Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Deleted]

I'm not going doom and gloom because of Audi's actual performances. In fact even if Audi had been five seconds off the pace at Spa that wouldn't have been the main issue. I'm going doom and gloom because the ACO have silently re-modified the initially announced regulations to favour bigger ERS options and then gone on record to confirm this (lap time difference).

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

In LDF trim I honestly expect an Audi running at 100% with full season drivers would have been right at the front. I don't see where Audi are going to magically lose lots of lap time when they are demonstrating that they can run a very strong pace in HDF at a LDF track. Unless of course Audi's LDF is actually crap. (In which case blaming the regs isn't on)

If Spa is such a low drag track, why was the race won by a high downforce car in the past seasons?

Anyway Audi will never be able to match the low drag aero of its competitors because the Diesel engine is much bulkier and because it require more cooling (bigger radiators and intercooler).

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

If Spa is such a low drag track, why was the race won by a high downforce car in the past seasons?

In seasons past Audi was hitting 300+ in HDF configuration letting them set S1 times just 4 tenths slower than LDF but maintaining a large advantage in S2. You can also look at the fact that Audi's 3rd car (LM spec) is usually ran on an alternate strategy. (Although last years pit time doesn't really show anything in the way of that for the #3)

With these new cars Audi's HDF is slower (perhaps because they've gone for super DF) and the rival LDF cars are faster. They should have been able to see at the prologue that they were going to struggle to overtake and even be competitive with a car that is 30kph down.

I can see why people are pessimistic because to all intents it does appear to be have written into the rules, however the on track performance doesn't appear to be showing this and Audi has left the most off the track, running HDF so no tru comparisons can be made with the 040 or 919.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I can see why people are pessimistic because to all intents it does appear to be have written into the rules, however the on track performance doesn't appear to be showing this and Audi has left the most off the track, running HDF so no tru comparisons can be made with the 040 or 919.

I would love to share your optimism, but the more I look into this, the more it seems that Audi barely have any chance to be competitive on pure performance. I would be delighted to be wrong and be in a position to see a great three-way battle at LM between all three manufacturers.

[Dimension]

I refuse to count audi out until their an LM Spec car of theirs with a grade 1 driver line-up and on a serious non-experimental pit-stop strategy is consistently outperformed by Audi and Porsche.

I'd be more smug about my opinion if we had one more race before Le Mans, but as it stands, we'll have to wait and see.

Audi has an experience advantage over everyone else. Sure, it doesn't guarantee genius strategy calls as silverstone proved (where they were imo on par if not slightly superior to toyota), but everyone makes mistakes, and so will their competitors.

The capabilities of the ERS might be limited, but they still have the engine with the most room for improvement and I'm betting my pants that we have never ever seen the true potential of the audi diesel engines in the last 5 years except for very short periods of time.

I'm sick and tired of Audi winning so it surprises me that it is me of all people who still has confidence in the skill and technology that has led them to perform so well in the past, including their huge intial speed in silverstone.

[Spyderman]

You are not the only one refusing to count them out.
We have now been reading pages and pages of very impressive calculations trying to justify why Audi fans think that the Audi's are being unfairly picked on. Doing calculations to try and confirm a bias, is not science. It is called confirmation bias.
I wonder if we would be having this discussion had Audi not been caught on dry tires in the wet at Silverstone and had managed to win the race (as was quite likely). I suspect we would (because Audi fans expect the diesels to be crushing everyone before Le Mans) but it would perhaps be a little less strident.
I can still remember the "calculations" that were made indicating that some of the cars this year would barely be hitting 300Km/h.
Audi will be very, very strong at Le Mans. I don't know if they will be the quickest, but they are still the favorite to win.
Will it be as easy as in the past? No.
Should it? No.

[Spyderman]

Also - Interesting interview with Ralph Juettner:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/

[gwyllion]

Juttner provides an explanation for the aero configuration of their cars at Spa.

Initially last year our plan was to come with a downforce level that suits the track which we believe is based on our high downforce car but maybe not to the maximum, we planned to put all three cars in that trim but then a further idea came up, similar to what Toyota are saying this year, to get experience with the car in Le Mans aero condition. But only on one of the cars. It really isn’t a track that is that clear an advantage with a high downforce kit, it’s the closest to Le Mans of all the tracks we race at.

It worked well for us, we learned a lot and we still had the other two cars in what we thought would be the more optimum shape and because we had success with it thought we’d repeat it this year.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

We have now been reading pages and pages of very impressive calculations trying to justify why Audi fans think that the Audi's are being unfairly picked on. Doing calculations to try and confirm a bias, is not science. It is called confirmation bias.

We already know there is a bias coming from the ACO itself (confirming the larger ERS means directly better lap time), you have seen their own calculations yes?

I couldn't care less for Audi as a brand and yet I'm still outraged by ACO's actions. I would do the same whatever manufacturer was in question. The regulations are in conflict with the message

By the way, even if it was true that Audi (and Peugeot) had favourable diesels back in the day doesn't "justify it" - we're not here to say "well you had advantage back then so now's your turn to be on the other side of the stick". I thought we were here to have proper regulations for now and future from the start, not avenge for past "unfair advantages". Same for Audi's LM success in general

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

You are not the only one refusing to count them out.
We have now been reading pages and pages of very impressive calculations trying to justify why Audi fans think that the Audi's are being unfairly picked on. Doing calculations to try and confirm a bias, is not science. It is called confirmation bias.
I wonder if we would be having this discussion had Audi not been caught on dry tires in the wet at Silverstone and had managed to win the race (as was quite likely). I suspect we would (because Audi fans expect the diesels to be crushing everyone before Le Mans) but it would perhaps be a little less strident.
I can still remember the "calculations" that were made indicating that some of the cars this year would barely be hitting 300Km/h.
Audi will be very, very strong at Le Mans. I don't know if they will be the quickest, but they are still the favorite to win.
Will it be as easy as in the past? No.
Should it? No.

Then I guess this confirms I am biased

Originally Posted by Chiana

We already know there is a bias coming from the ACO itself (confirming the larger ERS means directly better lap time), you have seen their own calculations yes?

I couldn't care less for Audi as a brand and yet I'm still outraged by ACO's actions. I would do the same whatever manufacturer was in question. The regulations are in conflict with the message

That's the point. The bias does not come from the calculations, but from the ACO-FIA's own stance in favour of "big" hybrids, i.e. the "ERS incentive" as such. Call it "bias" or "incentive", it has the same unfortunate effect.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Chiana

We already know there is a bias coming from the ACO itself (confirming the larger ERS means directly better lap time), you have seen their own calculations yes?

I couldn't care less for Audi as a brand and yet I'm still outraged by ACO's actions. I would do the same whatever manufacturer was in question. The regulations are in conflict with the message

By the way, even if it was true that Audi (and Peugeot) had favourable diesels back in the day doesn't "justify it" - we're not here to say "well you had advantage back then so now's your turn to be on the other side of the stick". I thought we were here to have proper regulations for now and future from the start, not avenge for past "unfair advantages". Same for Audi's LM success in general

...But were you so outraged when diesels had a huge advantage? If not, why now?
Some of us have for years been skeptical about how the ACO makes the rules.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

...But were you so outraged when diesels had a huge advantage? If not, why now?
Some of us have for years been skeptical about how the ACO makes the rules.

I have been more skeptical of the GT side of things.

For your question... I cannot really answer because I honestly don't know if there was huge advantage? Before 2012 - which is the time period in question right - there had only been the low budget Lolas of Aston Martin to go against the diesels as a factory, all the other petrol competitors didn't even have fraction of a budget of the works teams. It's impossible to make comparisons between such different approaches. I mean sure ACO could've BoPped the privateers to heaven but I don't really think that is the right way to go either.

Personally I would've got rid of diesel a long time ago as it creates unnecessary complication to the mix.

But THIS issue goes fundamentally against the word of the rulebook. Diesel-petrol dilemma (which is still alive) was and is never ever going to be perfect because total equality is impossible between two totally different ideologies, however this ERS and EoT debacle could've been avoided

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Juttner provides an explanation for the aero configuration of their cars at Spa.

The language used in the last line suggests to me that they now realise they made an error running HFD

[chernaudi]

Last year the gap between LD and HD was only 6-10km/h, instead of the 20-30km/h it was last year. Problem with high downforce is that it made Audi quick in the place where it's usually hardest to pass--in corners and under braking.

Also, the 2014 R18's HD kit is more biased towards downforce and cornering than the 2013 car even was.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Last year the gap between LD and HD was only 6-10km/h, instead of the 20-30km/h it was last year. Problem with high downforce is that it made Audi quick in the place where it's usually hardest to pass--in corners and under braking.

Also, the 2014 R18's HD kit is more biased towards downforce and cornering than the 2013 car even was.

Well at Le Mans, overtaking our main competitors isn't that important.
Pace is the most important, as overtaking is something mostly done by strategy (pitstops), and if Audi can keep run a better pace than the competitors with high downforce rather than low downforce, Audi will come out on top.

However, as we saw with Peugeot. It was never Audi's pace that gave them the victories, it was their stability in running the pace they had.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sorry, but that is your personal opinion!

Thats exactly what I said. Imo= in my opinion. Exactly what I think.

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The goal of the rules was to improve fuel efficiency. Hybrid systems are only one means towards that goal.

There are many other means: lower drag (narrower width), lower weight, lower roll resistance (e.g., narrower tyres), more efficient combustion engine (e.g., Diesel engine, downsized turbocharged petrol engine, ...). All these tricks are being used by car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emission without the need for a hybrid system.

There was an incentive. Theres no denying that. But for fuel or stint length or speed is not the point. I dont understand why why you are trying to turn my words into something theyre not. I never said the original incentive was to make hybrid-power-increase equal lap-time-decrease. I only said there was an incentive in the rules originally. Audi made their mind up even though there was this clause originally? Like I posted in the lmp regs thread, they were fastest in Silverstone, and did one less lap in Spa. Thats no reason to believe they stand no chance.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

The language used in the last line suggests to me that they now realise they made an error running HFD

You seem to have missed that the interview was apparently done before the race

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You seem to have missed that the interview was apparently done before the race

Could they not have realised after the Friday sessions then? (When I now assume the interview was done).

Either way it was a mistake so...

[gwyllion]

The high downforce cars were faster than the #3 car in Le Mans aero

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The high downforce cars were faster than the #3 car in Le Mans aero

So are the high downforce cars' drivers! The car first ran at Monza maybe 2 weeks before Spa? Dont you think its possible with a little more running and tweaking with the 'regular' drivers it could be faster? No one seems to mention this. Surely Lotterer, Kristensen and Duval > Bonanomi and #3 co.

[CyberMotor]

So many variables.

This is very interesting.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I have been more skeptical of the GT side of things.

It's been bad in the LMP classes for a long time. Ever since the days for the RS Spyder. Instead of allowing for good racing to take place, the ACO intervened and tried hard to "guaranteed outcomes".Yes, I know the argument made at the time by the Audi fans, but the truth was that there were no alternatives to the giant diesel that was steamrolling its way to victory in every race. No alternatives except for the LMP2 RS Spyder. The ACO should have encouraged competition. Instead they did everything they could to stifle it.

Originally Posted by Chiana

For your question... I cannot really answer because I honestly don't know if there was huge advantage?

Henri Pescorolo could most likely clear up some of your doubts.

Originally Posted by Chiana

Before 2012 - which is the time period in question right - there had only been the low budget Lolas of Aston Martin to go against the diesels as a factory, all the other petrol competitors didn't even have fraction of a budget of the works teams. It's impossible to make comparisons between such different approaches. I mean sure ACO could've BoPped the privateers to heaven but I don't really think that is the right way to go either.

There were no other factory teams because the rules were so lopsided in favor of the diesels that no manufacturer was interested in wasting money developing and entering a LMP1 unless they had commercial interests in promoting diesel engines. The manufacturers have the real figures. they did their math and came to the right conclusion. They are no stupid.

Originally Posted by Chiana

Personally I would've got rid of diesel a long time ago as it creates unnecessary complication to the mix.

I am not that radical. I have nothing against diesels as such. I do however take exception to a set of rules that made out the diesels to be what they are not.
All that was needed was a set of rules that forced the diesels engines to be the same size as the petrol engines. Turbo charging should have also been allowed (at a competitive level) in gasoline engines. This would have allowed the diesels to be what they really are: Very frugal and with lots of torque. Instead we had a set of rules that made diesels look like the "second coming" and we all had to sit back and watch them annihilate anything that came within a hair's breath of them.

Originally Posted by Chiana

But THIS issue goes fundamentally against the word of the rulebook. Diesel-petrol dilemma (which is still alive) was and is never ever going to be perfect because total equality is impossible between two totally different ideologies, however this ERS and EoT debacle could've been avoided

Indeed... but then so many other debacles could have been avoided.

Anyway, As I have said before: Audi will be very strong and they are still the favorites to win at Le Mans.

[TF110]

No one entered with a petrol factory car against the diesels until hybrid power was allowed. Then the biggest (also hybrid) manufacturer in the world jumped in. Now Porsche is back. Nissan looks to return. You even hear about Ferrari returning. This means the rules look more equal to manufacturers who don't want or care for diesel. Its still not perfect, but at least interest is growing. Audi wont leave. Theyve been beaten before, it will happen again. Lets enjoy this while we can.

[Dimension]

I'm not contesting that there is an ACO bias towards bigger Hybrids. I read about it last year in Sport Auto.

IMO the only real discussion to be had there is that if its Audis fault they did not switch to a more suited ERS class despite knowing this about a year beforehand, or its the ACO's fault for not clarifying that there is a bias until said year ago, at which point Audi were unable or unwilling to switch.

Seeing as how Audi themselves are talking about it, they went with a concept that was inflexible to last-minute class changes and decided to do so very early on. They took a risk imo.

Audi starting as early as 2012 to design the car doesn't seem unreasonable to me, they have many people employed and I bet they were using that to get a leg up on toyota. Toyota underestimated Audi in 2013 naturally, because they didn't expect Audi being able to split their development crew so that they could outcompete Toyota for most of 2013 all the while putting a lot of time into development of the 2014 car.

One problem is that Audi apparently went into a dead end with the HERS. Who knows how much time and manpower they put into it before deciding to axe it.

And the other Problem of course is that they had most of the car done by the time the ACO, within a reasonable timeframe imo, clarified the ERS incentive. At that point they apparently thought they were still competitive enough not to warrant changing the class (which apparently would've meant changing the car).

Here's the crux, the numbers concerning laptime differences that are now touted as being unheard of were already known back in summer or spring 2013 to the well-educated press, and no doubt to Audi as well. Clearly, they thought they had the performance and strategic advantage to offset the ERS incentive, because otherwise they'd have decided to switch cars, which would've meant maybe losing 1-4 months compared to toyota, and still having a few months advantage of Porsche. Of course there's a risk here, that Toyota might be able to outdevelop Audi until Le-Mans.

So they looked at the risk of building/heavily modifying their 2014 car according to the new rules within the given timeframe and weighed it against the risk of not being able to develop their original 2014 car to the point where it is competitive despite the incentive and they decided for the latter.

And like I said before, all things considering, there's not much to suggest Audi isn't competitive at Le-Mans, ERS incentive be damned.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Dimension

Here's the crux, the numbers concerning laptime differences that are now touted as being unheard of were already known back in summer or spring 2013 to the well-educated press, and no doubt to Audi as well. Clearly, they thought they had the performance and strategic advantage to offset the ERS incentive, because otherwise they'd have decided to switch cars, which would've meant maybe losing 1-4 months compared to toyota, and still having a few months advantage of Porsche. Of course there's a risk here, that Toyota might be able to outdevelop Audi until Le-Mans.

Was this indeed so, because I have not seen anything as far as I can tell myself ? I may have missed something though.

Some call this "confirmation bias" (), but the latest revisions to Appendix B that were discussed prior to the Prologue at the end of March and subsequently published on April 2014 by way of decision 14-D0010-LMP1-EoT look to me as reflecting for the first time the concrete impact of the "ERS incentive". As I have pointed out in my previous post in the LMP regulations thread, the gap in fuel allocation between e.g. the 2 MJ petrol and 6 MJ petrol ERS options has consistently been of about 9.0-9.1 MJ/lap until the last revisions announced back in April 2014 where that gap was reduced to 7.5 MJ/lap. That 1.5-1.6 MJ/lap difference to the benefit of the 6 MJ petrol ERS option seems to be the reflection of the "ERS incentive" and to be consistent with the clarifications provided by the ACO-FIA on May 2nd regarding the expected difference in performance between these two options.

If the ERS incentive was duly reflected in Appendix B prior to April 2014, then what is the reason for the late adjustments in Appendix B ?

I am just trying to find some sensible explanation to these late adjustments in Appendix B.