Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

We have to remember that Prodrive did that the Lola-AM that Enge trashed at Paul Ricard a couple of years ago. That car at least was a partial re-tub to repair it, if not a new car that used only enough SN'd parts to be classed as a "repaired" car (possibly as little as the number plate, most likely).

On an R18 (but not accident) related not, it still has to be confirmed, but the Audi Sport fan page on Facebook (not the official Audi Sport Facebook page) are reporting that Dindo Capello might be back behind the wheel of a R18 at Sebring and Le Mans next year.

Either they want to keep the "Italian quota" for those races next year, or Audi thinks that Dindo deserves another shot at a LM or Sebring win before he retires for sure.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

We have to remember that Prodrive did that the Lola-AM that Enge trashed at Paul Ricard a couple of years ago. That car at least was a partial re-tub to repair it, if not a new car that used only enough SN'd parts to be classed as a "repaired" car (possibly as little as the number plate, most likely).

that car (DBR1/2-1) was originally HU02 , after the crash it came back as HU02S (but still DBR1/2-1), which makes it almost certain that they used a spare tub.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by henk4

that car (DBR1/2-1) was originally HU02 , after the crash it came back as HU02S (but still DBR1/2-1), which makes it almost certain that they used a spare tub.

Basically what I was trying to get at--Prodrive moved "their" number plate from one tub to another, while Lola added the "S" suffix to indicate that it was a "repaired" or "revised" tub, pretty much to shadow the fact that the original car was a virtual write off (and I think that Prodrive and AMR had a lot more to do with that than Lola did).

[henk4]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Basically what I was trying to get at--Prodrive moved "their" number plate from one tub to another, while Lola added the "S" suffix to indicate that it was a "repaired" or "revised" tub, pretty much to shadow the fact that the original car was a virtual write off (and I think that Prodrive and AMR had a lot more to do with that than Lola did).

in my idea "S" stands for "Spare", otherwise Lola might have used an "R"

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Can you expand on both the above comments please ?

Well. Pedro Lamy has been looking a bit disheveled lately. Remember at Sebring when he spun in the 2nd corner on cold tires coming out of the pits.

He hasn;t been particularly quick either. He's been quite slow and that is probably why he only got 2 hours of driving time in the 24 of Lemans this year.
then he said after the race that he didn't appreciate the lack of driving time...but if thats what peugeot wants...

Sounds like he's not happy with the team. And seems like the team are unimpressed by him.


And who is annoyed that his frenchness is not sitting
in the cockpit of a factory Peugeot 908......Sir Loic Duval. Who pushed the old 908 Hdi to the limit runnning a 3.29 in the race.....Sir Loic Duval....

But he also had a some facepalms and we'll see how puegeot looks at that. Considerig Alex Wurx had the same incident in the aforementioned Peugeot.

[gwyllion]

Can the moderators move the completely message of Audi Racer to the Peugeot thread?

[gwyllion]

The victorious #2 car has arrived in Ingolstadt: http://www.fourtitude.com/gallery/ga...%20Ingolstadt#

Judging from all the dirt you would think that it drove there on the Autobahn

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Can the moderators move the completely message of Audi Racer to the Peugeot thread?

...................Well if you had read earlier you'd know that someone requested this......clearly your intent on attacking just me.....In addition this isn;t the only off topic comment on this thread........

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Don't forget the Aston Martin smoker

Wow the R18 has sprouted a petrol engine and a gulf livery.......My point is if you want to go off topic hunting you haven't done enough. Its obvious you are take a stab at me.

[gwyllion]

I merely asked the moderator for the message to be moved to the Peugeot thread, where the Lamy situation has already been discussed at length

[gwyllion]

Mike's post Le Mans analysis is available on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay11.html

His main conclusion is

Quicker lap times, nearly same top speed, coupled with more downforce must simply mean the R18 is more aerodynamically efficient than the 908.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Mike's post Le Mans analysis is available on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay11.html

His main conclusion is

that is a limited definition of efficiency, taking into account the obviously lower fuel consumption of the Pugs, the total packages of both cars look rather equally matched in terms of OVERALL efficiency. We calculated that over the whole race the Audi was 0.04 seconds PER LAP faster than the Pugs....

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by henk4

that is a limited definition of efficiency, taking into account the obviously lower fuel consumption of the Pugs, the total packages of both cars look rather equally matched in terms of OVERALL efficiency. We calculated that over the whole race the Audi was 0.04 seconds PER LAP faster than the Pugs....

The peugeot didn't have lower fuel consumption per say....The idea is that less drag means the engine doesnt work as hard to push it through the air. along with what Mulsanne Mike posted on his website. If the Audi was making as much as 500lbs more downforce than the 908 at 200mph you see the implication on fuel economy.......Its like driving a car that 500lbs hevier at the end of each straight. More weight equals more fuel consumption.

[Audi Racer]

The ACO is proposing a number of aerodynamic changes for 2012 to further reduce sudden yaw induced flight and is currently shopping this list amongst the manufacturers. The proposed changes include a longer and taller fin that is integrated into any roof inlet, an increase in the area of the mandatory front fender louvers from 160 cm2 to 200 cm2, mandatory louvers on the rear fenders (100 cm2), and an increase in the height of the domed skid from 20 mm to 30 mm. For now this is a draft list and nothing is set in stone though these proposals seem to be born out the FIA/ACO meeting held with the manufacturers in early April.

-Mulssanes Corner http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay11.html


Funny how the ACO banned louvers on the rear fenders for 2011........And you ask for what reason? seems like they do random things sometimes......ala reducing the rear wing size to make cars with less downforce keeping them on the track.....

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I merely asked the moderator for the message to be moved to the Peugeot thread, where the Lamy situation has already been discussed at length

Then you should probably ask him to take care of your Aston Martin Post as well...

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

The peugeot didn't have lower fuel consumption per say....The idea is that less drag means the engine doesnt work as hard to push it through the air. along with what Mulsanne Mike posted on his website. If the Audi was making as much as 500lbs more downforce than the 908 at 200mph you see the implication on fuel economy.......Its like driving a car that 500lbs hevier at the end of each straight. More weight equals more fuel consumption.

The Pugs did win the Michelin Green Challenge (see http://www.michelin.com.my/Home/News...MANS-24-HOURS2,) so they did use less fuel, in absolute terms, but also in relative terms. The Peugeot set up was decidedly different from the Audi, they went for low drag, high top speed and high fuel efficiency. In the end the Audi set up paid off, by 13.5 seconds

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Then you should probably ask him to take care of your Aston Martin Post as well...

that post was made in reference to my remark that the R18s violate the rules for visible smoke. And so did the AMR1, so there was some relevance.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by henk4

The Pugs did win the Michelin Green Challenge (see http://www.michelin.com.my/Home/News...MANS-24-HOURS2,) so they did use less fuel, in absolute terms, but also in relative terms. The Peugeot set up was decidedly different from the Audi, they went for low drag, high top speed and high fuel efficiency. In the end the Audi set up paid off, by 13.5 seconds

ok......"lower fuel consumption"- yes the peugeot had "lower fuel consumption" in one way but in another way we'll never know.

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

ok......"lower fuel consumption"- yes the peugeot had "lower fuel consumption" in one way but in another way we'll never know.

Was it really lower fuel consumption that forced the Audi't to pit a lap earlier or was it a fuel pickup issue that made sure they could only manage 10 laps? Anyone that can calculate how much the Audi would have won by if they did 11 laps instead of 10?

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by henk4

that post was made in reference to my remark that the R18s violate the rules for visible smoke. And so did the AMR1, so there was some relevance.

.....And my post about Lamy was made in response to someone else talking about drivers for the R18. They were comparing Marcel Fassler(driver of the R18) to Pedro Lamy.......I'm not saying that Gwyllions post is off topic.... He's saying that mine was......funny how mine and his post are essentially the same by responding to someone elses post.....I have no issue. He or She does....but if he wants to say my comment is off topic then essentially his must be as well. Therefore if your saying his post is on topic mine is implicitly on topic as well....

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

ok......"lower fuel consumption"- yes the peugeot had "lower fuel consumption" in one way but in another way we'll never know.

I tried to explain to you how their fuel consumption came about. We do know unless you don't want to know.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by NelisB

Was it really lower fuel consumption that forced the Audi't to pit a lap earlier or was it a fuel pickup issue that made sure they could only manage 10 laps? Anyone that can calculate how much the Audi would have won by if they did 11 laps instead of 10?

I think from a political point of view it is more convenient for Audi to refer to a fuel pick-up issue than admitting that their cars used more fuel than the Pugs. But, the Green challenge calculates the amount of fuel used for the whole race, in relation to the distance covered. The #7 and 9 Peugeots came on top there so they did get a better mileage.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by henk4

I tried to explain to you how their fuel consumption came about. We do know unless you don't want to know.

Well im trying to tell you that there more than one definition too fuel consumption.... The first being what your stating here with the peugeot using the least fuel as a result of having the least aero on......


the other definition is take the engine out of the car and strap the puegeot and the audi engine on an engine dyno......Give each of them 60 liters of fuel......See which one shuts off first.....Thats the second definition.....

Audi didn't design an engine that was greedy on fuel.....neither did peugeot.....Were talking about racing not comparing to a prius lol....It seemed to be the circumstances that the engine was run at. Audi had more downforce...Maybe when we go to Imola we'll see that Audi has the advantage there.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Well im trying to tell you that there more than one definition too fuel consumption.... The first being what your stating here with the peugeot using the least fuel as a result of having the least aero on......


the other definition is take the engine out of the car and strap the puegeot and the audi engine on an engine dyno......Give each of them 60 liters of fuel......See which one shuts off first.....Thats the second definition.....

Audi didn't design an engine that was greedy on fuel.....neither did peugeot.....Were talking about racing not comparing to a prius lol....It seemed to be the circumstances that the engine was run at. Audi had more downforce...Maybe when we go to Imola we'll see that Audi has the advantage there.

that is exactly what I told you, the Pugs were set up for high topspeed and low downforce, using less fuel in the process and thereby trying to win time because of less pitstops, while the Audis were using more fuel because of their higher downforce at the expense of a shorter stint. The difference in the end was that Audi won by 13 seconds, and Peugeot used less fuel (per meter covered) during the race. I am sure Peugeot would also have liked to see that the other way round.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

.....And my post about Lamy was made in response to someone else talking about drivers for the R18. They were comparing Marcel Fassler(driver of the R18) to Pedro Lamy.......I'm not saying that Gwyllions post is off topic.... He's saying that mine was......funny how mine and his post are essentially the same by responding to someone elses post.....I have no issue. He or She does....but if he wants to say my comment is off topic then essentially his must be as well. Therefore if your saying his post is on topic mine is implicitly on topic as well....

There is no need to take this personal

I just wanted to point out that the whole Lamy situation has already been discussed in the Peugeot thread. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...75#post2898075 and around 20 subsequent messages.

[Mal]

I think it was a deliberate policy to run more downforce and thus increase the ability to overtake under braking and in corners but it meant they needed to run faster and have more stops. They mitigated the pit stops by doing longer stints on the tyres which was probably helped by the increased downforce reducing the risk of sliding.

The gap at the end was made artificially small by the Audi being cautious in the damp conditions and didn't entirely reflect the race pace under dry conditions.

Had the Audi run the same downforce as Pug the fuel consumption may well have been the same or better.

All this could indicate why Audi ran such low downforce in Spa to try and trick Pug into thinking that was the direction they would go for LM.