Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by ederss7

What caused Duval's crash is still unknown?

Nothing has been communicated about the likely cause of the crash.

Looking at the succession of pictures, which gives some clue about the kinematics of the crash, it would seem that the car was into a high-speed right spin when the car got airborne. As shown on the first picture, part of the bodywork in front of the left-rear fender got detached before the car got airborne, which may suggest some hit on the left-hand side of the car.

Still a very curious and scary accident. Luckily for Loïc, the car apparently hit the wall/fence with the rear-end first.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

A NA V8 engine is obviously not a bad choice as such, but probably not the optimal choice for the future.

It is being reported that both Toyota and Audi are seriously investigating a switch to batteries for 2016, which is a rather "heavy" solution (something of the order of 100-150 kg of batteries with currently available technology). This tells quite a bit as to which engine route the manufacturers are most likely to follow for 2016 onwards, namely a light-weight engine solution. Light-weight design would typically imply downsizing; downsizing in turn would most likely imply (a switch to) a forced induction engine solution. That would be the most logical evolution if the rules basically stay as they are.

Now, Toyota or Audi may ultimately prove these assumptions wrong. Time will tell.

The supercap is just as heavy as a battery solution. The advantage is the immediate punch the capacitor has and its 'shelf life'. The battery soution would have to be better than a capacitor at a weight advantage to make it worth the switch. What the batteries do better in is storage. Thats why Porsche has that high top speed. They can hold onto a lot of that '6mj' for the straight and just boost away. The capacitor cant hold onto all that energy. Like you linked to before, the storage is "only" ~.9-1.0mj. I wonder how much energy the battery can store? If Toyota go to batteries, I wonder if theyll do a solid state Li-Ion. Thats where their research is headed along with lithium air.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by TF110

. I wonder how much energy the battery can store?

From what I remember it's been said that Porsche can hold all 6MJ (or near enough)

[cokata]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

From what I remember it's been said that Porsche can hold all 6MJ (or near enough)

A ~100kg Li-Ion battery should easily be capable to hold 6mj.

Supercar has some "minor" advantages like much more charge/discharge cycles, less degradation and not as temperature sensitive (it might also not generate as much heat as a bettery but i'm not sure of that). But the big difference is that batteries have much higher energy density, while supercaps have much higher power density.

Although porsche have been able to get a very impressive power density from their batteries, which has been a big reason why they hybrid system was the best this year.

[TF110]

I dont think theyre hybrid is the best. Its got the best storage, but the Toyota's system was more reliable and they ultimately won 5x as many races which is the most important thing. Not saying its no good, but its not the best. It has advantages but so does a capacitor.

[Articus]

The Toyota system is more reliable because they have been running evolutions of it, and the car for that matter, for the past 3 years. This does not mean that supercapacitors are more reliable than batteries.

This is the first year for Porsche's hybrid battery based system and they have had their share of new car issues. But it still seems that all the manufacturers seem to agree that batteries are the best going forward because it allows you many more options in terms of utilizing assist around the track. Toyota considered it for next year, and Audi reportedly for 2016.

[TF110]

They'll consider it when they feel its a better solution than a supercap. Batteries have been around a lot longer than capacitors in these applications. Theres no reason to think capacitors are more reliable for that reason. I think its because Toyota has been upgrading it since 2007. Batteries lack the power punch, but theyre good for storage. Porsche has that advantage, Toyota has a different advantage. I dont think any lmp1-h team on the grid will honestly say their system is inferior.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

They'll consider it when they feel its a better solution than a supercap. Batteries have been around a lot longer than capacitors in these applications. Theres no reason to think capacitors are more reliable for that reason. I think its because Toyota has been upgrading it since 2007. Batteries lack the power punch, but theyre good for storage. Porsche has that advantage, Toyota has a different advantage. I dont think any lmp1-h team on the grid will honestly say their system is inferior.

The reason Toyota isn't doing batteries next year is the same reason they won't be doing a 3rd car at Le Mans....The money. Also that second to last part could use some tweaking. Energy recovery and hybrid boost are both limited by the available tire traction (wheel lockup or wheel spin) Within those bounds you can make a battery that matches a supercapacitor on charge and discharge levels. Batteries don't lack "punch". You can design them for power (large surface area cathodes and anodes) or energy (thicker anodes and cathodes)) (but it's hard to get it to do both without being overdesigned and way too heavy for a race car).

The problem is that the batteries are losing capacity over a race distance thanks to irreversible side reactions in the cathode, anode, electrolyte that occur due to high charge and discharge rates. So say Porsche start the race with a pack that can hold 6MJ but only 4MJ at the end of 24 hours (exxagerated as I don't know what the degradation is like).

It would mean they have to start using their hybrid system in a mode more similar to Toyota or Audi's SuperCap/Flywheel. But battery tech is always getting better and better. and Porsche has the might of A123 behind them.

[TF110]

The a123 is nice, but its not some super technology. Current li-ion batteries are limited. If you make it to put out a large amount of power, itll be too big or heavy. Toyota have their own battery technology if they want to use it. Just saying they lack funds to do a battery system doesnt make it true. Its possible that a capacitor system is more expensive than a battery system. Considering that a battery pack can lose some of its charge, then it makes sense to stay with the capacitor. Reducing weight is the area everyone is going for. So either way, we'll hopefully see both Porsche and Toyota do 8mj next year. I think they will.

[cokata]

At the moment batteries lack the needed power density to have a pure KERS car like Toyota. Even with 480bhp electric motor power at some circuits they couldn't generate 100% of the energy they're allowed to. A battery pretty much forces you to use exhaust turbine recovery and especially on NA engine this would have a very big negative effect on BSFC.

[GasperG]

Very true, Porsche is pumping those batteries only with something like 250 HP at a time, they are getting "half" their MJ through ERS-H, obviously ERS-H is pumping batteries only when on full throttle.

Toyota would need roughly double the battery size of Porsche.

There are also intermediate hybrid solutions, between battery and supercapacitor, but for now obviously only in the lab. Here is one of the latest article on that subject:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014...15-mitlin.html

[Articus]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Very true, Porsche is pumping those batteries only with something like 250 HP at a time, they are getting "half" their MJ through ERS-H, obviously ERS-H is pumping batteries only when on full throttle.

Toyota would need roughly double the battery size of Porsche.

That's a really great point. I forgot about Porsche's ERS-H.

[chernaudi]

This seems like a far out claim to me, but knowing what Audi could be up to and what they may or may not be doing, and with this being the eve of the Audi Sport Season Finale show, I may as well post it and see how it compares with what Audi may or may not reveal tomorrow.

A poster at Mulsanne's Corner's FB page says that Audi are testing 2 and 6MJ-rated hybrid systems in new spec R18s pretty much as we speak at a private test at Paul Ricard that has been blacked out to all non-Audi related media.

This guy also says that Audi may enter 4 cars at LM next year, 2 with the older 2MJ or maybe 4MJ system, and the other 2 with 6MJ systems.

He also says that the main reason why Audi went the 2MJ route in '14 was at least in part due to attempting to mitigate performance losses if they hybrid system malfunctions, and it can be vulnerable to malfunctions that reduce effectiveness/efficiency or causes the system to not work properly due to mounting issues (flywheel is mounted to the tub floor and hence it takes the same shocks that the car itself does).

So there might be some big changes "under the hood" for Audi on the hybrid end, the least of which might be shock absorbers on the flywheel mounts to reduce severity of shocks that can crack the housing and leak the vacuum inside (less vacuum, less rpm, less flywheel power).

The 4 cars at LM does seem a little far-fetched, but Audi did it before.

This guy who came up with all of this info/rumor claims that he knows some of what Audi are doing, including that Audi have a test team at PR right now basically doing tests with their new car, and Audi Sport never made it known that their new car is up and running yet. But I'd take some of the technical claims and the 4 cars for LM deal with a grain of salt until anything official comes out.

I guess that tomorrow is the first shot we have of anything official from Audi as far as what the WEC/LM24 may hold for '15.

[CyberMotor]

I think the research and racing are showing that each of the solutions have a positive and a negative. Much of the differences seem to be in the storage systems. The harvesting and delivery systems seem to be very advanced.

What if... there was a provision for Hybrid-Hybrid systems in that the cars can have multiple storage systems and utilize their advantages, when necessary, but only be allowed to use one storage system at a time?

I suggest smaller batteries and smaller super/ultra caps but specialized for their particular positives for the future. Just as I don't think there is one technology that is the answer to future, I think it is important to continue developing and integrating multiple technological paths for their benefits.

A Hybrid-Hybrid is the future, I think.

[cokata]

If Audi are able to go to 6 MJ, then they fully deserve to be competitive. Porsche are going to 8 for sure, and toyota will try too to reach 8. Whatever they have done to drop the weight enough for 6MJ it would be a big achievement, and i was pretty much sure that Audi will be scary quick next year now that everyone is downplaying them.

[templer]

Quite interesting what the guy posted on Mike's FB site. Nobody should underestimate Audi and if they will be able to step up to the 6MJ class they will be really competitive. On the other hand Audi have released that they have abandonded their work on the ERS-H system, so I don't think it is possible to switch with to 6 MJ with only one hybrid system.
But let's wait and see.

[TF110]

How would they be able to field 4 cars with unequal levels of performance? Afaik, thats against the rules. They choose a specific mj/lap class and thats what their cars are homologated as. Unless they 'loan' out two cars to a b-team its not going to happen.

[GasperG]

Is there really nothing left in the engine efficiency?

I mean Toyota is claiming over 40% efficiency, that is 5-8% more than most efficient petrol road cars.
FTF suggests that Audi is achieving "only" 7.4 to 8.8 % more engine efficiency, this gets us only in the road car territory (43%), nothing special. Also remember that Audi was basicly locked this year at BSFC that they measured at Paul Ricard, because of regulations that they can not deviate from the measured value.

I think that every manufacturer will try to squeeze a little more out of the fuel, but to me it looks like Audi has a head start.

[TF110]

That was up to LM. After that theyre now free to try and increase the efficiency.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I do expect that there is still some performance to squeeze from the V6 TDI in terms of further improvements in engine efficiency. The current efficiency target for diesel is estimated to be of approximately 44.5% (assuming a target of 41.3% for petrol). The fuel allocation for diesel (in the 2 to 6 MJ ERS classes) is in excess of 130 MJ/lap, meaning close to or slightly less than 60 MJ/lap of useful energy.

If Audi can improve efficiency, that should also put them back in the game... unless Toyota and/or Porsche can achieve similar efficicency improvements on the engine side.

If 2015 is the last year of diesel in endurance racing, Audi could however be more radical on the engine side and push the limits.

That's what I am hoping for at least.

So, ultimately, I would expect Audi to make a step up to the 4 MJ/lap ERS class and work hard on improving efficiency to beat the current EoT target. If Audi can make it up to the 6 MJ/lap ERS class, then fine.

EDIT: Is it unrealistic to believe that Audi could achieve improvements in efficiency of the order of few percents, e.g. an efficiency of 46% or more ?

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by TF110

How would they be able to field 4 cars with unequal levels of performance? Afaik, thats against the rules. They choose a specific mj/lap class and thats what their cars are homologated as. Unless they 'loan' out two cars to a b-team its not going to happen.

Sorry mate but there's no regulations against homologating old-spec car and new spec at the same time.
Getting two 2014-spec 2MJ R18 and two 2015-spec 2/4/6 MJ R18 homologated is not a big problem IMO, but it doesn't make sense. No driver would simply want a slower car and count on pure fortune to win.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Sorry mate but there's no regulations against homologating old-spec car and new spec at the same time.
Getting two 2014-spec 2MJ R18 and two 2015-spec 2/4/6 MJ R18 homologated is not a big problem IMO, but it doesn't make sense. No driver would simply want a slower car and count on pure fortune to win.

Nobody cares what the drivers want. They go wherever they are told.

It'd be no different to 2012. Everybody knew from the start the two hybrid R18s were the ones allowed to go for the win so that Audi would get the headlines, the two 'Ultras' were just backup

[J Jay]

I'm not sure the ACO would be too keen an extra Audi when they are already expecting 11 factory cars. And I can't help but think that Audi would be better served by putting everything behind the "faster" car.

[Koenigsegg]

If this is true. Then maybe the 2014 Audi R18's will be run under the Veloqx banner and Audi run the 2015 cars?

We do have this statement from Howden ‘H’ Haynes:
“If Veloqx did come back into motorsport it would be a top-down approach, either owning a prestigious existing team, taking that over, or working closely with one of the top manufacturers with whom we already have established relationships over the years.

Given the right circumstances, and the right project then we could bring Veloqx back into the sport.”

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by J Jay

I'm not sure the ACO would be too keen an extra Audi when they are already expecting 11 factory cars. And I can't help but think that Audi would be better served by putting everything behind the "faster" car.

What...? ACO would never ever turn down factory LMP1 car. Adding one more would just add to the PR as well. Nobody would choose some useless GTE-AM entry instead.

There was no need for the 4th car in 2012 when they did it the last time, but next year it could come in handy. Quantity has mattered before.

In 1999 when they also had four cars with R8 + coupes there were also zillions of other factory cars.