[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

..... Well maybe their dominance really is coming to an end - for 2014, anyway......

Wait until they trim down that wing! But not before LeMans.... The 2014 car is their fastest car yet, they are just not going to let us see its true potential until LM. And even then, they are going to win by very little, to make it look like it was pure struggle and only luck at the end helped them be 20 sec in front of the rest these guys are good, these guys are really, really good! I admire geniuses and they are geniuses.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Wait until they trim down that wing! But not before LeMans.... The 2014 car is their fastest car yet, they are just not going to let us see its true potential until LM. And even then, they are going to win by very little, to make it look like it was pure struggle and only luck at the end helped them be 20 sec in front of the rest these guys are good, these guys are really, really good! I admire geniuses and they are geniuses.

I dont see their advantage if there is any. 1-2 laps less per stint and ultimately only 2 tenths faster than Toyota at Silverstone. I think Porsche will fly past them on the Spa Straights unless their LM package (if using one) has serious gains in top end. No blown diffuser this year so itll be tough to get that high speed and downforce.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Porsche supposedly has one, at least in early testing--the hinge like things (like what the Audi has) would be the give away.

Other than the four "pillars" that connect the nose section to the front splitter, I have not seen any adjustable front wing element above the main plane of the front diffuser/splitter:



(source: racecar-engineering)

So far, only Audi appear to make use of this possibility which should allow easier tweaking of the front aero to suit the characteristics of each track. The theory behind that option was to avoid the necessity of designing and building "expensive" bodywork kits. Now, we have seen that Toyota have prepared two different aero packages already and it is more and more likely that Audi will come up with a different aero package for LM that we could possibly see being raced as early as Spa, like last year.

As hcl123 suggested, one may therefore wonder if it actually makes sense to use any adjustable front wing element.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Wait until they trim down that wing! But not before LeMans.... The 2014 car is their fastest car yet, they are just not going to let us see its true potential until LM. And even then, they are going to win by very little, to make it look like it was pure struggle and only luck at the end helped them be 20 sec in front of the rest these guys are good, these guys are really, really good! I admire geniuses and they are geniuses.

Yep, well you're clearly a fan and that's fine, but I wouldn't go to the betting shop with too much money this year, if I were you.....

[GasperG]

Does anyone know what was wrong with the supercapacitor during the qualifying?

A supercapacitor should me more durable then battery, but are there more reliability issues? Were there any problems in the TS030?

[Bandicoot17]

I heard they actually had to change the supercapicitor so must have been a pretty serious issue. The only TS030 issue was at Spa when human error caused an issue which meant the brakes were overheating (IIRC).

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So far, only Audi appear to make use of this possibility which should allow easier tweaking of the front aero to suit the characteristics of each track. The theory behind that option was to avoid the necessity of designing and building "expensive" bodywork kits. Now, we have seen that Toyota have prepared two different aero packages already and it is more and more likely that Audi will come up with a different aero package for LM that we could possibly see being raced as early as Spa, like last year.

As hcl123 suggested, one may therefore wonder if it actually makes sense to use any adjustable front wing element.

It's a rule not just there for the manufacturers, don't forget. While it still may be more effective to design two different kits, the R-ONE will surely benefit from an adjustable front wing element should it have one, because designing two different aero kits is surely beyond Rebellion or Lotus' budget...

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Other than the four "pillars" that connect the nose section to the front splitter, I have not seen any adjustable front wing element above the main plane of the front diffuser/splitter:



(source: racecar-engineering)

So far, only Audi appear to make use of this possibility which should allow easier tweaking of the front aero to suit the characteristics of each track. The theory behind that option was to avoid the necessity of designing and building "expensive" bodywork kits. Now, we have seen that Toyota have prepared two different aero packages already and it is more and more likely that Audi will come up with a different aero package for LM that we could possibly see being raced as early as Spa, like last year.

As hcl123 suggested, one may therefore wonder if it actually makes sense to use any adjustable front wing element.

I think Porsche uses a front wing but higher up the nose. The pillars are there to support that wing. Here's a zoomed in, cropped photo that I took at the test in Paul Ricard. Through the gills you can see something what to me looks like a wing.

[Bandicoot17]

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

The right turning vane is not connected to the diffuser but to the wheelhub. The second part is the floor with a hump so the airflow from the turning vane turns to the outside, so I think. What I mean to say with my picture is not the floor part but higher up. You see a white/lighter part, couldn't that be a wingshape?

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Yep, well you're clearly a fan and that's fine, but I wouldn't go to the betting shop with too much money this year, if I were you.....

Oh, no! Not fan at all, trust me! I think they are taking everyone for a big ride with the fuel flows, and I personally don't like a lot of things they are doing, but I will keep that for myself, will not even try to convince anyone...... I am just having fun guessing what they are going to do next, because they have been following remarkably well their way of operating for years now. Remember when no one believed they are going for 2 MJ? That was really the first indication their engine is something beyond believe. Now we have Silverstone, no more tests - the actual race. And that diesel was beyond belief..... I am not Audi fan, but admire clever engineers and great tacticians when they come up with something better, wehter is legal or illegal. I am fascinated by genii and they have some of those in the team. Makes me feel proud of human race when I see someone created a better way to skin the cat, but the fan in me would like to see more of a fair fight, which looks like it is not going to happen But that is just my humble opinion, I am not trying to convince or debate.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by nobster

The Toyota isn't the best looking prototype out there but it has shown to be fast and reliable, both things you need at Le Mans to be succesfull.

Maybe not , but with the new LM nose it will look a lot sweeter . They shoulda left that Audi in matt black .

Just wait till Nissan come next year . Toyota Le Mans win would stir up the Japanese manufacturers . Maybe tempting Mazda of their 1990 laurels and inviting a more serious effort ..... stirrings from some other Asian manufacturers .

Man ..... Ill be *** if Toyota don't win this year . Cant make my mind up as to which one Id like to see ..... but Im going for my lucky number 7 .

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Maybe tempting Mazda of their 1990 laurels and inviting a more serious effort ..... stirrings from some other Asian manufacturers .

They did quite well in 1991, G.......

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I heard they actually had to change the supercapicitor so must have been a pretty serious issue. The only TS030 issue was at Spa when human error caused an issue which meant the brakes were overheating (IIRC).

Oh! c'mon... there are videos on the internet where they change a whole 600Kg Tesla Model S battery pack in less than 10 minutes.

some cell(s) were not good !? ... easy easy replace it. Capacitors can last a lot of more re-charging cycles than a battery, but if they wanted they can use a brand new pack (many cells) every race... even if during the race they have to replace the all shebang, wont last much more than a couple of minutes.

Not serious at all...

[gwyllion]

Nick Daman of Radio Le Mans was able to take a picture of the supercapacitor swap:

source: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/toyota-ts040/

[TF110]

If it can be put in place by one man, its weight isn't as great as I expected. Of course thats not the entire capacitor assembly.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

If it can be put in place by one man, its weight isn't as great as I expected. Of course thats not the entire capacitor assembly.

It seems that they are using a crane of some sort to mount (or dismount) the supercapacitor.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It seems that they are using a crane of some sort to mount (or dismount) the supercapacitor.

Yes, the black 'arm' can be seen. Its still being guided by just one person it seems, so not as heavy as I thought before (around 80-90kg). The weight from the Supra HVR's capacitor was something like 100kg!

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Oh, no! Not fan at all, trust me! I think they are taking everyone for a big ride with the fuel flows, and I personally don't like a lot of things they are doing, but I will keep that for myself, will not even try to convince anyone...... I am just having fun guessing what they are going to do next, because they have been following remarkably well their way of operating for years now. Remember when no one believed they are going for 2 MJ? That was really the first indication their engine is something beyond believe. Now we have Silverstone, no more tests - the actual race. And that diesel was beyond belief..... I am not Audi fan, but admire clever engineers and great tacticians when they come up with something better, wehter is legal or illegal. I am fascinated by genii and they have some of those in the team. Makes me feel proud of human race when I see someone created a better way to skin the cat, but the fan in me would like to see more of a fair fight, which looks like it is not going to happen But that is just my humble opinion, I am not trying to convince or debate.

Yes Audi also surprised me by going to more displacement, instead of more revs... bet everyone at FIA/ACO and related, was expecting the traditional "downsizing" approach for economic fuel flows, compensated by higher revs for power...

Yet their engine is not beyond believe, its a diesel... HUGE huge torque, the only way that allowed them to run with tremendous downforce loads and yet have a chance ( but perhaps here a reason for the instability, when pushing hard down, all little differences of grip between wheels are amplified)

Toyota also took a torque approach by going for more displacement, but no way they can match a diesel for this... and their straight top speeds at Silverstone, was less than 10Kmh superior to Audi's, and this because they had 4MJ more of Hybrid power to give it a superior kick start (after corners)... yet for the first time they (toyota) were slower on corners.

So for Toyota there isn't much they can do for the long straights of Le Mans... Atkinson cycle is not allowed because no one is allowed to have VVT (variable valve timing), and even so this wouldn't really bring more straight speed, only less fuel consumption... so mostly will be aeros and hybrid tunning were they are the best.

Audi can do much more.. if it doesn't ruin the fuel flows allowed, that is... they can more easily trade torque for revs and so power. In 2013 they were already clearly above 4500rpm, Silverstone most likely was at 4000 rpm top, if now they can approach the 4500 rpm for Spa and LM, they can be a very hard nut to crack, this if fuel related penalties don't ruin the show lol. Lets see if the talked about more displacement for better thermic efficiency is truth, an approach that seems like after a lean mixture over expansion atkinson style that diesels can offer so naturally (without need of VVT).

At 4L that engine could be doing easily above 900Nm (lets say 950)... if they reach 4500 RPM top, it will be 600hp top, more than in 2013. It could be more, it could be 1000Nm... Petrol would have to rev much higher and so more easy to ruin fuel flows, but Toyota has the advantage of hybrid, so in any case i don't expect the same differences when upon the V12s at all... will be kind of close in any case. ( for 5 years FIA/ACO have been working very very hard so a diesel V12 like smash doesn't repeat... trowing away their national struggling Peugeot in the process... when is all so natural... even a *big* diesel V12 could consume considerable less than a 2L turbocharged petrol for the same levels of high power-> F1 1.6L has 100kg/hour petrol, Audi has to go by with 83.3Kg/hour diesel ).

So the only thing beyond believe is yet the obsolete stupid diesel cars we have on the streets... there aren't real sporty diesels... to begin with the segments are uber stupid, a 2 L TDI should be compared with a 1 to 1.5L petrols if turbo or not, this attending the fuel consumption that is now the norm, any of those diesels blocks could have much more displacement (Audi proves it)... a no brainer for the fastest choices. And worst are not only diesels *marketed* as only an "economic option", all of them when performance is the issue, all of them are fighting against the transmission and the gear ratios that are proper for petrol not performance diesel (no wonder 0-60/2 Mph numbers suffer so badly).

So sporty petrols are preferred by the constructors because of profits (EVEN AUDI)... its so lucrative, the same obsolete thing they have being doing for decades, all machine tools, all basic designs, all same propaganda are all already in place, in a super scale economy at all levels, for outdated products with hyper premiuns... hmmm $$$$$... lol

[chernaudi]

Mulsanne Mike reports that he's got shots of the R18's and TS040's front diffusers to answer our questions about them.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Yes, the black 'arm' can be seen. Its still being guided by just one person it seems, so not as heavy as I thought before (around 80-90kg). The weight from the Supra HVR's capacitor was something like 100kg!

I've seen F1 cars guided by crane and 1 person so I'm not sure you can read too much in to that.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

I've seen F1 cars guided by crane and 1 person so I'm not sure you can read too much in to that.

The point Im making is the weight of the capacitor may be lighter than what I estimated or at least thought. I figured they cut weight by 10% or so from the time they used a Supercap in the Supra. So maybe a little less or between 80-90kg, that was my guess. It looks pretty compact and probably could be placed in the car by one person. We'll probably never know the weight. At least not while theyre using it in racing.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Mulsanne Mike reports that he's got shots of the R18's and TS040's front diffusers to answer our questions about them.

He figured out these pieces of bodywork behind the front wheels-


This is why I love lmp1, the minute details and little pieces that add to the overall package of the car.

[GasperG]

hcl123, Atkinson cycle is not usable in racing it gives way to little power per engine displacement. 1.8 Prius engine produces only 73 kW at 5.200 rpm and is most efficient around 100 Nm, going higher the efficiency drops. Imagine what engine displacement you would need?

Racing efficiently is completely different thing than low consumption under normal driving conditions where most of the time you need only 0-30 kW of power, 100 kW are used very rarely (but they come in handy). In that conditions the downsized engine won't use turbo much of the time and will have the consumption of a small engine and power of bigger engine.

When you run turbo on a max boost efficiency starts to drop, that is why we have ERS-H, that is why Audi still has huge displacement engine relying a lot less on turbo, probably wasting very little through waste gate. ERS-H captures this wasted energy but the problem is that that energy puts you in higher MJ class that is why Toyota is still competitive because Porsche is using wasted fuel to charge their battery and this puts them in 6 MJ class.

And when you talk about absurd torque figures, think about fuel flow limit, all these engines with unrestricted fuel flow would achieve 20% or even more peak power. Now ask your self at what rpm does the engine achieve 80% of power and if this is enough during different gears. My guess is that all this engines can produce constant power (power = torque x rpm) under acceleration because of the fuel flow limit. Maybe they are achieving this max power under lower revs than someone would think, because at higher rpm when efficiency start to drop the consequence on limited fuel flow is less power.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by GasperG

hcl123, Atkinson cycle is not usable in racing it gives way to little power per engine displacement. 1.8 Prius engine produces only 73 kW at 5.200 rpm and is most efficient around 100 Nm, going higher the efficiency drops. Imagine what engine displacement you would need?

It could be usable, depends on how good or tailored your VVT (variable valve timing) is ... high engine displacement or high RPM can be interchangeable somehow, that is the main point of my long previous post, 1.6L 15K RPM petrol engine is not "economic at all"... a 6L 4K RPM V12 diesel could be more economical for the same level of HP... more than fair comparison, only ppl are *conditioned* and only see one side of the equation.

I think we can't take any conclusions with Prius engine...

Originally Posted by GasperG

Racing efficiently is completely different thing than low consumption under normal driving conditions where most of the time you need only 0-30 kW of power, 100 kW are used very rarely (but they come in handy). In that conditions the downsized engine won't use turbo much of the time and will have the consumption of a small engine and power of bigger engine.

When you run turbo on a max boost efficiency starts to drop, that is why we have ERS-H, that is why Audi still has huge displacement engine relying a lot less on turbo, probably wasting very little through waste gate. ERS-H captures this wasted energy but the problem is that that energy puts you in higher MJ class that is why Toyota is still competitive because Porsche is using wasted fuel to charge their battery and this puts them in 6 MJ class.

eh!... ummm no. Really don't know where to begin...

For starters Audi doesn't have a MGU-H, and in motorsport engines, there is a lot going out trough the wastegate... 1.5L F1 turbocharged of old was good for quite more than 4 bar (some said even above 5 BAR...when "hp" figures was already in the 1200 hp). Just to remember the BMEP ( brake mean effective pressure) of any engine is quite higher than 5 bar, inside cylinders there is quite high pressures and so having an exhaust flow at 5 bar or more is not far fetched.

And Audi relays "A LOT" on turbo, there couldn't be racing diesels without turbo... the augment of reactivity of the diesel combustion upon pressure is what allows racing diesels. For Petrol is more a measure of having more air (forced) inside a cylinder to burn more fuel inside the same cylinder so more power, for diesel there is a notorious additional effect, the higher induction pressure promotes faster combustion events, and so more complete combustion of the fuel... otherwise combustion would be too slow. Earlier diesels relied mostly on compression ratios, used to be more than 21:1 and higher for non turbos, now a days modern (turbo)diesels are all starting to run below 17:1, yet have more complete combustions without smoke.

[ Mazda has been experimenting with as low as 14:1 compression ratios for diesel... the rational is eating away the creeping factor of diesel engines "compression pumping loses" that are huge... but i think the sweat spot is between 16 and 17:1... being perhaps the next phase of fighting "compression pumping loses" pre-heating and pre-activating (electric field) diesel fuel, permitting that way retard a lot the injection/ignition events, because the combustion will be much faster and more complete]

So a downsized engine can use turbo a lot if it revs higher and the BMEP and scavenging is good (induction pressure high, low lost exhaust pressure), a downsized engine can use more turbo than a much more displacement engine, that has worst BMEP and revs lower.

You touched a nail of the MGU-Hs, but Prosche is neither using a MGU-H, their exhaust alternator is a wastegate alternator... flow that would go to waste if nothing there... and they have already the top speeds so far, so they are pretty efficient for the fuel flows allowed, that Exhaust Alternator is not eating on anything.

So you can capture a lot of energy and you don't need a MGU-H in the F1 sense.. and the energy you capture means nothing for the "hybrid class", only the energy you release for "traction", so you can capture average close 8 MJ, hybrid "traction" release only 2MJ -> so you are in a 2MJ class... and use the excess of 6MJ to run all engine ancillaries by electric means, eating away frictions and drags and so make your engine more efficient in all senses.

Audi still has high displacement engines because its a diesel... and because that is more efficient in the sense of allowing taking advantage of all combustion pressure, an over expansion similar to the atkinson effect, that in diesels is "SO NATURAL" without need of VVT -> but for this, in those diesel engines you need to have the stroke length higher than the cylinder bore, that is, the distance the cylinder goes up and down is considerable higher than the bore diameter (petrols is exactly the opposite specially motorsports), and by having this "long" stroke is why diesels can 't rev very high, but are considerably more economic -> so high displacement for diesels is in the same level of requirement of high RPM for a petrol engine... its kind of orthogonal to turbo pressures ( not for diesels but for other reasons as explained above)... its intrinsically inherent to the engines physical architectures.

Originally Posted by GasperG

And when you talk about absurd torque figures, think about fuel flow limit, all these engines with unrestricted fuel flow would achieve 20% or even more peak power. Now ask your self at what rpm does the engine achieve 80% of power and if this is enough during different gears. My guess is that all this engines can produce constant power (power = torque x rpm) under acceleration because of the fuel flow limit. Maybe they are achieving this max power under lower revs than someone would think, because at higher rpm when efficiency start to drop the consequence on limited fuel flow is less power.

Those torque figures are not absurd... a Peugeot leak some years ago was telling that a 5.5L V12 when pushed real high could do 1400Nm... and a Peugeot V12 diesel has the record of faster lap of all times at Le Mans with 3:19 flat !

I talked above 900 Nm for 4L... last year somewhere Audi talked about 800 Nm or so for close 500 hp (sandbagging of course... its more of either). About peak powers everybody is doing that since long... even when fuel was a no issue, or specially because it was a no issue... simply brake with your left foot, most of time those cars were always gas on, and the same today, not by gas pedaling, but by inherent gear rations with engine almost always on the very high parts of their more power to efficiency curves... there is now very complex engine and else managements, many issues are covered, and so doubt there will be many fuel related race penalties (don't worry).