Audi LMP1 Discussion

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by henk4

still not convinced, the number 1 car spent some additional time in the pits to change parts of the rear undertray. I would love to see official Audi figures for the mileage of the Ultras.

Okay, you are suggested that the #1 could have finished with 32 stops like the other Audis.

The unscheduled stop (stop 19) happened 15 min into the stint and the last stop was done 35 min before the end of the race. That means that they also had to do an additional fuel stop 10 min before the end. Capello also mentioned this in to AUTOSPORT.

For sure I felt disappointed when I saw the car in the wall, but as a driver immediately my thoughts went to Allan because I know he was giving 100% to try to close the gap as much as possible to the #1 car.

In terms of strategy I think probably we were in a better place with the fuel, and probably they needed one extra pitstop compared to us and that probably would have been the key to the race.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Okay, you are suggested that the #1 could have finished with 32 stops like the other Audis.

The unscheduled stop (stop 19) happened 15 min into the stint and the last stop was done 35 min before the end of the race. That means that they also had to do an additional fuel stop 10 min before the end. Capello also mentioned this in to AUTOSPORT.

Capello was in the other E-tron....I want info on the Ultras, which we, btw, might not see in action any more anywhere...

[FstrthnU]

Originally Posted by henk4

Capello was in the other E-tron....I want info on the Ultras, which we, btw, might not see in action any more anywhere...

Isn't it going to be 1 E-Tron and 1 Ultra for the rest of the WEC? Or will they both be E-Trons?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by FstrthnU

Isn't it going to be 1 E-Tron and 1 Ultra for the rest of the WEC? Or will they both be E-Trons?

That is what Audi said in the beginning on the year, but the latest WEC entry list shows two hybrid Audis.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Creep89

Ullrich stated that they use the hybrid as an extra power, not to save fuel.

I think that was Toyotas approach too.

[gwyllion]

http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/..._12062210.html reveals that the #1 Audi could not use the hybrid system to its full potential during the complete race. The system stopped working twice and this was solved by a software reset in the subsequent pitstop. On the #2 Audi the hybrid system worked flawlessly.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I think that was Toyotas approach too.

Its ironic. ACO probably only allowed hybrids because they were interested in increasing the efficiency. Banning any sort of push to pass was clearly aimed at the teams programming the hybrid systems to work to increase efficiency but the teams appear to have ignored that and just went for more power.

[TF110]

They can use the systems in any way they choose. Two years from now you'll see them definitely using it for fuel economy.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Articus

Its ironic. ACO probably only allowed hybrids because they were interested in increasing the efficiency. Banning any sort of push to pass was clearly aimed at the teams programming the hybrid systems to work to increase efficiency but the teams appear to have ignored that and just went for more power.

The ACO is perfectly aware that this would happen, because they explicitly removed the rule that said the hybrid system could only be used to improve fuel economy.

The smaller fuel tank is an incentive to use the hybrid system (in part) to save fuel.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Articus

Its ironic. ACO probably only allowed hybrids because they were interested in increasing the efficiency. Banning any sort of push to pass was clearly aimed at the teams programming the hybrid systems to work to increase efficiency but the teams appear to have ignored that and just went for more power.

Because of the limits placed on the hybrid system by rules and technology the hybrid system operates for a few seconds only and thus there is no way you can pair it with a weaker engine and have the same performance. The only way Audi could have saved fuel was if the Ultra ran its 600 hp engine (let's suppose that the actual figure) and the E-Tron ran a 550 hp engine. But that would lose too much performance.

Even with the Le Mans slow refueling and long pit stops 10% fuel economy improvement while great on paper doesn't help you much if you are slower than the competition, especially with safety cars that can easily remove your pit stop advantage instantly. Even the ACO says that they aren't looking to create a fuel economy race with 2014 rules which is the right thing to do imo.

Based on on the Toyota fuel economy it certainly looks like they didn't benefit at all in fuel economy either and I think someone said that they did worse than the Rebellion entries.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The latest Audi Sport press release confirms that the FIA defines where the hybrid system can be activated.
source: https://www.audi-mediaservices.com/p...tlichkeit.html

In case people are still interested, I found the FIA bulletin that describes the five braking zone from Spa where hybrid systems can be activated.

• Turn 1 = La Source
• Turn 5 = Les Combes
• Turn 8 = Bruxelles/Rivage
• Turn 12 = Fagnes
• Turn 18 = Bus Stop Chicane

[chernaudi]

The Toyota engine is suspected of not running DFI as originally planned/speculated, so that didn't help, and it's also suspected that Audi weren't running quite at full power at LM, so that helped them (notice the relative lack of smoke last year).

Naturally right now, Audi and Toyota will be using their hybrid systems as a power boost, mostly because of how relatively weak the systems are within the confines of the rules. They can use it either to give a power boost, or to give more power on a less powerful engine map to save fuel, and right now, it seems that Audi and Toyota prefer to power boost route under the current regs.

And has anyone seen photos of the underside of the 2012 R18's front diffuser, and if so, how does it differ from 2011--I know that the LM and sprint diffusers differed (LM variant ran strakes in the main channels and smaller strakes outboard, while the sprint version only had the VGs in the channels). I've seen illustrations of the Toyota solution at the lemansprototypes blog, and it featured some ingenious but simple solutions (main strakes forming the outboard perimeter of the diffuser channels, for example). I'm surprised that more about the R18's front diffusers haven't been shown, since the #3 broke two off in the tire wall at the Mulsanne chicane, and the #2 broke one off in the guardrail in the Porsche curves.

I'm not expecting major surprises, but I'm still curious as to what Audi has done there for '12.

Also some footage from Yas Marina earlier this year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhpUNDE5aa4

[henk4]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/..._12062210.html reveals that the #1 Audi could not use the hybrid system to its full potential during the complete race. The system stopped working twice and this was solved by a software reset in the subsequent pitstop. On the #2 Audi the hybrid system worked flawlessly.

The article is more explicit, after two resets, they put the system in the "safe-mode" (they call it Safety-Modus), which allowed the car to finish the race with a working hybrid system, in combination with excellent laptimes.

A conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the hybrid system in the Audis did not add much to the laptimes, especially when you see that the quickest laptime of the winning car during the race, was 1.6 seconds slower than the overall fastest laptime, which, you may have guessed it, was set in the #3 Ultra.

[gwyllion]

It seems that Paul Truswell is preparing his analysis of the 2012 24 hours of Le Mans.

In http://trussers.blogspot.com/2012/06...t-le-mans.html he observes that Audi changed the driver rotation of the #1 and #2 car during the race. It is known that Treluyer had a bad cold and Capello probably preferred not to drive during the night because his eyesight is not that good anymore.

Some interesting statistics:

In total, Lotterer completed 156 laps, driving time 9h 26m 23s; Tréluyer completed 111 laps (6h 53m 24s) and Fässler 111 laps (7h 00m 31s).

...

The total driving times were: McNish - 148 laps, 9h 10m 58s; Kristensen - 136 laps, 7h 59m 14s and Capello - 93 laps, 6h 05m 05s.

[gwyllion]

I decided to analyse the performance of the different Audi drivers. I calculated the number of laps and the average lap time for every driver. In the calculation of this average lap time, I exclude the in and out lap and the laps behind the safety car.

Stints that are marked in italic were partially behind the safety car and stints that are underlined were interrupted because of a technical issue or a driver mistake.

During stint #6 Fässler damaged the rear end.

	Driver	Laps	Average lap time
1	Lotterer	34 = 10+12+12	3:30.290
2	Tréluyer	51 = 12+12+12+12+3	3:32.086
3	Fässler	38 = 16+11+11	3:31.291
4	Lotterer	35 = 11+12+12	3:31.857
5	Tréluyer	24 = 12+12	3:32.862
6	Fässler	28 = 12+12+4	3:31.146
7	Lotterer	55 = 9+13+11+11+11	3:29.054
8	Fässler	45 = 11+11+11+12	3:30.694
9	Tréluyer	36 = 11+11+14	3:28.145
10	Lotterer	32 = 12+11+9	3:29.842
	total	378	3:30.727

During stint #10 McNish went off at the Porsche curves.

	Driver	Laps	Average lap time
1	McNish	33 = 10+12+11	3:30.896
2	Kristensen	47 = 12+12+11+12	3:31.082
3	Capello	38 = 16+11+11	3:31.075
4	McNish	36 = 12+12+12	3:32.491
5	Kristensen	36 = 12+12+12	3:30.890
6	McNish	34 = 12+12+10	3:31.039
7	Capello	33 = 11+11+11	3:31.032
8	Kristensen	36 = 12+12+12	3:28.065
9	Capello	22 = 11+11	3:29.066
10	McNish	45 = 12+9+13+11	3:28.064
11	Kristensen	17 = 11+6	3:31.092
	total	377	3:30.436

During stint #1 Duval had a slow puncture, Dumas crashed the car during stint #2 and Gené did the same during stint #9.

	Driver	Laps	Average lap time
1	Duval	48 = 11+1+12+12+12	3:32.056
2	Dumas	29 = 12+12+5	3:31.380
3	Gené	39 = 15+12+12	3:31.730
4	Duval	36 = 12+12+12	3:32.172
5	Dumas	58 = 12+10+12+12+12	3:33.572
6	Gené	36 = 13+12+11	3:31.185
7	Duval	36 = 12+12+12	3:27.844
8	Dumas	36 = 12+12+12	3:28.507
9	Gené	33 = 8+13+12	3:29.509
10	Duval	15 = 6+9	3:30.470
	total	366	3:30.843

Rockenfeller came in early to check the rear suspension during stint #1. Afterwards the car suffered from gear selection issues, which could explain why stint #4 and #5 were much slower.

	Driver	Laps	Average lap time
1	Rockenfeller	33 = 9+12+12	3:32.254
2	Bonanomi	51 = 12+12+12+12+3	3:32.034
3	Jarvis	40 = 16+12+12	3:31.133
4	Rockenfeller	38 = 12+2+12+12	3:34.006
5	Bonanomi	36 = 12+12+12	3:34.975
6	Jarvis	38 = 12+14+12	3:32.064
7	Rockenfeller	36 = 12+12+12	3:30.660
8	Bonanomi	36 = 12+12+12	3:30.193
9	Jarvis	38 = 12+12+14	3:30.780
10	Rockenfeller	29 = 12+7+10	3:29.634
	total	375	3:31.773

Some general conclusions.

• The #2 Audi was the fastest car on the track. This shows how hard Kristensen and McNish were pushing. Maybe this can also be explained by the fact that the hybrid system of the #1 Audi was not fully functional.
• The e-tron quattro did a large number of 11 lap stints, whereas the ultra consistently did 12 lap stints. This again illustrates that the hybrid system was not used to save fuel. Remark that Kristensen, who is known in the teams as the fuel saving master, managed to almost always do 12 laps.
• Stint #5 of Dumas, which consists of a double and a triple stint, is rather slow. I suspect that he was on the wrong tyre compound and hence he can in early. Also note that the other drivers were also struggling, so the track conditions were not ideal for the R18.
• I think that Bonanomi and Jarvis did a decent job, because on average the #4 Audi was only 1 sec slower then the other ultra. Remember that the car was struggling with gear selection issues and even stopped on the track a number of times. Jarvis mentioned after the race that they were struggling to get temperature into the front tyres during some phases in the race.

[chernaudi]

So it seems that the R18 is still very tire temp/compound sensitive as far as it set up goes. That may explain, at least to an extent, why the #7 Toyota battled with the #1 Audi for the overall lead for a few laps, but it doesn't explain what Mulsanne Mike saw, that the Audi guys would pick up the pace for a lap or two within a pit stop. I think it was part track conditions, part rope-a-dope maybe. Which does make sense, because, after all, why use up your stuff early when you think or know that your competitor might be using up theirs racing you, especially as it was still fairly early in the race.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

So it seems that the R18 is still very tire temp/compound sensitive as far as it set up goes. That may explain, at least to an extent, why the #7 Toyota battled with the #1 Audi for the overall lead for a few laps, but it doesn't explain what Mulsanne Mike saw, that the Audi guys would pick up the pace for a lap or two within a pit stop. I think it was part track conditions, part rope-a-dope maybe. Which does make sense, because, after all, why use up your stuff early when you think or know that your competitor might be using up theirs racing you, especially as it was still fairly early in the race.

can you please explain what you are trying to say here?

[Adam43]

That the R18 was faster in the Porsche curves?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Adam43

That the R18 was faster in the Porsche curves?

good guess, could well be...

[chernaudi]

Mulsanne Mike posted on the Mulsanne's Corner Facebook page his assertion at the time that Audi were sandbagging to let Toyota get close:

"Plus, I'll argue Audi let Toyota think they were competitive. But the times leading to Toyota getting into the lead are telling as Audi appeared to be getting off the throttle in order to goad the Toyota's to run harder knowing full well they'd desire to lead more than anything. And as such the Toyota's started to run 97-98% (3:30s) laps while Audi was plodding around on 95% laps (3:33s). Once the Toyotas hit the pits, Audi back to 98% laps (3:28s)...do that every hour and you're going to wear out the Toyotas assuming they don't have another issues."

And: "Nah, the Audis easily pulled away every time with 3:26s and 3:27s. Toyota struggled to get out of the 3:28s at the time. Audi had way more speed and seemed to generate a comfortable gap and maintain it."

I have to agree with Mike to an extent because the Toyotas didn't get any faster, but Audi seemed to slow down. I wonder if Audi still suffer from tire temp issues and that the car is very sensitive to tire choices, or if Audi were indeed sandbagging to try and urge Toyota to turn up the wick.

[gwyllion]

I do not buy this story that Audi was slowing down on purpose.

Toyota claimed that the R18s struggled from degradation during the second and third stint on the same tyres, whereas the TS030 could set consistent lap times much longer on the same tyre. Toyota also explained that the car was set up for higher grip, so the performance of the car was improving.

The timing data backs the theory from Toyota. The following table illustrates that evolution of the average lap time during the stints on the same tyres.

Car	Driver	Stint 1	Stint 2	Stint 3	Stint 4
1	Lotterer	3:29.584	3:30.127	3:31.017
1	Tréluyer	3:31.522	3:33.728
1	Tréluyer	3:30.735	3:32.356
2	McNish	3:30.589	3:30.552	3:31.550
2	Kristensen	3:32.375
2	Kristensen	3:30.188	3:30.772	3:30.962
7	Wurz	3:31.644	3:31.576	3:31.871
7	Lapierre	3:31.196	3:31.599
7	Lapierre	3:30.210	3:30.272	3:30.240
8	Sarrazin	3:32.441	3:32.197	3:32.717
8	Buemi	3:31.317	3:32.198	3:30.853	3:30.865

The TS030 was much kinder on the tyres than the R18, at least during the first hours of the race.

[chernaudi]

I'm still struggling to get around Mike's assessment that Audi tended to drop the hammer just before their stops and around the time of the Toyota stops. Either Audi were toying with Toyota or were running hot in and out laps and trying to build up an early lead in each stint with new tires. And that chart does show that Toyota didn't get faster, but the Audis backed up to them, whatever the reason.

We also have to remember at Spa that the e-trons struggled with tire temps once the track dried out and were sort of out to lunch until the track rubbered in, so could that have been a repeat of that as the track conditions at LM weren't good in the evening as well as the temperature shift as it cooled off? Again, it seems that tire choice may've been an issue.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And that chart does show that Toyota didn't get faster, but the Audis backed up to them, whatever the reason.

Toyota did improve its pace during the race

In the #7 Wurz started with high 3:31s and Lapierre gradually improved to low 3:30s. Similarly in the #8 Sarrazin started with 3:32s and at the end of his quadrupple stint Buemi was in the high 3:30s.

[chernaudi]

First of all, though out an individual stint, Toyota didn't get faster, while it seemed that the R18s slowed down as the stint wore on, especially as it cooled off. We have to remember that Audi did most of their testing at places like Sebring, Road Atlanta, Paul Ricard and Yas Marina, all very warm places. It seems that the R18's weren't initially optimized for the cooler conditions at Le Mans as far as tire choices the past couple of years--Peugeot ran down the #2 Audi last year at night because the #2 was struggling with tire temp issues until shortly before sun-up. Also, rain washed off any rubber that was on track, and it took a while for the track to come back to everyone from that standpoint.

Benoit Treluyler said just as much in his post-LM press release:

"...during my night stint, the choice of tyres had proven a bit too safe which had a negative impact on my times towards the end (of the stint)."

It seems that the R18 is definitely still temperature sensitive with those wide front tires. We have to remember that the #3 Audi at Spa was more aggressive with it's tire strategy and that got them the lead and allowed them to take advantage with the safety car situation that gave them a 45 second lead instead of a 15 second lead prior to that event. I know that it's better safe than sorry, but Toyota seemed to really be a bit more aggressive with their tire choices and strategy concerning tire choices and tire changes, while Audi was more conservative in those areas (compound choices and triple stinting).

[Articus]

I dont buy that story about the Audi's lulling the Toyota's either. The Toyota looks eerily consistent as i they were simply running to a set pace with a certain engine map and settings etc...

For starters I am convinced that the Toyota did not use the Hybrid system on the first lap(or atleast had the lowest boost setting).
The reason being the way that McNish breezed past the Toyota after the dunlop bridge...We all noted(And Audi drivers as well) that the Toyota got off the marks from corners with the Hybrid boost better than the Audi. So to suddenly see McNish breeze past the Toyota under acceleration is hard to believe unless the Toyota was simply told to let him by or wasnt even using the hybrid boost.
I believe Toyota had a very strategic pace set. They were going to steadily up the pace as the race went on.
Toyota said themselves that they played the first hour conservative. The average lap times over the stints look eerily consistent...

When you have a car there's a point where if you push it hard enough it won't be good on it's tires. The Toyota showed little to no wear for 4 stints...Take what you want from that. But it doesnt seem like they even pushed the car...

Whereas the Audi's were showing more wear and understeer indicating the drivers where using the car more over a stint.