|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 May 2014, 18:53 (Ref:3402551) | #6376 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Thats something I thought for a couple years now. When Toyota chose capacitor, they were asked about the flywheel. I recall them saying they were surprised Audi went that direction. Now you see stories like this come along and realize just how good the diesel really is. I have no problem with diesel, but the issue was equivalence to petrol. It could still well be uneven but Porsche and Toyota are using their hybrid power quite well. From the beginning, Toyota wanted more hybrid power and 4wd. Now they got it. Porsche has those batteries which are very strong. Seems the flywheel is the laggard in the hybrid group. But that diesel, Audi believes makes up for it. So my questions in the lmp future regulations thread are mostly answered.
|
|
|
5 May 2014, 20:10 (Ref:3402574) | #6377 | |
Rookie
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 51
|
Hello all, my first post here, so bare with me
The way I see it, the flywheel energy storage is not the problem. The problem is power generation. Last year, Audi had 220hp eletric motor/generator and they strugeled to get all of the 3,6MJ energy, and Toyota with 300hp unit had no problem. This year, Toyota has allmost 500hp to generate 6MJ of energy. And Audi? Do we have the power figuers for their eletric motor? In any case, it is probably around the same as last year. It doesn't make sence for Audi to build another KERS sistem for the back wheels, becouse they allready have massive torque from the diesel, and front wheels probably can't handle more than 200hp this year with narrower tires, so they had 2 options. One: be in 2MJ class and get more fuel, but dont run there KERS to its full potential, or two: run in 4MJ clas, and use ~3MJ that their KERS is capable off. So, I dont think that flywheel is the problem. I think that flywheel is quite easy to scale up. With development, the flywheel can just spin faster for the same weight to store more energy. I really dont see the problem there. But, I admit, I am not an expert in this things and I am just thinking out loud here. |
|
|
5 May 2014, 21:20 (Ref:3402617) | #6378 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/audi-lmp14/ has been updated with some detail pictures of the LM aero package.
|
|
|
5 May 2014, 21:59 (Ref:3402627) | #6379 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,497
|
Quote:
Actually, assuming ~3MJ maximum can be harvested on one axle fits nicely, because double KERS puts such a system nicely in the 6MJ class where Toyota and Porsche are. |
|||
|
5 May 2014, 23:56 (Ref:3402642) | #6380 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 02:57 (Ref:3402666) | #6381 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 734
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Eat, sleep, race, repeat. |
6 May 2014, 05:42 (Ref:3402691) | #6382 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
Would agree with additional weight on the rear axle, would not agree with the power (torque) being too much for the rear wheels.
The other aspect for Audi not harvesting the full 3.5 MJ in previous years may have something to do with energy release at only over 120 kmh. |
|
|
6 May 2014, 07:47 (Ref:3402723) | #6383 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
I don't see the connection with the 120 km/h rule. This only restricted when the recovered kinetic energy could be released, not when it could be harvested.
|
|
|
6 May 2014, 08:37 (Ref:3402738) | #6384 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
Probably true, because 500 KJ between ERS events meant only 3s boost at 170 kW, they probably had more than 3s at over 120 kmh to release that energy.
|
|
|
6 May 2014, 12:03 (Ref:3402813) | #6385 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
It appears that the rules changed under their feet Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
6 May 2014, 12:05 (Ref:3402815) | #6386 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Didnt someone on this forum say that Audi was going to get decimated this year?.......oh yeah, it was me!.......the hard facts are Audi have been far too conservative with the 2MJ approach due to the anti-battery brigade within the Audi team........watching them get overtaken by the Toyotas, the Audis were made to look like they were intentionally letting the Toyotas past, phenomenal to watch I must say.......
Also, the WHP flywheel system is a piece of junk, my well placed spies tell me that because the flywheel cavity is not hermetically sealed, it does not run in a vacuum, therefore the rotor windage (aerodynamic chopping of air) causes the motor to thermally run-away and overheat if used for prolonged periods. One of the solutions is to increase the air-gap between the flywheel-rotor and stator, but unfortunatley this makes the motor system even more inefficient.......This is mainly because the Williams Engineers did not believe the high speed seals could be designed and actually work......... as they need to run at something like 2 bar vacuum and 60,000rpm ish......... unfortunately Flybrid did design and patent the high speed seals and they work perfect - on flybrids system. Audi know whats going to happen at LeMans, and they will only win if they get lucky with reliability or crashes........but this is hardly Audis mantra of Vorsprung Durch Technik = "advancement through technology".......this feels like "advancement through reliability or luck", as they do not hold any sort of technical advantage whatsoever.......like I said before, I think this will lead to a significant overhaul of Audis LMP staff. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 13:28 (Ref:3402841) | #6387 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 362
|
Quote:
While I'm an Audi die hard and work for the company, I'm not a huge advocate of the flywheel system. All of the E-Tron technology for road cars is battery based and I would like to have seen them go that route for furthur development. However, I believe it's been noted several times that because Audi runs the heavier diesel engine, the battery option was just too heavy packaging wise. In the end Audi still is a firm believer in TDI when it comes to efficiency, so I do understand why they continue to go that route. |
|||
|
6 May 2014, 14:09 (Ref:3402853) | #6388 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
As I explained in post #3532 of the regulation thread, Audi's diesel engine is probably 50 kg heavier than the petrol engines of its competitors. This seriously restricts Audi's choice for an energy store technology.
The additional weight of the diesel engine effectively rules out the usage of supercapacitors. According to the article in the current RCE edition, the TS030 hybrid system weighed 100 kg. I would guess that the supercapacitor weighed in at around 70-75 kg. That is almost 50 kg more than Audi's flywheel, which in the previous R18 weighed 25 kg (see post #4238). |
|
|
6 May 2014, 14:55 (Ref:3402870) | #6389 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
all interesting stuff and thanks for the reminders....... but really Audi got their homework very much wrong, look at what Porsche did, they could see that a big KERS system was needed for the acceleration zones of which is what LeMans is all about, big long drag-strips, any top team could easily identify this from the many different track simulation CAE based packages available.
Therefore Porsche decided to use a 4 cylinder engine in order to save weight and used a 6MJ KERS system and got the balance about right......what did Audi do.......ignorantly ignored the obvious need for a big KERS system, and simply went for a bored out version of their existing engine, now they are whinging its over weight.........well all I can say is "you reap what you sow".......really Audi should have gone for a 4 or 5 cylinder engine and sacrificed some weight. Also based on what I said about the WHP system I really dont believe its good for 4MJ. It would not surprise me to see Audi dump the WHP flywheel and replace it with a bunch of ultracapacitors and just run with the car over-weight, at a circuit like LeMans being overweight will not notice as much as say monaco or hungary........not that LMP's race at either circuit!........I have personal experience of running a front wheel drive Peugeot 306 group-N touring car 20Kg over weight and we still kept winning as it heated up the rear tyres a treat, much to our delight! |
||
|
6 May 2014, 15:44 (Ref:3402892) | #6390 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 662
|
Is ERS incentive even a thing?? I've seen nothing of it since it was first mentioned and even Audi haven't spoke about it.
They also knew the figures would change when they provided the most up to date BSFC numbers. I don't buy the reasoning that the latest change hurt them any more than they already knew it would. Lap times and the racing at Silverstone show the car is perfectly capable of competing, and the car was running in HDF at Spa (which I feel was bad choice) so was never going to be on the pace. We already know the #3 was doing some tricky **** with fuel so there's little point comparing. Even so the #3 was only 4kph slower than the race winning Toyota so it can hit good speed. If Audi did choose to run 2MJ is 2012 it's even sillier. Restricting yourself early is never a good thing, Toyota kept option open when they designed the 030, and it seems both petrol cars didn't lock themselves into a specific hybrid category during the design phase. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 15:44 (Ref:3402894) | #6391 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
We do have to remember that it seems that Audi made the 2MJ decision a year before the EOT Incentive was mentioned by the ACO, though it wasn't applied until March of this year.
It also appeared that it seemed like 2MJ would've been the way to go until the EOT was enacted. Audi were the first to homologate their car, while Porsche waited until the last minute. If one wants to say that Audi screwed up, it seemed that they were good before the EOT got applied. In effect, it could be argued that they're being punished for being the first to homologate their car, and EOT won't change, aside from any BOP penalties ("Dissuasive penalties") until the post LM rounds, and hybrid system homologation, without waivers, last until the end of this season. Problem is that at the same time, no one's quite been 100% bullet proof, either. Even Audi have had minor electrical issues (including one at Spa that cost the #2 a shot at the podium after it lost a lap to get the wiring fixed), and Toyota missed a whole practice session at Silverstone with one car because of a supercapacitor issue. And we know that Porsche have had multiple issues and have had one car DNF at both Silverstone and Spa. Though I do have to say that even though Audi have a "heavy" diesel engine, the R18 family has ironically tended to be nose heavy in order to get the wider front tires to work. And the new car is seemingly even more nose heavy. And we also have to remember by the same token, that if hybrid systems were banned, Toyota and Porsche would be even more (a lot more!) screwed than Audi is now, because the diesel probably still makes more power, and certainly a crap load more torque. And its also known now that Porsche and Toyota ran their tires off quicker than Audi did--one Toyota from what I've read never double stinted at Spa. And that's part of how Audi won LM in 2011. They quadruple and quintupled stinted, while Peugeot only triple stinted. I don't share some's dim view that Audi will be off the pace at LM. In high downforce trim at Silverstone, Audi and Toyota were equal, and Audi got shafted by opting for high downforce at Spa/having rookies run the LD/R&D car and Toyota and Porsche gambling on low downforce. Whoever wins LM this year, will genuinely have to fight for it. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 16:19 (Ref:3402912) | #6392 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Motorsport-total.com are reporting in this latest article that "ACO-FIA technical representatives" have declared at a press conference before the Spa race that Audi's deficit at LM resulting from their choice to opt for the lowest ERS option is expected to be in the range of 1.4 seconds per lap. That's a massive deficit:
Quote:
Quote:
I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com. |
||||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
6 May 2014, 16:20 (Ref:3402913) | #6393 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 381
|
Porsche and Toyota maybe running tires off more than Audi because they're running lower down force which results in more tire scrub. I have a feeling we won't know what going on here until halfway through the 24.
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 16:42 (Ref:3402922) | #6394 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The "thing" is written black and white in decision 13-D0031 of the FIA endurance committee, which explains the EoT process that is in place for this season.
Quote:
Quote:
According to http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14033102.html Audi was unhappy after the meeting on Thursday before the WEC test in Le Castellet, when the final numbers for appendix B were decided. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
6 May 2014, 16:49 (Ref:3402926) | #6395 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 662
|
Oh yes I knew it was a written 'thing', but based on what I'd seen in the races I didn't know whether or not it had actually been put into practice as it was not mentioned in the latest Appendix B release and seemed to have no effect at Silverstone on the Audi's pace.
I don't think the gap will be as large as it is currently being made out (as we always see when teams ask for BoP) but I do think that if Toyota and Porsche can go an extra lap that is unfair, everyone should really be able to do the same distance, then the race can be decided by proper strategy and on track pace. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 18:32 (Ref:3402979) | #6396 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
6 May 2014, 18:37 (Ref:3402982) | #6397 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Okay for the "wake-up call", but this is an "ugly" way for the ACO-FIA to make this call IMHO.
|
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
6 May 2014, 19:20 (Ref:3403009) | #6398 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 146
|
Audi must throw this project to the bin and start next year car if they decided to stay in the bussiness.
BTW, despite the deficit in performance i don't see the point to set up the car to be the fastest on corners if on Le Mans the only sector this strategy can match is the last one. Audi is gonna be humilliated at LM this year, sadly |
||
|
6 May 2014, 19:25 (Ref:3403015) | #6399 | ||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
Brum brum |
6 May 2014, 19:28 (Ref:3403018) | #6400 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 662
|
Of course if they win this will be painted as the most heroic of victories against all the odds..
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Porsche GTP / Hypercar: factory and customer | Simmi | North American Racing | 9284 | 18 Sep 2024 14:24 |
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | ACO Regulated Series | 6771 | 18 Aug 2020 09:37 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
[LM24 Race] Audi LMP1 Poster all art deco'd. | blackohio | ACO Regulated Series | 2 | 27 Oct 2011 06:30 |