|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
26 Jun 2014, 08:10 (Ref:3426641) | #1201 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
This has been explained repeatedly: diesel engine heavier, less weight for bigger hybrid. It is much more difficult for Audi to run in the higher MJ classes. |
||
|
26 Jun 2014, 10:43 (Ref:3426701) | #1202 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
And 17:1 compression for gasoline racing engines isn't anything new, either; NASCAR Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) engines were pulling similar numbers in the mid-1990s and I'd bet that F1 engines from the same period weren't too far from that figure, either.
Only the 14:1 (1997) and 12:1 (1998-present) rules-imposed limits kept NASCAR engine builders from exploring higher limits. And those were OHV pushrod engines. |
||
|
26 Jun 2014, 10:48 (Ref:3426702) | #1203 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
If the equivalence between diesel and petrol happens to be adjusted in favour of petrol (following Vasselon's "desire") - which would translate into a further increase of the FTF - that would inevitably make the situation even worse in terms of the (once again) artificial gap of performance resulting from the "ERS incentive". |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
26 Jun 2014, 11:07 (Ref:3426712) | #1204 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Currently, the diesel overweight is "compensated" via the KTF, which directly impacts the fuel allocation figures for diesel. Combined with the "ERS incentive", this results in a fundamental lack of equivalence between the various ERS options. Currently, the fuel allocation figures are adjusted on a "column by column" basis, but in practice, the ACO-FIA are attempting to more or less "balance/unbalance" ERS options between different columns (recall the ACO-FIA declarations according to which a 2/4 MJ diesel is supposed to be nearly equivalent to a 4/6 MJ petrol). I have already expressed my view on the "ERS incentive", but this parameter once again screws up the entire picture. It would have been far better for the ACO-FIA to opt for a true equivalence between ALL ERS options, rather than this "mess". Now, a better (?) may of balancing the ERS options might be to directly compensate the diesel overweight by imposing a corresponding amount of ballast to the petrol cars (and get rid of the KTF), thereby putting both technologies on equal footing in terms of the ability to integrate bigger hybrid systems. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
26 Jun 2014, 11:30 (Ref:3426727) | #1205 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
As far as I know higher compression ratio with a little richer mixture is easily achievable (higher power with air restrictors), but some of you are forgetting that Toyota achieved this on a fuel saving lean mixture.
|
|
|
26 Jun 2014, 11:48 (Ref:3426733) | #1206 | |||
Racer
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
That sounds like a pretty simple way of keeping EoT under control They are running a lambda (air fuel equivalence) of around 0.9-1.1 which means they are running both lean and rich. However for fuel saving reasons they are probably running lean at high rpms and rich at lower rpms to help torque and prevent preignition down low. |
|||
|
26 Jun 2014, 22:15 (Ref:3426948) | #1207 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 Jun 2014, 00:14 (Ref:3426974) | #1208 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,148
|
Why would you trust Pascal Vasselon, Rob Leupen, or anyone involved with the Toyota program to make a call about the BOP between themselves and Audi. That's awfully naive. Not saying we can trust Audi either. Lets just wait and see...
|
|
|
27 Jun 2014, 00:21 (Ref:3426976) | #1209 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,148
|
Quote:
The weight difference comes from fundamental part of a diesel engine's operation. I thought we were past this? The difficulty in running a larger ERS is a penalty they would have had whether they stuck with the 3.4 liter or upgraded to the 3.7. The 50kg difference is almost half the weight of Toyota Supercapacitors or ~3MJ worth. How is that for comparison? |
||
|
27 Jun 2014, 04:46 (Ref:3427010) | #1210 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
You know its so easy to say Audi is stuck with a heavy diesel, but the fact is they arent. They could have downsized to 3liters or stayed the same size and worked on lighter components with the same engine. They decided against that and went larger, AND decreased their hybrid power limit. So when you say things like "how can Toyota know..." its not hard to come to the conclusion on how. Its no secret the engines of diesel cars are heavier, but when you complain about competitors being faster while you set two out of three fastest laps and won Le Mans, you look silly. When Luepen says "they haven't developed their hybrid" its not off the mark. Instead of doing like your two main rivals and taking advantage of more hybrid power allowed, they go and do less than 2012-13. Thats why his comments dont look like theyre biased. |
||
|
27 Jun 2014, 05:42 (Ref:3427019) | #1211 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
So, Audi should have designed a lighter diesel engine ? That's your point ?
Do you honestly believe that Audi could have saved 1/3 of the engine weight of their V6 TDI, which is understood to weigh something in the range of 150 kg (possibly more), to be on par with the Toyota V8 that is understood to weigh about 100 kg ? I know that Audi have good engineers, but they can't do miracles... |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
27 Jun 2014, 05:52 (Ref:3427022) | #1212 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
An efficient engine is and always was heavier, there is no short cut. There many things you can do with petrol engine to be on pair with diesel (D-EGR comes to mind, Peugeot where are you?)
We are seeing some very different concepts of the whole car's efficiency and currently under this weight limits we are seeing all cars consume ~139 MJ per lap, the worst thing that can happen in future years is that only one concept proves as the best, then we will have some boring chats of one system on this Forum |
|
|
27 Jun 2014, 06:35 (Ref:3427028) | #1213 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
|
||
|
27 Jun 2014, 07:47 (Ref:3427048) | #1214 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
Do you understand better what Im saying? I know people like to say "its too heavy" for them to keep the flywheel and associated hybrid tech at that level (4mj). But really, is it? They couldn't make 870kg with their "lightest lmp ever"? I dont believe that. |
||
|
27 Jun 2014, 08:08 (Ref:3427051) | #1215 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
BTW, the 4.0L V6 TDI weighs less than the former 3.7L V6 TDI according to various statements from Audi and Dr. Baretzky in particular. And there is once again a good reason why Audi went for the 2 MJ ERS option at the time, namely that all ERS options were supposed to be on equal footing when they made that decision. That "ERS incentive" thing came only afterwards. That's what Audi have been complaining about following the last Appendix B changes that were decided shortly before the WEC season started. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
27 Jun 2014, 08:47 (Ref:3427066) | #1216 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Looking at this from a different perspective, would Toyota be able to integrate a 6 MJ or 8 MJ hybrid system if they were to be handicapped by a 50kg ballast to compensate for the diesel overweight ? Same question applies for Porsche BTW.
|
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
27 Jun 2014, 09:14 (Ref:3427074) | #1217 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
|
If we don't know how much the whole "6 MJ ERS" weights we can only guess.
Is it 150 kg? Then 4 MJ would be possible for Toyota and 50 kg ballast Is it less than 150 kg? Then yes, only 2 MJ would be possible with 50 kg ballast |
|
|
27 Jun 2014, 09:30 (Ref:3427080) | #1218 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
|
Usually are diesel cars that get ballast because of diesel insane torque, is very unlikely that petrol cars will receive an extra ballast because diesel engine is heavier. Anyway to me, toyota should increase displacement of their engine... with a 4.0 or 4.5 could be obtained more torque and a lower revving engine to be less conditioned by possible hybrid reliability issues.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2014, 16:23 (Ref:3427214) | #1219 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,148
|
In retrospect, this shot of the 2013 TS030 rear wing is very interesting. You can almost see how one thing led to another and we ended up with the 2014 1st gen wing.
gret shots from this guy on twitter https://twitter.com/ScarbsF1/media. Never really noticed before but the aerodynamic detail on this Toyota is nothing short of Stunning. Last edited by Articus; 27 Jun 2014 at 16:29. |
|
|
1 Jul 2014, 16:40 (Ref:3429093) | #1220 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
At last some further news about the "Winggate" courtesy of motorsport-total.com.
So, based on Vasselon's comments, passing the deflection tests is sufficient demonstration of the "legality" of the movable rear wing... |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
1 Jul 2014, 17:15 (Ref:3429108) | #1221 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,496
|
Well it is to the regulators, and that is ultimately what matters. Precedence has been set in this area (most notably by Red Bull, which I will keep mentioning until everyone is sick of it!); the only verifiable way of checking legality is the test. It passed, so it's clear to race regardless of what the wing actually does in race conditions.
Whether it will be seen on the car next year is another question entirely. Now if the FIA were to implement a rotation test this conversation would be rather different |
||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
1 Jul 2014, 17:30 (Ref:3429110) | #1222 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,148
|
Easy fix would just be to allow active rear wings. At least that way you don't need an elaborate flexing rear end to run it.
It just occurred to me that accidents look so bad because the bodywork is so flimsy on these cars when it's not in place that it shreds like confetti when they hit the barriers. |
|
|
1 Jul 2014, 17:37 (Ref:3429113) | #1223 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
What's the point of having regulations if ultimately the only thing that matters is passing scrutineering tests ? |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
1 Jul 2014, 17:46 (Ref:3429116) | #1224 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 662
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
1 Jul 2014, 17:47 (Ref:3429117) | #1225 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,148
|
Unfortunately no regulation can be waterproof if scrutineering is the lay of the land.
Porsche and Audi are annoyed because now they have to figure out how to copy it. Just like how Audi copied the Toyota full width rear wing last year. They did it, but were annoyed about the whole deal because it wasn't in the spirit of the regulations. Toyota chose to be that team. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audi LMP1 Discussion | gwyllion | ACO Regulated Series | 11685 | 16 Feb 2017 10:42 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
Strakka LMP1 discussion | Pontlieue | Sportscar & GT Racing | 56 | 12 Jul 2015 19:12 |
The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga | The Badger | ACO Regulated Series | 6844 | 8 Jan 2014 02:19 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |