Audi LMP1 Discussion

[TF110]

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.

[tomazy]

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.

[gwyllion]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/audi-lmp14/ has been updated with some detail pictures of the LM aero package.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by tomazy

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.

That sounds logical, but what would explain Audi not harvesting the full 3.5MJ previously? As you say, there's no point scaling up a system that isn't being used to its full potential. But there is something in Audi's system that is hindering their hybrid capacity - the weight issues a diesel engine brings compounds the problem by ruling out energy recovery on the rear axle.

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.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by tomazy

Hello all, my first post here, so bare with me

Welcome!

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by J Jay

That sounds logical, but what would explain Audi not harvesting the full 3.5MJ previously? As you say, there's no point scaling up a system that isn't being used to its full potential. But there is something in Audi's system that is hindering their hybrid capacity - the weight issues a diesel engine brings compounds the problem by ruling out energy recovery on the rear axle.

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.

Something to do with braking system? Because Sam Collins and John did talked about Toyota being the only one running brake by wire system during the race. Also they mentioned that now Toyota and Porsche need energy recovery laps to fully charge their storage and that's why their lap times fluctuate dramatically. When there is enough ERS energy, they are super fast. That's for sure.

[GasperG]

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.

[gwyllion]

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.

[GasperG]

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.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Laudenbach is in particular reported to say that the decision to go for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option was made very early in the decision-making process:

I don't know when exactly Laudenbach (a former Porsche guy) joined Audi Sport, but this happened before Sebring 2013. The decision to go for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option was therefore apparently made more than a year ago.

The article explains that Audi "opted to contest the 2 MJ category back in November 2012". That is more than 1 year before the ERS incentive came into play.

It appears that the rules changed under their feet

First of all, we take such a decision based on simulation. If you see that the difference is small, you go for a car that is not that complex because you have to bear in mind that testing time is limited. The difficult thing is that if you decide a concept at an early stage, and the figures change until they are really fixed, it sometimes puts you in trouble.

Laudenbach also stresses that the engine weight is at their disadvantage:

We have a disadvantage in weight [running a diesel] so we couldn't have got to 8 MJ, but 4 MJ in 870 kg should have been possible. It is not easy. If you don't have weight to play with, then there might be a decision that from a pure hybrid side you could have gone to four, but you are losing the advantage of weight distribution.

You could do a 4 MJ system with the flywheel, and I would assume that the decision was taken purely from the weight aspect, and that it important for use because we have a diesel engine which is heavier than a gasoline engine. Weight is the major aspect. From a weight point of view, the flywheel is still the way to go.

[knighty]

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.

[MihokS5]

Originally Posted by knighty

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.

Well said.

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.

[gwyllion]

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).

[knighty]

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!

[Bandicoot17]

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.

[chernaudi]

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.

[MyNameIsNigel]

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:

Pro Megajoule weniger soll die Rundenzeit in Le Mans um rund eine halbe Sekunde ansteigen. So hatten es die Verantwortlichen in Aussicht gestellt. Für Audi würde sich somit im Vergleich zu Porsche und Toyota ein Rückstand von zwei Sekunden pro Umlauf an der Sarthe ergeben. Bei einer Pressekonferenz der Technikverantwortlichen von ACO und FIA am Freitag in Spa stellte man dar, dass Audi wegen des Dieseltriebwerkes sogar weniger Defizit hat. 1,4 Sekunden würde der R18 langsamer sein als die Konkurrenz.

It's further being reported that the ACO-FIA also declared that the theoretical stint length at LM should be 13 laps for all three manufacturers. According to motorsport-total.com, the actual figure would be 13.2 for Audi and 13.9 for Porsche and Toyota. If that happens to be true, Porsche and Toyota could possibly manage to increase the stint length to 14 laps, which is unlikely to be achievable by Audi and will translate into a further performance deficit over the entire race:

ACO und FIA stellten bei ihrem Vortrag dar, dass sowohl die Benziner als auch die Diesel-LMP1 von Audi beim Klassiker in Frankreich 13 Runden schaffen müssten. Dieser Wert ist allerdings interessant gerundet. Die Berechnungen ergeben für Porsche und Toyota eine Reichweite von 13,9 Runden pro Stint, für Audi nur 13,2 Umläufe. In der Praxis werden die Benziner mit Leichtigkeit 14 Runden fahren können, während Audi kaum eine Runde mehr schaffen wird. Dies führt über 24 Stunden dazu, dass die Audis zwei Stopps mehr machen müssen. Da sind mindestens zwei Minuten weg. Umgelegt auf eine Runde sind dies weitere 3,5 Zehntelsekunden Defizit.

All in all, Audi may indeed lose the equivalent of approximately 2 seconds per lap at LM. If these figures happen to be confirmed in practice, Audi will need a miracle to win LM this year...

I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com.

[nkoske]

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.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Is ERS incentive even a thing??

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.

For the first year of application of new LMP1 regulations (i.e. two first races of 2014 + Le Mans 2014 included) the EOT will be defined as follows:
...
After le Mans 2014, the EOT will be reviewed through a regular process (once a year) from after Le Mans year n to after Le Mans year n+1
...
G. ERS incentive
1. Definition
Appendix B has been computed based on the Committee recommendations, in order to conserve an incentive for big ERS system. Simulated theoretical incentive in Appendix B is: ~-0.5s/lap/MJ hybrid

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I've seen nothing of it since it was first mentioned and even Audi haven't spoke about it.

Audi has not been very vocal, but they have expressed some criticism on the current EoT.

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.

During the meeting in Le Castellet one of the competitors from Audi revealed that there was a small error in the previous formula. The necessary correction had the consequence that shifted the amounts of energy to the disadvantage of Audi. Toyota and Porsche can live with the new list, Audi probably not.

"I'm not very happy," says Head of Audi Motorsport Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich. Also engine boss Ulrich Baretzky shakes his head at the new data. "In essence, it is important that the regulations should provide incentives for the use of larger hybrid systems. One has apparently set a goal to create a lap time advantage of 0.5 seconds at Le Mans, per megajoule of additional hybrid power is."

The Spa race report is filled with some hints at the current regulations.

As the R18 e-tron quattro diesel hybrid sports car did not quite achieve the lap times of the best race cars with gasoline engines, which have a different rating than the efficient TDI power-plant, Audi opted for a different strategy. To save time, Audi Sport Team Joest changed the tires of car #1 only at every second refueling stop.

[Bandicoot17]

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.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

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:


It's further being reported that the ACO-FIA also declared that the theoretical stint length at LM should be 13 laps for all three manufacturers. According to motorsport-total.com, the actual figure would be 13.2 for Audi and 13.9 for Porsche and Toyota. If that happens to be true, Porsche and Toyota could possibly manage to increase the stint length to 14 laps, which is unlikely to be achievable by Audi and will translate into a further performance deficit over the entire race:


All in all, Audi may indeed lose the equivalent of approximately 2 seconds per lap at LM. If these figures happen to be confirmed in practice, Audi will need a miracle to win LM this year...

I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com.

Audi have had the rules stacked in their favour for over a decade now, due to their "tidy" love triangle with Ricardo and the ACO, and mainly as they have been the only "partner" for the ACO to flirt with in public........Ricardo are the official technical rule advisors to the ACO, and Audi pay Ricardo for diesel combustion and engine design consultancy on the LMP1 TDi race engine........But, now Porsche and Toyota arrive the ACO have 2 additional "play things" at the party, and my god they look good in public.......but the old "play thing"is now showing signs of ageing and not willing to embrace new technology, and the ACO are punishing them accordingly, as Porsche and Toyota have huge global pull to their beloved race........therefore my suspicion is Audi are about to undergo "cosmetic enhancement surgery" after LeMans 2014 and I'm sure they will come back looking gorgeous next year........Personally I am bored with seeing Audi constantly win, they need a wake up call, and the ACO have delivered it.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Okay for the "wake-up call", but this is an "ugly" way for the ACO-FIA to make this call IMHO.

[EverOne]

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

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by EverOne

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.

They've done it before!

Audi is gonna be humilliated at LM this year, sadly

This is a post to save

[Bandicoot17]

Of course if they win this will be painted as the most heroic of victories against all the odds..