Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by ederss7

So is it that much complex having 2 ERS-K (if possible) like Toyota does? I've always thought Toyota's approach of having another ERS-K would be the best option because you'd be working with something you already know how it works.

There are at least two issues IMO:

One is weight. The diesel engine is already overweight and adding a second ERS-K at the rear is not going to help the weight distrubtion.

Second is and remains energy storage capacity (and this is of more general concern). Can the flywheel system be beefed up to store up to 6 MJ of energy per lap at LM ? This is doubtful. Some other solution may have to be contemplated.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

There are at least two issues IMO:

One is weight. The diesel engine is already overweight and adding a second ERS-K at the rear is not going to help the weight distrubtion.

Second is and remains energy storage capacity (and this is of more general concern). Can the flywheel system be beefed up to store up to 6 MJ of energy per lap at LM ? This is doubtful. Some other solution may have to be contemplated.

2 MGU-Ks is the better option i think. The e-turbo will also need a motor and if they do it the porsche way a second turbine and longer piping. Also having a rear MGU-K will allow for smaller brakes and smaller brake ducts.

[chernaudi]

Either solution is bound to add at least some weight. Even using the older flywheel (capable of at least 4MJ without major changes) will add weight. Only difference is that it's weight added to the front.

One of the worries actually seemed to be adding too much weight to the front and making the car nose heavy with the larger flywheel. However, if they add an equal amount of weight to the rear, things should balance out.

Also, the brake ducts on the '14 R18 are a lot smaller (I'd say about 50% less open area) than the older cars', and running smaller rear rotors won't save much weight with the carbon/carbon ceramic rotors they run now compared to steel for example.

But for sure, to get 6MJ, Audi will need either a large flywheel, or a 3.5-4MJ sized flywheel and probably some ERS-H/turbo compound system run off exhaust gasses.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Who better than Mr. Le Mans to talk about the qualities of the 2014 Audi R18 (RP4):

“That said there is no doubt in my mind that this car, in 2014, is the best car I’ve ever driven. The performance, The efficiency, and the handling are absolutely amazing. And to think we can do this using 30% less fuel is quite astonishing.”

(source: DSC)

[Deleted]

Then again every team and their associated driver calls the latest product in the catalogy the greatest ever and ultimate improvement over the latest iteration. But maybe Tom is sincere...

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Then again every team and their associated driver calls the latest product in the catalogy the greatest ever and ultimate improvement over the latest iteration. But maybe Tom is sincere...

Doing Le Mans laptimes at the same speed as last year with 30% less energy available has to be a mark of greatness compared to older cars, don't you think?

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Doing Le Mans laptimes at the same speed as last year with 30% less energy available has to be a mark of greatness compared to older cars, don't you think?

money saved for fuel, are spent to R&D and usage of expensive hybrid systems. At the end 2014 LMP1-H consume less but are overall more expensive to run.

[Deleted]

And the new cars are also lighter, have no air restrictors, have bigger turbo pressure and cubic capacity (on Audi), have more hybrid power and changed aero measures. So the comparisons with decreased energy, even if impressive in itself, are not totally fair. Also the matters of costs as carbon said

If Tom had said R8 or R10 or whatever it would've meant negatitive publicity for the current engineering

[carbon_titanium]

My opinion is that lmp1 from '00 up to 2010-2011 had a real poor aero development, basicly the performance was made by the mere power output. Things changed during 2011, when aero development became the most important factor and today as important as the engine/hybrid development!
Because of that I blindly believe to kristensen statement! to drive an audi R10 was a nightmare compared to 2014 R18 handling

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

My opinion is that lmp1 from '00 up to 2010-2011 had a real poor aero development, basicly the performance was made by the mere power output. Things changed during 2011, when aero development became the most important factor and today as important as the engine/hybrid development!
Because of that I blindly believe to kristensen statement! to drive an audi R10 was a nightmare compared to 2014 R18 handling

Nevermind the R10, what about the ever-present aero troubles Audi had with the R15 - the R15+ alleviated most of them but from what I've seen it was still not the easiest Audi to drive!

Certainly when Peugeot rocked up and were immediately faster (more powerful) than Audi the "Diesel War" properly kicked off. Like you said with the limits imposed on diesels from '11 onwards they had to make up for the relative lack of horsepower. Must have been hard to get by with only ~600hp...

[joeb]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

My opinion is that lmp1 from '00 up to 2010-2011 had a real poor aero development, basicly the performance was made by the mere power output. Things changed during 2011, when aero development became the most important factor and today as important as the engine/hybrid development!
Because of that I blindly believe to kristensen statement! to drive an audi R10 was a nightmare compared to 2014 R18 handling

I would disagree, and say the both versions of the R15 tried some advanced aero that was different from anything else out there. Which showed the importance of aero to the Audi designers.

[carbon_titanium]

To me the 2013 R18 e-tron has been the best audi lmp1 ever produced so far!
a car able to generate a lot of power (not less than 600hp, over 330km/h at le mans with the 200cm full width rear wing) and tons of downforce!
ridiculous consumes (40 minutes the average stint) but a real beast.

[TF110]

10 (9) days until Audi announce their 2015 plans- http://twitter.com/Audi__Sport/statu...97875470606337. I wonder if we'll get Kristensen's replacement?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Their car was too draggy/high downforce. The LM spec car was good because it was lower drag. In every other race they lagged behind except Silverstone and Brazil.

I believe that it is serious misconception that the lack of top speed is the result of excessive downforce/drag. Toyota and Porsche reaches the higher top speed because their superior hybrid acceleration.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I believe that it is serious misconception that the lack of top speed is the result of excessive downforce/drag. Toyota and Porsche reaches the higher top speed because their superior hybrid acceleration.

Their acceleration does not make for a higher top speed. If it were the case Audi would have been even slower at Le Mans where the hybrid power of Porsche and Toyota were at full tilt. They even coast at the end of the straights. Why is it Audi are always fastest or near it in the twisty sections? High downforce/drag.

[chernaudi]

I'd say that both guesses aren't really or fully correct. Biggest issue I see is that Audi don't have the top end power in the second half of the straights.

Remember the comments from Sport Audi/Motorsport Total where Audi claim that the EOT changes gave Toyota and Porsche the equal of a double digit (at least 20-30+ bhp) horse power break.

Remember the old adage that horsepower is how fast you're going when you hit the wall, and torque is how far you move it.

Even torque/acceleration wasn't the big issue for Audi--several videos show Audi accelerating with Toyota and Porsche until top end power takes priority down a straight.

And to be fair, in the Audi/ACO highlights video of Sao Paulo, there were times where the Audis out-accelerated Toyota and Porsche out of the last tight corner before they entered the front straight like Audi had a couple hundred more lbs/ft of torque and out ran them until about half way down the straight like they had 100 more hp.

The Audi R18 sprint/HD package would've been more effective if the car had the top end power to move it down the second half of a long straight.

[ederss7]

I don't understand it. Audi keeps saying diesel is still the best option and most efficient engine but they don't even benefit from its fuel economy. So what's the point for Audi sticking with diesel?

[TF110]

Chernaudi, it should be the opposite actually. With more fuel usage allowed, they have the advantage of more engine power after the hybrid power is done. They also should have the advantage of having to coast less. Imo, thats their philosophy. But they seem to have too much drag on the high d/f version. Going higher downforce seems like a good idea for shorter tracks with more turns. But the hybrid power to assist out of turns takes less engine power to do the same job.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by ederss7

I don't understand it. Audi keeps saying diesel is still the best option and most efficient engine but they don't even benefit from its fuel economy. So what's the point for Audi sticking with diesel?

Marketing. Although it's been very much exploited already and point proven

[msd76]

Originally Posted by ederss7

I don't understand it. Audi keeps saying diesel is still the best option and most efficient engine but they don't even benefit from its fuel economy. So what's the point for Audi sticking with diesel?

That’s the part of the EoT I never understood. You’re only allowed so much fuel flow per lap and then they only give you so many litres in your tank, so the EoT governs the amount of laps per stint. I never understood why Audi wasn’t allowed the same amount of laps per fuel load?

[TF110]

They did the same amount of laps per stint in Brazil. After LM this year, didnt the Audi get a fraction more in tank size?

[GasperG]

I think you have two options, with a little exaggeration:
1. high down force with more constant speed - more energy is thrown away through aerodynamic drag.
2. low down force with higher speed fluctuation - more energy is thrown away through braking.

I think it's obvious that Audi is balancing their car more to option 1. and Toyota Porsche are balancing more to the option 2.

It's great seeing different concepts achieving this level of competitiveness, hope we will see it also next year.

[chernaudi]

Question about the business relationship between Audi Sport and YCom: I know that YCom built the current generation Audi R18 tubs, but photos and other items suggest that they worked with Audi on the R18 project prior to 2014 spec cars, and it suggest that they built parts for the older Audi R18s, dating back to 2012 or 2013.

YCom's FB page also suggests that they were a contractor to Onroak Automotive/OAK Racing for components, and even Porsche and Toyota had deals with YCom as a subcontractor for their LMP1 programs.

If the R18 gen 4 was YCom's first major chassis build since the Elipson LMP1 of 2008, then what services where they giving to Audi prior to 2014, and what services did they/could they have given to Porsche and Toyota? Design, consulting, production subcontractor?

EDIT: YCom also worked with Audi on the R18 program going back to 2011.

[msd76]

Here is a question for those who might know. If internally at Audi Sport the 2014 R18 is known as RP4 and the RS5 DTM is RC3, what were R#1 and R#2?

[chernaudi]

I think that R=Rennsport (German for Motorsport or Racing), P=Prototype, and 4 is the generation of car.

I think that's how Audi now classify generations of a family of cars, as the 2011 R18 would be RP1, 2012 would be RP2, and 2013 would be RP3.

I also think that Audi may also retroactively use that for their other prototypes, which would men that there'd be RP1-7 R8 LMP900/LMP1, RP1-3 (or 4) R10, RP1-2 (or 3) R15.

This could be a response from Audi over the whole R15+/++ and R18 evo deal, as Audi never used the R18 evo designation publicly aside from describing an early bodywork update (and not mentioned afterwards) and Audi also dropped the R15+ designation before Le Mans in 2010, and just called it the R15 from LM afterwards.

RC3 I think means Racing Coupe 3, a reference to DTM favoring coupes/coupe-like 2-door sport sedans.