Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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

I'm not taking about audis frustration. Why are no outlets discussing this deficit spoken of at spa? If true then it is a major thing. Yet no one is reporting.

Is ers incentive only for Le Man's? Surely to be 2 seconds a lap slower they would have to have been slower at Silverstone too (which they weren't)?

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I'm not taking about audis frustration. Why are no outlets discussing this deficit spoken of at spa? If true then it is a major thing. Yet no one is reporting.

A major thing in a niche sport? Let's be frank - there's not been much reporting of anything to do with Spa outside Toyota's victory. Add to that it's still a few days after the race (even Trussers hasn't got his post-Spa analysis out yet) and it could be the case that the usual suspects are still going over the results themselves. There were also other, non-EoT related factors involved in the pace or lack of for the three Audis, and the #1 getting 2nd place would not immediately suggest any deficit.

Regardless of whether Audi have a legitimate grievance or not, the lack of reporting on the issue doesn't guarantee that it isn't there.

[goldenballs323]

In F1, when a technology i.e. F-Duct, Blown Diffusers etc is introduced, the FIA let it slide for a season and then ban it.

Did Audi have a fore warning that their fuel was going to be restricted?

Is there something I'm not seeing or is this blatantly against them?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by J Jay

A major thing in a niche sport? Let's be frank - there's not been much reporting of anything to do with Spa outside Toyota's victory. Add to that it's still a few days after the race (even Trussers hasn't got his post-Spa analysis out yet) and it could be the case that the usual suspects are still going over the results themselves. There were also other, non-EoT related factors involved in the pace or lack of for the three Audis, and the #1 getting 2nd place would not immediately suggest any deficit.

Regardless of whether Audi have a legitimate grievance or not, the lack of reporting on the issue doesn't guarantee that it isn't there.

Of course, but, the original news article that stated Audi would be 1.4 seconds down stated they were told this in a press conference. Unless every other press officer there has conveniently forgotten, why has no one else reported it?

The article uses terminology such as "we figured" and "is expected" [ie. We don't have a clue], then it goes on to say that at the same conference appendix B was re-explained [At the exact same event]. To me this sounds like the stuff mentioned appendix was actually explained, and the stuff before is just going what they personally think.

And it is a major thing for the sport [Of endurance racing], Audi being forced off the pace by the regulations and the ACO and FIA actually holding a press conference explicitly detailing this should, imo, be being reported across DSC, sportscar365, enduranceinfo etc, not just from one outlet.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Of course, but, the original news article that stated Audi would be 1.4 seconds down stated they were told this in a press conference. Unless every other press officer there has conveniently forgotten, why has no one else reported it?

The article uses terminology such as "we figured" and "is expected" [ie. We don't have a clue], then it goes on to say that at the same conference appendix B was re-explained [At the exact same event]. To me this sounds like the stuff mentioned appendix was actually explained, and the stuff before is just going what they personally think.

And it is a major thing for the sport [Of endurance racing], Audi being forced off the pace by the regulations and the ACO and FIA actually holding a press conference explicitly detailing this should, imo, be being reported across DSC, sportscar365, enduranceinfo etc, not just from one outlet.

I can tell you that the non-technical guys who attended the press conference last Friday are struggling to understand what the ACO-FIA tried to explain

Now, there is apparently a small "war of words" going on between the ACO-FIA and Audi. Interestingly, the presentation made by the ACO-FIA starts with a slide listing "erroneous" statements made in the media. Guess who is being targeted...

The ACO-FIA did not apparently explain what was the motivation to inflict a time handicap at LM in dependence of the ERS class. They state this as being a fact, but I still struggle to understand where this motivation comes from.

[Bandicoot17]

It doesn't take a genius to understand "Audi will be 1.4 seconds slower because our rules make it so" though does it??!!

In the rules the ERS incentive is provisioned for any mistakes made in the 2012 calculations that concern the weight of the car.

To my reading it suggests that they weren't sure whether teams would go for higher hybrids because of the weight disadvantage, this would therefore give teams a reason to opt for larger packages and not have to worry all that much about the weight if they ACO had got the original numbers wrong.

[chernaudi]

Of course, if Audi do have a grievance, and the ACO do have an agenda that they're trying to push, it does show that loyalty doesn't count for much today. Audi have supported the ACO's precious LMP1 class for years when others were unable or unwilling to. And we do have to believe that if Audi still weren't here, what would Porsche and Toyota be doing? Quite possibly, it wouldn't be LMP1 related aside from engine supply.

IMO, if the ACO have an axe to grind, they're kinda biting the hand the feeds them. They need factories for LMP1 to work per their own goal driven agendas, and PO'ing the one factory that's represented the ACO and LMP1 for the past 15 years on a more or less constant basis isn't the way to do it, especially if it's to try and favor or give a bump to the Johnny-Come-Latelys to the LMP1 class.

That being said, I have yet to see why either Audi or the ACO should have an axe to grind with each other on a major level yet. Audi missed out on Spa because they used the first half of the race as a test to make up for time lost due to the DNFs at Silverstone and not doing any testing aside from the LM aero kit at Monza.

The ACO IMO don't have an axe to grind with Audi on the diesel issue. The ACO opened the door there based on French national motorsport interest. Audi may've proposed the diesel and other alternative fuel interest, but I personally doubt that the ACO gave a damn about it until they tried to lure Peugeot or Renault back to LM. So the ACO got egg on their face when Audi were the first to win LM with both a diesel and a hybrid car, which Peugeot were supposed to have one until they bailed.

And if it does sound like I'm putting some of the fault on this on Peugeot, then, indeed, yes. Because Peugeot's pull-out couldn't have come at a worse time for the ACO and FIA, and having spent untold millions of dollars on the 908HY-4, it would've taken a small percentage to race the cars a couple of times at least before mothballing them. But I do feel that the ACO are butt-hurt over "their" favored son bailing on them, and now they have no incentive to support diesel engines anymore.

Of course, TMG is about the closest thing to a "French" team in the WEC (Cologne isn't that far from the French boarder, TMG has ties with Oreca, and their competition director Vasselon is the former competition director for Michelin), but even then, TMG is a German company owned by a Japanese company, hence, not very French.

The only axe Audi has to grind is the arbitrary way that it seems that the EOT has been applied, and its the same argument as any BOP. And we know how out of control BOP seems to be in the GT classes. I believe that it should be like pre-2006, where once the rules get published, they're largely set in stone for the season aside from a few minor changes.

In all fairness, though, Audi have performed well enough at Spa and especially Silverstone to suggest that they're not in bad shape for LM as of yet. We won't know until the LM test day before we really get a rough idea of where Audi, Porsche and Toyota will stand.

But it does seem that the ACO are trying to push an agenda, like with the diesel engine regs (getting Peugeot to LM), and maybe after putting up with it for years, maybe Audi have decided that the only way to get what they want as opposed to pushing the limits is to b**** and complain to get their way--it's certainly worked for AMR time and time again in GT1 and GTE, and it worked for Peugeot in 2009.

And unfortunately, the ACO have been leaning that way since 2007, and on an increasing basis year upon year.

[chernaudi]

And on a techical (non rules note), has there ever been an explanation for why the hybrid system seems to be much louder than last year?

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

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.

"It is not very clear why the ACO-FIA are not putting the two technologies exactly on a same level."

I think this responds to all. I can't understand ... ever ... why would ppl want that ??

Honestly is bizarre. For 1th thing you can't equalize to techs that are disparate at many levels by decree, science is not made by decree, and second its a most gross anti-sportive behavior.

I believe you should give every contender equal shots based on criteria that can be measured and is common to all technologies... like the energy of the fuels... based on science criteria, without exterior "factors"... leave the contest for the race track not the bureaucratic rule making office, that like in politics when some "lobbies" want to gain advantages they don't deserve, can only produce distortions the grossest one after the other.

And this is what ppl have been discussing about rules and about Audi woes... i think... its not technical and its not Audi alone, in a monoculture there will be also very different performances... and ppl who have tastes or team preferences, want a "political" decision for technical differences, want to win at all cost even if by decree... its very wrong.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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.

I can't believe what is written there... no no, its not personal... and a multitude of ppl know the rules much better than i... just can't rap the head around it, its beyond bizarre in motosports.

Makes the whole purpose of motorsports, why spend millions in R&D, denied "a priori"

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I can tell you that the non-technical guys who attended the press conference last Friday are struggling to understand what the ACO-FIA tried to explain

From where comes those MJ numbers in

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

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113377

?

Multiplying the MJ/Kg, by the flow in kg/hour, that are in the Appendixes doesn't give those numbers.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

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.

Let me clarify my opinion. It was theoritical in the words written in the original draft. Now those words dont exist but the 'theory' does? Not everyone can see it.

No one said Audi are stupid. Dont know why youre implying that or even asking it. What youre mentioning is calculations based on all their technology factors. All indications were Audi was going to do two ers systems until they decided to drop the ers-h. So last year they did 3.5mj, .5mj more would be 4mj class for Audi. Looked like they could have went that route. I find it convenient they decided so early on for 2mj but no word on it until early this year. Now the season starts and they complain of an incentive favoring the 6mj petrol cars. Well if they would have done what it looked like they were going to, there would be "equality" according to this theory.

So my thought is even if this exists, why are they acting as if they were clueless to it if the theory existed before? Did they say "forget the theoritical advantage for more hybrid"? So who is at fault? I have a hard time believing the intentions weren't made clear by either side of the rulemakers or the teams. Is there no communication between them? ACO says theres an incentive with gains to be had with more hybrid power but says it long after the fact? Even though they spoke of it originally? So they reverse their words then go back on that reversal. Thats what Im getting from this conversation.

[aneesh99]

I believe this was the last release from the endurance committee with regards to Appendix B. Where the hell is ERS incentive? Because I can't see it anywhere....

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

I believe this was the last release from the endurance committee with regards to Appendix B. Where the hell is ERS incentive? Because I can't see it anywhere....

The "ERS incentive" is being taken into consideration by the ACO-FIA in their calculations of the fuel energy allocations for each ERS class. According to the ACO-FIA's calculations, a 4 MJ petrol LMP1-H benefits of such a fuel energy allocation that it should in theory be faster than a 2 MJ petrol LMP1-H by 1 second at LM. By the same token, a 6 MJ petrol LMP1-H benefits of such a fuel energy allocation that it should in theory be faster by 2 second at LM compared to the 2 MJ petrol LMP1-H.

The same difference (gain of 0.5 second per additional MJ releasable by the ERS) has been defined between the various diesel ERS classes by tweaking the relevant fuel energy allocations, i.e. a 4 MJ diesel LMP1-H benefits of such a fuel energy allocation that it should in theory be faster than a 2 MJ diesel LMP1-H by 1 second at LM, etc.

The ACO-FIA claim that a "2 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 4 MJ gasoline" and that a "4 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 6 MJ gasoline" as a result of the "K Technology Factor" of 0.987 which is there to partly compensate the overweight of diesel engines. Using the 2 MJ petrol as reference, the ACO-FIA now claim that a 2 MJ diesel should be faster by 0.6 second at LM than a 2 MJ petrol, hence the 1.4 seconds "deficit" for Audi compared to Toyota and Porsche.

[NelisB]

Thinking about the way the turbo on the R18 is placed, would it benefit them to build a turbo in the same way the Mercedes F1 team are using their turbo? I mean putting apart the intake and exhaust housings and putting them on opposing ends of the engineblock was a great way to improve the efficiency of the turbo. So are we expecting Audi to go this way? Or even Porsche?

[chernaudi]

One thing that I've noticed on the R18 this year from the onboards is an indentation on the inner face of the front fenders under and behind one of the "gills" on the nose.

Would that be for wheel well or front diffuser air extraction, or both? This is a feature that seems to have appeared for this season on the sprint variant. I also assume that it has no bearing on steering lock, which is why Audi still have the wide front fenders. For reference, it's at about the same location as the "intake vent" on the inner face of the #3 Audi's front fender, and emerged from the last gill seen on the onboards of the #2 and #1 Audis.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by NelisB

Thinking about the way the turbo on the R18 is placed, would it benefit them to build a turbo in the same way the Mercedes F1 team are using their turbo? I mean putting apart the intake and exhaust housings and putting them on opposing ends of the engineblock was a great way to improve the efficiency of the turbo. So are we expecting Audi to go this way? Or even Porsche?

For Audi, the current turbo configuration is lighter than the mercedes configuration and potentially more reliable over 24 hours. Porsche could maybe afford something like this. Haven't Porsche said that they are doing a total redesign for next year?

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by Articus

For Audi, the current turbo configuration is lighter than the mercedes configuration and potentially more reliable over 24 hours. Porsche could maybe afford something like this. Haven't Porsche said that they are doing a total redesign for next year?

I don't believe they have said it, but it's been generally assumed.

[Articus]

That seems to be their thing. The RS Spyder gen I was not the prettiest looking, or most reliable ...But the RS Spyder EVO was phenemonal however.

[gwyllion]

In his Spa debrief Kristensen is fairly pessimistic about Audi's chances:

With the rain Friday morning, we were fast but when you considered the conditions, the Toyotas were really strong as well. There was no doubt that we had absolutely no chance in sectors 1 and 3 of the circuit.

We were there with a car with the Le Mans aero package (the sister No. 3 Audi) and they even had no chance in the straight as well, particularly to the Porsche, which is a rocket ship.

I would say that they’re in a different class. When they don’t have any reliability problems, they’d win easily. They definitely have put themselves in as favorites, even though Toyota has clearly won the first two races.

...

Going into Le Mans, it’s clear that we’re not favorites. You have to look at Porsche and Toyota. One had pole and the other won at Spa.

We have some testing planned but there’s a limit of how much you can do in such a short period of time. But there’s no doubt we will work incredibly hard. There’s a lot of intelligent and good people at Audi Sport.

However, finding a lot more power from the 2MJ hybrid system we have or the air that’s allowed in our engine, will be tough.

We cannot spell to give up at all and look forward to Le Mans, as always. We have been at Le Mans before as favorites or not, but we many times not had the fastest car.

source: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/k...n-spa-debrief/

[EverOne]

Audi has to call of the LM 2008 spirit. Not the fastest car but a remarkable win

[FxL]

TK seems to be quite convinced by the capabilities of the 919. But I'm afraid Le Mans comes just too early for them.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by EverOne

Audi has to call of the LM 2008 spirit. Not the fastest car but a remarkable win

LM 2008 spirit = rain
To win this year audi has to call of the LM 2010 spirit...

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

LM 2008 spirit = rain
To win this year audi has to call of the LM 2010 spirit...

4 seconds a lap slower and counting on all of the opposition to blow up?

Fair enough
3 Peugeots + 1 Oreca = 4 cars
2 Toyotas + 2 Porsches = 4 cars

But R15 was just worse than 908 by design, in 2014 we can blame both design and (IMO more) BoP-EoT-AoP

[carbon_titanium]

To me R15 wasn't so worse compared to 908HDi, at le mans peugeot simpy had too much power compared to audi. Sincerly I think that 2014 R18 has a huge aero efficency, surely better than TS040 and 919, the car lacks of power because of eot.