.

Only the 14:1 (1997) and 12:1 (1998-present) rules-imposed limits kept NASCAR engine builders from exploring higher limits. And those were OHV pushrod engines.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Another point on Vasselon's comments vs. Luepen's; Vasselon was speaking of the balance between the fuel tech, Luepen was speaking on Audi using only 2mj of hybrid power. Two totally different aspects. The 'ers incentive' is apparently "higher mj, faster lap time". Thats got nothing to do with the equality of Petrols performance to Diesel's.

The two issues are however intimately linked to one another since the performance of all ERS options is exclusively adjusted via the relevant fuel allocation figures.

If the equivalence between diesel and petrol happens to be adjusted in favour of petrol (following Vasselon's "desire") - which would translate into a further increase of the FTF - that would inevitably make the situation even worse in terms of the (once again) artificial gap of performance resulting from the "ERS incentive".

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This has been explained repeatedly: diesel engine heavier, less weight for bigger hybrid. It is much more difficult for Audi to run in the higher MJ classes.

And that remains the "tricky" part in the whole EoT equation.

Currently, the diesel overweight is "compensated" via the KTF, which directly impacts the fuel allocation figures for diesel. Combined with the "ERS incentive", this results in a fundamental lack of equivalence between the various ERS options. Currently, the fuel allocation figures are adjusted on a "column by column" basis, but in practice, the ACO-FIA are attempting to more or less "balance/unbalance" ERS options between different columns (recall the ACO-FIA declarations according to which a 2/4 MJ diesel is supposed to be nearly equivalent to a 4/6 MJ petrol).

I have already expressed my view on the "ERS incentive", but this parameter once again screws up the entire picture. It would have been far better for the ACO-FIA to opt for a true equivalence between ALL ERS options, rather than this "mess".

Now, a better (?) may of balancing the ERS options might be to directly compensate the diesel overweight by imposing a corresponding amount of ballast to the petrol cars (and get rid of the KTF), thereby putting both technologies on equal footing in terms of the ability to integrate bigger hybrid systems.

[GasperG]

As far as I know higher compression ratio with a little richer mixture is easily achievable (higher power with air restrictors), but some of you are forgetting that Toyota achieved this on a fuel saving lean mixture.

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Now, a better (?) may of balancing the ERS options might be to directly compensate the diesel overweight by imposing a corresponding amount of ballast to the petrol cars (and get rid of the KTF), thereby putting both technologies on equal footing in terms of the ability to integrate bigger hybrid systems.

^
That sounds like a pretty simple way of keeping EoT under control

Originally Posted by GasperG

As far as I know higher compression ratio with a little richer mixture is easily achievable (higher power with air restrictors), but some of you are forgetting that Toyota achieved this on a fuel saving lean mixture.

They are running a lambda (air fuel equivalence) of around 0.9-1.1 which means they are running both lean and rich. However for fuel saving reasons they are probably running lean at high rpms and rich at lower rpms to help torque and prevent preignition down low.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You consider these two factors independent, but they are clearly not

This has been explained repeatedly: diesel engine heavier, less weight for bigger hybrid. It is much more difficult for Audi to run in the higher MJ classes.

Its difficult? They chose a bigger heavier engine this year. You post as if they had no choice but to 'upsize' I posted the talk of the two men were on different fronts. They are independent statements.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The two issues are however intimately linked to one another since the performance of all ERS options is exclusively adjusted via the relevant fuel allocation figures.

If the equivalence between diesel and petrol happens to be adjusted in favour of petrol (following Vasselon's "desire") - which would translate into a further increase of the FTF - that would inevitably make the situation even worse in terms of the (once again) artificial gap of performance resulting from the "ERS incentive".

Like above, Audi chose to go larger engine smaller ers. You're stating its linked, but the comments are not linked. Saying they go against eachother is wrong. Luepen says no adjustment is needed for Audi. Vasselon says the engine equivalency is still favorable to diesel. Looks to me theyre on the same page.

[Articus]

Why would you trust Pascal Vasselon, Rob Leupen, or anyone involved with the Toyota program to make a call about the BOP between themselves and Audi. That's awfully naive. Not saying we can trust Audi either. Lets just wait and see...

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Its difficult? They chose a bigger heavier engine this year. You post as if they had no choice but to 'upsize' I posted the talk of the two men were on different fronts. They are independent statements.

The major weight difference between a diesel engine and a petrol engine of the same power rating does not come from Audi's decision to upscale from 3.4 Litres to 3.7 liters. That is a 300mL difference. That effects to 50 mL per cylinder. That volume increment is 10 times smaller than a bottle of Poland Spring Water...In short, it has done very little to the engine's weight.

The weight difference comes from fundamental part of a diesel engine's operation. I thought we were past this? The difficulty in running a larger ERS is a penalty they would have had whether they stuck with the 3.4 liter or upgraded to the 3.7.

The 50kg difference is almost half the weight of Toyota Supercapacitors or ~3MJ worth. How is that for comparison?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

The major weight difference between a diesel engine and a petrol engine of the same power rating does not come from Audi's decision to upscale from 3.4 Litres to 3.7 liters. That is a 300mL difference. That effects to 50 mL per cylinder. That volume increment is 10 times smaller than a bottle of Poland Spring Water...In short, it has done very little to the engine's weight.

The weight difference comes from fundamental part of a diesel engine's operation. I thought we were past this? The difficulty in running a larger ERS is a penalty they would have had whether they stuck with the 3.4 liter or upgraded to the 3.7.

The 50kg difference is almost half the weight of Toyota Supercapacitors or ~3MJ worth. How is that for comparison?

Youre numbers are mixed up. Audi went to 4 liters. Toyota went 3.7 liters. Where do you have engine weight of Audi's v6's? Theyre own admission this year is its 30-50kg heavier than Toyota or Porsche. Toyota's is ~100kg. So Audi has 130kg-150kg. Is that the same or heavier than 2013?

You know its so easy to say Audi is stuck with a heavy diesel, but the fact is they arent. They could have downsized to 3liters or stayed the same size and worked on lighter components with the same engine. They decided against that and went larger, AND decreased their hybrid power limit. So when you say things like "how can Toyota know..." its not hard to come to the conclusion on how. Its no secret the engines of diesel cars are heavier, but when you complain about competitors being faster while you set two out of three fastest laps and won Le Mans, you look silly.

When Luepen says "they haven't developed their hybrid" its not off the mark. Instead of doing like your two main rivals and taking advantage of more hybrid power allowed, they go and do less than 2012-13. Thats why his comments dont look like theyre biased.

[MyNameIsNigel]

So, Audi should have designed a lighter diesel engine ? That's your point ?

Do you honestly believe that Audi could have saved 1/3 of the engine weight of their V6 TDI, which is understood to weigh something in the range of 150 kg (possibly more), to be on par with the Toyota V8 that is understood to weigh about 100 kg ?

I know that Audi have good engineers, but they can't do miracles...

[GasperG]

An efficient engine is and always was heavier, there is no short cut. There many things you can do with petrol engine to be on pair with diesel (D-EGR comes to mind, Peugeot where are you?)

We are seeing some very different concepts of the whole car's efficiency and currently under this weight limits we are seeing all cars consume ~139 MJ per lap, the worst thing that can happen in future years is that only one concept proves as the best, then we will have some boring chats of one system on this Forum

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by GasperG

..... the worst thing that can happen in future years is that only one concept proves as the best, then we will have some boring chats of one system on this Forum

And that is coming, whether we like it or not!

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So, Audi should have designed a lighter diesel engine ? That's your point ?

Do you honestly believe that Audi could have saved 1/3 of the engine weight of their V6 TDI, which is understood to weigh something in the range of 150 kg (possibly more), to be on par with the Toyota V8 that is understood to weigh about 100 kg ?

I know that Audi have good engineers, but they can't do miracles...

Youre putting words in my mouth. I never said they could drop to the weight of Toyota's engine. I never said they should try to match that weight either. I said they have no reason to complain that the higher ers classed cars are faster when they went backwards in the ers energy allowance. They could have kept the same engine/hybrid combo from 2012/13 (900-915kg weight) and go 4mj with some work towards the hybrid aspect. But they chose not to and now say things arent fair.

Do you understand better what Im saying? I know people like to say "its too heavy" for them to keep the flywheel and associated hybrid tech at that level (4mj). But really, is it? They couldn't make 870kg with their "lightest lmp ever"? I dont believe that.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Youre putting words in my mouth. I never said they could drop to the weight of Toyota's engine. I never said they should try to match that weight either. I said they have no reason to complain that the higher ers classed cars are faster when they went backwards in the ers energy allowance. They could have kept the same engine/hybrid combo from 2012/13 (900-915kg weight) and go 4mj with some work towards the hybrid aspect. But they chose not to and now say things arent fair.

Do you understand better what Im saying? I know people like to say "its too heavy" for them to keep the flywheel and associated hybrid tech at that level (4mj). But really, is it? They couldn't make 870kg with their "lightest lmp ever"? I dont believe that.

Which still leaves us with the FACT that the V6 TDI has approx. a 50kg handicap compared to the V8 used by Toyota, irrespective of the ERS option or hybrid system that they are using. That means 50kg that cannot be exploited to integrate the hybrid system.

BTW, the 4.0L V6 TDI weighs less than the former 3.7L V6 TDI according to various statements from Audi and Dr. Baretzky in particular.

And there is once again a good reason why Audi went for the 2 MJ ERS option at the time, namely that all ERS options were supposed to be on equal footing when they made that decision. That "ERS incentive" thing came only afterwards. That's what Audi have been complaining about following the last Appendix B changes that were decided shortly before the WEC season started.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Looking at this from a different perspective, would Toyota be able to integrate a 6 MJ or 8 MJ hybrid system if they were to be handicapped by a 50kg ballast to compensate for the diesel overweight ? Same question applies for Porsche BTW.

[GasperG]

If we don't know how much the whole "6 MJ ERS" weights we can only guess.

Is it 150 kg? Then 4 MJ would be possible for Toyota and 50 kg ballast
Is it less than 150 kg? Then yes, only 2 MJ would be possible with 50 kg ballast

[carbon_titanium]

Usually are diesel cars that get ballast because of diesel insane torque, is very unlikely that petrol cars will receive an extra ballast because diesel engine is heavier. Anyway to me, toyota should increase displacement of their engine... with a 4.0 or 4.5 could be obtained more torque and a lower revving engine to be less conditioned by possible hybrid reliability issues.

[Articus]

In retrospect, this shot of the 2013 TS030 rear wing is very interesting. You can almost see how one thing led to another and we ended up with the 2014 1st gen wing.


gret shots from this guy on twitter https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/media.


Never really noticed before but the aerodynamic detail on this Toyota is nothing short of Stunning.

[MyNameIsNigel]

At last some further news about the "Winggate" courtesy of motorsport-total.com.

So, based on Vasselon's comments, passing the deflection tests is sufficient demonstration of the "legality" of the movable rear wing...

[J Jay]

Well it is to the regulators, and that is ultimately what matters. Precedence has been set in this area (most notably by Red Bull, which I will keep mentioning until everyone is sick of it!); the only verifiable way of checking legality is the test. It passed, so it's clear to race regardless of what the wing actually does in race conditions.

Whether it will be seen on the car next year is another question entirely. Now if the FIA were to implement a rotation test this conversation would be rather different

[Articus]

Easy fix would just be to allow active rear wings. At least that way you don't need an elaborate flexing rear end to run it.

It just occurred to me that accidents look so bad because the bodywork is so flimsy on these cars when it's not in place that it shreds like confetti when they hit the barriers.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by J Jay

(...) the only verifiable way of checking legality is the test. It passed, so it's clear to race regardless of what the wing actually does in race conditions.(...)

So seeing/noticing the rear wing ACTUALLY moving at speed on video footage and picture evidence clearly highlighting that the rear wing pivots between two READILY identifiable positions is not sufficient ?

What's the point of having regulations if ultimately the only thing that matters is passing scrutineering tests ?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So seeing/noticing the rear wing ACTUALLY moving at speed on video footage and picture evidence clearly highlighting that the rear wing pivots between two READILY identifiable positions is not sufficient ?

What's the point of having regulations if ultimately the only thing that matters is passing scrutineering tests ?

Red Bull pulled the same trick in F1. If scrutineering is what 'verifies' the rules, and the car gets through scrutineering, it is technically legal yes?

[Articus]

Unfortunately no regulation can be waterproof if scrutineering is the lay of the land.

Porsche and Audi are annoyed because now they have to figure out how to copy it. Just like how Audi copied the Toyota full width rear wing last year. They did it, but were annoyed about the whole deal because it wasn't in the spirit of the regulations.

Toyota chose to be that team.