Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Artur

Does ACO have plans to extend the ERS allowance? I mean, what if the teams would have the technological ability to harvest more than 8MJ over a LM lap, at any point in the near future?

10 MJ subcategory guidelines are being worked on by the ACO, to be introduced in 2017 or 2018 at the latest. http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/f...brid-subclass/

I reckon if someone wants to work on a range-extender solution, they'll probably put them in Garage 56 before writing the regs for that solution for the next year.

[Artur]

Thanks.

I'm sorry I asked that too early. I saw it later on the sportscars rumours thread.

Sad to see the aero reduction talk again but, luckly, that won't come next year. At least it's just the early ideas of one ACO guy. Audi already expressed their dislike for change in aero reg in near future, so that gives hope.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Define "soon" ?

If you mean fifty years from now, I don't care that much

Probably not fifty years, but ten or fifteen, we might. The technology should be ready at that point.

Originally Posted by deggis

"Investments are to be reduced by some one billion euros per year", but that's also specific to VW, not VAG.

ps. That press release sounds like... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4

VAG/VW cannot afford to let out false statements and press realises in these days. Besides, I'm working with Volkswagen products, and these plans really is the next step for Volkswagen compared to what they have now. They will happen.

Originally Posted by Artur

Yup, and in Sweden they already do that for street cars, or, at least, in some few places there.

We had this in Denmark, with a full infrastructure of battery change stations. The company went bankrupt, as nobody believed in it.

[chernaudi]

I hope that in Shanghai that Audi will have a larger collection of photos that they'll post to Audi Media Center, and not just because of me thinking that the Fuji spec car (which is supposed to be run until the end of the season) looks cool.

The Audi Sport press photos are usually pretty good quality and can be downloaded in medium (read: very large) and large (read: insanely large) sizes that allow you to spot details. One that I noticed is that the lower front fenders have a bulge that the dive planes attach to. And the upper section has almost a dive plane/channel shape to it. Sort of reminds me of the Honda HSV-10 Super GT car that had a dive plane shape to it's front bumper cover when Super GT banned dive planes on the GT500 cars.

[chernaudi]

An article on Motorsport Total suggest that Audi, while updating the cars' aero package for Fuji, also found out what Porsche were up to on their pit stops, and did a similar optimization of the fuel flow into the fuel tank. It's legal for right now, so they may as well join the dance with Porsche until such a loophole may be closed next season.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

An article on Motorsport Total suggest that Audi, while updating the cars' aero package for Fuji, also found out what Porsche were up to on their pit stops, and did a similar optimization of the fuel flow into the fuel tank. It's legal for right now, so they may as well join the dance with Porsche until such a loophole may be closed next season.

If it is legal and everyone is doing it, why is there a need to close the "loophole". Is that not just regulation for regulation sake?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

An article on Motorsport Total suggest that Audi, while updating the cars' aero package for Fuji, also found out what Porsche were up to on their pit stops, and did a similar optimization of the fuel flow into the fuel tank. It's legal for right now, so they may as well join the dance with Porsche until such a loophole may be closed next season.

So that suggests that the latest rule clarification was just that. Porsche's solution appears to be fully legal and Audi have now followed the path.

Originally Posted by Spyderman

If it is legal and everyone is doing it, why is there a need to close the "loophole". Is that not just regulation for regulation sake?

In the present instance, there is still some objective justification to close that "loophole", namely to ensure that everybody sticks to the original commitment to guarantee equalization of refueling times. I do trust that Toyota, Rebellion Racing and ByKolles are still very much unsatisfied by the situation.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So that suggests that the latest rule clarification was just that. Porsche's solution appears to be fully legal and Audi have now followed the path.



In the present instance, there is still some objective justification to close that "loophole", namely to ensure that everybody sticks to the original commitment to guarantee equalization of refueling times. I do trust that Toyota, Rebellion Racing and ByKolles are still very much unsatisfied by the situation.

I suppose in theory...but in practical terms, I'm sure Toyota will catch up (only a question of time) and what does the "equalization of refueling times" actually mean for Rebellion and Bykolles: That they will finish 4 laps behind the Manufacturers cars instead of 3 and 3/4 laps behind?

[chernaudi]

The Porsche (and now Audi) solution(s) don't seem to be prohibited by the wording of the rule book. After all, they're not bypassing/circumventing the rig flow restrictor (fitted to the outlet on the feeder tank) or doing anything to the fuel delivery systems themselves, which, of course, is big-time illegal. Everything they've done is on the cars (fuel inlet and tank feeder pipe), which are parts of the car and, apparently, legal for work to be done on.

The question is the spirit of the regs, which is what Toyota and the LMP1 privateer teams are still unhappy about. Audi weren't particularly happy about it, either, but they do have a couple of championships that they'd like to win so they knew that they had to join the party or risk being left behind by Porsche.

But exploiting what the rules do--or don't--say is a time honored tradition and Porsche have largely written the book on how to do so though the years. And in motorsports, basically, if you're not cheatin' or bendin' the rules, you're not tryin' had enough. Doesn't make it right, but you can't always play clean and expect the sanctioning body to bail you out every time when someone gets and edge by exploiting a rules loophole or the wording of a rule. Audi aren't saints when it comes to this, let alone Porsche, but then again, no one exactly is in this regard.

There were two reasons why the ACO/FIA released that bulletin: to clarify their stance on if what Porsche was doing was legal and thus free reign for everyone else, or clamping down on what Porsche were doing and putting restrictions on it. Since Audi are doing it now, we can assume that the ACO have taken the former path, at least until the end of the season. Though through implication (it was included with the 2016 rules proposal drafts), it seems that this also applies for '16 as well.

[chernaudi]

Didn't Audi have a test at Aragon(?) scheduled between Fuji and Shanghai?

[Spyderman]

Not just Audi.
Tyre testing. (Michelin test)

[chernaudi]

Any news from the Audi end of the Michelin Aragon test? Only tid bit I've seen was about Porsche (refer to the Porsche thread for that).

[chernaudi]

Audi using the LM noses on their cars whist in transport containers? Must not plan on using them in races for the end of the season if they're doing that--better to sacrifice the LM nose that won't be used anymore this season should the car come loose in the container and move around.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...1e&oe=56C29ADB

[MyNameIsNigel]

Another relatively rare look at the Audi R18 with most of its bodywork removed:

(source: FIA-WEC photo stream)

I am trying to figure out if what we see here in the sidepod section (especially the vertical element with what appear to be multiple inlets) is a part of the cooling system or just some structural element.

[chernaudi]

I think that's the splitter that all Audi LMP cars have had that divert air to the radiator/oil cooler and the intercooler. Even the R8 had them, but until now I've never seen that splitter have what looks like intake slots in it. Could be lightening holes, or maybe intakes for the hybrid system cooler.

[chernaudi]

Something stupid, I guess, but with the rules being what they are for roof height and that Audi just need something to be at a certain height to run a fastback roof like on the older R18 variants, I was wondering if something like the rails on the roof of the Audi Sportback/Avant/Allroad hatchbacks and wagons could conceivably suffice? They could also house the hard points/quick release mounts for the system that the cranes use to move the cars around now, and provide back up mountings for lines or hooks.

But of course, one would have to ask, could you get a roof rack with that...

[Spyderman]

Rain predicted for Shanghai race day: Advantage Audi.

[Piritos]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Rain predicted for Shanghai race day: Advantage Audi.

It depends... In Fuji they were very good in the rain, but then they were slower than Porsche when the track was drying. Rain on race day can easily mean starting with rain then drying out, so it could be advantage Porsche. But as we saw last time, so much depends on the strategy too - Audi failed in Fuji, maybe they'll be too consevative in China? We'll see.

[chernaudi]

Audi were fast in the rain, intermediates, and the dry. However, they did trail off during the times between hopping from one tire to another when it wasn't full inters or full dry.

I suppose that could've been car set up issues, since the bodywork was still new to Audi.

[chernaudi]

Also, most of the forecasts that I've read say that only light rain will be around Sunday Morning. It could be gone even before the race starts, so even if Audi have an advantage in the rain, what they gain from it might be minimal.

[ederss7]

Any news about Audi's engine situation?

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Also, most of the forecasts that I've read say that only light rain will be around Sunday Morning. It could be gone even before the race starts, so even if Audi have an advantage in the rain, what they gain from it might be minimal.

Forecast I am using says 50%- 60% chance throughout the day.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/tod...hai%2C%20China

[chernaudi]

We won't have to wait long to see at least the initial version of the 2016 Audi R18. It should be publicly launched Nov. 28th.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Rain predicted for Shanghai race day: Advantage Audi.

As if we don't already know Porsche is going to sweep this race....
but you don't really expect any other outcome do you Nice for you Porsche boys, depressing for us Audi fans...

I'll be watching to first hour to see if anything can keep up with the Porsches...Then just cutting it off. I'm a poor sport you see

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

We won't have to wait long to see at least the initial version of the 2016 Audi R18. It should be publicly launched Nov. 28th.

Nice news. I hope we will get a chance to learn a bit more at this occasion about the new ERS architecture that Audi are contemplating for 2016. Battery-based energy storage is pretty much confirmed. A second ERS is a must. It will be interesting to see if Audi opt for a similar wastegate-type ERS-H like Porsche are currently using or opt for some other solution.