[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[kvenom]

Obligatory cryptic response that the test went "well" according to Toyota.

Buemi, Sarrazin and Conway were there.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122472

[YorkshireLad]

Mentioned v4 configure in that article.

[Deleted]

The only way it wouldn't have been reported as 'well' probably would have been if it had got airborne like 908 at Aragon, burst into flames like R18 at Sebring, or had destroyed chassis like TS030 at Ricard.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The only way it wouldn't have been reported as 'well' probably would have been if it had got airborne like 908 at Aragon, burst into flames like R18 at Sebring, or had destroyed chassis like TS030 at Ricard.

The statement could still have been salvaged in this case - they could have said it was well done.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by J Jay

The statement could still have been salvaged in this case - they could have said it was well done.

You joker

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by YorkshireLad

Mentioned v4 configure in that article.

So a 1.85l V4 for each car and a blunt hacksaw?

[PascaLM]

According to Endurance-Info, the Toyota TS050 will be presented at Paul Ricard on the 24th of March, 11am loc in Prologue FIA WEC.
The drivers will be officially revealed next February 4th.

[TF110]

The test is supposed to go to the 14th. So maybe the roll-out of the car is what they mean by "went well". V4 mentioned again, wonder if there's truth to this or if autosport are just using the flavor of the month rumor?

[cokata]

If they are going for a low displacement non-V8 config, i hope it's V4 and not V6.

[Japanese Samurai]

Japanese Autosport web says that Super GT driver Ryo Hirakawa is visiting Europe. He might join in the TS050 testing.
http://as-web.jp/news/info.php?c_id=2&no=70501

[YorkshireLad]

What's better a high capacity v4 or a smaller one?

[CTD]

What is the chances of a Flat four engine like the GT-86!?

[chernaudi]

Probably none for the same reason why Porsche ditched the boxer 6 in racing--cylinder heads would encroach on the diffuser tunnels.

Also seems that there's little benefit to running boxer engines in prototypes because of that packaging issue and they can't be stress mounted.

[TF110]

If it's even a 4 cylinder. So far it's just a rumor. If it is a V4, I hope people don't jump on the "copied Porsche" bandwagon . Is Porsche a single turbo?

[godlameroso]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Probably none for the same reason why Porsche ditched the boxer 6 in racing--cylinder heads would encroach on the diffuser tunnels.

Also seems that there's little benefit to running boxer engines in prototypes because of that packaging issue and they can't be stress mounted.

The Audi uses a very wide angle V, I think 130 degrees IIRC.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by godlameroso

The Audi uses a very wide angle V, I think 130 degrees IIRC.

I am not an engine designer, but I think the issues here are...

Flat (180 deg V) or boxer engine
* Pro: Can be nicely balanced
* Pro: Low center of gravity
* Con: Routing of exhaust (typically exhaust) from bottom side of head. Sometimes this impacts crank height and CG.
* Con: Width of engine can impact aero and packaging
* Con: Not a great starting point for using engine as a structural member.

V engine (i.e. classic 90 deg)
* Pro: Compact (better for aero)
* Pro: Less issues with routing out of bottom of head
* Pro: Easier to implement as structural member
* Con: Taller (CG issues)

I think Audi is just trying to find the middle ground that allows a lower CG, can still be a structural member, but not such a wide V that it causes problems with placing the crank as low as you would like. Personally I think the "main" reason nobody uses 180V/flat engines is exhaust routing and crank height issues. Difficulty of making it light and stiff (structural member) is probably a close second. That is why you are not going to see that type of "purpose built" engine in a race car these days (IMHO). GT cars is a different story.

Richard

[chernaudi]

Even then, there's some issue concerning aero packaging. It's not like it was in the LMP900/675 days of where the rear diffuser starts at the rear wheel centerline. The tunnels on the current rear diffusers start almost at the rear of the tubs of most of the cars. That's definitely a huge packaging issue if the cylinder heads protrude into the diffuser tunnel space.

[godlameroso]

I don't think they'd use a V4, if they do use a 4 cylinder it will likely be in line, so I'm guessing it's going to be a V6 between 2.8 and 2.4 liters.

[YorkshireLad]

Does anyone have any figures on how the nissans 3L v6 turbo did at LM? Was it efficient enough to be on par with the other teams engines, as I also think Toyota will be a v6

[TF110]

I think they had to run it conservatively? No help from the hybrid so it never reached it's potential.

[GasperG]

I think it's meaningless to assume any similarity with Nissan engine even if it is the same displacement V6.

[cokata]

Nissan's engine was not made by them iirc? It wasn't that great since the rebellion matched it for top speed while having much more downforce.

[YorkshireLad]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I think it's meaningless to assume any similarity with Nissan engine even if it is the same displacement V6.

it's also meaningless to assume that this will be similar to the Porsches V4 then. I just wanted to know if anyone had noticed how the Nissan engine had 'roughly' faired in terms of fuel economy, etc.

[Mike E]

The Audi V6 is a wide angle design (more likely 120 deg than 130, I would have thought), with the exhaust ports and the turbo inside the V. Very neat packaging.

[Matra-simca]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am not an engine designer, but I think the issues here are...

Flat (180 deg V) or boxer engine
* Pro: Can be nicely balanced
* Pro: Low center of gravity
* Con: Routing of exhaust (typically exhaust) from bottom side of head. Sometimes this impacts crank height and CG.
* Con: Width of engine can impact aero and packaging
* Con: Not a great starting point for using engine as a structural member.

V engine (i.e. classic 90 deg)
* Pro: Compact (better for aero)
* Pro: Less issues with routing out of bottom of head
* Pro: Easier to implement as structural member
* Con: Taller (CG issues)

I think Audi is just trying to find the middle ground that allows a lower CG, can still be a structural member, but not such a wide V that it causes problems with placing the crank as low as you would like. Personally I think the "main" reason nobody uses 180V/flat engines is exhaust routing and crank height issues. Difficulty of making it light and stiff (structural member) is probably a close second. That is why you are not going to see that type of "purpose built" engine in a race car these days (IMHO). GT cars is a different story.

Richard

Perhaps the biggest Con, at least from my perspective, is that the V 4 engine won't sound all that great, especially relative to their former aurally pleasing V8..

Todd