[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[Mike E]

The teams running LM bodywork will be hoping for a dry race.

[GT6]

Originally Posted by Mike E

The teams running LM bodywork will be hoping for a dry race.

So i suspect are all the fans

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by GT6

So i suspect are all the fans

After the debacle of Silverstone, so are Audi

[gustavobamba]

I think Porsche will do + 320 km/h

Toyota and Audi in Le mans mode, maybe 310-315 km/h IMHO.

[GT6]

i think it will be the other way round with audi/toyota slightly faster than the porsche

[nobster]

I am looking forward at seeing and hearing all of those three cars blasting through eau rouge.

[aneesh99]

It'll be interesting to see how the cars stack up against one another through the various sectors at Spa - S2 will be interesting with the cars in low downforce trim

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

It'll be interesting to see how the cars stack up against one another through the various sectors at Spa - S2 will be interesting with the cars in low downforce trim

a LD car surely suits better in S1 and S3, an HD car is faster in S2. Spa is a track where one can be competitive with both packages

[joeb]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

a LD car surely suits better in S1 and S3, an HD car is faster in S2. Spa is a track where one can be competitive with both packages

I think that is what he meant, the LD cars will be fine in the other sectors but it is the S2 times that might make the difference.

[TF110]

With the speed difference between the packages, I dont know if the high downforce package is a smart move. If Audi cant even go as far in a stint when Toyota uses high downforce as well, that may take away any hope of being faster making up the difference.

I know we'll have to wait and see the stint lengths. But taking data from Silverstone, 28 lap stints Porsche/Toyota did = 164.9km per stint. That turns out to be 23.5 tours at Spa. With the low downforce/drag setup and more hybrid power 24 laps per stint is my guess. Toyota did one 29 lap stint and Porsche did a couple. That equals 170.8km per stint or 24.3 laps at Spa. Audi never did a full stint at Silverstone. But say its 27 laps = 159.0km per stint at Silverstone. That comes to 22.7 laps at Spa. So probably 23 laps per stint for Audi. It will be great to see if teams stretch the fuel for a potential 25 lap stint, if they go 24 or 23 laps and what times they set.

[TF110]

Love this shot, imo best looking car on the grid. The headlight and fender profile is less of a snub nose from the high downforce package.

[TF110]

This is a good interview with Anthony Davidson http://www.fiawec.com/en/news/in-con...dson_1951.html

Highlights for me is the tire usage he speaks of, a possible 4 or 5 stinting tires at Le Mans. Thats nuts with the smaller size I thought the teams would have trouble this year. Michelin has done a great job on the new tires.

[bentley speed 8]

Toyota looking much better with the LM aero kit

[Dani Filth]

indeed .. was looking good before too .. but not from that angle

[GT6]

toyota will be very disappointed that they are not on pole but they will even more detirmined to lead at the end of the first lap

[vincegail]

Toyota scything through traffic at Spa

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1t...corchamps_auto

[Mr Pink]

Originally Posted by vincegail

Toyota scything through traffic at Spa

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1t...corchamps_auto

D*mn I love multi class racing!

The way the P1s shoot out of the corners amazes me!

[TF110]

Racecar Engineering updated the TS040 page as well as the R18, 919 and R-One.

Some key details like the front bulkhead photo-


Nice and tidy, front mgu concealed as well. Also of note is the front fender holes and the directed airflow. Itd be interesting to read the magazine but I dont have a copy.

[GasperG]

I had a hunch that MGU-H has negative effect on pure engine efficiency, it would be a benefit if the energy harvested by MGU-H would not count for MJ class but if it does then you end up with even less fuel:

The new regulations season allow the use of an exhaust gas energy recovery system in addition to a kinetic energy recovery system. But Toyota chose to improve the efficiency of kinetic energy recovery system, instead of adding an exhaust gas recovery system. This path was taken because the exhaust gas energy recovery system can hamper heat efficiency of an engine as it utilizes exhaust air and has a negative impact on fuel efficiency.

Were they considering MGU-H unit on NA engine? Is the benefit only on a turbo engine, where you will always have enough exhaust pressure under certain circumstance?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I had a hunch that MGU-H has negative effect on pure engine efficiency, it would be a benefit if the energy harvested by MGU-H would not count for MJ class but if it does then you end up with even less fuel

The EoT process of the FIA endurance committee takes into consideration that a MGU-H has a negative effect on fuel efficiency.

3. Effect of Exhaust Gas Recovery System:
Measurement of average true BSFC can be altered by Exhaust Gas Recovery Systems which increase counter pressure at exhaust and thus decrease the efficiency of the engine. This phenomenon is taken into account by FIA by computing an instantaneous corrected torque (see paragraph b.)

source: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...2014%20EoT.pdf

Originally Posted by GasperG

Were they considering MGU-H unit on NA engine? Is the benefit only on a turbo engine, where you will always have enough exhaust pressure under certain circumstance?

The L-SHV system of Yoshimasa Hayashi combines a NA engine and exhaust ERS.

“The L-SHV is unlike the Audi R18 or the 2014 F1 ERS-H, and it simply can be put on a [normally aspirated] engine,” YGK engineer Yuji Tachikawa explained. “It is not as complex as other hybrid systems, I imagine. On the other hand, it makes quite lots of energy that can be used for any electric power source on a car required, and it can supply energy any time when the [internal combustion] engine runs.

“As a result of that, you do not have to store electricity into massive batteries or a flywheel when just only at braking zones. The SHV battery is very small, so just the energy flow is from a generator via the battery to the MGU. Of course, we need the energy storage on a battery, or a capacitor, from braking for the efficient energy management, but we can choose a battery that’s as small as possible.”

source: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/asian...hybrid-system/



source: http://www.endurance-info.com/fr/act...durance-20862/

[GasperG]

Thanks, really nice piece of info.

But my quote still applies. Because corrected torque (for BSFC) is actual torque + loss of torque for running MGU-H giving you a better BSFC number than from engine alone. It would be interesting to know at least from who did they measure "best in class BSFC" from Porsche or Toyota?

Energy from MGU-H pushes you in higher MJ class (is that not true?), meaning less fuel. The decision for Toyota to go all kinetic is IMHO the best decision that can be made. Porsche on the other hand is sacrificing fuel in the engine to run their front electric motor, with energy limited by the MJ class, either they are stupid (I doubt that) or the actual engine efficiency loss is so small that it can not offset the benefit you get in electric energy.

I can see a future regulation not counting this energy for MJ class and we will see all competitors with ERS-H. You don't even need the storage, because you can feed electric motor directly.

[TF110]

Thatd go a ways to allowing for 8mj packages to become viable, at least in theory counting ers-h as added energy for the total but not towards the counted total in the rules. Not sure how that would play out with reliability though.

[gwyllion]

In the June 2014 edition of Racecar Engineering, Thomas Laudenbach of Audi Sport explains that the 1000 hp of the TS040 is a lot more than a marketing thing:

The disadvantages are clearly that if you have the energy in the electric power, that is additional. So if you have, for example, a 400 kW engine and a 200 kW front axle, you put down the 200 kW as soon as you get traction from the tyres - you boost as much as you can. That is the most efficient way to gain lap time. If you were to get the same energy from the ICE, you would only release it over the whole straight. It would be the same energy but would lead to a slower lap time, so that is a disadvantage.

Even at 6 MJ, Toyota has a higher boost figure, which will make it extremely difficult for use to overtake or follow out of the corner. The lap time should be the same, but it could be difficult to overtake.

[J Jay]

If Red Bull Racing have shown us nothing else recently, it's that putting the recovered energy down as quickly as efficiently as possible gets the best lap time (average speed over a straight), even if the top speed is nothing special.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Interesting interview of Davidson by motorsport-total.com.

He talks a bit about the system used to monitor/display fuel consumption and appears to suggest that he had very little to change to his driving style and in particular did not have to worry about saving fuel during the race at Silverstone:

"Wir haben drei Lampen, eine Art Countdown bezüglich des Verbrauchs pro Runde", erklärt Davidson. "Es macht sich beim Fahren wenig bemerkbar. Als wir in Silverstone das erste Rennen gefahren sind, da war ich regelrecht erleichtert. Ich konnte fahren wie immer, musste überhaupt nicht auf das Spritsparen achten. Ich konnte Vollgas geben, und notfalls hat das System dann selbstständig etwas Schub herausgenommen. Ich habe mich wirklich gefreut, dass es das Rennfahren für uns im Cockpit gar nicht verändert."

That somewhat confirms that Toyota might not be running at the limit yet and still have some margin to play with.