Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

If struggling for Audi over a 6 hour race was getting both cars home clearly on the lead lap and having the top 4 covered by about a minute on what is probably the weakest track for Audi, then they could be in the fight at Bahrain. And again like at Fuji. Both Audis ran faster race laps than Porsche.

But again, they were fast in the wet, and fast in the dry. It just seems that they're still struggling in the twilight zone between changing up from rain tires to intermediates. When they changed up to intermediates, it took them a while to get to running faster than Porsche on the wet tires. IMO, that does suggest that maybe chassis set up isn't great for mixed or drying track conditions, though the cars work great in full wet and mostly to full dry.

Thankfully in Bahrain, it rarely rains.

[J Jay]

Didn't we see this in 2013? That R18 was very fast at the extremes, but in inclement conditions (especially at Le Mans) it struggled and the TS030 could keep it somewhat close. Then it dried/rained and the Audi would take off again.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Nice news. I hope we will get a chance to learn a bit more at this occasion about the new ERS architecture that Audi are contemplating for 2016. Battery-based energy storage is pretty much confirmed. A second ERS is a must. It will be interesting to see if Audi opt for a similar wastegate-type ERS-H like Porsche are currently using or opt for some other solution.

Right now, even with 4MJ, a battery hybrid system would be great. The 8MJ power vs 4MJ at Audi isn't going to help them, but the battery system offers so many tactical advantages of when and how you can use the hybrid power. Also for generating/releasing hybrid power, a second ERS system would be extremely useful. My question is will Audi split hybrid power between front and rear, or focus mostly on the front.

6MJ with a battery system should be sensational for Audi next season, considering that they ended up being competitive at Fuji and Shanghai.

[TF110]

Audi have the most engine power by a long shot imo. They were displaying this at Shanghai and Fuji. Those long straights showed that Porsche can get the jump early and the middle of the straight, but Audi catch them back by 3/4 the way through. But its not enough because the Porsche has twice the amount of 'battery' or hybrid power. So it seems Audi has to pick and choose where to use the majority of the hybrid while Porsche can use it wherever. Thats the difference in performance. Stint length, pit stop time etc. are another story.

[YorkshireLad]

The way I see it is Porsche had a year like Toyota did in 14, except Porsche won LM. 2016 should be a brilliant battle, hopefully both Toyota and Audi will find big gains in hybrid area.

[ederss7]

My impression is that Audi don't use the full potential of their tyres, that might explain the lack of consistence. Fastest lap of the race without pace to win.

[chernaudi]

Only time that Audi were struggling at Shanghai was when everyone was stuck between running on wet tires and intermediates. Both at Fuji and Shanghai, the tracks remained damp forever seemingly and there was no real advantage or disadvantage to either the intermediate or wet tires.

Only things that both races have in common is that both are Tilke designed/modified tracks, both are hard on tires, and both races featured very low cloud ceilings and heavy cloud cover that slowed drying even more.

It should be noted that when Audi made the jump to slicks, they were much faster and forced Porsche with the #17 to do the same to stay on schedule and not lose time. What didn't help Audi was that it was still damp enough for intermediates off line. Which meant that to try and pass slower cars, they did have to get off line, where they ran into pick up issues and a damp track surface and it would take them a while to get their tires clean and back to temperature, though they weren't the only ones to have that issue on slicks.

If the weather does one thing and one thing constantly, Audi are in good shape. If it sticks in a twilight zone between tire choices, then Audi gain nothing compared to their rivals. IMO, this might be due to a set up that favors dry weather and works well in the wet, but not when track conditions switch back and forth or get in a twilight zone rut for a long period.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Audi are also at a strategic disadvantage due to the shorter stints. They have no other choice than to play their cards before Porsche do, which allows Porsche to adapt to Audi's strategy. It's a bit frustrating, but these are the current rules of the game.

[ederss7]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Audi are also at a strategic disadvantage due to the shorter stints. They have no other choice than to play their cards before Porsche do, which allows Porsche to adapt to Audi's strategy. It's a bit frustrating, but these are the current rules of the game.

Yeah, they'd have to do one more pit stop than Porsche if it wasn't for the early switch to stick tyres.

[chernaudi]

Audi have apparently tested the new R18 at Paul Ricard last week.

Two things that have come out of discussions that my source had with a couple of people close to the project is that Audi have opted for more aggressive packaging for the new car to try and extract more performance out of it. Also, the rumor is that Audi will still have one ERS system, but it will allow a move up to 6MJ for certain.

[chernaudi]

Does anyone have or can find any photos (to scale or close) of the front of the 2012/13 and 2014/15 R18 monocoques? I know that part of why the nose on the newer R18s tapers is to give more room for the flap on the front diffuser. I'm sort of wondering what would give the older generation R18s a similar "point" on the nose in plan view.

Also, can someone point me in the right direction on nose box/crash structure regs regarding their shape? Is it illegal under the tech regs for the sides of the crash structure to have an inward concave line to them in plan view?

Or, if the 2013 R18 design was to be converted to use a "flap" diffuser, would it be smarter to use a nose box like on the 2015 Porsche 919 (though the 919 uses a normal diffuser)?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Does anyone have or can find any photos (to scale or close) of the front of the 2012/13 and 2014/15 R18 monocoques? I know that part of why the nose on the newer R18s tapers is to give more room for the flap on the front diffuser. I'm sort of wondering what would give the older generation R18s a similar "point" on the nose in plan view.

Also, can someone point me in the right direction on nose box/crash structure regs regarding their shape? Is it illegal under the tech regs for the sides of the crash structure to have an inward concave line to them in plan view?

Or, if the 2013 R18 design was to be converted to use a "flap" diffuser, would it be smarter to use a nose box like on the 2015 Porsche 919 (though the 919 uses a normal diffuser)?

Perhaps on Mike's site or RCE archives? They usually have some good technical shots.

[chernaudi]

I'm mostly asking because I checked out some old R15 pics, and they have the same raised up/flattened out nose box "floor" (bottom of nose box) to let more air in over the front diffuser that the 2014/15 R18 has, something that none of the earlier R18s had.

I'm also asking because of a hypothetical wing diffuser adaption to the older R18 variants. I also know that the nose of the monocoque is longer on the newer R18s (and entirely encloses the torsion bars). I'm noting that because I'm wondering if it's illegal under the tech. regs to have that concave shape on the nose box and adapting it to the older, wider tub-front.

[MihokS5]

I'm sure it will be radical looking like all of their LMP's but I have to wonder if they try to hard sometimes in the aero dept. The 919 has a very basic looking aero concept especially at the front. The car is a huge success. Maybe they could learn a thing or two?

[chernaudi]

I'm mostly talking about updating the 2013 car to 2015 aero specs. It's just hypothetical/pipe dream stuff. Mostly because the 2013 car was 2000mm wide vs 1900 for the newer cars. I'm betting that loss of 4 inches of width probably has an effect on the packaging of the entire car as well.

But I'm almost betting that Audi might have a 919 style nose box for their 2016 car, or at least an adaption of the current R18's (whole front end treatment is about getting max air to the front diffuser and the tuning vanes behind it). The whole aero package will probably be an evolution of the 2015 cars with a Porsche or Ligier legality bump or Dome legality winglet to get the fastback trailing tub like the older R18s and the 919.

I've already been told that Audi are pushing things a bit with the packaging of the car to get the most downforce and least drag they can get and still have a car that's relatively easy to work on and and overall package that makes sense.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by MihokS5

I'm sure it will be radical looking like all of their LMP's but I have to wonder if they try to hard sometimes in the aero dept. The 919 has a very basic looking aero concept especially at the front. The car is a huge success. Maybe they could learn a thing or two?

919 sucess comes from it's ERS system and it's ablitily of 8MJ. Imo, aero-wise, R18 destroys the 919 and Porsche will have to seriously upgrade their car in order to keep up with a 6MJ R18, next year.

chernaudi, you said we wouldn't have to wait long to know the new car(it would be by late november, isn't it) but do you know if it will be presented with the new aero package already? Also, do you know if there's a first test scheduled for the 2016 car?

[TzeiTzei]

An interesting comment...

[OT] Building 9 is housing an Adrian Newey designed LMP1 car based on an Audi PU for 2016 Le Mans.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...23625&start=60

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Artur

919 sucess comes from it's ERS system and it's ablitily of 8MJ. Imo, aero-wise, R18 destroys the 919 and Porsche will have to seriously upgrade their car in order to keep up with a 6MJ R18, next year.

While I would have agreed with you before the Nurgburgring race, it seems that Porsche have massively reduced the gap on aero. Of course a bigger ERS means you can afford to go a bit draggier to get more downforce but they haven't been left behind in the corners as we saw at Silverstone and Spa.

They will still need to find big gains from optimisation and efficiency gains though, whereas Audi should effectively gain a second per lap just from moving to 6MJ.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

An interesting comment...


http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...23625&start=60

Why an Audi PU if hes shown interest in the Nissan? Unless its a feasibility study or a new partnership.

[Pontlieue]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

An interesting comment...


http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...23625&start=60

It's a bit of a joke, really. There have been several mentions of a mysterious "Building 9" recently, in which Red Bull were supposedly working on their own F1 engine.

So it has become a bit of a joke to suggest all sorts of rather far-fetched projects for that "Building 9".

[YorkshireLad]

Sorry to sound like a noob, what, where and who owns 'building 9'

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by YorkshireLad

Sorry to sound like a noob, what, where and who owns 'building 9'

Red Bull Racing/Red Bull Technology, Milton Keynes.

[YorkshireLad]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Red Bull Racing/Red Bull Technology, Milton Keynes.

Thanks for that. 🏻

[chernaudi]

Allow me to answer one of the questions I posed earlier. Apparently, as long as it passes ACO/FIA crash tests, you can shape the nose box any way you like as long as it passes those crash tests.

But I'm still looking for/hoping to hear of rumors of the '16 car prior to launch, though that's only 2 weeks away now.

[Artur]

Do you know, in details, what kind of launch will this be?