[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[carbon_titanium]

Because of fuel flows and the fuel saving/lower consumes leit motiv of 2014 lmp1 regulamentaton, I don't think that gasoline engines will rev over 8000rpm. Also because if Toyota is trying to achieve the same torque output of the porsche turbo engine, will be needing more cc than just a 4000cc. Not less than 5.0L IMHO.

[chernaudi]

Unless it's for a very short sprint race (like the old Formula 5000 races), you can't really run a flatplane crank in a V8 larger than 4.5 liters. Since the TS040 obviously has a flatplane crank, I'm betting on a sub 4.5 liter V8. Again, like with the 3.4 V8 in the TS030, Toyota are betting on the hybrid system to be their trump card.

[TF110]

Their aero will be hugely important. Many were saying there wasnt much difference between sprint and low downforce setups, but they were right on pace with Audi in their second full race with it at Fuji. As for the torque, those two electric motors wont just have over 300hp, but more than enough torque combined.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Acid09

No idea about on-track performance but the TS040 winds hands-down in the sound department:

http://t.co/DC3xQoJBuy

Now that's what a race car sounds like

Sounds super good!

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Unless it's for a very short sprint race (like the old Formula 5000 races), you can't really run a flatplane crank in a V8 larger than 4.5 liters. Since the TS040 obviously has a flatplane crank, I'm betting on a sub 4.5 liter V8. Again, like with the 3.4 V8 in the TS030, Toyota are betting on the hybrid system to be their trump card.

Quite a bit less fuel and the displacement augments to 4L (or more) in a petrol normal aspirated engine ??? ... fugetaboutit! lol

Most likely it will go back to 3L, optimized and for more revs... hybrid power now must help the engine at mid/low regimes to, where the torque is weak ( no problem now they have more than double of 2013 with 8MJ)... hybrid power will not be only to boost quickly out of the corners... what it might consume more at higher revs of the top regimes it economizes at middle/low regimes. ( can't think other way to have less fuel in a normal aspirated engine-> displacement must go down... cut RPMs wont do because that means cut very directly on performance for petrol... and unlike diesel, lean combustion and normal aspirated engines don't go well on the same sentence-> otherwise the sound will be gone LOL!.. )

There were 3L V6 and V8 in formula 1, Toyota has some experience there... they used to do close to 15K RPM... if the TS040 could do 10K rpm (or close) i wouldn't be a bit surprised.

[hcl123]

"" cut RPMs wont do because that means cut very directly on performance for petrol ""

Ok there is a way to cut RPM yet have the same level of performance... and bonus better torque potential to... but that would mean a V10... could do 8K RPM (perhaps a little more), yet maintain the same 3L to cut fuel.

The biggest problem would be weight( it will be a heavier engine)... weight must go down in 2014... and Toyota already have perhaps more 40kg of "capacitors" do deal with (from 3.6 to ( MJ).. yet they could match(close) that way the torque potential of the 2L turbocharged Porsche (for a diesel just fugetaboutit! lol).

[JoestForEver]

On the contrary, when it needs torque, a petrol engine must lower the revs to allow for longer piston moving distance. An F1 engine from 2.4 V8 has only 280 Nm which is far from enough. An only way would be engine of lower RPM and longer piston range resulting a larger displacement.

[hcl123]

You forgot

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_t...ula_1_car_have

the 2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 552 kW (740 bhp, 751 PS) at **19,000 rpm**(LOL) and outputs 274 N·m (202 ft·lbf) of torque giving the engine a 14.3 bar (1.43 MPa) mean effective pressure.
( ok max torque must come between 14 to 15KRPM, doesn't matter since rarely this engines went below the 12K RPM, and cars are very light (low weight) and always very fast even on corners, so that stupid exercise with ridicule torque only could fit F1)


the 1.43MPa mean effective pressure is per cylinder... if you quite augment the MEP per cylinder with 3L (easy to do if optimized for it), and you have 2 more cylinders, quite possible you could have double the max torque at half the RPM (7 K RPM)

Torque doesn't have to do with the curse of the piston... or RPM... in a direct way... but with the capabilities and figures of the MEP (mean effective pressure). Or better put, if you augment the MEP, that is, you create more pressures inside the cylinders, your capability to RPM diminishes because this are "reciprocating" designs(meaning parasitic torques would be higher)... and your engine must be stronger to withstand it -> more heavy (turbo diesels have almost double of turbo petrols, and for normal aspirated engines is much more than double-> could be, i.e. depends on engine ).

Or put the other way, to rev high your MEP must not be high... compression stroke would be a ***** and balance would be ruined.( the piston could have a long curse, it doesn't matter much)

EDIT : Good reading ( torque is not *power* but it helps the heck! of it to get there - max power- fast) http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...so-much-torque (hope it sheds some light)

[TF110]

Most all will be confirmed shortly. Not much time left before the 'prologue' of the season. According to Toyota Europe, theyll release a teaser video the end of this week.

[hcl123]

Like Audi and others doubt Toyota will disclose the *real* displacement of the engine

Neither the *real* hp and Nm (torque) figures of the electric motors they will be using... that would be the most interesting but don't count on it lol

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Quite a bit less fuel and the displacement augments to 4L (or more) in a petrol normal aspirated engine ??? ... fugetaboutit! lol

Most likely it will go back to 3L, optimized and for more revs...

I think that you are very wrong. Experts have said that bigger displacement, lower revs and direct fuel injection are the way to go for an efficient NA petrol engine. Remember that friction increases with the square of rotational speed.

Last year Vasselon said the following:

“Engine experts still disagree on what will be the best engine architecture,” Vasselon said. “Is it a small turbocharged engine or is it a big, normally aspirated engine running at low revs? Our engine people are convinced that a big, naturally aspired engine will be better than a small turbo. It’s our belief. We will find out.”

source: http://sportscar365.com/wec/toyota-r...2014-lmp1-car/

Look at what Judd planned for 2014 LMP1:

Engine Developments is pleased to confirm it is developing a new LMP1 engine for 2014 for private teams competing in the FIA World Endurance Championship.

The engine is a lean-burn derivative of an existing V8 platform, increased in capacity to 4,4 litres to give the best combination of power and fuel economy as required by the new fuel-limited regulations being introduced in 2014.

source: http://www.engdev.com/new-lmp1-engine-for-2014/

Zytek is doing the same:

A fuel-efficient 4500cc engine is currently undergoing tests with the objective of supplying customers in the 2014 FIA World Endurance Championship. The normally aspirated engine will benefit from advanced control / drive-by-wire technology and, following significant investment in ultra accurate fuel mass-flow measurement equipment, the application of direct fuel injection is also being explored.

source: http://www.zytekautomotive.co.uk/med...p1-powertrain/

[TF110]

If Vasselon said it, theres no reason to question it. He is technical director, so he knows the ins and outs of their program. So hcl- theres 3 engine makers following the same line of thought. I think they're onto something. My guess is 4-4.5L V8 with some trick Toyota engine tech. Too bad their vvt-i technology is not allowed.

[carbon_titanium]

What you said is true under a theoric point of view, but you need to clash with reality and the 2014 regulamentation. What kind of benefits could have toyota to use a 3.0L or however a poor torque/high rev engine? Surely will be powerfull (as you said a NA petrol engine higher revs and more hp developes) but will lack of low-mid rpm torque, ok there is the hybrid boost, but the torque release will be less than the low-mid rpm range developed by porsche engine, and most of all how could be able to rev so high respecting fuel flows?
As reported in the super GT thread, the RV8K used in SGT had a torque peak lower than 400Nm reaching the 520-530hp over 9000rpm, let's specualte that the motor used in the TS030 and rebellion lola had an optimized torque of >500Nm (I mean only by the thermal engine) with a final power reached however over 9000rpm but not less tha 550hp. Consider also that the TS040 must to consume less than TS030, so well, in my opinion because of new regulamentations is simply impossible to develope a so high power from a so high rev motor, for the simple reason that a 2014 engine can't burn anymore the amount of fuel allowable in 2013.
A larger engine can solve problems:
if at 9000rpm are required 435Nm to have 550hp
at 7500rpm are required 520Nm to achieve the same power.
An optimized larger engine revving at 7500rpm has a more competitive torque curve and consumes less than a smaller engine revving over 9000rpm. Both achieving the same power.
Don't forget that a 7 speed gearbox will be allowed, and we know that a car consumes more during acceleration, helped by the hybrid boost, toyota and porsche could use an electronic revlimiter to 6000rpm in first 4 or 5 speeds to save fuel and use the torque peak of the thermal engine + hybrid boost to have a better and more efficent AWD acceleration, using the whole rpm range of the engine only in 6th and 7th, and only where is needing: long straights.

[TF110]

Porsche has a small turbo engine so their philosophy is different. The torque is not so much an issue with two electric motors separated on the front and rear. That will give them plenty of punch. Electric motors are comparable to diesel in that respect. The thing that will be key is fuel economy vs. power. We will see 3 different types of configurations, thats going to be great.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

What you said is true under a theoric point of view, but you need to clash with reality and the 2014 regulamentation. What kind of benefits could have toyota to use a 3.0L or however a poor torque/high rev engine? Surely will be powerfull (as you said a NA petrol engine higher revs and more hp developes) but will lack of low-mid rpm torque, ok there is the hybrid boost, but the torque release will be less than the low-mid rpm range developed by porsche engine, and most of all how could be able to rev so high respecting fuel flows?
As reported in the super GT thread, the RV8K used in SGT had a torque peak lower than 400Nm reaching the 520-530hp over 9000rpm, let's specualte that the motor used in the TS030 and rebellion lola had an optimized torque of >500Nm (I mean only by the thermal engine) with a final power reached however over 9000rpm but not less tha 550hp. Consider also that the TS040 must to consume less than TS030, so well, in my opinion because of new regulamentations is simply impossible to develope a so high power from a so high rev motor, for the simple reason that a 2014 engine can't burn anymore the amount of fuel allowable in 2013.
A larger engine can solve problems:
if at 9000rpm are required 435Nm to have 550hp
at 7500rpm are required 520Nm to achieve the same power.
An optimized larger engine revving at 7500rpm has a more competitive torque curve and consumes less than a smaller engine revving over 9000rpm. Both achieving the same power.
Don't forget that a 7 speed gearbox will be allowed, and we know that a car consumes more during acceleration, helped by the hybrid boost, toyota and porsche could use an electronic revlimiter to 6000rpm in first 4 or 5 speeds to save fuel and use the torque peak of the thermal engine + hybrid boost to have a better and more efficent AWD acceleration, using the whole rpm range of the engine only in 6th and 7th, and only where is needing: long straights.

A 3L compared with the 3.4L can have almost identical numbers for torque... if optimized... and perhaps a little better power(hp) if rev >10K compared with >9K now...

Torque could be easily *more than* compensated by hybrid as you said, since now the "amount of time of each event can be more than double (3.6 vs 8 ) ( or less than double time but more powerful).

A little more power could help in the long straights where Toyota with all the haves and shorts is still worst than Audi.

Banzai Duval passing a Toyota ( seems a Toyota) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HngXyVu4Qtw hybrid power doesn't kick in for Toyota in entering Mulsanne straight, gives Audi a good leverage.

The rational for this is simple... less displacement means less fuel for each firing ... could be more efficient at each firing, and so as powerful in each firing no matter the little less fuel ( at least cooling losses are less since the cylinders (could) have less diameter)... it only wastes more fuel because for almost half of the time it will be doing a little more revs (rpm) especially heavy acceleration and steady top speeds where the engine could go >10K rpm compared to >9K rpm...

Even so, the difference in rpm is small, and half of the time or more it will be doing less fuel at the same rpm ( hybrid could help in torque here promoting some lean combustion).

With hybrid helping some lean or less rich (as is the case) combustion it could be possible this configuration will do 25% less fuel ... being the advantage more power at med high regimes due to rpm where it could help the most (*SPECULATIONS* since we don't have real numbers of any engine.. but not far fetched i think). I think with "bigger" displacement but less revs would be tougher to balance this med/high power deficit ( tough potentially could be more efficient than otherwise,and easier for low med regimes due to more torque)).

Toyota could also be faster in 2014 than in 2013... lest see how it plays out... if Toyota is forced to cut on the fuel flow to avoid penalties, and so unable to be as powerful or more powerful than 2013 to compete... *sound* wont help them a bit lol.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by hcl123

A 3L compared with the 3.4L can have almost identical numbers for torque... if optimized... and perhaps a little better power(hp) if rev >10K compared with >9K now...

Torque could be easily *more than* compensated by hybrid as you said, since now the "amount of time of each event can be more than double (3.6 vs 8 ) ( or less than double time but more powerful).

A little more power could help in the long straights where Toyota with all the haves and shorts is still worst than Audi.

Banzai Duval passing a Toyota ( seems a Toyota) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HngXyVu4Qtw hybrid power doesn't kick in for Toyota in entering Mulsanne straight, gives Audi a good leverage.

The rational for this is simple... less displacement means less fuel for each firing ... could be more efficient at each firing, and so as powerful in each firing no matter the little less fuel ( at least cooling losses are less since the cylinders (could) have less diameter)... it only wastes more fuel because for almost half of the time it will be doing a little more revs (rpm) especially heavy acceleration and steady top speeds where the engine could go >10K rpm compared to >9K rpm...

Even so, the difference in rpm is small, and half of the time or more it will be doing less fuel at the same rpm ( hybrid could help in torque here promoting some lean combustion).

With hybrid helping some lean or less rich (as is the case) combustion it could be possible this configuration will do 25% less fuel ... being the advantage more power at med high regimes due to rpm where it could help the most (*SPECULATIONS* since we don't have real numbers of any engine.. but not far fetched i think). I think with "bigger" displacement but less revs would be tougher to balance this med/high power deficit ( tough potentially could be more efficient than otherwise).

Toyota could also be faster in 2014 than in 2013... lest see how it plays out... if Toyota is forced to cut on the fuel flow to avoid penalties, and so unable to be as powerful or more powerful than 2013 to compete... *sound* wont help them a bit lol.

The car in the video was a "hybridless" lola rebellion, the slowest lmp1 on mulsanne, but it doesn't matter, audi was able to pass so easily also a TS030, simply because the TS030 was less powerfull. I like your comments, are all very well explained, and even if I can agree or not, is clear that you know how an engine works, much better than me for sure. But at the end, I think that your line of thinking is that toyota ca also use a smaller and hgher rev engine, IF they find a way to reduce consumes. Problem is, when TS030 was full power (from interlagos to bahrain) the good fuel efficency shown at spa and le mans simply disappeared, forcing drivers to make an extra splash and go. This happened in 2012 and 2013 too. Maybe in theory or in next future will be possible to obtain a more efficent engine, lowering the displacement and rising the revving, but for now I think that the choise is between a large NA or a small turbo.
Watch F1, 2014 aim is to reduce consumes (<140L against 240L) how this will be achieved?
1. Turbo engines with a lower rev and higher torque (15000 against 18000)
2. fuel flows
3. lower drag design of front section.

[carbon_titanium]

I didn't add the 4MJ ERS because in F1 will be used more to compensate the power loss of the thermal engine (from 750hp to 600hp) than save fuel.

[TheNo1F1Fan]

@carbon_titanium: Sorry for offtopic comment, but did you unnderstooded that messae from me on your inbox? You were trying to make me angry.

[Acid09]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvV0hluYscc

You have to hand it to Toyota, they bring the teasing to an all-new level

[GT6]

nice little video

[TF110]

If you pause at the :34 second mark you'll get a great glimpse of the car! The side profile reminds me a lot of the Bentley Speed 8 EXP. A mini PR was put out with it- http://blog.toyota.eu/2014/03/03/6646/

[Simmi]

It certainly looks different from last year - quite sleek actually.



And another one off Twitter -

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by Simmi

It certainly looks different from last year - quite sleek actually.



And another one off Twitter -

In the last picture it looks like the frontpontoon fender has the same type of opening at the rear as the new Audi R18.

[chernaudi]

They all pretty much do in one form or another--ACO's side vision template is the culprit.

And from what Mulsanne Mike was able to find from the video, the TS040's front fenders' leading edges are very tall--almost vertical--and blunt.

[Simmi]

Seems like it.