Audi LMP1 Discussion

[EverOne]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They've done it before!



This is a post to save

I know they did it in 2008, but this time is different IMHO.
I only see Audi up to 3rd place if Toyota has a disaster.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by knighty

Personally I am bored with seeing Audi constantly win, they need a wake up call, and the ACO have delivered it.

A wake up call for what? What is the point that the FIA and ACO are trying to make?

What is the goal of Audi getting humiliated at Le Mans because of unfavorable regulations?

Do they want to force Audi to quit endurance racing?

Do they want to force Audi to abandon diesel technology?

Do they want to force Audi into a direction that has limited relevance for road cars, i.e., diesel hybrid?

How can you justify to the spectators that Audi has no chance of winning of the 24 hours of Le Mans unless the two Toyotas and the two Porsches break down or crash?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

How can you justify to the spectators that Audi has no chance of winning of the 24 hours of Le Mans unless the two Toyotas and the two Porsches break down or crash?

Well we'll have to wait and see if this is true to be fair.

[tyronnezx]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

A wake up call for what? What is the point that the FIA and ACO are trying to make?

What is the goal of Audi getting humiliated at Le Mans because of unfavorable regulations?

Do they want to force Audi to quit endurance racing?

Do they want to force Audi to abandon diesel technology?

Do they want to force Audi into a direction that has limited relevance for road cars, i.e., diesel hybrid?

How can you justify to the spectators that Audi has no chance of winning of the 24 hours of Le Mans unless the two Toyotas and the two Porsches break down or crash?

and what if Audi Wins at the humiliation of others because the rules favor them. Again...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by tyronnezx

and what if Audi Wins at the humiliation of others because the rules favor them. Again...

Audi are clearly not favored based on the latest Appendix B revisions… That does not mean that they cannot win LM, again.

[hcl123]

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.

Audi is gonna be humilliated at LM this year, sadly

If there will be a next year... diesel is done, FIA/ACO just banned it.

For petrol there is Porsche, and IMHO they have a very good chance to win Le Mans this very year, don't now if VW would want 2 cars on petrol to compete each other when the target is from another group.

Don't know, but Porsche has high potential to be faster than Toyota even this year, don't now if Toyota will decide to continue in 2015 either by changing engine for a more modern configuration, or if with time finding itself supplanted by Porsche they decided to leave also.

In this last case i can see pressure from VW to leave Porsche alone, and Porsche has lots of potential to beat Toyota as is ( IMHO) even starting this year .. fair & square ... Spa showed it.

[TF110]

You say more modern, but turbo is nothing "new", neither is diesel. A capacitor a flywheel a battery, all are "new". Im waiting for the rules to allow vvt, hydrogen fuel, torque vectoring, in wheel electrical motors etc. Toyota, Honda, VW are so far along with these technologies, itd be great if the rules allow for "new" techniques and technologies. Audi dont deserve to win Le Mans any moreso than Porsche or Toyota. The ACO states they will equalise the technologies. This looks like its the closest its been in the past 15 years.

[Articus]

If by closest you mean complete reversal? Its clear from both sides (Audi, Toyota,Porsche) that something is amiss in the rules. They aren't equilbrating technologies. They are incentivising higher ERS capacity. Although I can understand why you would think things are equal lol. Also Diesel was only introduced in 2006

By modern he means with the times. People are using turbos etc. If you really look at this, you'll quickly understand that Hydrogen is a terrible fuel source for a race car. The volumetric energy density of hydrogen liquid (gas-even worse) is poor. You would need ~ four times the tank size of the current petrol diesel to hold the same amount of energy. Efficiency of the ICE doesn't depend on the fuel source.

In-Wheel electric motors increase unsprung mass(i.e make the suspension less reactive) and this leads to more variation in tire load/sudden loss of grip.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Audi dont deserve to win Le Mans any moreso than Porsche or Toyota. The ACO states they will equalise the technologies. This looks like its the closest its been in the past 15 years.

You seem to have missed the point. Contrarily to its name, the EoT is not designed to equalize technologies. Instead it favors a bigger ERS, and consequently petrol engines

People seem to forget that the concept of an LMP1 car is normally designed to be used 2-3 years. Hence it might be impossible for Audi to make some of the radical changes that are being suggested: switch from diesel to petrol engine, replace the flywheel with a much heavier supercapacitor, ...

[Articus]

Petrols turn out to be better because the engine is much lighter allowing you to run a bigger ERS system with less of a weight penalty. In theory a diesel hybrid is the perfect scenario but diesel hybrids are heavy. I pick the supercapacitors over Porsche's Batteries. The Supercaps don't suffer from repeated usage at high discharge rates.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

If by closest you mean complete reversal? Its clear from both sides (Audi, Toyota,Porsche) that something is amiss in the rules. They aren't equilbrating technologies. They are incentivising higher ERS capacity. Although I can understand why you would think things are equal lol. Also Diesel was only introduced in 2006

Reversal? Toyota won Bahrain in 2013, the last race of the season. Now they won again its a "reversal"? The "incentive" doesn't exist. It was theoreticle in its first mention anyway. Not sure what diesel being introduced in 2006 has to do with being the closest in 15 years? Back in 98, 99 we had Toyota Porsche Mercedes all very close. It hasnt been the same with 3 manufacturers until now.

By modern he means with the times. People are using turbos etc. If you really look at this, you'll quickly understand that Hydrogen is a terrible fuel source for a race car. The volumetric energy density of hydrogen liquid (gas-even worse) is poor. You would need ~ four times the tank size of the current petrol diesel to hold the same amount of energy. Efficiency of the ICE doesn't depend on the fuel source.

Hydrogen fuel is "modern". Atkinson cycle engines are modern. Hybrids are modern. High revving V8's are modern. Whats the difference? People like these techologies, so my point isn't wrong, is it?

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You seem to have missed the point. Contrarily to its name, the EoT is not designed to equalize technologies. Instead it favors a bigger ERS, and consequently petrol engines

People seem to forget that the concept of an LMP1 car is normally designed to be used 2-3 years. Hence it might be impossible for Audi to make some of the radical changes that are being suggested: switch from diesel to petrol engine, replace the flywheel with a much heavier supercapacitor, ...

Equivalence of technology is the name. I see no mention for favoring a certain team from the rule makers. Audi didnt do 4, 6, 8mj. Thats not any other team's or the rule makers fault. They stick with a flywheel and an enlarged engine. Those are Audi's decisions, not any team or rule maker. I didnt miss the point. I think there are assumptions that Audi are in trouble because they didn't win. Now everyone puts blame on things other than Audi. Thats my point.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Hydrogen fuel is "modern". Atkinson cycle engines are modern. Hybrids are modern. High revving V8's are modern. Whats the difference? People like these techologies, so my point isn't wrong, is it?

The Atkinson cycle engine was invented by James Atkinson in 1882.

High revving V8's have been used in motorsport for ages

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The Atkinson cycle engine was invented by James Atkinson in 1882.

High revving V8's have been used in motorsport for ages

If hcl meant 'new' as in 'current', atkinson cycle engines are a future tech that many manufacturers will employ for fuel savings. You say its invention was 1882, but 3 years later, a guy by the name of Daimler patented an idea of forced induction!

Go forward a little further and turbo diesels were the norm in about 30 years time. The turbo itself dates back to the early 1900's. If were talking motorsport's claims to relevancy and current technology, you cant discredit something I use as an example when other currently used technologies date back to near the same time period. I know new tech is a remembrance of known tech and improving upon it.

[Articus]

Let's just stick to things we'll actually see in racing? Nobody will ever run an atkinson cycle in LMP1. Nobody will ever run a hydrogen in LMP1. High revving reduces efficiency of the combustion.

I think what you meant to say was, low revving, DFI, VVT, High compression ratio gasoline engines, VTG Turbos. That is where all of the performance lies in the near future.

The R18 had many of these targets in mind (token on-topic comment )

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

You say more modern, but turbo is nothing "new", neither is diesel. A capacitor a flywheel a battery, all are "new". Im waiting for the rules to allow vvt, hydrogen fuel, torque vectoring, in wheel electrical motors etc. Toyota, Honda, VW are so far along with these technologies, itd be great if the rules allow for "new" techniques and technologies. Audi dont deserve to win Le Mans any moreso than Porsche or Toyota. The ACO states they will equalise the technologies. This looks like its the closest its been in the past 15 years.

New!? ... nothing of that is new... NA gasoline engines have perhaps >100 years of age by now... turbo engines, specially in aviation appeared a couple of decades or so later.

Closest! ... not by shadows. The closest more exciting more trilling episodes at LeMans and elsewhere to, a couple of years later ( Petit Lemans as example), was when Peugeot was also on the contend. ( i know!.. for many ppl it doesn't count because it was diesels)

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Articus

Let's just stick to things we'll actually see in racing? Nobody will ever run an atkinson cycle in LMP1. Nobody will ever run a hydrogen in LMP1. High revving reduces efficiency of the combustion.

I think what you meant to say was, low revving, DFI, VVT, High compression ratio gasoline engines, VTG Turbos. That is where all of the performance lies in the near future.

The R18 had many of these targets in mind (token on-topic comment )

Well depends on how much time you consider "future" .... but to me in future ( 30 years) all that will be relics, and ICE powered cars wont be making races they would be doing "parades" for sighing old timers ->"us" lol

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Articus

Petrols turn out to be better because the engine is much lighter allowing you to run a bigger ERS system with less of a weight penalty. In theory a diesel hybrid is the perfect scenario but diesel hybrids are heavy. I pick the supercapacitors over Porsche's Batteries. The Supercaps don't suffer from repeated usage at high discharge rates.

Na!... even when by the time of the big V12 diesels, none cars weighted more than 950kg... and like today they were also ballasted... meaning in reality they weighted less. I think is more than easy adjustable for a small car.

Yes is possible to make lighter smaller effective engines on gasoline than on diesel... is a tradeoff, gasoline needs RPM diesels need displacement... but there are already powerful motorbikes on diesel (google it). OTOH when you go to real big engines, like big cargo marine engines, you can't find a single gasoline powered lol.

Diesel is not only a perfect scenario for hybrid... its also for a turbo charged engine... and its also for on-demand hydrogen injection (small electrolysis apparatus on board) like North America truck drivers found ( the future of hydrogen) -> smoke is almost all gone.

And like some kerosenes is a safer more "energetic releasing" fuel, easy obtainable by synthetic or organic (oils) routes... and this last part is what must scare the living s**t out of the very powerful oil cartel/lobby... every country everywhere could make it in abundance, without depending on "pumped from the ground 'petro' oil" supplies ( the end of a control system).

[chernaudi]

All I can say is that if the ACO wanted to shaft Audi, they're either doing a bad job of it or they really are trying to make sure that the factory teams at least are on a theoretical playing field.

I don't see Audi being 2+ seconds off the pace, or even 1.4 off the pace.

Spa paints a picture as muddy as the Paul Ricard test did. Audi had their veteran drivers in the high downforce cars, rookies in the LM car, Toyota and Porsche in LDF cars. At PR, Audi were in sprint race trim, Porsche in LM trim, and Toyota going back and forth between specs.

At Silverstone, Audi gave Toyota a hard time and they swapped the lead back and forth (and even reportedly ran Toyota to the limits of their energy allotment) until the rains came and got their tire strategy bungled.

Thus, with the double DNF at Silverstone, I think that Audi attacked Spa conservatively and experimented with stuff that they didn't get much info on at Silverstone. Goal #1 was probably to get points up on the board, and goal #2 was to learn about stuff that might be used at LM and later in the season.

I don't think things for Audi are as fatalistic as some are saying. The ACO may have an agenda here, but what if Audi show up next season with a 4-or 6MJ system and really clean house instead of being what so far seem to be them being among rough equals? What will we be saying then if they resume their dominant form?

If the ACO were out to screw Audi, they could be doing a better job of it, and I don't see all the gloom and doom. At least wait until the LM test day before we write anyone off.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The "incentive" doesn't exist. It was theoreticle in its first mention anyway.

No later than last Friday before the race at Spa, the ACO-FIA organized a press conference to explain the matter. The "ERS incentive" is clearly being enforced. It is not theoretical but clearly being put into practice in the calculations of the relevant fuel allocations.

It is worth mentioning however that the ACO-FIA have taken account of the overweight of the diesel engine through the "K Technology Factor". The ACO-FIA have explicitly indicated that they have computed the fuel energy allocations so that "a 2 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 4 MJ gasoline" and "a 4 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 6 MJ gasoline". These are the ACO-FIA's own words. In that respect, and based on the information provided last Friday, the lap time deficit for Audi at LM is actually supposed to be 1.4 seconds, not 2 seconds.

It is not very clear why the ACO-FIA are not putting the two technologies exactly on a same level. Even if Audi had opted for the 4 MJ ERS option, they would still suffer from a 0.4 second/lap deficit at LM based on the information provided by the ACO-FIA. Had they opted for the 6 MJ ERS option, the advantage would apparently have been on Audi's side, with a 0.6 second/lap advantage at LM.

The "frustrating" thing in all this is not so much the "ERS incentive" as such. It's the fact that it was introduced and enforced very late in the process, long after Audi had made their choice.

Do you honestly believe that Audi made their choice at the time in full awareness of this "ERS incentive" ? Do you honestly believe that Audi are so "stupid" that they intentionally opted for a 1.4 second/lap deficit at LM ?

If Audi are to be "blamed" for something, that could be for not having kept their options open until the very last time, but that is very easy to say now that one is aware of the "ERS incentive" and the actual deficit that comes with it.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by hcl123

And like some kerosenes is a safer more "energetic releasing" fuel, easy obtainable by synthetic or organic (oils) routes... and this last part is what must scare the living s**t out of the very powerful oil cartel/lobby... every country everywhere could make it in abundance, without depending on "pumped from the ground 'petro' oil" supplies ( the end of a control system).

You have totally lost your compass. YOU CAN NOT MAKE ANY SYNTHETIC FUEL CHEAPER THAN FROM CRUDE OIL. If that would be true, EU (all oil must be imported) would be very happy to produce their own jet fuel. What happens when government put a smaller excise tax on diesel fuel can be read here:http://www.fuellingeuropesfuture.eu/...line-imbalance

Although the EU has a significant excess of gasoline production capacity, it is still unable to meet the regional demand for diesel, heating gasoil and jet fuel. As a result, the EU relies heavily on foreign imports. Currently, the majority of diesel and heating gasoil comes from Russia, while jet fuel is largely shipped from the Middle East. Most of the EU’s excess gasoline is absorbed by the US.

Powerful and efficient engines were always and always will be heavy. As for future gasoline technologies we will have D-EGR, HCCI... I did not find any meaningful article on future diesel technologies, can you find it?

The fact is that Audi should do better, what they have now consumes just as much energy as petrol hybrids (~139 MJ/lap). Sure there are some small things that could be adjusted in the rules (tank size, max fuel flow), but the fact is that their race car (not the engine) is no more efficient than petrol hybrids.

I won't reply further if you won't have any constructive argument.

[Bandicoot17]

Why are we not seeing any other motorsport news outlets reporting this?

[gwyllion]

Audi's frustration with the EoT adjustment was also reported on Autosport.com on April 15:

The German manufacturer's head of LMP1 Christopher Reinke said there was "quite some frustration on our side" with the changes to the fuel tables for the new energy-based LMP1 formula decided last week.

"At this stage of the project, two weeks before the first race, two percent is quite a margin, a margin that does matter," Reinke explained. "We could be disadvantaged in performance and on strategy.

"We disagree with this fine-tuning and it is not clear to us how it came out like this, but we respect the FIA and the Automobile Club de l'Ouest as being the rule-giving powers."

source: http://racer.com/latest-stories/item...ew-fuel-limits

[tyronnezx]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Audi's frustration with the EoT adjustment was also reported on Autosport.com on April 15:

source: http://racer.com/latest-stories/item...ew-fuel-limits

of course you would respect it. you have power hidden on demand, the sandbagging

[gwyllion]

This sandbagging claim is getting old very quickly

The FIA has the necessary measurement equipment in the car (torque sensor, fuel flow sensor, ...) to calculate the real BFSC of the engines. If Audi shows up at Le Mans with a new engine that is more powerful or fuel efficient than what they claimed before the season, they will get penalized.

Why would Audi hide their true performance by running slower than they are capable of? They would be throwing away the WEC championship (which is already lost anyway) on purpose?

The EoT will only be adjusted after Le Mans. Sandbagging before Le Mans does not make any sense. Unless they want to give Toyota a false sense of confidence, which seems rather pointless.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Do you honestly believe that Audi are so "stupid" that they intentionally opted for a 1.4 second/lap deficit at LM ?

If Audi are to be "blamed" for something, that could be for not having kept their options open until the very last time, but that is very easy to say now that one is aware of the "ERS incentive" and the actual deficit that comes with it.

the fact is that the powertrain design team within the Audi LMP1 team are ignorant due to the anti-battery stance, but they are certainly not stupid......... I have seen ignorance kill many projects, mainly due to certain egos burying their heads in the sand as they are stuck in their old ways......Audi are currently investing heavily in ultracapacitor and L-ion battery technology for their Etron based road car projects.......I could say alot more, but.......