[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[knighty]

Sounds like Rob Leupen knows his onions:

“From our point of view there is no balancing required, there is no review required,” he said. “They (Audi) should not get a change because they went out with a hybrid system that is not developed, that is off the shelf and is only two megajoules."

I couldnt have said it better myself!!.....he obviously reads 10-10ths posts!

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by knighty

Sounds like Rob Leupen knows his onions:

“From our point of view there is no balancing required, there is no review required,” he said. “They (Audi) should not get a change because they went out with a hybrid system that is not developed, that is off the shelf and is only two megajoules."

I couldnt have said it better myself!!.....he obviously reads 10-10ths posts!

Funnily, Vasselon is claiming that a re-balancing between petrol and diesel is still required (source: AutoHebdo). Seems that different views are expressed by Toyota representatives then

[Articus]

That would be yet the latest in a series of rather uninformed comments from Mr. Leupen...

I don't know how anyone can believe a single word from any of the teams. Last year Audi said they could build a better petrol engine. At the same time, Toyota said the equivalency was wrong. This year it's role reversal. How can you reconcile the difference?

Seems like we just end up here with baseless facts caused by overt brand favoritism...

[Acid09]

Rob Leupen has always struck me as a very reasonable guy and I can see nothing wrong with his comments.

He's right about Audi not taking any risks at all with their car. Going by the current level of technology in LMP1-H, their car can be labeled as pretty conservative. That is their choice and it worked out in their favor at Le Mans, all fine.

But I don't see why they should get any break. LMP1-H is all about innovation and Audi's doing very little on that front, especially compared to Toyota and Porsche.

Rewarding them for that with a rules break would send the entirely wrong signal and actually discourage manufacturers from taking development risks, which is what Toyota & Porsche have done.

The whole argument is simply not reasonable. Audi have just won Le Mans, less than two weeks ago. And yet they're already complaining again. It's so tiresome.

[tomazy]

So, Audi should not complain becouse they chose the simpler 2MJ hybrid option, and it is there fault that it is wors. But Toyota can complain that the diesel is better becouse they chose a simpler non turbocharged petrol engine for there car?

That makes sence.

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by templer

Toyota is looking for the 8MJ category.
John Litjens mentioned during the Eurosport Germany LM broadcast that they are already working on the new car and one of their main focus is looking for a further weight reduction which should allow them to race in the 8MJ category. Toyota Japan is also looking if they can use a combination of supercapacitors and batteries.

It seems like they are ready to go 8MJ. According to what I've heard from Kinoshita and Vasselon if they can develop their supercaps further 8MJ and more power will be no problem at all.

[templer]

Originally Posted by dbagtbag

It seems like they are ready to go 8MJ. According to what I've heard from Kinoshita and Vasselon if they can develop their supercaps further 8MJ and more power will be no problem at all.

The technology of their ERS -systems were even ready this year for the 8 MJ category but they switched back as it put's too much weight into the car.
So they need to save more weight for using the more powerful system.
The power is not the problem of the supercapacitors but they stored the power very fast and gave it also very fast back onto the drivetrain. So you cannot use your power over a longer time period which is possible with batteries. For me this is the reason why Toyota is looking for a combination of both systems to elimiate the only drawback of the supercapacitors.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Rob Leupen has always struck me as a very reasonable guy and I can see nothing wrong with his comments.

He's right about Audi not taking any risks at all with their car. Going by the current level of technology in LMP1-H, their car can be labeled as pretty conservative. That is their choice and it worked out in their favor at Le Mans, all fine.

But I don't see why they should get any break. LMP1-H is all about innovation and Audi's doing very little on that front, especially compared to Toyota and Porsche.

Rewarding them for that with a rules break would send the entirely wrong signal and actually discourage manufacturers from taking development risks, which is what Toyota & Porsche have done.

The whole argument is simply not reasonable. Audi have just won Le Mans, less than two weeks ago. And yet they're already complaining again. It's so tiresome.

Audi haven't taken any development risk? The car is conservative? The car isn't innovative?
Words couldn't do justice for how wrong it would be for you to think that.

[templer]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Rob Leupen has always struck me as a very reasonable guy and I can see nothing wrong with his comments.

He's right about Audi not taking any risks at all with their car. Going by the current level of technology in LMP1-H, their car can be labeled as pretty conservative. That is their choice and it worked out in their favor at Le Mans, all fine.

But I don't see why they should get any break. LMP1-H is all about innovation and Audi's doing very little on that front, especially compared to Toyota and Porsche.

Rewarding them for that with a rules break would send the entirely wrong signal and actually discourage manufacturers from taking development risks, which is what Toyota & Porsche have done.


The whole argument is simply not reasonable. Audi have just won Le Mans, less than two weeks ago. And yet they're already complaining again. It's so tiresome.

I agree with you that Audi has taken a more conventional way on all their LMP's in the fast and this could become their problem on day. But they reached also 12 LM victories so what is wrong in their kind of view.
Peugeot had nearly all the years the faster car but succeeded only once at LM and also Toyota failed until now.
At LM the sentence " For to finish first you have first to finish" counts even more compared to all other races.

Rob Leupen is a great guy, but using a term " shut up" is not okay against any rival, as it concerns no respect.
Toyota know like all others that politics behind the lines is a great part of works motorsports and all manufacturers try to get and advantage by the rules.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by tomazy

So, Audi should not complain becouse they chose the simpler 2MJ hybrid option, and it is there fault that it is wors. But Toyota can complain that the diesel is better becouse they chose a simpler non turbocharged petrol engine for there car?

That makes sence.

This is the other elephant sitting in the corner of the room, albeit squashed by its bigger hybrid brother at the moment. Once Audi come back with a higher-rated ERS & Nissan enter the fray, you won't be able to move for hearing all four manufacturers claim they know exactly how efficient each competitor's ICE should be. And the figures will gradually rise right up until LM Test Day.

Looking forward to it already

[Articus]

Conventional? It's a diesel. The Audi, Porsche, Toyota are all very innovative cars. To think that the Audi having a 2 MJ hybrid system makes it "conventional" or any less innovative than the Toyota or Porsche. Lets just break that line of thought ok?

[templer]

Originally Posted by Articus

Conventional? It's a diesel. The Audi, Porsche, Toyota are all very innovative cars. To think that the Audi having a 2 MJ hybrid system makes it "conventional" or any less innovative than the Toyota or Porsche. Lets just break that line of thought ok?

The term "conventional" describes the whole layout of the car not only the engine or the hybrid system. The R15 for example was not conventional.

It is fact that Peugeot had a more advanced car in terms engine, aero and mainly suspension system.
Porsche uses a highly innovative engine/hybrid system.
Toyota has a more advanced aerodynamics.

Conventional does not mean old-fashioned or something like that. It only means that Audi did not take the same risks as their rivals. They used a bit more conventional route. Nevertheless they have great success and of course introduced their own innovative parts like first diesel engine, VGT's, laser light and so on.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by templer

The term "conventional" describes the whole layout of the car not only the engine or the hybrid system. The R15 for example was not conventional.

It is fact that Peugeot had a more advanced car in terms engine, aero and mainly suspension system.
Porsche uses a highly innovative engine/hybrid system.
Toyota has a more advanced aerodynamics.

Conventional does not mean old-fashioned or something like that. It only means that Audi did not take the same risks as their rivals. They used a bit more conventional route. Nevertheless they have great success and of course introduced their own innovative parts like first diesel engine, VGT's, laser light and so on.

But then again, that's why Audi do so well, isn't it? They're perceived to be innovative but in lots of areas they are incredibly conventional. But that's why they win Le Mans.

You get far further at LM through preparation than trying to be clever.

[ederss7]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Rob Leupen has always struck me as a very reasonable guy and I can see nothing wrong with his comments.

He's right about Audi not taking any risks at all with their car. Going by the current level of technology in LMP1-H, their car can be labeled as pretty conservative. That is their choice and it worked out in their favor at Le Mans, all fine.

But I don't see why they should get any break. LMP1-H is all about innovation and Audi's doing very little on that front, especially compared to Toyota and Porsche.

Rewarding them for that with a rules break would send the entirely wrong signal and actually discourage manufacturers from taking development risks, which is what Toyota & Porsche have done.

The whole argument is simply not reasonable. Audi have just won Le Mans, less than two weeks ago. And yet they're already complaining again. It's so tiresome.

Yes, Toyota's engine is much more innovative than Audi's engine...

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by ederss7

Yes, Toyota's engine is much more innovative than Audi's engine...

I don't think they're ahead of Audi but they certainly aren't behind. The engine is running a 17:1 compression ratio this season, and has run trouble free all season, including Le Mans. If that's not innovative and/or advanced, frankly I don't know what is!

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Toyota have the weakest engine based on the oldest technology in the field.

This is probably better suited to the Toyota thread but anyway...

They're running the compression ratio at 17:1 and have done so all season with no engine issues. What's weak about that...?

[Maelochs]

I'd say that whether we know the details or not, pretty much everything on any of theP1Hs is about the most advanced the engineers can dream up because, except for some margin for reliability, there guys know they have to push the boundaries to succeed.

Yeah, it's a petrol V8---but it has a 17-1 compression ration!

yeah, it's just another Audi turbo-diesel---but it makes the same power on 1/3 less fuel!!

I'd bet there are engineers looking at every system on the car from wheel nuts to water bottles and thinking of better ways to achieve the needed function, and then thinking of new functions. None of it is "conventional."

Audi might leave slightly larger margins for error, and at Le mans that might pay off ... but it seems this year attention to detail was what crippled the #7 Toyota---another area where Audi has learned from its experience and still rules.

Not much "conventional" about 1000-1100-bhp hybrids lapping Le Mans at those speeds on 1/3 less fuel.

[msd76]

Originally Posted by ederss7

Yes, Toyota's engine is much more innovative than Audi's engine...

Yet it uses a lot more fuel for a lot less power, didn’t Ant Davidson say it was like driving a LMP2 once the supercapacitor emptied?

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by msd76

Yet it uses a lot more fuel for a lot less power, didn’t Ant Davidson say it was like driving a LMP2 once the supercapacitor emptied?

Possibly Toyota could take your V8 to 4.0 or 4.5 liters and thus lose some revolutions and consumption.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

This is probably better suited to the Toyota thread but anyway...

They're running the compression ratio at 17:1 and have done so all season with no engine issues. What's weak about that...?

Speaking of compression rate, 17:1 isn't a huge figure considering its nature as a NA high rev engine. Not to mention that E20 bio petrol is inherently better compressed. As a result, to say the compression rate as a sign of innovative engine tech is misleading.

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Speaking of compression rate, 17:1 isn't a huge figure considering its nature as a NA high rev engine. Not to mention that E20 bio petrol is inherently better compressed. As a result, to say the compression rate as a sign of innovative engine tech is misleading.

top kek

Its pretty damn high for a non-restricted NA engine. And you're right E20 is more preignition resistant than regular petrol but not enough to do 17:1 without some clever tricks. The two other examples in which a similar figure has been achieved on a port fueled engine is in -2013 F1 and NASCAR. In NASCAR they were running restricted carburated engines so that is not so surprising since the restrictor caused low volumetric efficiency and carburators meant a relatively heterogeneous mixture in the chamber. In -2013 F1 they ran similar octane fuel to E20 (~98ron) and they ran at 18000rpm which means there is little time for preignition (spot of homogeneous) to happen.

In short 17:1 is pretty ridiculous seeing that most port injected engines of similar size don't get beyond 12 or 13:1. Though temperature ratio during compression only scales at about ^0.3 of the pressure ratio, increasing compression is not a trivial task. Even directed injection engines don't get far past 14:1 (skyactiv) with the advantage of having a localized fuel pockets so you don't have to worry about homogeneous preignition which would turn your engine into a small bomb and ability to inject fuel whenever you please in the combustion chamber.

The Toyota engine has a lot tiny features that make this possible and while we don't know what they are, its clear a conventional approach to engine design will not be able to pull off what they did. I ran the numbers and I'll be honest, the best I can do is guess what they have been doing. It would be an insult to say guys working at Toyota (Audi and Porsche too of course!) aren't being innovative and trying new things.

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Possibly Toyota could take your V8 to 4.0 or 4.5 liters and thus lose some revolutions and consumption.

Kinoshita did say that the ideal V8 for their paradigm was 4.0L. He mentioned that if the circumstances were right to design another architecture it would be a 4.0L block

[cokata]

Originally Posted by msd76

Yet it uses a lot more fuel for a lot less power, didn’t Ant Davidson say it was like driving a LMP2 once the supercapacitor emptied?

That was last year.The audi had more than 600 hp then, that's why it ran shorter stints

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by dbagtbag

Its pretty damn high for a non-restricted NA engine. And you're right E20 is more preignition resistant than regular petrol but not enough to do 17:1 without some clever tricks. The two other examples in which a similar figure has been achieved on a port fueled engine is in -2013 F1 and NASCAR. In NASCAR they were running restricted carburated engines so that is not so surprising since the restrictor caused low volumetric efficiency and carburators meant a relatively heterogeneous mixture in the chamber. In -2013 F1 they ran similar octane fuel to E20 (~98ron) and they ran at 18000rpm which means there is little time for preignition (spot of homogeneous) to happen.

According to Audi the other manufacturers are using a special racing fuel, while they are running on standard diesel.

Completely untypical for a diesel, however, is the range of the current Audi R18 e-tron quattro. On the road, the TDI has a distinct advantage compared with the gasoline engine. At Le Mans, in contrast, the 54.3-liter fuel tanks specified for the Audis in the regulations means they will always have to come into the pits one lap sooner than the competition with their 68.3-liter gasoline tanks. “This flies in the face of any real-life situation,” complains Ulrich Baretzky. Furthermore, the R18 will be filled with standard commercial diesel fuel, while the gasoline engines are allowed to use a “designer fuel” with special additives.

source: http://audi-encounter.com/magazine/t...-at-the-limits

[TF110]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Speaking of compression rate, 17:1 isn't a huge figure considering its nature as a NA high rev engine. Not to mention that E20 bio petrol is inherently better compressed. As a result, to say the compression rate as a sign of innovative engine tech is misleading.

They were at 17:1 last year as well. Was that with the aid of E20?

Another point on Vasselon's comments vs. Luepen's; Vasselon was speaking of the balance between the fuel tech, Luepen was speaking on Audi using only 2mj of hybrid power. Two totally different aspects. The 'ers incentive' is apparently "higher mj, faster lap time". Thats got nothing to do with the equality of Petrols performance to Diesel's.