Audi LMP1 Discussion

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MihokS5

I'm not sure what you saw, but it was pretty obvious today that the R18 has a lot more to give and is being handicapped.

I know your pumped with Toyota's result so far and they deserve it, but if the R18 was allowed to go at its full potential, i'm sure the field would be in a lot of trouble...

Kidding! lol ...

i really have to make an attentive effort to hear that diesel engine, when image/transmision is from inside the cockpit ( very irritating constant whining probably from flywheel/electric motor, but apart from that, engine barely audible)

just compare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRNCZGwxNY

Itching crazy to have a telemetry video lol (bet RPM is quite lower than 2013, not because it has to be by technical difficulties, but fuel flows )

[chernaudi]

Audi have typically reved at around 4500-4700 RPM. That even with the theoretical max of 5500 they've claimed. With the sonic air restrictor, though, anything much above 4500 or so was just wasted revs. Now, the fuel flow limits them to the same RPM/power band. So no major changes there.

Biggest change seems to be the flywheel, which is much more audible than on the 2012/13 cars and seems to be used much more often, due to there being no 75km/h limiter on it. Could also be how the microphone is mounted, but the on-boards of the engine noise on the Audi is about as loud as last year based on TK's drive though Le Mans and when the system isn't being used (pit stops), the engine sounds as loud on the pit road speed limiter as in the past as well.

It seems that the flywheel system is noisier than in the past, though.

[Articus]

There was a neat shot of the Audi in the race today. Leaving the pits you could see the front wheels slipping as torque was applied from the electric motors.

[Articus]

Noisy. I thought it sounded futuristic :

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Audi have typically reved at around 4500-4700 RPM. That even with the theoretical max of 5500 they've claimed. With the sonic air restrictor, though, anything much above 4500 or so was just wasted revs. Now, the fuel flow limits them to the same RPM/power band. So no major changes there.

Biggest change seems to be the flywheel, which is much more audible than on the 2012/13 cars and seems to be used much more often, due to there being no 75km/h limiter on it. Could also be how the microphone is mounted, but the on-boards of the engine noise on the Audi is about as loud as last year based on TK's drive though Le Mans and when the system isn't being used (pit stops), the engine sounds as loud on the pit road speed limiter as in the past as well.

It seems that the flywheel system is noisier than in the past, though.

Yes 4500 to 4700 RPM in 2013 ... but the 5500 RPM theoretical max limit if only for their V6

Yet as far Le Mans (there is telemetry videos... but could change from circuit to circuit) they didn't use the "hybrid release" energy to boost after slow(er) corners/curves, they clearly used it from 3th gear up to 5 th gear (most likely a fuel saving method).

The 2013 Audi car was clearly faster accelerating than Toyota relaying only on engine... now is clearly the contrary, 6 MJ compared to 3.6 MJ for 2013 vs 2MJ to Audi now maybe the major culprit... nevertheless i don't think is the same power band. They sated themselves could be close to 30% less fuel flow, so it can't be the same power bands of 2013. *Its all about fuel flows* , the why they choose 2MJ and not 4MJ or 6 MJ, and the why they choose to have more displacement ( 4 L) -> can't have the same RPM, better have some little more torque.

And from the more torque idea comes more down "load" or "loads"... diesel torque seems to suffer little adverse effect due to loads ( downforce or weight to a certain limit, at least compared with petrol), but i think they overdone it like "deltawing" says.

The problem with this is that "stroked" engines can have the nasty tendency to refuse to rev higher past a certain limit, meaning they could have found the "volumetric and thermal efficiency", to coupe with the less fuel flow... they could have more RPM and so more power and more top speed, only the engine doesn't cooperate ( its a stroked version of the 3.7L block, a reverse back from not solving a way to have a MGU-H as in the original plan that was presented ).

If this theory is somewhere near correct, i wouldn't be surprised if at Le Mans they have a totally new engine ( not a stroked version) ... then "deltawing" might seem like a psychic LOL ( don't think so... an overhaul maybe, but not new... but lets wait and see)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Or is the color "black" of this part of the car that is playing a perfect camouflage trick... or the car in the image above and the image below don't have the same exhaust

The exhaust outlets are sitting in a concavely curved portion of the rear bodywork, lower than the trailing edge of the rear diffuser. Besides, there is a small gurney at the trailing edge of the rear bodywork which also masks the exhaust outlets. The exhaust outlets are therefore mostly hidden in the above shot. You need a shot from above to see them.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MihokS5

I'm not sure what you saw, but it was pretty obvious today that the R18 has a lot more to give and is being handicapped.

I know your pumped with Toyota's result so far and they deserve it, but if the R18 was allowed to go at its full potential, i'm sure the field would be in a lot of trouble...

Being handicapped by what? Whats its full potential anyway? We havent seen the full potential of any car imo. The #3 got better late in the race, even if it was still off pace, that could be from a number of things. They dont need bop, and the rules state no lmp1 team will receive bop (eot they call it) before Le Mans.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The performance of the #1 Audi was good during the second half of the race, but Audi had to double stint their tires to keep on fighting for the second place. This allowed them to spend a total time in the pits of only 7:28.588, compared to 8:19.833 for the first placed #8 Toyota and 8:14.191 for the third-placed #7 Toyota.

The #8 Toyota was in another world performance-wise. The second-placed Audi finished 1:13.926 behind the Audi even though it spent approximately 50 seconds less in the pits than the #8. That means more than 2 minutes lost on track !

Looking at the performance during the race, Toyota should have been able to clinch a second 1-2 finish at Spa, but Wurz made a few costly errors on the #7 which also helped the #1 Audi.

It could be that Audi were trying a few things at Spa in terms of fuel consumption in order to reduce that lap stint deficit that they have compared to the competition, but if that's the case, they were probably compromising performance too much.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Audi have seemingly tried a few things on the #3 Audi in terms of fuel consumption. The performance on track was a bit disappointing for the LM-spec car but they managed to cover the race distance by doing only six stops.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The performance of the #1 Audi was good during the second half of the race, but Audi had to double stint their tires to keep on fighting for the second place. This allowed them to spend a total time in the pits of only 7:28.588, compared to 8:19.833 for the first placed #8 Toyota and 8:14.191 for the third-placed #7 Toyota.

The #8 Toyota was in another world performance-wise. The second-placed Audi finished 1:13.926 behind the Audi even though it spent approximately 50 seconds less in the pits than the #8. That means more than 2 minutes lost on track !

Looking at the performance during the race, Toyota should have been able to clinch a second 1-2 finish at Spa, but Wurz made a few costly errors on the #7 which also helped the #1 Audi.

It could be that Audi were trying a few things at Spa in terms of fuel consumption in order to reduce that lap stint deficit that they have compared to the competition, but if that's the case, they were probably compromising performance too much.

#1 finished 2nd just because as you said Wurz in #7 had a very slow stint and Dumas in #14 was forced to run in recovery mode for more than one lap after the electronic-software issue. Endurance races are also this, but if we speak only by performances, right now audi simply had not the pace to achieve the podium.

[alless]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

#1 finished 2nd just because as you said Wurz in #7 had a very slow stint and Dumas in #14 was forced to run in recovery mode for more than one lap after the electronic-software issue. Endurance races are also this, but if we speak only by performances, right now audi simply had not the pace to achieve the podium.

True on that but that was a case in the past on audis allready. It happened that they werent the fastest one but most reliable.

For sure there is still work needed on there cars but if they have the car working properly than its still better than beeing fastest one and having breakable cars and in LeMans if youre car brakes you have a long way to pits.

[Creep89]

I don't see how Audi can win Le Mans this year. They are reliable, but still, way too slow compared to the Toyota or Porsche. Le Mans 2009 reloaded incoming. Some cars (e.g. Porsche) will break, so Audi can secure a third place.

[nobster]

To finish first, first you have to finish guys.
never count Audi out, in the end they will be up there fighting for the win.

[goldenballs323]

Hi All!

New to the forum, not new to endurance racing.

Can someone please explain to me where Audi's pace came from during the second half of the race? What would be the purpose of sandbagging for 4 hours? This may not even be the case, but nothing else seems to make sense.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by nobster

To finish first, first you have to finish guys.
never count Audi out, in the end they will be up there fighting for the win.

I agree - anyone who writes them off now (or who says they will walk it - jokingly or otherwise), is living on cloud cuckoo land......

[chernaudi]

Seems that Audi didn't really take off until the track rubbered in. They double stinted more often than Porsche and Toyota, especially early. I think what really cost them was top speed. If Porsche and Toyota had their high downforce bodywork at Spa, the speed difference probably wouldn't have been nearly as big.

If things come down to tire strategy, Audi may have an advantage as it stands right now, but I think that they were also thinking points, too. They needed as many points as they could get without taking huge risks.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by goldenballs323

Hi All!

New to the forum, not new to endurance racing.

Can someone please explain to me where Audi's pace came from during the second half of the race? What would be the purpose of sandbagging for 4 hours? This may not even be the case, but nothing else seems to make sense.

Welcome! If you follow the live timing, you'd discover that it is not because Audi is faster in the later stage of race, but because Toyota and Porsche are significantly slower. #1 as the fastest Audi does 2:03-2:05 almost all through race. As for the others, some 2:01 2:02s but others are 2:05 or even 2:06s. That's why Audi can catch up--pure reliability.
Also there's no EoT until after Le Mans, so it doesn't make any sense for anyone to sandbag on pace, unless you want to give up the big fight. Audi's are severely handicapped by energy allocation figures which lead to huge power deficit and stint distance deficit.

[Articus]

I suspect we've yet to see Audi's potential. It seems the low down force car was not running at full power at any point this weekend. Top end for both versions of the car was identical but the 3 car made 6 pit stops.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

. Audi's are severely handicapped by energy allocation figures which lead to huge power deficit and stint distance deficit.

I wouldn't say they are severely handicapped, they were right on pace at Silverstone, and simply chose to run the wrong spec R18 this weekend at Spa, with the correct spec car running some fuel saving program and so was running slower.

In terms of stint length I feel you may be right, Audi will most likely stop a lap earlier, but then again it looks like they are better on tires and so could perhaps make up the deficit with less tire changes.

[CyberMotor]

After a somewhat rough start at Silverstone, I think Audi realized they needed to regroup and turn down the wick a little bit. Set a consistent pace, keep the cars in the race and let the race come to them.

Hearing the sounds from the in-car cameras is really wild. All the spooling up as it is harvesting and then whining again as it applies the juice.

I really liked seeing the Audi telemetry when they showed when they were harvesting, when applying and the real-time balance of stored energy. Later, they went to a static display from the WEC that reset after each lap. I think the telemetry needs both! The system's status and the rules status.

[gwyllion]

The Spa race report of Audi Sport contains a lot of hits that the current EoT is unfavorable for them.

As the R18 e-tron quattro diesel hybrid sports car did not quite achieve the lap times of the best race cars with gasoline engines, which have a different rating than the efficient TDI power-plant, Audi opted for a different strategy. To save time, Audi Sport Team Joest changed the tires of car #1 only at every second refueling stop.

Tom Kristensen (Audi R18 e-tron quattro #1): “With a very good team performance we achieved second place although we’re not on a par in terms of acceleration and top speed. But we didn’t give up. The mechanics, the engineers and all the other team members can be proud. Lucas di Grassi, Loïc Duval and I managed to drive a nice race. Fortune played a bit of a role in this second place, but so did plenty of ambition. I do not see us as the favorites at Le Mans this year.”

It seems that my pre-season prediction is correct

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I am a lot more pessimistic for Audi. I suspect that the ERS incentive is still in place, potentially giving Toyota and Porsche a 2 sec performance advantage for free.

On top of that, Audi will have a disadvantage in stint length. In the shorter WEC races, this could mean that Audi has to do a late splash and dash to finish the race.

I hope that I am wrong, but my prediction is still that Toyota will dominate Silverstone and Spa, clearly showing that the rules favor them. And because the EoT only allows for rule changes after Le Mans, Toyota will win Le Mans with little effort.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

I really liked seeing the Audi telemetry when they showed when they were harvesting, when applying and the real-time balance of stored energy. Later, they went to a static display from the WEC that reset after each lap. I think the telemetry needs both! The system's status and the rules status.

Is there such "telemetry" video somewhere ( 2014, Silverstone or Spa) ?

If its from 2013, its a totality different animal now... if no comparison possible isn't correct, then what might be comparable is very very small.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

Being handicapped by what?

fuel flows... answer was transported to other thread ( perhaps correctly i think)
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=3518

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The Spa race report of Audi Sport contains a lot of hits that the current EoT is unfavorable for them.

It seems that my pre-season prediction is correct

Unfavorable is an "understatement" ... and the "joker" they might have, like #3 doing one less pit stop at Spa, is gone... this EoT gives diesel 1 more liter for LM, but 3.9 liters more for petrol... 390% more of "additional" fuel in favor of petrol... so not only a diesel will not have the same top speed, very hard with >11% less fuel flow... at Le Mans with this EoT probably will be the petrols doing 1 or 2 or 3 less pit stops than an Audi.

If i where Dr. Ulrich i'll be contemplating dropping off *immediately*... not easy because there are contracts to fulfill .... perhaps slow march in protest... but 2014 is a sure bet to be off.

Why ? ... this fraudulent charade can be very damaging for a brand prestige, doubt Audi will be willing to endure one more year of the same or worst... without the fraud blowing back into the sales, specially diesel car sales ( not hot head or fanboism decisions).

And doubt VW would wont another petrol( an Audi FSTi) to compete with Porsche... 2014 can serve very well as a good diesel R&D season, then off.

You are so boycotted FIA/ACO ! lol ... unqualifiable adjectives !... when the honest thing to do is simply ban diesel. ( can't beat them, ban them... but don't leave them crippled, that is very cruel )

[Bandicoot17]

But they had great pace at Silverstone before being undone by not pitting in the rain, and at Spa they ran two cars in HDF which is not the correct config, of course they were going to be slow. In previous years with lower top end and no hybrid boost to accel Audi had superior accel and could get away with hdf because of the differences between top speed being a bit less.

They're not going to have the superior top end because they can't accelerate as quickly as the bigger hybrids and they can't bleed more power in at top speed, and if you think a car that is 30kmh slower should be winning or be highly competitive on a track where 2/3's is long straights you're crazy.