Is Audi's win in a diesel that spectacular?

[Smurfer]

Audi have a huge budget, great resources and plenty of experience.

So long as there is a reasonable level of parity in terms of engine size versus type of fuel, would Audi win no matter what type of engine/fuel they use?

I am not criticising anyone, it is just that if Audi have decided to use a diesel engine then they would win. Simply they can win with petrol and if they chose to use diesel then they knew it would be as good if not better than petrol (under the current rules).

I guess the flip side is that they could risk not winning, if winning meant a huge boost to their profits from increased diesel sales.

Does any of the above make sense to anyone else?

[WouterM]

I am positive that they would have won with an even bigger margin with the petrol engine out of the V8. They made compromises to make the car work with the diesel engine. No matter how much money they spent, it is still impressive for them to take a back to back win in Sebring and Le Mans with a brand new car.

[Andrew Kitson]

It might be impressive however a million miles away from being spectacular.
It needs noise! It is a racing car after all and a dog-ugly one at that like all modern Le Mans protoypes.

[The Badger]

I reckon for anybody to win Le mans at their first attempt with a new car is brilliant , regardless of money or support .

Walkinshaw had massive group C support from Jag , and he always reckoned that it it would take 3 years .

But I still dont like the R10 !!!

[b1ackcr0w]

I think from an engineering standpoint it is quite spectacular. Considering some of the forces involved in the engine and gearbox, and the length of time they are subjected to those forces, they have achived something significant here.

For me, the most analogous project come from outside Motorsport. Concorde was similar because it was massively expensive and not really neccessary. However, no matter how much mud you sling at it, even justifiably, the fact that it adaciously crossed a barrier of our perception of what is possible gave it an important place in engineering history.

I doubt the R10 will ever be regarded in anything like the same terms as Concorde, but within the field of Automotive Engineering, it is a very special achievement despite the cost.

It is a shame it's quite so pig ugly.

[Adam43]

The problem is that if it isn't considered spectacular it isn't really Audi's fault.

They went racing and they won. The first part is spectacular enough for me. The second part is a bonus.

Generally I am not sure that anyones win stands up to being spectacular because at some point they had an advantage (by definition). Everyone only won because of some reason or another.

[Andrew Kitson]

But how can a car that corners on rails and is so quiet evoke the senses?
Surely 'spectacular' is associated with a 'spectacle' which most modern race cars do not provide. Modern cars are over engineered from Formula Ford upwards due to technological progress and watching one car on its own is dull. In days of old we had oversteer, dodgy handling and longer braking distances providing the spectacle along with raucous V12s and tyre squeal.
However I agree the success of the Audi TDi at the first attempt at Le Mans was impressive albeit a bit dull to watch and listen to.

[Adam43]

I think the thread is about the 'achievement' of the win rather than the 'spectacle' of the car. If it is the latter then yes there is little spectacle.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Andrew Kitson

..how can a car that corners on rails...

...with huge dowforce that only excess power (relative to the rest) can provide. At le Mans, the R10s were on a different planet. They could turn the speed on at will.

I completely disagree with the notion that Audi would have done the same (as easily) with a petrol engined R10. The regs were not carefully structured to take into consideration the possibilities of a well designed diesel programme whereas the petrol parameters are pretty well know. With Diesel, Audi saw the opportunity and siezed it. Now it is time to rein it all back in.

[TheNewBob]

Audi's achievement is noteable, but not really outstandingly revolutionary. From the point of view of the spectator the car is very boring indeed - it makes no noise, handles like it's glued to the track and it's by far the ugliest car on the track (whoever designed those hideous roll "hoops" should be shot). However, there is no denying it's quite an achievement to win with a brand new car with comparatively unknown technology.

I kinda disagree with Andrew Kitson here - yes, the R10 is as dull as a paint-drying contest, but the other cars are much nicer, sound fantastic, and when drivers are really pushing they certainly don't all handle like they are on rails (particularly when Mr Chilton is driving heehee). I do like the old cars (hence my first visit to the Silverstone Classic this weekend, and my fondness for CER at the LMS meetings), don't get me wrong - they're awesome pieces of kit. But I think there is a lot to be said for modern sportscar machinery too.

[dj choc ice]

the win was special but not that much in my eyes in the way of competition there was really only the pescarolo which is based on a 6 year old car and all the other LMP1 cars are from small specialist builders with small budgets and also many of the other LMP1's were still being developed such as the
courage LC70's and the creation CA06H and the zytek among others next year will be a truly special win for audi if they do win since there will be for the first time in 3 years a decent big manufacturer competing against them and we all saw that the audi's were beatable after 2001 when the bentley speed 8's the only other big manufacturer car had the audi's licked in terms of speed at lemans and when bentley won in 2003 so next year if audi win it will be very special but this year not so special since the competition was not really there and hasnt been for the past few years bar last year were the zytek's and pescarolo's had the audi's bent over a barrel in terms of pace

[nobster]

We always had te feeling that Audi would win again.
We just had a look at the circuit and the new surroundings, there were Audi signs everywhere, it looked like they almost own the palce these days.
No way an other car would win this year after all the money spent by Audi.

[wilmywood8455]

The win was spectacular only inthe sense that Audi made it look so effortless with a completely new chassis and drivetrain.

[CATMAN]

The technology involved in getting the clutch and drive train to accept the torque from the engine is a huge task to overcome! Enabling the Engine mapping to bring power in to enable high speed entry into corners and maintain power to exit is a a huge mountain to overcome.
Taurus tried on a limited budget and their partners were staggered at the complexity of maintaining racing speeds. It is quite easy to make a high speed diesel. Maintaining race speeds around a track is a different ball game which Audi overcame on the worlds biggest stage.
Aewsome results!

[CATMAN]

Choc Ice.
Bentley are owned by Audi. The Audi win was a Promotional win. The year before Audi had to win to get three in a row, if the Audi had any problems the Bentley would have been alloud to win. The Bentley was just an Audi with cosmetic chassis changes and a roof and a clever engine excersize.
New Bentleys were being Launched by Audi so 2003 was a marketing excersize par excellance.

[zac510]

Originally Posted by CATMAN

Choc Ice.
Bentley are owned by Audi. The Audi win was a Promotional win. The year before Audi had to win to get three in a row, if the Audi had any problems the Bentley would have been alloud to win. The Bentley was just an Audi with cosmetic chassis changes and a roof and a clever engine excersize.
New Bentleys were being Launched by Audi so 2003 was a marketing excersize par excellance.

Are you sure? Or is that just the cynical fan's view?
I was always under the impression that RTL in the UK designed the Bentley chassis, admittedly around the Audi engine block, whereas AudiSport designed the R8 and R10.

Close up between the two cars you do notice differences. It sure isn't as simple as 'R8 with a roof', even though the engines are similar. Getting off-topic here anyway.

[cptkablamo]

While it is not inconseivable that Audi would have prevented a Bentley victory in its first race, the fact that the Audi's were still a good deal faster and the margins were too large for such a consired result.

As for the R10 winning in its first Le Mans, it does not surprise me although such early success is still amazing but considering the lack of other manufacturer cars and the changes in the rules, it is perhaps not as surprising (but still an fantastic effort)

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by CATMAN

Choc Ice.
Bentley are owned by Audi. The Audi win was a Promotional win. The year before Audi had to win to get three in a row, if the Audi had any problems the Bentley would have been alloud to win. The Bentley was just an Audi with cosmetic chassis changes and a roof and a clever engine excersize.
New Bentleys were being Launched by Audi so 2003 was a marketing excersize par excellance.

The Bentley was NOT just an Audi with some changes. They only part the UK and German car shared was the engine.

[TRuss]

Without the rules change for a coupe to have the same width rear tires as an open car the Bentley excercise would have probably all been for nothing. That was possibly the first Bentley's biggest limiting factor. It could have been even closer. However. I would also say that the Bentley's per race cost for two "seasons" may have the most we've ever seen in sports car racing. For those who believe money is everything in racing this may be an interesting point as well.

Back to the topic at hand. I have yet to see the R10 up close, but I don't find it particuallry ugly. I think that the cars most unattractive points are forced by the current rules I also think the reason we haven't seen the car get squirelly is because I don't think we've seen it get pushed too hard yet. Especially at LeMans. But I think it was McNish who magaged to get way out of shape at Portland. I think he a curb pretty hard though. I can't remember things as well as many of you.

For the car to win LeMans first attempt. Damned right it's impressive. Sure Audi has the money and man power that makes it easier for them. But no matter how you look at it, it was the first win for a diesel at LeMan ever in their first attempt. In the process changing many peoples preconceived notion of what was possible with a diesel engine. I'm impressed.

[CATMAN]

You talk here of Audi and Bentley as two different companies when they are the same people.
The Bentley was run and developed by Richards Lloyds Apex Motorsport who were formerly works backed Audi UK touring car team. The Bentley was closer to the The Audi than you may care to believe, thats not what the marketing people wanted you to believe. " Running a Le Mans car is not cheap so you utilise what you already have " !
You don't fund a works team and your own Bentley team for fun and have them figghting for the spoils. The whole thing was a marketing excersize from the "Bentley Boys" theme down to the Bentley on the Le Mans posters and the the branding of the motor home hoardings that hid the former Audi UK motor homes to give the home spun win theme to the paddock presentattin compared to Audi Media Centre Building.
Audi did not pay for the Bentleys just to have it prevent a 3 in a row triple win. Bentley kept station as did Audi the next year.
BMW got Rolls Royce and VW Audi got Bentley, Bentley was a two year marketing effort to help relaunch Bentleys new road models and boost the racing heritage that still dates back from before WW2.

[zac510]

Yes I meant rtn, not RTL. The TV station,

[Adam43]

We are wandering from the point here, the Volkswagen Group topic has been done a lot here. This is about the diesel acheivement.

Have a look round for the Bentley/Audi threads.

Thanks.

[CATMAN]

Point taken Adam.
Back to the diesel win. Taurus took a V10 VW diesel lump and put it in the Lola. Sounds easy until the race tuned engine ate speciall purpose built clutch's and tried its best to eat the transmission.
Techies from Caterpillar who specialise in high power diesels with the Mountune built engine had to try and crunch the chip technology to get the power to come in and out at the right time, something that proved a hard task.
As before , it is relatively easy to throw a diesel down Mulsanne at 200mph, getting it to hold together and give productive cornering speed and consistant lap times.
Whatever you think about Racing, Audi marketing want results! I'm not sure which is the bigest coup. Winning with the diesel or the Audi / Bentley / Audi / Audi Diesel marketing operation. In engineering terms the diesel win was Everest climbed first time in one go at the first attempt.
How the car looks and sounds means little compared to all those nice we won Le Mans Audi TDI ads.

[GTfour]

IMHO,I don't see this as a first time out win. Audi had considerable experience running the R8 chassis and I'll bet they used as much data from these cars as possible to make the R10 chassis.
Ofcourse it is impressive to do it with a diesel,but then with all the research facilities and designingpower($) of such a big factory,I wasn't surprised.
I think the worst thing was that everyone knew Audi was gonna win.
I remember 1998 when there was absolutely no telling who was gonna win.

As for the uglyness of the car,I agree this is all down to the silly techrules of today...

[CATMAN]

Audi are very good at overcoming reliability problems. It's OK saying we'll win and people expecting you to win. Its a hell of a big stage to fail on though. So Audi were pretty brave and put in a huge effort. All power to the diesel effort say I.
Sam Lee was sure his Veloqx UK Audi Team would win and sat and cried his eyes out when they didn't