Audi LMP1 Discussion

[TF110]

They already did 3.5mj in 2013 @LM, why would 4mj be so hard? Imo, they got it wrong with the fuel allowance and underestimated the importance of electric power. Maybe they werent very close to 3.5mj in '13 anyway?

[GasperG]

For ERS-H to do additional 2 MJ per lap it must harvest constant 10 kW in 3:20, but it probably harvests only at full throttle, then we are looking at something like 20 kW.

Other solutions?
- TEG, is out of the question, too little power with lots of weight
- exhaust heat exchanger and secondary turbine, I don't see this lighter than 40 kg.

In the end efficiency always comes with additional weight, an electric generating turbine can be over 57% efficient, but power to weight ratio is probably catastrophic.

[GasperG]

The potential for exhaust heat recuperation IMHO is big, with a simple system in air conditioner size and weight a 10-20 kW unit is highly possible.

Some more articles on the subject:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012...-20121010.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...researchi.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011...-20110830.html

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

They already did 3.5mj in 2013 @LM, why would 4mj be so hard? Imo, they got it wrong with the fuel allowance and underestimated the importance of electric power. Maybe they werent very close to 3.5mj in '13 anyway?

I believe that this was already extensively discussed

At the time Audi made their decision to run in the 2 MJ ERS class, the fuel allocation figures were not final. On paper at least, the decision to run in the lowest ERS class made perfect sense. Audi ultimately ended up at a disadvantage following the pre-season EoT adjustments that were announced in late March 2014, i.e. much too late for Audi to be in a position to react in time for the 2014 season (NB: the car was already homologated at that stage...).

Audi will not make the same "error" again, i.e. underestimating the fact that the ACO-FIA could revise the EoT at a very late stage. In any event, the same situation should not happen again as the EoT is revised only once a year post-LM.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I was intrigued some time ago by the following statement from Dr. Ullrich as reported by DSC:

"At present there is no prospect of a change in the balance between the various solutions but there is always the possibility of a change when you homologate a new car."

source: http://www.dailysportscar.com/2014/1...-and-2015.html

It is being reported in the December 4th issue of the Autosport magazine that Audi's bound-to-fail attempt to seek revisions of the EoT over the Interlagos weekend was essentially based on the argument that the rules could allow changes because a rehomologation of a car in a higher MJ class of hybrid power - as planned by all three of the current P1 manufacturers - would constitute a change in technology.

As we know, Audi's case was - rather unsurprisingly - rebuffed. This being said, there is some merit in Dr. Ullrich's argument. The current EoT is based on data gathered from cars run by three competitors that have so far competed in only two out of the total of eight ERS classes. Next year, both Toyota and Porsche are likely going to run in the 8 MJ (petrol) class, while Audi are condemned to move to the 4 or 6 MJ (diesel) class. That indeed implies that we will be entering new territory as far as the EoT is concerned.

[knighty]

I'm sorry to go off-course a bit, on a potentially controversial subject, but this "stepping down" statement regarding the cheif engineer "H" chap......based on Audis overall performance this year, are the PR folks at Audi just being efficient with the actual truth?.......it sounds to me like he was pushed down, not stepped down, yes Audi got a LeMans win, but they must know it was a lucky one, perhaps H is totally innocent, but he's being used as the fall-guy for Audis general lack of performance this year???......whereby its easy to fire a contractor, with very little HR or legal blow-backs....... Toyota has comfortably had the performance edge over Audi all season, and the 2MJ flywheel KERS has A) zero relevance to what Audi sells to their customers, and B) not comparable in performance to the 6MJ systems used by Porsche & Audi.....or I missing something?.......

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by knighty

I'm sorry to go off-course a bit, on a potentially controversial subject, but this "stepping down" statement regarding the cheif engineer "H" chap......based on Audis overall performance this year, are the PR folks at Audi just being efficient with the actual truth?.......it sounds to me like he was pushed down, not stepped down, yes Audi got a LeMans win, but they must know it was a lucky one, perhaps H is totally innocent, but he's being used as the fall-guy for Audis general lack of performance this year???......whereby its easy to fire a contractor, with very little HR or legal blow-backs....... Toyota has comfortably had the performance edge over Audi all season, and the 2MJ flywheel KERS has A) zero relevance to what Audi sells to their customers, and B) not comparable in performance to the 6MJ systems used by Porsche & Audi.....or I missing something?.......

Considering that "H", who is being (or rather was) contracted to Audi Sport / Audi Sport Team Joest through his Progessive Motorsport entity, most likely did not participate in the decision-making process leading to the development of the 2014 R18 (RP4) - he is a lead race engineer after all, not somebody involved in the design or development of the cars - I see no reason why Audi would have opted to "push" him down as a result of this year's race results. BTW, he was pretty open during his interview with RLM and I did not have the impression that he was in any way "forced" by Audi to leave the team.

It could be that there is currently a driving force at Audi seeking for changes and an evolution for a more integrated structure, thereby making Audi Sport less dependent on partners like Progressive Motorsport, but I do believe that "H" stepping down is not performance-related.

Besides, Audi's apparent lack of performance is in great part the result of the current EoT, not so much the expression of any inherent technical flaw in the car design or an inability to successfully run the cars on the race tracks.

[knighty]

ok, thats a very good conclusion of the situation regarding H........ but I disagree with your last statement, which does appear to be a rather sweeping one.......it must be a bitter pill for Audi to swallow that their V6 diesel engine choice was the wrong choice, the facts are it is too heavy and this has impacted the size and weight of the KERS option they can use, if they had a heavy engine at the start of the 2014 season they would have known about it in 2013 during the design phase, so could have lobbied the ACO/FIA much earlier in a pro-active manner, like before the 2014 season started.....but no, in late 2014, at the seasons last race, Audi have decided its the ACO/FIA's fault, whereby the rules do not favor them.........sorry, but for me thats laughable........its very easy to blame the rules, but the facts are both Toyota and Porsche took a complete systems and holistic clean-sheet approach and produced two very competitive designs, coincidentally both 6MJ.

[GasperG]

As a Toyota fan I must admit that regardless of classes and Eot, Audi is competing with 138.3 MJ/lap fuel where Toyota/Porsche are competing with 139.5 MJ/lap. This little difference of 0.8% is bothering me and equal energy would mean a greater competitiveness of Audi. Nevertheless fuel energy is the only outside energy put in those cars and this number gives us the overall car efficiency.

I'm afraid that next year petrol will become even more dominant. 8MJ petrol class has 138 MJ fuel allowance, if I look at the diesel tables allowed fuel per lap just drops way too much (134.8 MJ and 131.3 MJ) to be competitive.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by knighty

ok, thats a very good conclusion of the situation regarding H........ but I disagree with your last statement, which does appear to be a rather sweeping one.......it must be a bitter pill for Audi to swallow that their V6 diesel engine choice was the wrong choice, the facts are it is too heavy and this has impacted the size and weight of the KERS option they can use, if they had a heavy engine at the start of the 2014 season they would have known about it in 2013 during the design phase, so could have lobbied the ACO/FIA much earlier in a pro-active manner, like before the 2014 season started.....but no, in late 2014, at the seasons last race, Audi have decided its the ACO/FIA's fault, whereby the rules do not favor them.........sorry, but for me thats laughable........its very easy to blame the rules, but the facts are both Toyota and Porsche took a complete systems and holistic clean-sheet approach and produced two very competitive designs, coincidentally both 6MJ.

Audi did lobby the ACO-FIA - as did Toyota and Porsche - but they have evidently been less successful than the competition.

And as a matter of fact, Audi did express very strong disagreement with the pre-season EoT adjustments that were adopted by the ACO-FIA in late March 2014, before the season started.

Yes, Audi have failed, but not in respect of the design or technical choices they made. They have failed in respect of the lobbying with the ACO-FIA. They most likely also suffered from the belief or fact (depends on the point of view I guess... ) that diesel technology had been "favoured" under the former rules. They failed because they did not anticipate or take preemptive steps to mitigate the negative effects of the pre-season EoT adjustments of March 2014. I guess a crystal ball may help...

I don't know if the latest attempts by Audi to seek revision of the EoT are laughable as such, but they are definitely bound to fail in view of the current EoT rules.

[Bandicoot17]

Ok but Audi still showed good pace at some of the rounds this season, they're only lacking in the brute power department (as shown when Toyota or Porsche overtake them).

If the flywheel isn't up to the task of 4/6MJ then there's no point sticking with it.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Ok but Audi still showed good pace at some of the rounds this season, they're only lacking in the brute power department (as shown when Toyota or Porsche overtake them).

So they're only lacking in the most important part of a racecar (that doesn't touch the ground)! Give me a car that's quick down the straights any day of the week...

Originally Posted by GasperG

I'm afraid that next year petrol will become even more dominant. 8MJ petrol class has 138 MJ fuel allowance, if I look at the diesel tables allowed fuel per lap just drops way too much (134.8 MJ and 131.3 MJ) to be competitive.

This does seem like a large oversight. So the gap between 4 or 6MJ diesel and 8MJ petrol would be larger than it is between 2MJ diesel and 6MJ petrol? Although I think Audi have been at the very least politically naive, that hardly seems fair to me. Mind, Audi have had the benefit of favourable regulations in the past.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by J Jay

So they're only lacking in the most important part of a racecar (that doesn't touch the ground)! Give me a car that's quick down the straights any day of the week...

Yes, they lack the brute force and that's why they need to move up a category or two, no matter how it affects the other aspects of the car.

I think we could probably say that Porsche haven't been all there in terms of aero and chassis but they've still regularly outpaced Audi, despite being slower in the twisty bits.

If Audi need to run slightly over the min weight in order to accommodate a larger hybrid then so be it (based on what we've seen this season)

Porsche and Toyota are only going to get faster so Audi really need to take a risk and step up their game.

[Mal]

The rumours just wont go away ,..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30336569

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by J Jay

does seem like a large oversight. So the gap between 4 or 6MJ diesel and 8MJ petrol would be larger than it is between 2MJ diesel and 6MJ petrol? Although I think Audi have been at the very least politically naive, that hardly seems fair to me. Mind, Audi have had the benefit of favourable regulations in the past.

GasperG is correct.

According to the post-LM EoT revisions, the 8 MJ (petrol) gets a fuel allowance of 138 MJ/lap, compared to 139.5 MJ/lap for the 6 MJ (petrol). That is a relatively small fuel allocation reduction (-1.5 MJ/lap) for an additional hybrid boost of 2 MJ/lap. As a matter of fact, the relevant reduction in fuel allocation is comparatively smaller than the relevant fuel allocation reductions for the lower ERS classes:
2 to 4 MJ (petrol): 143.3 - 147.0 = -3.7 MJ/lap
4 to 6 MJ (petrol): 139.5 - 143.3 = -3.8 MJ/lap

This is evidence that the ERS incentive does not apply uniformily over the whole ERS range (as far as petrol is concerned) and that the 8 MJ (petrol) is to be favored over all other ERS options in terms of overall energy allocation (fuel + hybrid). This assumes that an 8 MJ ERSA can be integrated without impacting the minimum weight of the car.

Interestingly, when it comes to diesel, the situation looks very much different (and this is the annoying part...). The relevant fuel allocation reductions for each step along the ERS ladder are as follows:
2 to 4 MJ (diesel): 134.8 - 138.3 = -3.5 MJ/lap
4 to 6 MJ (diesel): 131.3 - 134.8 = -3.5 MJ/lap
6 to 8 MJ (diesel): 128.1 - 131.3 = -3.2 MJ/lap

In this case, the ERS incentive applies more uniformly over the whole ERS range.

In that respect, Audi are facing a really difficult situation as the performance deficit compared to the competition may be even more important next year than it was this year.

That somewhat explains why Audi are "desperately" seeking some EoT revisions before next year. Unless Audi can dramatically improve the efficiency of their V6 TDI, I hardly see how they can catch up next year.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

If Audi need to run slightly over the min weight in order to accommodate a larger hybrid then so be it (based on what we've seen this season)

Yes, the recent habit of lightweight über alles will have to go to get the hybrid boost necessary to keep up with the others. It wasn't that long ago that the R10 was rather portly, but it had more than enough grunt to compensate until Peugeot came along.

Actually, an editor article of a recent RCE (last months?) had Andrew Cotton talking to the manufacturers and they all essentially wanted the weight limit lifted for the same reason, just spun/justified three different ways. Despite the discrepancy in going from 6MJ to 8MJ petrol, neither Porsche nor Toyota went for it because they didn't think it was worth the inreased weight.

[cokata]

Audi should not have any problems generating 4mj just with one ERS system. They effectively had a 3,5 MJ system from Le Mans in '12 and '13 . Yest the car was heavier and didn't lift and coast (more kinetic energy) , but it can only harvest energy in only 7 specified zones.

The problem is weight. They already to do some extreme lightening of the car to get the E-Tron within the weight limit. Also the increased the size of the engine and AFAIK they run more boost this year meaning that the engine is surly heavier than before. Early on they decided to have the most efficient engine possible even even if they have to sacrifice the power of hybrid system.

[Gingers4Justice]

VAG currently has three main motorsport programmes - with Audi and Porsche in the World Endurance Championship, Audi in the German Touring Car Championship (DTM) and Volkswagen in the World Rally Championship.

Benson means 4 main motor sport programmes. The Audi and Porsche projects are very, very seperate.

Apparently Domenicali is conducting this review for VAG, despite his position at Audi in which its been made very clear he had nothing to do with motorsport.

Hard to take these articles seriously.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Hard to take these articles seriously.

Indeed.

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Apparently Domenicali is conducting this review for VAG, despite his position at Audi in which its been made very clear he had nothing to do with motorsport.

Agreed, hard to take the articles seriously. But also hard to believe that Domenicali will not be working on motorsport-related projects in the next 12 months.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I believe that this was already extensively discussed

At the time Audi made their decision to run in the 2 MJ ERS class, the fuel allocation figures were not final. On paper at least, the decision to run in the lowest ERS class made perfect sense. Audi ultimately ended up at a disadvantage following the pre-season EoT adjustments that were announced in late March 2014, i.e. much too late for Audi to be in a position to react in time for the 2014 season (NB: the car was already homologated at that stage...).

Audi will not make the same "error" again, i.e. underestimating the fact that the ACO-FIA could revise the EoT at a very late stage. In any event, the same situation should not happen again as the EoT is revised only once a year post-LM.

Yes, I know, its been discussed to death . There was 'always' an incentive to run more hybrid power. No, it wasn't listed as faster lap times, or greater total energy allowance, but there was an incentive. To think they didnt know that is imo preposterous. Heres the facts, the rules in 2013 allowed 3.5mj per lap total at LM. They decided to go backwards and do 2mj per lap total at LM. Why would they do that? I do not buy the story of 'we were mislead'.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Heres the facts, the rules in 2013 allowed 3.5mj per lap total at LM. They decided to go backwards and do 2mj per lap total at LM. Why would they do that? I do not buy the story of 'we were mislead'.

Another fact: minimum weight went down from 925 kg to 870 kg between 2013 and 2014. That 55 kg had to come from somewhere

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Another fact: minimum weight went down from 925 kg to 870 kg between 2013 and 2014. That 55 kg had to come from somewhere

How much ballast do Audi run though?? I doubt they're right on the limit of what's possible.

[gwyllion]

Obviously they need some ballast at the front to compensate for the heavy Diesel engine in the back.

Judging from the tub replacements in Bahrain they already went a bit too extreme with the weight saving.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Heres the facts, the rules in 2013 allowed 3.5mj per lap total at LM. They decided to go backwards and do 2mj per lap total at LM. Why would they do that? I do not buy the story of 'we were mislead'.

Very good question.

Maybe because there was no "need", prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, to run in any particular ERS category.

Maybe because running in the 2 MJ class, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, was a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Maybe because running in the 2 MJ class, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, provided basically the same level of overall energy allocation as the higher ERS classes.

To think that Audi already knew, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, that they would end up at a disadvantage by opting to run in the 2 MJ class is preposterous IMHO.

Why would Audi intentionally give away the equivalent of 1.4 sec/lap of theoretical performance at LM compared to the petrol guys running in the 6 MJ ERS class ? I don't buy the theory that they would intentionally sacrifice performance under the new-for-2014 fuel-flow-based rules.

How on earth could they have anticipated the EoT revisions that the ACO-FIA decided in March 2014 when key decisions regarding the new car and hybrid architecture had to be (and were) taken months before ?

Have they been "misled" ? I don't think so either, but they possibly:
(i) have been too naive;
(ii) lacked the lobbying talent that the competition had;
(iii) did not see the 0.5sec/lap-per-MJ-hybrid ERS incentive coming in late December 2013;
(iv) have been focussing too much on the petrol-vs-diesel equivalence, while a critical element in the whole LMP1-H performance equation ultimately happened to be hybrid energy allocation; and/or
(v) suffered from the belief that diesel technology had been favored under the pre-2014 LMP rules.