Audi LMP1 Discussion

[NightStalk3r]

I dont think we will see Porsche and Penske partnering up again anytime soon.

[gwyllion]

The R18 has not participated in a single race and you are already discussing follow up projects

The next LMP rule change will occur earliest in 2013. The key point of the future regulations (see meeting minutes of ACO technical working group) is an improvement in energy efficiency through lower minimum weight (775 instead of 900 kg), energy/fuel restrictions instead of air restrictions, and free energy recovery systems (kinetic energy, exhaust energy, etc.).

The features of the R18 that Audi has highlighted, namely extreme weight saving (Audi "ultra") and an unique engine configuration ready for future electrification and different energy recuperation solutions, correspond very well with the future LMP rules.

Audi wants to promote technologic innovation through racing. That means that the future F1 rules are the only other logical motorsport discipline for Audi, other than LMP racing.

[Simmi]

As long as VAG and its might are still in sportscars it doesn't really matter to me which marque they use.

[gwyllion]

Paul Truswell calculated that Audi has a serious advantage in the long runs:
source: http://trussers.blogspot.com/2011/04...-times-at.html

The 908 can do one extra lap on a full fuel tank, but that is not enough to make up for the 5 sec difference in average lap time.

It must be noted that Peugeot only did long runs with #7 car, which was doing an endurance simulation (testing reliability). It probably ran in the base setup and little changes were made to improve lap times.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The 908 can do one extra lap on a full fuel tank, but that is not enough to make up for the 5 sec difference in average lap time.

You do realise that Peugeot's lap times aren't "real", right?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Acid09

You do realise that Peugeot's lap times aren't "real", right?

Of course, but the times of Audi neither. That still makes a difference of 5 sec between "fake" lap times.

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Of course, but the times of Audi neither. That still makes a difference of 5 sec between "fake" lap times.

Do you still think Peugeot will comit the same mistake last year!!!

They are playing secure, indeed very secure, so IMO even that Audi are not showing their real pace Peugeot had a lot more to show. That´s only my opinion, for me I hope they battle until the last lap (Audi and Peugeot)

[Pandamasque]

Clearly the styling department of Audi Sport lags behind the privateer efforts of teh inetrwebz.

[gwyllion]

To get a better feeling about how much the #7 Peugeot was holding back, I calculated the average lap time* of Duval's stint in the Oreca 908 during the afternoon session: 3:36.7.

* I also included the in lap, like Paul did.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Clearly the styling department of Audi Sport lags behind the privateer efforts of teh inetrwebz.

It almost looks like that car should have the words "Muscle Milk" on it somewhere! I like it!

[AGD]

Originally Posted by joeb

It almost looks like that car should have the words "Muscle Milk" on it somewhere! I like it!

Looks like a Lucky Strike BAR to me actually. Perhaps the one half should have 555 blue and gold.

[Pandamasque]

Wrong and wrong. I'm sure the author had this in mind:

[gwyllion]

Yes, or

[AGD]

Ah yes, the IMSA GTO Audi 90. It still looks like a BAR F1 car though!

[chernaudi]

Maybe Audi are playing the game that Peugeot used to with the old 908--burning more fuel to go faster.

The old R10 at LM could go 1 or sometimes 2 laps further, but that could just barely make up for the on average 1-3 second a lap gap that the R10s lacked, as the Pugs were about 5 to at times nearly 10 miles an hour faster down the straights. That status quo continued through with the R15.

And it also goes back to Pieter/Henk 4's comments in the LM test day thread. He said that the R18's do seem to have a handling/grip edge right now, which can be aero (the R18 having a bit more downforce in LM trim) or mechanical grip (lower CG/lightweight allowing more more optimal ballast location, and better use of the wider front tires).

After all, the only place where the R18s were clearly faster than the Pugs as far as sector times was sector three, where the Audis were gaining huge time in the Porsche Curves, averaging about 10 km/h faster than the 908s. Everywhere else, the times between the two were competitive and almost inseparable in fact--down to mere tenths of a second from fastest to slowest. But sector three, where grip and handling come into play, the R18s were almost in a class of their own--even the Oreca 908 was outrunning the factory cars on the watch there.

Of course, having more grip means that you can open the throttle faster, and that can obviously burn more fuel.

This was only a test, but if the Audi R18 holds that advantage come the race, that one or so lap that Audi wasn't running for whatever reason (mileage or pickup--remember the '03 Bentley didn't get the range it could have because of a poor pickup location in the fuel tank) might not matter if the gap is big enough, and a 1-3 second laptime gap, provided that there are no major issues, would likely be enough, let alone a five second average, which would be redicuoulsy fast!

Maybe Spa may be the telling point, depending on if Peugeot run their LM, Sebring, or a new sprint body package, and if Audi sticks to their LM package (plenty fast at LM and Sebring) or a higher downforce sprint race package. I'll be interesting to see if Audi can remain faster than Peugeot on the stop watch, and where they're making gains.

Two things are for sure--it seems that the R18 may have the better chassis on it right now (refer to LM test day comments), and Spa is a handling track with some fast bits on it--the best of both worlds. Of course, we have to wait until practice starts before we get any indications of what to look at.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The old R10 at LM could go 1 or sometimes 2 laps further, but that could just barely make up for the on average 1-3 second a lap gap that the R10s lacked, as the Pugs were about 5 to at times nearly 10 miles an hour faster down the straights. That status quo continued through with the R15.

The status quo did not continue. Last year, the 908 was able to do 13 lap stints (in the beginning of the race), while the R15+ could only do 12 laps on a full fuel tank.

[chernaudi]

But after the #3 went out and Peugeot started to drop the hammer, that dropped down to 12 and then 11 when the #1 Pug tried to run down the two Audis in front of it, while the R15s were running 12-13 lap stints in that same period.

And as draggy as it was, the early R15s were capable of running 13 lap stints at LM in '09. So either Audi really cranked up the power (seeing what Peugeot was doing) or the drag reduction did little to improve fuel economy.

But as has been said, it's hard to use a fuel mileage advantage when the cars that you're running against are on the order of a couple of seconds a lap faster. I do believe that a poster in the LM test thread said that the R18s would have to average about .5-1.0 seconds a lap faster to nullify any fuel mileage advantage that Peugeot could have.

But what has me mystified is Truswell's claim that on long runs that the R18s were as much as 5 seconds a lap faster(!). I don't distrust the math used to come up with that figure, but there has to be an explanation. Either the Pug guys were experimenting with their two "fast" cars, or the Pugs caught some bad traffic on some of their laps.

If that's the case, and it was in the Porsche Curves (where the 908s seem to be struggling a bit), that could really kill their lap times, as when you're in a fight for position, Audi can have the advantage of taking it easy or using their superior grip to make some passes there. Meanwhile, the Pug drivers would probably like to make those moves, but might not be able to due to lack of confidence in their cars--Audi drivers had similar issue with the R15 last year.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

But after the #3 went out and Peugeot started to drop the hammer, that dropped down to 12 and then 11 when the #1 Pug tried to run down the two Audis in front of it, while the R15s were running 12-13 lap stints in that same period.

And as draggy as it was, the early R15s were capable of running 13 lap stints at LM in '09. So either Audi really cranked up the power (seeing what Peugeot was doing) or the drag reduction did little to improve fuel economy.

But as has been said, it's hard to use a fuel mileage advantage when the cars that you're running against are on the order of a couple of seconds a lap faster. I do believe that a poster in the LM test thread said that the R18s would have to average about .5-1.0 seconds a lap faster to nullify any fuel mileage advantage that Peugeot could have.

But what has me mystified is Truswell's claim that on long runs that the R18s were as much as 5 seconds a lap faster(!). I don't distrust the math used to come up with that figure, but there has to be an explanation. Either the Pug guys were experimenting with their two "fast" cars, or the Pugs caught some bad traffic on some of their laps.

If that's the case, and it was in the Porsche Curves (where the 908s seem to be struggling a bit), that could really kill their lap times, as when you're in a fight for position, Audi can have the advantage of taking it easy or using their superior grip to make some passes there. Meanwhile, the Pug drivers would probably like to make those moves, but might not be able to due to lack of confidence in their cars--Audi drivers had similar issue with the R15 last year.

You can't take any of the times from the test weekend as gospel, and no concrete conclusions can be made about future performance. The first time we'll see any hint of the performance difference between the R18 and 908 will be the first qualifying session. Everything is a shell game until then. Thus detailed analysis of relative performance is effectively meaningless at this time.

[chernaudi]

All I'm trying to say is that I can't see the R18's being an average of 5 seconds a lap faster, at least on a consistant basis. I certianly didn't see that happening before the test occured, and even afterwards I though that being a couple of seconds a lap slower would be plausable afterwards.

And if one reads my post, I did insert the possiblility that Peugeot were trying something on a couple of their cars to see if it would work. And they also had one car that intentionally didn't run a fast lap, and did endurance runs.

I do feel, though, that the speed difference in the Porsche Curves may be telling, and Spa may be the big one, as this being an actual race weekend, I think that these guys being race drivers, sandbagging may be out the window completely, this being a points paying race and, private testing aside, the last major test before Le Mans.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

All I'm trying to say is that I can't see the R18's being an average of 5 seconds a lap faster, at least on a consistant basis. I certianly didn't see that happening before the test occured, and even afterwards I though that being a couple of seconds a lap slower would be plausable afterwards.

And if one reads my post, I did insert the possiblility that Peugeot were trying something on a couple of their cars to see if it would work. And they also had one car that intentionally didn't run a fast lap, and did endurance runs.

I do feel, though, that the speed difference in the Porsche Curves may be telling, and Spa may be the big one, as this being an actual race weekend, I think that these guys being race drivers, sandbagging may be out the window completely, this being a points paying race and, private testing aside, the last major test before Le Mans.

And, don't forget, the circuit's probably the closest you can get to the Le Mans circuit without racing at Le Mans. Spa should give us a fairly good indicator of what to expect in June.

I know I'm stating the obvious but I'd just like to highlight that until then, it's all guesswork.

[chernaudi]

I'd actually think that Paul Ricard or Monza would be closer to being like LM, as Spa is a bit more of a downforce track and with the destruction of most of the old Hockenheim GP circuit, those are about as close as one can get to a real test of Le Mans as far as speed.

However, Audi have proven to be fast at LM and Sebring with the LM aero package. In their recent press release, Audi haven't stated what aero package that they'd run at Spa, though even if they change anything, I'd expect only moderate changes (more/larger diveplanes, a larger tail gurney, and more rear wing). But if Audi has already proven to be fast with their LM package at Sebring (sort of like Spa in terms of aero setup), does anyone think that'll change and they won't run their sprint aero until Imola in July, considering that they got the LM test that they didn't have last year?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'd actually think that Paul Ricard or Monza would be closer to being like LM, as Spa is a bit more of a downforce track and with the destruction of most of the old Hockenheim GP circuit, those are about as close as one can get to a real test of Le Mans as far as speed.

Peugeot is using the Motorland Aragon track as well. This is where Gene went flying and more recently where the #7 car started its endurance run. That track has a straight that is slightly shorter than the Mistral straight of Paul Ricard.

[Gingers4Justice]

This is probably going to sound dumb as I'm not technical, and I don't fully understand the technology myself, but in theory, could Audi not incorporate an F-duct in to the avil wing?

[Guardian]

I thought I read that F-ducts were specifically banned, but I can't seem to find that reading through the regs... I'm sure someone can pinpoint the article if that is the case.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

This is probably going to sound dumb as I'm not technical, and I don't fully understand the technology myself, but in theory, could Audi not incorporate an F-duct in to the avil wing?

1.5.4 – Any system operated automatically and/or controlled by the driver to modify the airflow on the rear wing when the car is in motion is forbidden.