Audi LMP1 Discussion

[J Jay]

Holy double-triple post Batman! I think I got the point the first time I saw it Nigel, ditto chernaudi!

As for your question, there's nothing fundamentally wrong, but it is a(nother) measure to slow the cars down that we all knew was coming, whether we liked it or not. Limiting the instantaneous (i.e. hybrid) power output limits the maximum acceleration and because getting to top speed is more important than the top speed itself* this is going to slow the cars down a fair bit.

*I yet again refer you to my signature, which really doesn't get the recognition it deserves

[chernaudi]

This was aimed at Porsche who were the ultimate expoiters of the hybrid release button bang switch. We knew this was coming in an attempt to make sure that next year's cars aren't significantly faster than they are now.

Problem is how will this be enforced? Some type of sensor that limits hybrid power the instant it's activated?

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

This was aimed at Porsche who were the ultimate expoiters of the hybrid release button bang switch. We knew this was coming in an attempt to make sure that next year's cars aren't significantly faster than they are now.

Problem is how will this be enforced? Some type of sensor that limits hybrid power the instant it's activated?

I think the idea is that they will use current sensors (some spec unit). Note that i think they are specifying 1000hp "at the powerunit" as opposed to "at the wheels" which makes the use of a current sensor valid. Teams are more than able to exceed 1000hp but they are responsible for not doing this otherwise they will get penalties (1 min stop and hold, 1 lap penalty, etc) ...to the point that no one will exceed 1000hp.

I think the new rule makes the cars slightly more road relevant in that the focus is now on efficiency, how to use to that excess electric energy around the track such as to boost fuel mileage.

Porsches 8MJ advantage this year would just be converted to a fuel mileage advantage next year if all things remain the same.

This is going to reveal a whole lot more about the specific fuel and engine technologies. Diesels and N/A and turbo'd petrols at full throttle are one quantity. The same engines at 75% load with hybrid boost will do different things with the fuel.

[chernaudi]

This could help Audi from a performance standpoint--If they can make over 1000bhp combined with engine and hybrid, they can stretch out their hybrid deployment for longer and it not fade out like it would in one long shot (one reason for them committing to at least 6MJ to begin with), and they still have the diesel engine which is a constant variable as far as power and torque.

And for both Audi and Porsche, be it diesel or gasoline, DFI engines do get better fuel mileage at part throttle than port injection engines do.

[YorkshireLad]

I would rather have this rule than capping fuel flow. So in theory if the ice makes 800bhp and Hybrid makes 600bhp for 12seconds they can cut two thirds but use it for longer. wouldn't this make the cars faster if say they now have enough time to also deploy elsewhere on the circuit.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Holy double-triple post Batman! I think I got the point the first time I saw it Nigel, ditto chernaudi!

As for your question, there's nothing fundamentally wrong, but it is a(nother) measure to slow the cars down that we all knew was coming, whether we liked it or not. Limiting the instantaneous (i.e. hybrid) power output limits the maximum acceleration and because getting to top speed is more important than the top speed itself* this is going to slow the cars down a fair bit.

*I yet again refer you to my signature, which really doesn't get the recognition it deserves

Was this done because of safety? Let me ask a question: When overtaking a bus or large truck which would you prefer (or consider safer); a slow accelerating car or a quick one?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MihokS5

I'm a good laugh? That's hilarious coming for you. I guess I'd be bitter as a Toyota fan too

Whats there to be bitter about? It was a joke.

The 1000hp limit is confusing to me. But Audi may not need much of a huge swing at a battery thanks to this revelation. Im sure the teams had an idea of this beforehand so I wonder what kind of battery they go for.

[GasperG]

There is no way ICE alone can produce more than 600 HP under current flow limit (in 4>MJ class).

1000 HP is not that big restriction and frankly this is not a surprise, imagine there would be no fuel flow limit, only energy per lap restriction. Now that would be some funny racing.

[Akrapovic]

Not a fan of restricting to less than 1000bhp. I understand the scare of the cars being super fast again, but it's just so incredible to watch the acceleration of these things. Even the Audi, by far the slowest on acceleration is amazing. The Porsche is just other worldly.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Was this done because of safety? Let me ask a question: When overtaking a bus or large truck which would you prefer (or consider safer); a slow accelerating car or a quick one?

Actually I'm on your side on this Spyderman (this will make a pleasant change!) Just because I expected a further measure to slow down the cars doesn't mean I automatically agree with it. But I do want to try to understand the ACO's reasoning before denouncing it completely. To that end the ACO haven't really helped themselves - I can't find anything relating to the arguments for this proposal. Therefore I can only assume it has been done in the hope of pre-empting the factories, who would otherwise have produced cars as fast as this year despite the energy allocation reduction.

However, you've pointed out one of the main concerns - if you limit the acceleration in this way, the ability to navigate traffic on the straights is compromised. They'll reach the same top speed but it will take longer to get there. I suppose the counter-argument would be that 1000hp and whatever torque is producing is should be "enough" to safely overtake any slower traffic. That's the impression I get from the ruling at least, and it probably factored into choosing the somewhat symbolic 1000hp figure (as opposed to any higher or lower number). It could also factor into the lap times at WEC circuits other than Le Mans; at La Sarthe top speed is reached so often that the energy recovered from KERS is consistent throughout the lap. But at shorter tracks the lower acceleration could have a knock on effect in the braking zones where the cars are coming in slower and therefore with less energy to recover. Wouldn't limiting the acceleration also adversely affect Porsche's MGU-H?

I'm still not quite sure how this plays into the EoT as well. They've only mentioned instantaneous horsepower being limited, but that doesn't show the true capabilities of an ICE. Particularly if you have an engine that produces more torque and less power, like say, a diesel engine? Without very intricate implementation it looks like Audi will effectively gain (by being penalized less than Porsche & Toyota). I'm not accusing the ACO of doing anything nebulous, but until someone reveals some of the reasoning it looks to me like turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

Youre a good laugh. There were no serious threats to Audi (as in well funded manufacturers) until Peugeot came. They didnt compete against Bentley with a factory car. The suggestion that Toyota would stay and face private teams is close to what Audi was doing in the early 2000's.

I like how it's Audis fault that the other manufacturers put in less effort and money. That's like blaming Porsche for Nissan being poor.

2000 - Panoz, Cadillac
2001 - Panoz, Bentley
2002 - Panoz, Cadillac, Bentley, MG
2003 - 2005 - No Audi works entry

Plenty of works efforts in those years.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Coming to the WEC, Audi would actually be well advised to stick to diesel - from a performance perspective at least - as the EoT inherently helps them to remain competitive compared to the best-in-class petrol player. That is an advantage that should not be neglected. Audi would win nothing from being the "next-in-class" in the petrol category, as Toyota's difficult season demonstrates. Audi actually have more to gain from being in a position to win races using a diesel engine than playing second or third best in the petrol category

Well, I'm not sure how the EoT helps diesels, when it limits their energy per lap compared to petrol engines. I would say the EoT discourages diesel technology.

Also, why does Audi have to be an "also-ran" if they switched to petrol? Audi is more than capable of building competitive petrol engines, and actually that's how they started out at Le Mans. In fact, I fear they would actually be faster if they adopted a petrol engine and took the battle with Porsche into aerodynamics/suspension

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by bobec

Well, I'm not sure how the EoT helps diesels, when it limits their energy per lap compared to petrol engines. I would say the EoT discourages diesel technology.

Well, it's pretty simple. By definition the EoT aims to balance the "best-in-class" petrol ICE and the "best-in-class" diesel ICE. Both "best-in-class" engines basically get the same effective fuel energy allocation (taking into account the relevant fuel efficiency hypotheses). The ERS incentive messes up a bit this balance (and that's the main reason for Audi's current performance deficit with respect to Porsche), but there is no objective reason to assume that the EoT as such discourages diesel technology.

The main handicap that diesel technology has to face is the inherent overweight of the diesel engine, which somewhat limits Audi's ability to integrate a powerful hybrid system. The EoT is supposed to compensate this through the "KTF". I trust that the ACO-FIA now got their calculations right, i.e. that e.g. a diesel engine combined with a 6MJ ERS should basically be on par with a petrol engine combined with an 8MJ ERS.

There is one thing that I would tend to agree with in respect of the current EoT, namely that it discourages Audi to make the jump to an 8MJ ERS. I still don't get the rationale behind the fact that the KTF in the 8MJ ERS class is equal to 1. There is no explanation for this evident incoherence in the current EoT.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I like how it's Audis fault that the other manufacturers put in less effort and money. That's like blaming Porsche for Nissan being poor.

2000 - Panoz, Cadillac
2001 - Panoz, Bentley
2002 - Panoz, Cadillac, Bentley, MG
2003 - 2005 - No Audi works entry

Plenty of works efforts in those years.

Never said they faced no factory or works cars/teams. The ones they did face were low budget and/or uncompetitive. Panoz was the biggest threat and beat them a couple times in the alms, but Caddy? MG? They werent a real threat. Bentley took a couple years, but there was no factory VW competition between them with new Speed 8 in '03. They even had a guy named Kristensen win in it.

Im not saying their wins arent great. Im saying their early success was against lesser marks than they face now. The joke about "just like Audi" must have flew over your head because if Toyota won LM without Porsche and Audi there itd be a big talking point of "but against no ..." .

[bobec]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Well, it's pretty simple. By definition the EoT aims to balance the "best-in-class" petrol ICE and the "best-in-class" diesel ICE. Both "best-in-class" engines basically get the same effective fuel energy allocation (taking into account the relevant fuel efficiency hypotheses). The ERS incentive messes up a bit this balance (and that's the main reason for Audi's current performance deficit with respect to Porsche), but there is no objective reason to assume that the EoT as such discourages diesel technology.

The main handicap that diesel technology has to face is the inherent overweight of the diesel engine, which somewhat limits Audi's ability to integrate a powerful hybrid system. The EoT is supposed to compensate this through the "KTF". I trust that the ACO-FIA now got their calculations right, i.e. that e.g. a diesel engine combined with a 6MJ ERS should basically be on par with a petrol engine combined with an 8MJ ERS..

Hold on now. The EoT maybe tries to balance the best in class, but like you say, it is based on the assumptions about efficiency. For the last 24hrs of Le Mans, Audi was allowed 134.8 MJ/lap at 4MJ of hybrid, while Porsche, even with double the hybrid power, had a higher energy allocation - 138.0 MJ/lap.

Is diesel really that much more efficient, that it can compensate for an energy allocation deficit, while having half the hybrid power?

Then we add the weight handicap that you mentioned.

If they could at least pump fuel in the cars at the same speed, but there are big doubts if that is the case.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by bobec

Hold on now. The EoT maybe tries to balance the best in class, but like you say, it is based on the assumptions about efficiency. For the last 24hrs of Le Mans, Audi was allowed 134.8 MJ/lap at 4MJ of hybrid, while Porsche, even with double the hybrid power, had a higher energy allocation - 138.0 MJ/lap.

Is diesel really that much more efficient, that it can compensate for an energy allocation deficit, while having half the hybrid power?

Then we add the weight handicap that you mentioned.

If they could at least pump fuel in the cars at the same speed, but there are big doubts if that is the case.

You should look at the effective/useful energy allocation, not the actual fuel energy allocation. A petrol engine evidently gets a higher fuel energy allocation because it is less efficient than a diesel engine in converting this fuel energy allocation into useful energy. That's what the Fuel Technology Factor (FTF) is supposed to account for.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by TF110

Never said they faced no factory or works cars/teams. The ones they did face were low budget and/or uncompetitive. Panoz was the biggest threat and beat them a couple times in the alms, but Caddy? MG? They werent a real threat. Bentley took a couple years, but there was no factory VW competition between them with new Speed 8 in '03. They even had a guy named Kristensen win in it.

Well the thing about Audi isn't that they won it once or twice, but many times in a row. Maybe there was a reason no one wanted to try to challenge the R8, except for mainly private teams, where it is more excusable not to succeed.

The thing is Audi defended its dominance even as a private team, and then also against strong competition. If Toyota won once against "no competition", no one would care. But if Toyota created a Le Mans dynasty like Audi did, and Toyota cars won under different circumstances, as Audi did under the unfavorable conditions it faced in 2005 for example, then we would have something.

[chernaudi]

This change does sort of come into being because I think that the ACO didn't believe that Toyota and Porsche--especially Porsche--would be jumping at the higher MJ sub-categories as quickly as they have.

And next season, a jump to at least 6MJ with a battery pack hybrid should, when combined with the diesel torque, should put Audi on a roughly similar performance level to Porsche, especially if Audi are able to get over the approx. 1000bhp limit that the ACO are looking at. If Toyota, at 6MJ are pushing 500bhp out of their hybrid system, then Audi could be capable of something closer to that looking at a 6MJ battery kit (Audi officially rated their 4MJ system at about 280bhp, so somewhere around 400bhp with a 6MJ battery pack system should be easy to attain).

And the problem is that the ACO don't want these cars going much faster than they are now, especially around LM. And we've seen from Michelin that tire upgrades alone can cut a lot of time, and the problem is that 1 second gained around a normal track can equal as much as 3 seconds gained at Le Mans.

And with the torque boost, I can see Audi going back to running higher downforce bodywork at the sprint races (outside of possibly Spa) since they'll have the power and torque to push some drag around, same for Toyota and Porsche are already sort of doing that now.

But here's one thing that won't change: just like how air restrictor changes in the past have limited top end power but didn't do much of anything with torque. I can see the same working out here, and with the limit on instant power, that torque can get it's use streched over a longer period of time. At the same time, it can play into a fuel economy strategy as well, considering that diesel and gasoline DFI engines do a great job at stretching their fuel at part throttle.

I can see this playing into being a big advantage for Audi compared to now next year, as well as Toyota, and though Porsche sort of lose their go-faster button, they can counter by using their hybrid in a slightly different way to now.

[CyberMotor]

One way that I have suggested to balance the diesels and petrol cars is to be more strict with the diesels concerning the particulate matter expulsion out of the exhaust. We've heard a lot about the 'clean diesels' but there have been many times when 'how clean' has come into question.

The USA EPA has a concern about the particulates in the diesel road cars. It seems Volkswagen and Audi have software that detects when they were being tested and started running cleaner during those times. Clever programming that may cost them $billions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0RI1VK20150918

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

One way that I have suggested to balance the diesels and petrol cars is to be more strict with the diesels concerning the particulate matter expulsion out of the exhaust. We've heard a lot about the 'clean diesels' but there have been many times when 'how clean' has come into question.

The USA EPA has a concern about the particulates in the diesel road cars. It seems Volkswagen and Audi have software that detects when they were being tested and started running cleaner during those times. Clever programming that may cost them $billions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0RI1VK20150918

Do we REALLY want to turn the LMP1 category into a emission-regulated formula ?

[bobec]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

You should look at the effective/useful energy allocation, not the actual fuel energy allocation. A petrol engine evidently gets a higher fuel energy allocation because it is less efficient than a diesel engine in converting this fuel energy allocation into useful energy. That's what the Fuel Technology Factor (FTF) is supposed to account for.

Right, that's true, but how do they calculate that? It seems like that FTF number is driven mainly by past results. They change it around based on the performance of the cars in the previous races (I assume they do, as the energy allocation does change). So how accurate could it be?

With Porsche's current dominance, it is possible the EoT might shift in Audi's favor. And then shift back if they start winning again.

It just seems very odd that Audi hasn't gotten a single pole position since this EoT system was introduced.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

One way that I have suggested to balance the diesels and petrol cars is to be more strict with the diesels concerning the particulate matter expulsion out of the exhaust. We've heard a lot about the 'clean diesels' but there have been many times when 'how clean' has come into question.

The USA EPA has a concern about the particulates in the diesel road cars. It seems Volkswagen and Audi have software that detects when they were being tested and started running cleaner during those times. Clever programming that may cost them $billions.

Right, we have heard all about it. However, the only problem is NOx emissions. As diesels are more efficient, CO2 emissions are lower. So the equalization of NOx emissions would be a challenge for the diesels, but their lower CO2 signature would allow them to produce more power.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by bobec

Right, that's true, but how do they calculate that? It seems like that FTF number is driven mainly by past results. They change it around based on the performance of the cars in the previous races (I assume they do, as the energy allocation does change). So how accurate could it be?

With Porsche's current dominance, it is possible the EoT might shift in Audi's favor. And then shift back if they start winning again.

It just seems very odd that Audi hasn't gotten a single pole position since this EoT system was introduced.

If you look a few posts back you may find a rather lengthy debate about the recent EoT adjustments

How accurate (or balanced) is the current EoT ? That's a good question, and only the ACO-FIA could tell as they are the ones having access to the actual data from past races up to and including LM. One can only assume (i) that they got it (fairly?) right (at a certain point in time at least) or (ii) that they are intentionally screwing up to favour one fuel technology over the other one. I have selected option (i) with the understanding that the equivalence of technology will never be perfect and that there are fortunately other factors that the manufacturers can play with to generate performance.

Now, luckily, the EoT is not meant to balance performance, especially not on a race to race basis. Audi cannot currently - and understandably - compete for pole position because they lack overall performance due to the smaller ERS that they are using. Blaim the "ERS incentive" for this.

[ederss7]

From last year's race, the winning Audi changing its turbo. Watch for a few seconds until they fire up the engine for the first time. Love that sound. https://youtu.be/PmH9qeCoyEQ
The same user has onboard from Porsche and Toyota too, almost the whole race onboard.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

If you look a few posts back you may find a rather lengthy debate about the recent EoT adjustments

How accurate (or balanced) is the current EoT ? That's a good question, and only the ACO-FIA could tell as they are the ones having access to the actual data from past races up to and including LM. One can only assume (i) that they got it (fairly?) right (at a certain point in time at least) or (ii) that they are intentionally screwing up to favour one fuel technology over the other one. I have selected option (i) with the understanding that the equivalence of technology will never be perfect and that there are fortunately other factors that the manufacturers can play with to generate performance.

Now, luckily, the EoT is not meant to balance performance, especially not on a race to race basis. Audi cannot currently - and understandably - compete for pole position because they lack overall performance due to the smaller ERS that they are using. Blaim the "ERS incentive" for this.

I agree it's a very debatable issue. But here is the thing. To get the FTF, they calculate average and max Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, for which they use the sensors on the cars to calculate "corrected power" (measured torque, corrected for the ERS exhaust interference * engine rotational speed) and instantaneous fuel flow (fuel flow meter). They measure these parameters during the actual events, and adjust them accordingly. So to me it seems this is not a true measure of "equivalence of technology" - this is balance of performance, used as a proxy for "equivalence of technology".

I don't know how a true "equivalence of technology" can be achieved, but I think the question is, should there be such system? Diesel engines are already at a disadvantage when it comes to weight and size. Now add the ERS incentive you mentioned, and with the "equivalence of technology", diesel lmp1s are hit significantly. Especially if they wanted to upgrade to 8MJ, as you mentioned. Under the current regulations, the sweet spot for Audi seems to be 6MJ.