|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 May 2016, 16:32 (Ref:3637886) | #10351 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 825
|
I agree with you that, because there is no competition in the Diesel "category", Audi automatically get's granted equality in engine power(in terms of FTF). The problem is not that, didn't you read my other post?! They get the total energy, per lap, equalised by the regulations but they end up with less room for ballast and less flexibility to manage that energy as they are lower in the ERS classes.
Does anybody have any idea of how much weight the extra batteries, on the 8MJ cars, adds on the 919 and TS050? Whatever the battery pack weights on the R18, the rivals have 33% more of that. Would it add up to 50kg and make all cars even in terms of ballast available?! If so, then the Petrols would only have, as advantage, a little bit of better flexibility concerning the management of their power release. It must be said, though, that I doubt the handicap that Audi has is big. I would guess it to be around 0.5s |
|
|
2 May 2016, 16:35 (Ref:3637887) | #10352 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Like everything in life it seems, it's a trade off. If there was another diesel manufacturer, then Audi would have to battle them to be the pace setter for the fuel type, though the diesel teams could have more political pull. Audi aside from supporting the ACO for longer than Porsche and Toyota have since 1999 to present can be argued to have less political power (or at least haven't completely exercised it), but they only have to race themselves in the diesel category.
It's a trade off and it's not 100% perfect on anyone's end unless they have a clear advantage over the field. |
||
|
2 May 2016, 17:51 (Ref:3637904) | #10353 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
Again look at the "handikap" the Audi had in 2014 (FTF & KTF) and what they have today.
The way rules are adjusted was writen long ago and aparently Audi is playing them very nicely. |
|
|
2 May 2016, 20:33 (Ref:3637941) | #10354 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
The ACO and FIA made it so that Toyota, Mercedes and Porsche couldn't race their cars after 1999 aside LM (unless they went to America). Then hybrids came into play in 2012 then Toyota joined, followed by Porsche. Where was the ACO's support?
|
|
|
3 May 2016, 13:55 (Ref:3638137) | #10355 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I've read these couple of sentences multiple times, and still unsure what was the message here?? Rephrase please
|
|
|
3 May 2016, 20:01 (Ref:3638231) | #10356 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
The talk was of Audi supporting the ACO since 99. But you had Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan and Porsche with factory efforts that year at LM. But where else could they run those cars aside ALMS? That's why I said where was the ACO's support.
|
|
|
3 May 2016, 20:12 (Ref:3638237) | #10357 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
It wasn't ACO's fault that GT1 succumbed to it's death, and that FIA GT banned them after 1998. As for 1999, true there wasn't anything but the brand-new ALMS in offer (which though IMO was the world sportscar championship of it's day), except the oneoff Fuji 1000km held in autumn.
But, but, for 2000 the ALMS and ACO attempted to establish European based Le Mans Series, as well as Asia-Pacific Championship for 00-01. They ultimately didn't succeed due lack of entries and whatnot, but the point is, it wasn't the lack of trying. The broader prototype manufacturer interest just wasn't there. The Great Manufacturer Escape at the turn of the century had nothing to do with where they where eligible. Most of those efforts wouldn't exist without LM, the other races were just bonus and practice on side. Btw Porsche folded after 1998 already, nothing besides some old GTS and GT 911s was left for 1999 (except the lone privateer Champion GT1 in the ALMS) Last edited by Deleted; 3 May 2016 at 20:17. |
|
|
3 May 2016, 20:20 (Ref:3638240) | #10358 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
BMW and Nissan still had open cars that were ACO legal. Nissan bailed due to a financial crunch and BMW ditched the LMR program aside from an ALMS run for F1. Bad PR and prioritizing F1 and DTM killed the Mercedes program, but Toyota still had one year under contract for the GT-One program.
Problem there was that the ACO (and also probably the ALMS by proxy) introduced new rules that limited all LMP cars, including LMGTPs to 4650mm long instead of the old 4900mm max. That meant that Toyota would've had to have rebodied the GT-One with new front and rear clips to meet the 4650mm max length. They decided that it was time and money better spent on getting their F1 program ready than have TMG design a car that was probably one and done since Toyota only committed the GT-One program to essentially LM only and never did a full racing season anywhere, which might have justified such an investment. Fact is that Audi have constantly been at LM and in an ACO sanction racing series prototype classes in some form since 1999. Many others have come and gone in the same period--and most have stayed away except for Toyota and Porsche. Even Porsche didn't have a consistent presence in prototypes until the current program, which is due to run in some form until at least 2020. On to Spa: Any word on Audi's aero package yet? |
||
|
3 May 2016, 20:22 (Ref:3638241) | #10359 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Yeah I should have put 1998. After that there was nowhere to run for a few years since FIA GT had no GT1's (Mercedes domination). Not like Toyota Audi or BMW ran there anyway. Other manufacturers left for other greener pastures, but it wasn't just Audi running LM. They were the only consistent manufacturer but that shouldn't mean anything for how they write the rules.
|
|
|
3 May 2016, 20:39 (Ref:3638245) | #10360 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Well, in F1 that's happened with Ferrari due to their seniority among teams and constant presence in the series, just ask FOM, who implemented such benefits for Ferrari.
|
||
|
4 May 2016, 10:00 (Ref:3638407) | #10361 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
The 2016 Audi Sport Factbook is out.
This schematic diagram on pages 30-31 suggests that the battery cells are distributed longitudinally in a forward section of the monocoque, next to the driver, likely in an attempt to achieve proper weight distribution. Porsche 919 hybrid diagram for comparison: |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
4 May 2016, 10:32 (Ref:3638411) | #10362 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
The real handicap is the "inability" for Audi to opt for the 8MJ option as they already seem to be at the limit in terms of the weight implications. This handicap will only get worse for Audi if or when the rules are revised to open up the ERS possibilities to 10MJ (or more) hybrid systems. I am still very much of the opinion that the ACO-FIA should get rid of the KTF altogether, while keeping the FTF. This KTF only impacts the fuel energy allocation that Audi gets in order to compensate for the diesel engine overweight. This KTF does not affect the efficiency target that the guys running in the petrol class have to meet and is an unnecessary complication. IMHO, the ACO-FIA should contemplate to truly balance the petrol and diesel classes within each and the same ERS category (i.e. 8MJ petrol vs. 8MJ diesel) from an overall energy allocation perspective (using a similar approach as with the current FTF) and ensure that all players basically have the same flexibility, from a weight perspective, to integrate whatever hybrid technology they deem adequate, namely by balancing the nominal weight of the best-in-class petrol engine with the nominal weight of the best-in-class diesel engine. In essence, this enable to get the ERS factor out of the equation and concentrate on balancing only the best-in-class engine technologies in terms of efficiency and weight. The current EoT is not very transparent and somewhat confusing. It currently combines too many considerations: fuel efficiency, ERS incentive, diesel engine overweight compensation, balancing of different technologies in different ERS classes, ... |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
4 May 2016, 10:49 (Ref:3638415) | #10363 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
When 10 MJ petrol class is introduced KTF for 8MJ diesel will be adjusted so that Audi will benefit just as much as petrol 10 MJ, don't worry.
MJ Classes are there just so the ACO has control, the big picture is "make as much hybrid power as min weight allows you to" or "make faster car for less fuel". In that spirit introducing any dead weight ballast for petrol is a complete no-go, because it hurts the direction the rules are going. There, I hope I managed to explain what I was trying for so long. |
|
|
4 May 2016, 13:18 (Ref:3638461) | #10364 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
I do maintain - and that's just my personal opinion and belief - that it makes more sense to compensate for the diesel engine overweight by imposing a mandatory ballast, rather than artificially compensating this overweight by allowing a more favorable fuel energy allocation to diesel cars, which is the purpose/function of the current KTF. I find it actually strange that the current rules try to compensate a weight handicap via a more favorable fuel energy allocation. THIS hurts the direction the rules are supposed to go IMHO, because the whole message is improving fuel efficiency, and the KTF fundamentally goes against this message. Compensating overweight via ballast is far more straightforward, simple and transparent, isn't it ? The KTF actually creates an unnecessary dependence between two elements that are fundamentally unrelated by essence: overweight and fuel energy allocation. There is no connection, so why bother creating one ? I know that I won't convince you, but you have to admit that there is not only one solution available to the rule-makers when it comes to compensating the overweight of the diesel engine. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
4 May 2016, 15:40 (Ref:3638481) | #10365 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
When it comes to racing, weight is efficiency advantage no matter how you look at it and when rules favor efficiency then KTF was chosen to preserve that gain.
This way we can have petrol hybrid at 875 kg competing with only 2.7% more fuel energy against diesel hybrid. Your "ballast" way would mean petrol hybrid would need 6.9% more fuel energy to be competitive against diesel hybrid. This logic would be also true if there would be no MJ classes (unrestricted ERS). |
|
|
4 May 2016, 16:25 (Ref:3638489) | #10366 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
I see were back on the engine weight talk. Audi don't have to use a big 4L engine. They can invest in a smaller lighter diesel (or they can't with the dieselgate?). Downsizing is the trend among the field. What happens if they make a 4 cylinder turbo that weighs 120-130kg? Does that weight factor in the rules still apply?
|
|
|
4 May 2016, 16:39 (Ref:3638494) | #10367 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
I'm betting that the Toyota engine isn't a relative light weight because of it being both forced induction and twin turbo. Also, combined with going with batteries, the TS050 is over the 875kg limit, while Audi isn't. How is that explained.
It's also been shown that bigger engines that rev slowly are just as if not more efficient than smaller, higher revving engines. The problem with diesel engines is that because they're compression ignition, they have to be stronger (and hence, likely heavier) to handle the extra compression. Also, the increased displacement is a view to overcome the biggest single deficit that a performance diesel has--that diesels can't rev. While Toyota and Porsche can pull 8000rpm, Audi are stuck to about 4500rpm due to the nature of diesel engines not being capable of running at very high rpm. Diesels aren't known for making huge top end power, even with forced induction. |
||
|
4 May 2016, 16:52 (Ref:3638498) | #10368 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
I doubt the Toyota is heavier. Where do you get your info from? You have any insider friends or you pick that up in an article? We don't even know the weight of the Audi engine officially.
|
|
|
4 May 2016, 18:46 (Ref:3638519) | #10369 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 723
|
What will our Audi R18 cars look like at Spa? Here is the new low downforce aero config #WEC #LeagueofPerformance
https://twitter.com/audi__sport/stat...31211230920704 Looks like maybe Audi will be running a low downforce kit? Last edited by Creep89; 4 May 2016 at 18:54. |
||
|
4 May 2016, 19:27 (Ref:3638527) | #10370 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
In terms of pure engine efficiency, the current EoT is based on the assumption that the best-in-class diesel engine is 6.9% more efficient than the best-in-class petrol engine (hence the FTF of 1.069). In summary, one either sticks with the current EoT principle which balances the 8MJ petrol vs. the 6MJ diesel, in which case the fuel energy allocation for diesel has to take into account the 2MJ deficit in ERS energy (the 6MJ diesel getting a more favorable energy allocation as a result) or one opts for a different EoT principle which truly balances petrol vs. diesel within one and a same ERS class, which implies getting rid of the KTF (and therefore the more favorable fuel energy allocation awarded to diesel) and imposing compensation ballast. If one were to apply this principle in e.g. the 6MJ class, that would mean that diesel would get a little more than 128MJ (instead of 131.2MJ as per the current EoT) thus imposing more stringent efficiency targets to the diesel competitor. The compensation ballast would only be an issue in terms of performance if the minimum car weight is exceeded as a result. This at least ensures that all competitors are faced with more or less the same challenge when it comes to packaging the hybrid system within the minimum car weight. If the petrol guys have e.g. 100-150kg to play with to integrate the ERS, why is it that Audi cannot benefit from the same flexibility/freedom ? |
|||
|
4 May 2016, 20:17 (Ref:3638546) | #10371 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
(source: e-i) |
|||
|
4 May 2016, 20:20 (Ref:3638549) | #10372 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,222
|
Audi is really serious about "Low Drag"
|
||
|
4 May 2016, 20:37 (Ref:3638557) | #10373 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,022
|
Ouch, awful and great at the same time.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
4 May 2016, 20:49 (Ref:3638560) | #10374 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
|||
|
4 May 2016, 21:08 (Ref:3638568) | #10375 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
Quote:
Quote:
The rules are written to the cars that exist, but behind those rules it should be really simple general rule: as equal fuel energy too all the competitors as possible. (currently we are at only 2.7% difference). If petrol competitor would choose heavy engine with miller cycle and HCCI with equal to diesel thermal efficiency, then they would have to completely rewrite the rules. And again that concept would benefit from more powerful ICE (just as Audi) but would not have enough spare weight for heavy hybrid system (just as Audi). It's simple physics. And don't forget, according to fuel flow and engine thermal efficiency Audi has >4% more engine power in 6 MJ class. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Porsche GTP / Hypercar: factory and customer | Simmi | North American Racing | 9284 | 18 Sep 2024 14:24 |
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | ACO Regulated Series | 6771 | 18 Aug 2020 09:37 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
[LM24 Race] Audi LMP1 Poster all art deco'd. | blackohio | ACO Regulated Series | 2 | 27 Oct 2011 06:30 |