[LM24] Audi plans for 2010 revealed

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Mal

...and what a great place to have a sportscar race!

You said it!!

No way I could justify the expense to her indoors, but I'd so love to make that trip. (goes to check accumulated airmiles..........)

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

You said it!!

No way I could justify the expense to her indoors, but I'd so love to make that trip. (goes to check accumulated airmiles..........)

Le Mans racing at Suzuka is only right!, and ill bet Peugeot is going to be there, as the 905 had some glory days there!

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

You said it!!

No way I could justify the expense to her indoors, but I'd so love to make that trip. (goes to check accumulated airmiles..........)

You'd justify it to yourself even more if it was a race into the darkness. Imagine sportscars at a night-time, floodlit Suzuka...

[isynge]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

You said it!!

No way I could justify the expense to her indoors, but I'd so love to make that trip. (goes to check accumulated airmiles..........)

Likewise... need another 15,000 BA miles to get me out there (and then there's all the ancillaries but those are just details) - to say nothing else of my wife's travel (as there's no chance of her allowing me a Japan run on my own again!).

Must work harder / travel more...

To be honest though - a decent grid of LMPs anywhere in Japan is going to be worth the trip on so many levels.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Imagine sportscars at a night-time, floodlit Suzuka...

Why the floodlights? Leave everything but the main straight and hairpins dark. That's how Le Mans truly is.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

You'd justify it to yourself even more if it was a race into the darkness. Imagine sportscars at a night-time, floodlit Suzuka...

I'm trying to picture that in my head right now and all I want to do is smile. LMPs at Suzuka would be utterly fantastic!

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by isynge

.......need another 15,000 BA miles to get me out there.........

I have enough.........but too big a chunk of those are promised to my daughter (bless her ............).


BACK ON TOPIC: There's a heads up from DAILY SPORTSCAR of an 'extensive' interview with Dr. Ullrich on Midweek Motorsport this evening in which he talks about 'Sebringgate' and reveals a possible single car Audi entry at the first round of the Le Mans Series (Paul Ricard).

[gwyllion]

This year because of the late change of the ACO regulations, we basically had to dump quite a lot of our development work and start again, which means the car is not going to be ready in time for that particular race. We had the option to run an interim car, but one of the competitors basically did not agree to that, so we are not in a position to do anything about it.

source: McNish disappointed to miss Sebring

[Acid09]

Disappointing to see McNish spreading Audi's PR bs, thought more of Allan.

I´m really sick of Audi blaming Peugeot for everything...ugh.

[gwyllion]

Sorry but Allan mainly blames the ACO, because a lot of the development has to be redone because of the rule changes.

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sorry but Allan mainly blames the ACO, because a lot of the development has to be redone because of the rule changes.

Classic ACO. Big rule change the year before a massive rule change.

Ben

[Ur Q 83]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Disappointing to see McNish spreading Audi's PR bs, thought more of Allan.

I´m really sick of Audi blaming Peugeot for everything...ugh.

I'm disappointed that you see it like that, I think Allan is the best in the business in and out of the car.

And I don't see the Audi missing Sebring as 'PR BS' , I think they have been very up front about it all. Your forgetting that they have already been foreced to redesign the front end when others were unhappy that Audi had found the most in the rules and they didn't. And the lastest rule change would change the front balance yet again.

And I don't blame Pug for not letting Audi race at Sebring, its the only big three races they haven't won ( they won Le Mans and lucked in at Petit )and well could be the only race they win all year.

[The Badger]

It might also help if the ACO can come up with a stable set of rules on time ..... god only knows what goes on in their offices !!!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Ur Q 83

And I don't see the Audi missing Sebring as 'PR BS' , I think they have been very up front about it all.

I totally agree. Audi is very open about missing Sebring this year: they wanted to participate but the R15+ is not ready in time and an interim version of the car is not allowed to race.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Ur Q 83

I'm disappointed that you see it like that, I think Allan is the best in the business in and out of the car.

And I don't see the Audi missing Sebring as 'PR BS' , I think they have been very up front about it all. Your forgetting that they have already been foreced to redesign the front end when others were unhappy that Audi had found the most in the rules and they didn't. And the lastest rule change would change the front balance yet again.

And I don't blame Pug for not letting Audi race at Sebring, its the only big three races they haven't won ( they won Le Mans and lucked in at Petit )and well could be the only race they win all year.

Welcome to the forums!

Chris

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Disappointing to see McNish spreading Audi's PR bs, thought more of Allan.

I´m really sick of Audi blaming Peugeot for everything...ugh.

I'll point the finger at them too!

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I totally agree. Audi is very open about missing Sebring this year: they wanted to participate but the R15+ is not ready in time and an interim version of the car is not allowed to race.

They´re open? They blame their competitors for not allowing something they would never ever allow themselves just because they´re not able to have their car ready in time.

I think that's incredibly low...asking someone for something he just can't agree to just to have a good sounding excuse.

[Hugewally]

If the car had a real sports car nose instead of an F1 style, there wouldn't be a problem...

[Mal]

Correct if I am wrong but I see it as this:

1/ Audi design a car which gets approval by the ACO
2/ Peugeot complains about it including in Le Mans
3/ ACO ask Peugeot to back off so as not to spoil the big race
4/ Peugeot say OK as long as you change the rules for next year
5/ ACO agrees but takes forever to tell everyone how it will change the rules
6/ Audi then say it cant change its car in time so can it play with an interim car?
7/ ACO asks Peugeot if it will allow the interim car as Audi cant change its car that was legal until the rules were changed because Peugeot complained
8/ Peugeot say no
9/ ACO say Audi cant play at Sebring.

It seems to me that the ACO are at most fault for not having the balls to stand up to Peugeot and make its own rules and stick to them.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Mal

Correct if I am wrong but I see it as this:

1/ Audi design a car which gets approval by the ACO
2/ Peugeot complains about it including in Le Mans
3/ ACO ask Peugeot to back off so as not to spoil the big race
4/ Peugeot say OK as long as you change the rules for next year
5/ ACO agrees but takes forever to tell everyone how it will change the rules
6/ Audi then say it cant change its car in time so can it play with an interim car?
7/ ACO asks Peugeot if it will allow the interim car as Audi cant change its car that was legal until the rules were changed because Peugeot complained
8/ Peugeot say no
9/ ACO say Audi cant play at Sebring.

It seems to me that the ACO are at most fault for not having the balls to stand up to Peugeot and make its own rules and stick to them.

The new rules also effects Peugeot, and you can see on the B10/60 that Lola also have made the car compliant with 2010 regulation.
Audi pushed the rules to the edge. ACO (with or without Peugeot) thought of this as too far, as they want the times down (to 3:30). ACO is therefor making the new rules in 2011, and 2010 is a "hybrid" year. The R15 is just hit harder because of the radical design.
But yes, ACO released the rules too early, but the rules where the same for everybody.

[chernaudi]

You could maybe blame IMSA too, but for commercial reasons-Peugeot would be ready for Sebring regardless, and even with running a hybrid regs car, Audi admitted that they might not be ready for Sebring even with that.

But the big villan is the ACO-after all, the rules that they announced in December were almost a carbon-copy of the rules they proposed in Aug.-I say either French favortism, or, more likey, the ACO simply screwed around for 4 months. The ACO should've declared rules stability for 2010 aside from the air restrictor changes and left things alone until 2011.

Little wonder why IMSA basically made up their own class structure for 2010, and why there's calls for IMSA to break with the ACO like they did with the ACO and the FIA when Group C came about.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Mal

Correct if I am wrong but I see it as this:

1/ Audi design a car which gets approval by the ACO
2/ Peugeot complains about it including in Le Mans
3/ ACO ask Peugeot to back off so as not to spoil the big race
4/ Peugeot say OK as long as you change the rules for next year
5/ ACO agrees but takes forever to tell everyone how it will change the rules
6/ Audi then say it cant change its car in time so can it play with an interim car?
7/ ACO asks Peugeot if it will allow the interim car as Audi cant change its car that was legal until the rules were changed because Peugeot complained
8/ Peugeot say no
9/ ACO say Audi cant play at Sebring.

It seems to me that the ACO are at most fault for not having the balls to stand up to Peugeot and make its own rules and stick to them.

Seems to be a fairly correct summation, IMO.




L.P.

[chernaudi]

And as far as Peugeot modifying the 908, all they have to do is mount louvre/vailance panels in the rear tail section above the rear wheel centerline-something that Julian Sole from Lola says is largely driven by saftey, namely Massa's accident at the Hungarian GP, as well as inducing drag to slow the cars.

Audi are the only ones hit with anything else, as Oreca, Pescarolo, Acura, and Porsche were granted waivers. One could say that Audi could've/should've filed a waiver with the ACO, but would Peugeot have attempted to block that, too, even if they got the same waiver?

I think that ACO shot themselves in the foot by legalizing the RS Spyder's symmetrical wings, and with the front diffuser rules not saying that it had to be one piece until 2011, the R15's double decker front diffuser/wing was where the rules were pointing to eventually, and now the ACO are trying to cover their worthless butts. I also think that Peugeot are just PO'd that they didn't see the theorectical advantage first, and they didn't feel like trying to shoe horn a similar device on the 908, as they seem to want to spend as little R&D money as possible on what surely now is a lame duck program.

[Tim the Grey]

A lame duck programme that still seems to have enough speed for the R15. My guess is Audi are in fact redesigning the whole shooting match, so that it WORKS next time!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Acid09

They´re open? They blame their competitors for not allowing something they would never ever allow themselves just because they´re not able to have their car ready in time.

You must be psychic. How do you know Audi would have reacted if they were in a similar situation as Peugeot?