Why are the Audis slower?

[Heebeegeetee]

Pardon my ignorance, but whilst everyone knows that this year the closed Audis, sorry Bentleys, will be quicker than the open ones, how have they actually come about it? Is it a simple case of a change in regs, or is there really some blatant marketing going on here? If so, how transparent are things - is it just a case of rigid team instructions that the open cars do not head the closed ones, or is it more subtle than that?

[pirenzo]

The Audi has recieved little or no development don't forget since last year. They also have 10% less power than last year, explaining why the same car is 4s slower than last year, but the power cuts apply to all cars.
The Bentley is all new apart from the tub itself, new bodywork, new suspension, new engine, gearbox, the lot. The car has been built specifically for this circuit, and is simply that much more modern than the Audi.

[Heebeegeetee]

Hmmm, I'd have thought the Audis are are also built specifically for this circuit. Presumably the lack of development was a result of a deliberate decision.

[pirenzo]

Well, no, because since there is no works effort, there has been no development. The Bentley is just the most up to date car out there, it's using all the latest technology, it's just a better car than the Audi, simple as that

[Chevyguy]

Sort of like the 962s when they stopped being works backed. They had the reliability to win Le Mans, but didn't have the legs to win the IMSA sprint races.

[o_keeler]

heebeegeetee... you are moron. had this been 2001 your snide "closed audi" comment might have been true but however this year, the all conquering Bentley is a 95% different car. You unpatriotic fool! Oh and the Audi's aren't slower than last year, they just aren't works cars, not that you'd know Reinhold Joest if he hit you and the Bentley's are just faster, plain and simple.

[Nick M]

I have to say that all the "Bentleys are just Audis with a roof" type comments annoy me too.

The cars are British built (and designed ??) and the only things they have in common with the Audis is the engine, gearbox (at least the internals I think) and some of the engine related electrics.

And as has been said, they've been heavily redesigned and developed whereas the Audis are now beginning to get just a bit long in the tooth. Heard a comment, possibly slightly harsh, that the Audis are a triumph of development over design which, based on this year's performance, might have more than a hint of truth about it.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by o_keeler
heebeegeetee... you are ...

Take it easy, o_keeler. Play nice.

[Heebeegeetee]

But isn't the whole thing a cynical marketing exercise, and shouldn't more of us be saying so?

[JAG]

Originally posted by Heebeegeetee
But isn't the whole thing a cynical marketing exercise, and shouldn't more of us be saying so?

Motorsport is all about marketing the car/brand. If Audi were not competing with a works car, why would they do more development with the R8, especially with new regs coming out.

[Heebeegeetee]

I don't want to chase the marketing argument, we all know what that's all about. What I'm saying is, we all shouted for Jaguar all those years ago. We could shout for foreign cars with Brit crews. I'm sure we all admired Porsche and Mercedes Benz for their achievments - personally I thought the Mercs were bloody great - and the Peugeots were just fantastic cars, possibly the best racing cars that I have had the pleasure to watch, and great to see an all French equipe come on top. And we all got behind plucky little Mazda, who had entertained us for years with their unearthly banshee wail of the rotaries at several million rpm, when they were handing it out to Merc.
But we know the situation with Audi/Bentley is different, don't we? It's completely different, IMO, and I really struggle when I hear Derek Bell, whom I admire greatly, talking about a three year plan etc. etc. "No it's not! You're just following orders!" I hear myself saying.
TWR and Jaguar was a three year plan. I'm sure there are many other examples. Trundling behind the parent company's cars for two years, then beating them when the parent company allows you to do so is not a 'plan' in the motor racing sense.
The thing is: are we happy with all this? Do people genuinly feel justified in singing "Benterlee, Benterlee, Benterlee," while waving Union Flags?
It just doesn't work for me. Am I alone?

[Nick M]

Trundling behind the parent company's cars for two years, then beating them when the parent company allows you to do so is not a 'plan' in the motor racing sense.

....It just doesn't work for me. Am I alone?

Yes, I think you might be

You don't win the race by turning up. You don't win the race with a car which spends too much time in the pits. You do win the race by having a better developed car than the competition and by being quicker (at the expense of lesser fuel economy).

I think you're being naive if you believe you can manipulate the results of a 24 hour endurance race - there are too many variables and the stakes have been upped dramatically in recent years such that *any* time spent in the pits is extremely difficult to recover. If both Bentleys had suffered battery problems and the Champion car hadn't had any of it's own little niggles then the result could have been different. Look at Toyota - huge budgets, stunning car, but bad luck put them out or prevented them from taking the wins with the GT One.

Granted Bentley may not be quite as British any more but then by that token neither is Jaguar or Aston Martin. Or Rolls Royce. But perceptually Bentley will always have very British connotations and to that extent I'd happily cheer them on while waving the Union Flag.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Heebeegeetee
But we know the situation with Audi/Bentley is different, don't we? It's completely different, IMO, and I really struggle when I hear Derek Bell, whom I admire greatly, talking about a three year plan etc. etc. "No it's not! You're just following orders!" I hear myself saying.

Well, if you're implying that Audi lay down for Bentley, I think you're dead wrong.

Last year Audi, looking around and seeing precious little competition on the track, set themselves the goal of breaking the distance record (post-Hunadières-chicanes) - which they did exactly. (Incidently, they did not break the speed record, as they took a little longer to finish the distance than the previous record-holder did). So it's not like Audi were sandbagging last year.

Bentley broke the record by two laps this year. So they bettered Audi's ultimate 2002 pace. And Audi cannot match last year's pace due to the restrictors.

[Nick M]

I think it's also worth reiterating that the only things they changed on the winning Bentley were tyres and drivers !! As far as I'm aware they had no problems which delayed them in the pits. And the second placed car only had a battery problem. That is pretty stunning IMO.

Can't remember if the lead Audi managed that last year but I seem to recall it having a pretty trouble free run.

Look back maybe 10 years when cars couldn't even go the full distance without changing brake discs / pads and you can see how much Audi (and before them BMW) have upped the game since they first came to Le Mans.

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally posted by Nick M
Look back maybe 10 years when cars couldn't even go the full distance without changing brake discs / pads and you can see how much Audi (and before them BMW) have upped the game since they first came to Le Mans.

Hmmm. I was reading recently about the Peugeot campaign in the nineties. They were completing 36 hour tests without difficulties, so the 24 hours wasn't too much of a problem, they felt. That was in the 240 mph days, against very strong opposition, possibly the strongest in Le Mans history, with all those other manufacturers involved. No wonder Bernie killed it, the ACO was keeping serious money out of F1.

However, what you say is true. Triple stinting tyres, quadruple stinting drivers etc is fantastic, but I don't see that's the issue here.

Audi have developed a terrific car, and have taken three straight wins against poor opposition, and under favourable regs that allow them to change major parts of the car during an endurance race, which is ridiculous. Obviously I'm refering to the rear-end changes. The opposition hasn't changed, so why not say "hey, let's dress these cars up as another brand name in out portfolio, and win with that. It'll be great promotion for that product."
Isn't that what's happening here, in a nutshell?

[Nick M]

and under favourable regs that allow them to change major parts of the car during an endurance race, which is ridiculous

But it's always been the case that gearboxes could be replaced, just not the major engine components. All Audi did was look at things analytically to come up with, IMO, a very neat solution to a known reliability issue in 24 hour racing, i.e. gearboxes, which allowed them to lose less time in the pits, which these days is how the race seems to be won and lost.

It's all about development, albeit some more obvious than others. Brake and tyre technology sometimes creeps in without making itself quite as obvious as a car which can have the whole rear end changed in 5 minutes. But it's still significant. What to me is perhaps more significant is that none of the top cars needed replacement gearboxes this year which, IMO, is more technologically triumphant than a quick change system.

I know what you're saying about how it's all still VAG and that there's not much competition. Yes, it's obviously a marketing exercise to some extent (isn't all manufacturer supported motor racing ??) but that view tends to ignore the fact that you still need to build a car capable of winning. And the Bentley, albeit with VAG input, was still designed and built in the UK.

To take an analogy from another discussion on this subject, it's like football teams. How many players or managers come from the towns they represent ? And yet they're still considered to be from that town or city in the fans' eyes.

[JAG]

Originally posted by Heebeegeetee
Hmmm. I was reading recently about the Peugeot campaign in the nineties. They were completing 36 hour tests without difficulties, so the 24 hours wasn't too much of a problem, they felt. That was in the 240 mph days, against very strong opposition, possibly the strongest in Le Mans history, with all those other manufacturers involved. No wonder Bernie killed it, the ACO was keeping serious money out of F1.

However, what you say is true. Triple stinting tyres, quadruple stinting drivers etc is fantastic, but I don't see that's the issue here.

Audi have developed a terrific car, and have taken three straight wins against poor opposition, and under favourable regs that allow them to change major parts of the car during an endurance race, which is ridiculous. Obviously I'm refering to the rear-end changes. The opposition hasn't changed, so why not say "hey, let's dress these cars up as another brand name in out portfolio, and win with that. It'll be great promotion for that product."
Isn't that what's happening here, in a nutshell?

When Peugeot won in 1992 and 1993 there was the least competition ever in modern Le mans times. The Toyota TS010s were the only cars that could stay even remotely close to the Peugeots.

At least with the Audis, they had Benletly, Panoz Courage, MG, Cadillac, Chrysler and the various other cars that could pick up the pieces.

In 1992/1993 if it wasn't for Toyota the Peugeots could have stayed in the pits for a 3rd of the race and still won.

Also by 1992/93 the chicanes were already in place and Peugeot only completed one 24 Hour race distance before the 92 race. The believed they had no serious chance of finishing the 24 hours relatively untroubled. They were even trying to get the rules changed to allow engine changes for the 3.5l cars. If 1992 was a dry race the Peugeots and Toyotas would not have made the finish.

It was only 1993 that the 905s and TS010s were truly reliable as they only competed at LM and tested the rest of the time.

[Heebeegeetee]

I’m not an expert at all on Le Mans. I’ve been enough times, but I have to say I pay little attention to it before or after. However: It’s correct to say that in ’92 & ’93 Peugeots only credible opposition was Toyota, but I think that still meant 6 cars could win in each year – three of each. In ’91 how many manufacturers were there? Peugeot, Jaguar, Merc, with a certain young M. Schumacher, Mazda, Nissan – is that it? Whoever won that year could have been described as all conquering, unlike this years Bentley, eh o_keeler?

The article I read was in this months Motorsport. There are some interesting quotes, and it does question claims that Audi have raised the game (which I’m not disputing, their reliability was fantastic, but read on).

“but the 905, distinct from cars such as Jaguar’s XJR-14 and the Toyota TS010, was like a grand prix machine in another way. It demanded to be driven like one flat out every inch of the way. Even at Le Mans.”

“At the season opener at Suzuka, Alliot's pole time would have lined him up 22nd on the 1992 Japanese GP grid. Next time out at Silverstone Dalmas produced a lap bettered by only 12 F1 cars the following July. And then, at Magny Cours, Alliot came up with a time good enough for a spot on the fourth row for the French GP. What's more, the fastest of Peugeot's drivers over one lap reckons that he did a time in testing at the Nevers circuit that was only eclipsed by Williams drivers Nigel Mansell and Riccardo Patrese in F1 qualifying.”

“Geoff Brabham could not quite believe the downforce levels on his one off, victorious outing in the Group C car at Le Mans in 1993 and he was driving the 905 in its low drag configuration.
`When I went to Le Mans they told me that they were running low downforce," says the four time IMSA GTP champion. "Yet, in the fast corners, it had far more downforce than I had in my Nissan in the US. I remember thinking that if they had put on all the downforce it would have ripped your head clean off your shoulders. It was a very physical car to drive."

“Even so, the French car retained a dramatic aerodynamic 'porpoise' throughout its life.
"You would hear these big bangs as the car was sucked violently down onto the track and bounced back up," explains Alliot, describing the effect. It sounded frightening, but it wasn't dangerous."

“Wright agrees with Southgate. "The Toyota was the better chassis and they were definitely quicker than us in the race in 1993," he says. I thought they were going to wipe the floor with us, but they had problems during the race and didn't react well to them.”
“Peugeot did have its problems at Le Mans in both 1992 and '93, but each time one of the three cars entered ran through the race without significant delay. Warwick's car needed attention to the electrical system in 1992, and the following year the winning car would have completed the 24 hours needing nothing more than a new bolt in the rear wing had not the team decided to change the exhaust system as a precaution.
That reliability was a testament to the rigorous testing routine masterminded by Todt, using the same attention to detail that turned Ferrari’s F1 fortunes around in the mid 1990s. "The difference between us and Toyota wasn't in the car, but in the organisation," reckons Alliot. "With Jean everything was optimised 100 per cent for winning.
"One year we did nine simulations at Paul Ricard, and we weren't just running for 24 hours. By the end of the programme we would do 34,35 or more hours. That's why we could drive Le Mans flat out all the way. It was like a 24-hour grand prix.”

From Nick M: >>But it's always been the case that gearboxes could be replaced, just not the major engine components.<<
No way. I don't know when it started, but during my 18 years at the circuit it's been my understanding that major components could not be changed. I've got some piccies some where taken from above the Jag pit in '86, where they were trying to seal the gearbox with araldite. They had a transaxle in the pits, 'cos I saw it, but they weren't allowed to change it. Wouldn't be an endurance race if they could, would it?
And from Jag: >>At least with the Audis, they had Benletly, Panoz Courage, MG, Cadillac, Chrysler and the various other cars that could pick up the pieces.<<
Well, I don't think there's a single credible opposition there. Some of them were even under orders not to win, not that they could anyway, 'cos Audi had discovered that the closed cars then were slower.

[MulsanneMike]

Brabham: `When I went to Le Mans they told me that they were running low downforce," says the four time IMSA GTP champion. "Yet, in the fast corners, it had far more downforce than I had in my Nissan in the US. I remember thinking that if they had put on all the downforce it would have ripped your head clean off your shoulders. It was a very physical car to drive.'

I read this article and must say Brabham's comments are a lark! The Peugeot LM was generating around 4000-5000 lbs. of downforce in Le Mans trim where as his Nissan GTP chassis generated over 9000 lbs. in IMSA trim! You must ALWAYS take a driver's anecdotal comment with huge grain of salt. The numbers don't lie.

[Nick M]

No way. I don't know when it started, but during my 18 years at the circuit it's been my understanding that major components could not be changed. I've got some piccies some where taken from above the Jag pit in '86, where they were trying to seal the gearbox with araldite. They had a transaxle in the pits, 'cos I saw it, but they weren't allowed to change it. Wouldn't be an endurance race if they could, would it?

Well I know that it's been common for many teams to replace or rebuild gearboxes during the race. One team (think it was Lister) ended up doing it about 3 times when I went the first time in '97.

Before the whole back end swap routine was initiated by Audi the gearboxes in the prototypes were largely transaxles and so they could be rebuilt without removing them, like a Hewland gearbox on something like a single seater. It probably wasn't a practical proposition to replace the whole transaxle in a car because that might have been a much longer job. Maybe Araldite was a quick and adequate fix at the time ??

And I'm sure teams like Panoz have replaced or rebuilt gearboxes during the time they've been there.

My understanding, and it's by no means fallible , was that only the major components like the chassis and engine couldn't be replaced but that ancillary items like suspension, brakes, bodywork, gearboxes, etc. were replaceable. Maybe they've changed the regs in recent years to allow additional items to be replaced ?

It's still an endurance event if you're allowed to fix things which break. It's long been an integral part of rallying and in some respects that's a tougher test of machinery in terms of the sheer stresses applied to components.

*shrugs*

Regulations change, manufacturers come and go so comparisons between one era and another aren't always easy to make. But reliability matched with race-winning pace speaks for itself whatever the decade.

[MulsanneMike]

Back to the point, I think Audi has changed the nature of the event. The R8s are driven at near qualifying pace for 24 hours these days:

bottom of page for 2001 and 2002 R8 qualifying vs. race lap time

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjune02.html

Comparatively, in 1992, the Peugeot 905 LM qualified at 3:21.209, and the fastest race lap turned was a 3:32.295 by the Toyota TS010. That's a 11 second difference fastest qualifying to fastest race lap.

In 1993 the numbers were 3:24.94 (Peugeot) and 3:30.48 (Toyota). That's a 5.5 second difference.

I don't have car to car lap times for these years, yet these simply show the fastest qualifying lap compared to the fastest race lap regardless of car. The R8 numbers compare same car qualifying to race and to make a better comparison you need the same figures for the '92 and '93 Peugeot and Toyota. I think they will indicate the inability of the 3.5 liter cars to run at such a high percentage of their qualifying pace as the R8s are able to achieve.

[JAG]

Also the LM circuit i about 3 seconds slower in 2002/3 than in 1992 /3 so the R8s are much closer to the 905 than it appears.

The turbo Group C cars also had big differences between quailfying and race fastest laps.

Anyone got the fastest race/qualifying lap times for Group C races at Donnington 1989/90/92 for comparison to the R8 in 2001 ELMS.

[Smokey 6 litre]

there was a good article in Aiuto sport commenting on the differences between the Audi and Bentley, especially the fact that they are built under different philosophies, the Audi is built so that if it goes wrong parts can be replaced very quickly e.g. 6 minute gear box changes. but the Bentley is designed NOT to break, EVER.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
Brabham: `When I went to Le Mans they told me that they were running low downforce," says the four time IMSA GTP champion. "Yet, in the fast corners, it had far more downforce than I had in my Nissan in the US. I remember thinking that if they had put on all the downforce it would have ripped your head clean off your shoulders. It was a very physical car to drive.'

I read this article and must say Brabham's comments are a lark! The Peugeot LM was generating around 4000-5000 lbs. of downforce in Le Mans trim where as his Nissan GTP chassis generated over 9000 lbs. in IMSA trim! You must ALWAYS take a driver's anecdotal comment with huge grain of salt. The numbers don't lie.

I just read that last night, without your perspective. (It just goes to prove that James Weaver was right when he told me that all you really need to test a car is the stopwatch. As you said, numbers don't lie.)

What speed were the downforce numbers generated at? Why would he feel that the downforce was so much greater, when it clearly wasn't?

[MulsanneMike]

These are very approximate numbers for the Peugoet and come out of Ian Bamsey's Race Car Engineering article "Last of the Longtail":

The exact quote from Ian Wright claims an estimation of between 4000 and 5000 lbs. at max speed (356 kph before first chicane in '92). Drag numbers are estimated based on power, max speed (356 kph), and assumed frontal area:

Peugeot 905LM

Downforce:
4084 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 880 lbs. of drag


The Nissan GTP figures come directly from wind tunnel data:

Nissan NPT-91

Downforce:
9231 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 2190 lbs. of drag


Why would he feel the downforce numbers were so very different? This topic came up when emailing Andy Gallaway about his experience with the aero development of the Nissan P35. We were discussing front undertray developments and he described their testing methodology and hit upon this exact topic. His words are more effective than my own and make interesting reading:

"Many driver get out of cars and describe significnat downforce differences that just didn't exist. What they are experiencing, in my opinion, is the instability and change which tends to occur right when you need it most. Stable centers of pressure with vehicle motion is more important than large downforce as the large downforce is usually only on the stable straight where it only matters for acceleration and bracking".

So with that in mind, Brabham would seem to be only reflecting on the Peugeot's stability relative to the Nissan's.