Audi 2004

[pirenzo]

I've heard that Audi will build a car in 2004.

Was wondering about how the new rules employed for that year will influence the appearence of the new cars.

I thought that possibly due to the increase downforce from the new under floors, and reduced power, the cars would incorporate low drag bodywork, with the main area of downforce being taken from the underfloor, probably with a closed roof.


On this basis I imagined an Audi with a Lister LMP type front end, closed roof, lowish slung rear wing (possibly a rear end not to different from the latest update of the R&S MkIIIC) , and a fairly large capacity non-turbo engine

[Aysedasi]

Lets hope that it looks better than the R8 then.....

[rdjones]

Just checked back it looks as it could be a GTP car, but we will see what happens.

[pirenzo]

c'mon, the R8 doesn't look that bad.

[MulsanneMike]

Actually the '04 rules are aimed at a 25% decrease in downforce for around a 10% increase in drag. The spec underfloor is designed to generate stable downforce, not more. But the '04 roll hoop rules will probably push most into closed top cars. The visual proportions will be different as the wheelbases are going to be longer and the overhangs smaller.

[pirenzo]

perhaps this:[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\My Pictures\ListerLMP3.Spp[/IMG]

Bad I know, but that sort of thing

[pirenzo]

Forget that

[SFonseca]

How about Audi GTS car?

[C_g]

Mike, why will the overhangs be smaller? Will the length of the car remain the same?

Will they be allowed to have a separated front diffuser area from the main (front axle line back) underfloor of the car?

BTW, what was the first car to have the separate nose diffuser. Didn't the latest iteration of the Peugeot 905 have that?

[MulsanneMike]

Length of the car is the same 4650 cm, overhangs have minimum dimensions now, 1000 cm front, 750 cm rear. Wheelbase is free. Don't think the front diffuser area is effected.

You could argue that the Toyota Eagle MkIII was the first car to have a separate nose diffuser:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/toymkiii-1.html

Also possibly the Allard J2X or Peugeot 905 Evo. 2.

[Dani Filth]

they are gonna build that ugly RSR ... so GTS .. if is based on that ... it looks even worse

[pink69]

Audi, Panoz and Porsche have already hinted they would build a GTP rather than an LMP when the new rules came into effect. The R8 is a nice looking car I think, but then again so was the R8C.

[IanGrohse]

Firstly....I dont think Porshe hinted at a GTP car...in fact, they have adimently denied ANY plans that they will get into top class levels of sports car racing with anything other than a GT or GTS class car...

Also....Much of the swing toward GTPs can be credited to how well it reflects on the buying public(something Audi has always been serious about doing, from teh early rally days on...) Also, Audi technology has always trickled down to their road cars. Thus, there would be almost a 0% chance of them going to a large naturally aspirated engine rather than a boosted/turbo engine. Reason being is Audi is a turbo company, and their goal is to further that....and a large naturally aspirated engine is not only a misrepresentation of their performance orientation, it is also hardly effective in R&D when it related to their performance road cars.
Aditionally....An attempted reduction in power doesnt always leave turbo cars in the lurch. Sure, in F1 it was oriented to do away with turbo engines.....However, if engine mandates come about with apropriate sized restrictors(But this is Key....NOT specifying maximum charge boost) then a turbo motor is in fact has an advantage over a NA engine...as it is much easier to find extra ponies through a restrictor in a turbo motor than it is in a NA motor.
Also, turbos are back in favor in road cars and in race cars.

My hope is that there will NOT be a stringent mandate on roll cage size to the extent that Grand Am did with the DSPs......Mandating the size and shape of the rollover structure of the closed cars...in such a way that makes these monstrous domes that not only look clunky and ugly....but also apear as if they would create a HUGE wake in airflow, and greatly limit the effectivness of the rear wing(though im just speculating)

I actually cant say I have too much of a problem with the leveling of the playing field with the underbodies.......Though I never like when anybody has a mandate that increases the wheelbase, especially not when combined with a decrease in overhang.....Though I guess it goes hand and hand with a more universal underbody.

[MulsanneMike]

Ooops, I just noticed the above overhang dimensions should be MAXIMUM dimensions. Mistyped them as minimums.

So to recap:

Length unchanged at 4650 cm
Front overhang MAX: 1000 cm
Rear overhang MAX: 750 cm

With the free wheelbase you'll see longer wheel bases to make the best use of the maximum rear overhangs to get the rear wing as far out behind the car as possible while running to the max overall length.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Aysedasi
Lets hope that it looks better than the R8 then.....

I'd like to see something close from the R8C...