Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

Right now, I'd argue that any engine concept isn't that competitive without either huge displacement or forced induction. Hence a big part of Toyota's struggles this year.

[Starfish Primer]

Originally Posted by Pole2Win

My biggest gripe with diesels is that they simply aren't competitive without turbos. IIRC the regs don't state a maximum displacement for NA diesel engines. Why? Because they aren't powerful enough at high rpm, and possibly because they'd be too heavy as well.

NA diesels are disappearing from the road market.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Right now, I'd argue that any engine concept isn't that competitive without either huge displacement or forced induction. Hence a big part of Toyota's struggles this year.

And Audi has both. Biggest displacement and turbocharged. Toyota are using a smaller engine but the supercap isnt helping with its limited storage vs weight.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Pole2Win

My biggest gripe with diesels is that they simply aren't competitive without turbos. IIRC the regs don't state a maximum displacement for NA diesel engines. Why? Because they aren't powerful enough at high rpm, and possibly because they'd be too heavy as well.

eh!... there isn't high RPM in diesel, they don't need to be high RPM, thats the beauty of the tech. Besides *rules* aren't selective about engine intake pressure or other features, they are only restrictive about fuel -> give the best shot you can with the fuel you have... it could be even tri-turbo ( a diesel appreciates much better than petrol several levels of forced induction, even having a reversed supercharger,i.e., instead of boosting it aspirates exhaust gases from the combustion chambers... and there goes ~null exhaust pumping loses(a diesel plague) and efficiency trough the roof )

And Audi V6 is actually the most powerful engine of WEC, inspite of being terribly constrained by rules(they run with quite lower fuel energy per lap) i think the LM 3:17 with 4 MJ hybrid and race conditions(no special tires)... and the top top speed of the race(again)... are prove of this.

Turbos is inescapable for diesel because its the only way to speed up (intake boost pressure) combustion inside cylinders. Petrol has a clocking and combustion speed helping mechanism with the intensity of the 'spark' plug (helps a lot)... and though ppl talk about 'compression ignition' petrol engines, and are already plenty of prototypes of this engines (usually spark and compression ignition), there isn't anything that prevents diesel engines of having similar, i,e, an electric device that helps ignition and combustion(accelerates it and times it properly)... then most likely higher RPMs would be common... you just have to give them time to develop it.

Perhaps this helps understand(if there is an engine that is *naturally turbo*, that engine is a diesel)
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...big-difference

And though not *high RPM* at all, an non-factory tuner was able to extract out 6500RPM for a 'diesel dragster' engine...
http://www.bankspower.com/topdieseldragster/

Audi's WEC Audi V6 was approaching the 4900 RPM in 2013, it could very well be above 5000 RPM now instead of the ~4500 RPM (which is enough to be the more powerful in WEC already), if it weren't for biased fuel restrictions... and this without electric combustion helping device(s)/mechanism(s)-> doesn't have to be a spark plug, it could be microwaves or directed electric fields between electrodes placed inside combustion chamber, etc... inside and outside before injection (i think i gave several examples in another post, specially magnetic combustion enhancing devices and electric field viscosity reduction-> aero-soling fuel upon injection)... and with turbo multi compounding( i think Audi next year will have a e-supercharger( a second tier)).

So i think diesel has much more margin of progression than petrol engines, and diesel fuel is more energetic and more safe to handle and have, and provide a heck of power and efficiency ( you don't have to sacrifice one for the other really)... and with the examples i gave in this post of possible evolution routes, specially the electric helping devices... if given time to develop it... i think diesels wouldn't even have to have a particulate filter(not really), and other emissions could also be lower than comparable petrol engines, specially truth if a *synthetic diesel* route explodes(crude distillates are too dirty, even *ultra low sulfur* brand is not clean).

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Pole2Win

My biggest gripe with diesels is that they simply aren't competitive without turbos. IIRC the regs don't state a maximum displacement for NA diesel engines. Why? Because they aren't powerful enough at high rpm, and possibly because they'd be too heavy as well.

I'm not trying to be smart or anything but that just read across to me as "My biggest gripe with diesels is that they aren't petrols"

To think in that way is to miss the big picture entirely. To run a diesel engine is to adopt an entirely different methodology (in the ICE world) for making power. You aren't even comparing apples to oranges if you compare a NA diesel to a NA petrol and you still aren't even if you compare a Turbodiesel to turbopetrol.

"A diesel isn't powerful enough at high RPM" - I don't even know how to interpret that one. Again, just different worlds. Diesels aren't cheating because they have Turbos. This isn't a case of let the diesels have Turbos so that they can be competitive with the Petrols. This is a case of the concept of a high performance racing diesel engine is one that uses turbos.

Whereas a high performance petrol engine could be with or without turbos. Thats a big difference.

[GasperG]

The regs don't state max displacement for any type of engine, anyone could run 5l turbo petrol if they like.

[Pole2Win]

Originally Posted by hcl123

eh!... there isn't high RPM in diesel, they don't need to be high RPM, thats the beauty of the tech. Besides *rules* aren't selective about engine intake pressure or other features, they are only restrictive about fuel -> give the best shot you can with the fuel you have... it could be even tri-turbo ( a diesel appreciates much better than petrol several levels of forced induction, even having a reversed supercharger,i.e., instead of boosting it aspirates exhaust gases from the combustion chambers... and there goes ~null exhaust pumping loses(a diesel plague) and efficiency trough the roof )

And Audi V6 is actually the most powerful engine of WEC, inspite of being terribly constrained by rules(they run with quite lower fuel energy per lap) i think the LM 3:17 with 4 MJ hybrid and race conditions(no special tires)... and the top top speed of the race(again)... are prove of this.

Turbos is inescapable for diesel because its the only way to speed up (intake boost pressure) combustion inside cylinders. Petrol has a clocking and combustion speed helping mechanism with the intensity of the 'spark' plug (helps a lot)... and though ppl talk about 'compression ignition' petrol engines, and are already plenty of prototypes of this engines (usually spark and compression ignition), there isn't anything that prevents diesel engines of having similar, i,e, an electric device that helps ignition and combustion(accelerates it and times it properly)... then most likely higher RPMs would be common... you just have to give them time to develop it.

Perhaps this helps understand(if there is an engine that is *naturally turbo*, that engine is a diesel)
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...big-difference

And though not *high RPM* at all, an non-factory tuner was able to extract out 6500RPM for a 'diesel dragster' engine...
http://www.bankspower.com/topdieseldragster/

Audi's WEC Audi V6 was approaching the 4900 RPM in 2013, it could very well be above 5000 RPM now instead of the ~4500 RPM (which is enough to be the more powerful in WEC already), if it weren't for biased fuel restrictions... and this without electric combustion helping device(s)/mechanism(s)-> doesn't have to be a spark plug, it could be microwaves or directed electric fields between electrodes placed inside combustion chamber, etc... inside and outside before injection (i think i gave several examples in another post, specially magnetic combustion enhancing devices and electric field viscosity reduction-> aero-soling fuel upon injection)... and with turbo multi compounding( i think Audi next year will have a e-supercharger( a second tier)).

So i think diesel has much more margin of progression than petrol engines, and diesel fuel is more energetic and more safe to handle and have, and provide a heck of power and efficiency ( you don't have to sacrifice one for the other really)... and with the examples i gave in this post of possible evolution routes, specially the electric helping devices... if given time to develop it... i think diesels wouldn't even have to have a particulate filter(not really), and other emissions could also be lower than comparable petrol engines, specially truth if a *synthetic diesel* route explodes(crude distillates are too dirty, even *ultra low sulfur* brand is not clean).

Great post, thanks. It makes me far more appreciative of the tech. The only thing I can't get to grips with is the sound, but it grows on you.

I don't "hate" diesels. If I lived in Europe I'd probably choose one as a daily driver, because diesels are better than ever, have much more torque in daily conditions, and there's good aftermarket potential in them. But it has always bugged me how an NA diesel theoretically couldn't work in racing. I think all diesels from major manufacturers have been turbo for a while now, because the power was too low in NA diesels.

When I was a kid, I remember the Argentinians bringing their diesels to Brazil and I always thought they sounded funny. Those cars are now a thing of the past.

[CyberMotor]

Particulates are a real issue in the American scene. I thought Audi had cleaned it up totally but I remember in the last PLM in which Audi ran that you could see big puffs of smoke coming out of the Audis as they came under the bridge heading to 12 and got on it.

I agree that diesels are very powerful, tons of torque, work via compression and not spark and burn high energy 'dirty' fuel. Making them smaller with turbos and using less fuel is the direction they must go. And, they must address the particulates issue. IMO

[hcl123]

But it has always bugged me how an NA diesel theoretically couldn't work in racing.

Because the combustion inside the cylinders is too slow.period

Worse... a diesel is not air throttled, its fuel throttled, and to make it go faster you have to augment the quantity of fuel 'injected' in the combustion chamber... and this quantity of more fuel needs (22/14,7) 49% more air than an equivalent petrol engine to burn completely (according stoichiometries), which is much more harder to achieve *conveniently and fast* without forced induction (turbo). So a NA diesel tends to accelerate very slowly and waste a lot of fuel upon heavy accelerations (heats up very quickly, instead of going much faster) -> a no-no for racing.

Dimensioned very well to take advantage of the huge torque possible(looong strokes compared with petrols), that is also present in NA diesels, this NA format is much better for stationary applications(like electric generators) and BIG marine engines that don't have to accelerate fast at all (cargo ships usual RPM is between 200 to 300 RPM, even the more modern ones).

This *devices/inventions* could speed up things a lot (also presented in another post), even so doubt a NA diesel would be any good for racing, more so because it could be also applied to turbo-diesels most probably with better results;


BEFORE INJECTION

http://www.rexresearch.com/enache/enache.htm (before injection electromagnetic combustion enhancing -> could be applied to the fuel rails )

http://www.rexresearch.com/tao/tao.htm (reduces viscosity, could boost efficiency up to 20%)

http://www.rexresearch.com/transonic/transonic.htm (heating the fuel before injection (glow plug function), very high pressure rails and injectores(for supercritical injection)

http://www.rexresearch.com/saveworld/saveworldair.html (similar and other tricks)


BETTER INJECTORS (would be nice for NA diesels)

http://www.rexresearch.com/kukler/kukler.htm (super high pressure injectors, even using a lower calibre typical NA diesel fuel pump-> plays with hydraulics)


COMBUSTION CONTROL & MANAGEMENT

http://www.rexresearch.com/clearsign/clearsign.htm (electric field combustion control -> 90% particulate reduction-> perhaps more clean than a petrol..)


http://www.rexresearch.com/rosocha/rosocha.htm (plasma assisted combustion management )

http://www.rexresearch.com/feher/feher.htm (microwave combustion ignition and late re-ignition, or better said, very lean combustion support... after most of the fuel+O2 (air) is burned combustion tends to stop (specially with high RPM engines)- > this could maintain combustion almost to the very last tiny drop of fuel).
-----------------------------------

Most could be applied to petrol ? yes... but i tend to believe the advantages would be much better with diesel... petrol already burns much faster, some of this and you have to have advanced knock prevention mechanism in your engine to apply some of those devices...

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

Particulates are a real issue in the American scene. I thought Audi had cleaned it up totally but I remember in the last PLM in which Audi ran that you could see big puffs of smoke coming out of the Audis as they came under the bridge heading to 12 and got on it.

I agree that diesels are very powerful, tons of torque, work via compression and not spark and burn high energy 'dirty' fuel. Making them smaller with turbos and using less fuel is the direction they must go. And, they must address the particulates issue. IMO

The exact previous post there is a stupendous solution(other devices could help a lot to), only requiring electrodes inside the combustion chamber, which is old and well understood techs (after all spark plugs have electrodes inside combustion chambers... for more than a century!..)

So this electric part that petrols have and diesels lack completely is a probable field of evolution for diesel... and very wide adoption...

Then there is the 'dirty fuel'... which could be addressed with a blend of at much only 10% of so called fossil fuel 'ultra low sulfer' diesel brand in it, the rest would be a blend of mostly synthetic diesel fuel (like Audi initiative), which funny enough has the same colour of gasoline (mostly transparent), but with the rest of the proprieties of fossil fuel diesel, including volatility and so the much more safe to handle and have.

its easy to say, but this is exactly the *BIG CAN OF WORMS* that spoils the atmosphere of wide diesel adoption everywhere... much more than super efficient ICEs... its not 'they' or 'Powers That Be' or conspiracy.... there are huge invested interest in the present fuel status-quo at every levels, syntectic fuels are not welcome or at least seen with reserves(not enough scale economy and so not being able to be cheaper for now, doesn't help at all), there is even geostrategic interests in this!...

[chernaudi]

I posted this on the Mulsanne's Corner FB page:

"I know that this is probably a dumb question and a dumb place to ask it, but with the WEC Nurburgring test at the end of this month, I'm wondering about possible post LM developments, especially for Audi.

My point is the front ends of the sprint and LM spec R18 variants. I know that the "bars" on the nose of the LM R18 is probably in part due to aero rules compliance. But what performance purpose to they serve? And can their benefits be made to be exploited on the sprint nose?

Also, could we see the huge ducts on the sprint nose be replaced with something replicated to the LM nose?

Or could Audi just forgo the hybrid/"general purpose" package and stick to what was said after Spa that Audi would run the full sprint and HD LM (Spa) aero packages depending on circuit?

To be honest, unless it'll help them for next year, I don't really expect that Audi or anyone else will make major aero changes post LM."

Thoughts on this?

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

Particulates are a real issue in the American scene. I thought Audi had cleaned it up totally but I remember in the last PLM in which Audi ran that you could see big puffs of smoke coming out of the Audis as they came under the bridge heading to 12 and got on it.

I agree that diesels are very powerful, tons of torque, work via compression and not spark and burn high energy 'dirty' fuel. Making them smaller with turbos and using less fuel is the direction they must go. And, they must address the particulates issue. IMO

That was just Audi doing "what they had to do" to match Peugeot's pace. They were just following on a trend that Peugeot started at PLM in '09 when they cranked up the fuel burn on the 908s during qualifying. Peugeot did it, didn't get in trouble (though what they were doing could be called as being technically against the rules at the time), so Audi had to follow suit eventually to keep up.

However, since Peugeot has been gone, they've never really done that to the same extent, and under the current rules, there's no advantage to cranking up the fuel consumption because of the fuel flow limits.

Also, I've seen the Aston Martin GTE cars spew huge puffs of black smoke on overun while burning raw fuel, and those have gasoline engines.

[Akrapovic]

2009 Le Mans also had diesel fumes showing in some shots. The 908 was significantly worse. And it also did it a during practice in 2008. It was one of those rules that didn't apply if you were French, and once they started doing it, anybody could.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I posted this on the Mulsanne's Corner FB page:

"I know that this is probably a dumb question and a dumb place to ask it, but with the WEC Nurburgring test at the end of this month, I'm wondering about possible post LM developments, especially for Audi.

My point is the front ends of the sprint and LM spec R18 variants. I know that the "bars" on the nose of the LM R18 is probably in part due to aero rules compliance. But what performance purpose to they serve? And can their benefits be made to be exploited on the sprint nose?

Also, could we see the huge ducts on the sprint nose be replaced with something replicated to the LM nose?

Or could Audi just forgo the hybrid/"general purpose" package and stick to what was said after Spa that Audi would run the full sprint and HD LM (Spa) aero packages depending on circuit?

To be honest, unless it'll help them for next year, I don't really expect that Audi or anyone else will make major aero changes post LM."

Thoughts on this?

I bet a LM bodykit for them only at fuji, maybe sakhir fits better for a spa HD low drag bodykit. More interesting will be to see if porsche will develope a real HD package for the remainig races or will stick with the silverstone/spa low drag pack

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

2009 Le Mans also had diesel fumes showing in some shots. The 908 was significantly worse. And it also did it a during practice in 2008. It was one of those rules that didn't apply if you were French, and once they started doing it, anybody could.

Oh! c'mon was once in while when accelerating very strongly, usually to the Dunlop bridge after a pit stop when engine cools a little... very rarely if any time anywhere else. It has to do with efficiency, not enough air or not enough dense air to burn all the fuel as when upon a very strong acceleration, and not enough hot engine, leading to slow burning rates as i exposed above(then the smoke).. even turbo-diesels can be plagued by lack of air quantity/density and slow burning rates upon heavy acceleration(imagine NA ). The thing can be solved by e-supercharging or turbo electro compounding like in F1, black smoke is indicative of terrible waste, not an inherent propriety of the tech. (as posted before doesn't have to be... heck! even without particulate filters as the 908 had (FAP)).

IIRC Audi didn't smoke even once in the all 2015 LM race ( efficiency improved a lot).

[Pole2Win]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Oh! c'mon was once in while when accelerating very strongly, usually to the Dunlop bridge after a pit stop when engine cools a little... very rarely if any time anywhere else. It has to do with efficiency, not enough air or not enough dense air to burn all the fuel as when upon a very strong acceleration, and not enough hot engine, leading to slow burning rates as i exposed above(then the smoke).. even turbo-diesels can be plagued by lack of air quantity/density and slow burning rates upon heavy acceleration(imagine NA ). The thing can be solved by e-supercharging or turbo electro compounding like in F1, black smoke is indicative of terrible waste, not an inherent propriety of the tech. (as posted before doesn't have to be... heck! even without particulate filters as the 908 had (FAP)).

IIRC Audi didn't smoke even once in the all 2015 LM race ( efficiency improved a lot).

I think his post wasn't criticism towards the tech but a dig at Peugeot.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Some rather surprising and unexpected news that may happen to affect Audi's WEC title chase:
Audi Penalized Following Engine Irregularities

[Articus]

Wow.

[chernaudi]

50,000 Euros+cost for convening the meeting is nothing to Audi--the fine and fees are a drop in the ocean financially.

The big kicker is if they're judged to have used more than their 5 engine allotment (part of the penalty is that the LM engine was counted as their 3rd and 4th engine in theory as well as their second in actual practice), they get a 3 minute stop and hold penalty--which is worth between 1 1/2 and 1 3/4 laps at the remaining tracks on the schedule.

Granted, it can be argued that Audi got off OK as they weren't penalized drivers' or manufacturers' points. But in theory, the 3 minute stop and hold might cover those.

Problem is that the #7 Audi can now only use 3 engines this season as opposed to the normal 5. Bigger problem is that the Silverstone/Spa engine has up to 21 hours of use. The LM engine (which can be used again provided that the seals are lined up properly) has nearly run up its 30 hour rebuild interval.

Each WEC weekend has up to 10.5 hours of on-track activity. If they use the Silverstone/Spa engine, they'll use up the remaining 9 hours on that engine easily.

That leaves them with up to 42 hours to use the remaining engine that they're allowed to use before the penalty takes effect.

I guess that the #7 team will eventually take a penalty that will likely cost them the best part of two laps at the remaining rounds, or Audi will have to find a way to finagle things as far as what repairs are allowed on the engines between races.

This might not hurt Audi that bad in the manufacturers' championship, but it'll hurt the #7 possibly badly in the driver's championship. Thankfully they have a healthy lead right now there.

What I think that this does mean is that Audi are going to try and pounce on the Nurburgring and COTA rounds, as those tracks suit their cars the best, and maybe, at least for the #7, throw away the Shanghai or Bahrain rounds.

That's unless Audi are dyno testing their engines to last an extra maximum period of up to 12 hours without major failures.

[Articus]

Based on what we know of the runners, the #7 car could take a 3 minute penalty at the start of any round and finish at worst 4th if Toyota continue to perform the way they have been. I suspect Audi will just accept it and go flatout to unlap themselves from the Toyotas.

[deggis]

Was the e-seal supplied by FIA/ACO? Altough Audi admits it was human error...

And generally how are the the seals physically connected to the engine and how it is made sure the seals aren't ever "broken" (disconnected)?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

Based on what we know of the runners, the #7 car could take a 3 minute penalty at the start of any round and finish at worst 4th if Toyota continue to perform the way they have been. I suspect Audi will just accept it and go flatout to unlap themselves from the Toyotas.

That time penalty would be pushing 2 laps counting the pitlane time. Thats a bunch. On the other note, Toyota seem to do way better on the more modern tracks vs Silverstone and Spa. I dont think 2 laps down is insurmountable, but thats a tough ask for them. I think theyll have to look at using the old engines, which probably isnt such a big deal anyway.

[Spyderman]

I would take the 3 minute penalty. You never know what can happen up front. There is always a chance you will land up on the podium. On the other hand, if they feel confident about using their "old" engines, then pay the fine and move on.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Losing in effect two brand new engines as a result of this "electronic seal" issue is silly to say the least.

[TF110]

A rule is a rule. The seals are there for a reason. If its broken it could suggest tampering which is why seals are used. Thats not the case here, but those are the laws.