Audi LMP1 Discussion

[carbon_titanium]

If ACO aims to achieve the 3.30 for real, I fear is the only key.

3.20
-5 seconds given by the ban of custom michelin compounds

3.25
-1/2 seconds given by extra weight

3.27
-2/3 seconds given by less power from ICE

3.30
-no way to improve because of the aero/engine ban

And manufacturers could agree with that, because they will be however able to promote their technologies and brand with overall lower costs.

[Spyderman]

My naive hope is that if we don't mention the stupid 3:30 thing, it will just go away.

[carbon_titanium]

It's all about how much 2017 regs will be conservative or not.

[J Jay]

As you say, it all depends on if anything has caught the ACO's eye or not and how restrictive they want to be. The cars will be slowed down eventually, it's just a question of when and by how much.

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

And manufacturers could agree with that, because they will be however able to promote their technologies and brand with overall lower costs.

I don't think this would happen either, even with Toyota & Nissan on-board. The money would get spent chasing the narrowest of performance envelopes as is often the case with F1. Outside of something similar to the RRA (albeit one that actually worked...) if a manufacturer wanted to spend a lot they would find some avenue to channel their resources into.

[cokata]

3.30 is way too conservative. All the drivers that are in the p1 cars are pros, none of them are even paid drivers as far as i know (I would say that some of the paid drivers in f1 are worse then the worst of the factory p1 drivers). If they do decide to reduce the speed it should be through the use of harder tires (not spec tire) that have to last 5 or more stints at Le Mans. This will be relevant technology.

Power should not be reduced, because street cars keep getting more and more powerful while P1s(and almost every other racing class) keep getting less and less powerful, it is getting a little silly. The least powerful production ferrari shouldn't have more power than a top class racing car. If they are so concerned with high top speed they should increase the width of the cars and the tires, instead of reducing power, but that is just my way of thinking.

[Pandemonium]

Come on guys. Why are you all being so pesimistic. Let me tell you what will happen in the 2017 regs. Flexible materials will be allowed and fuel flow will not be touched. Also electric power allowed will be free so you can opt for 20 MJ as long as you are inside a bracket of weight that will have as a minimum 850 kg. In terms of downforce teams will be given more freedom ( flat floors spoiles (front and back) and blown defusers). We should get in the 3:10s at Le Mans and in F1 speeds in Silverstone. That is what the Fia commitee has told me anyway.

[Spyderman]

I vote for Pandemonium for president of FiA and ACO!

[cokata]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I vote for Pandemonium for president of FiA and ACO!

x2. In a perfect world that should happen. No MJ class, you use all the energy you can recover (it's free energy anyway, why should you cap it). No hybrid system should be an option for works teams as well. Diesel and petrol get the same amount of energy .Reduce the minimum weight 850kg or less. We could see an ICE only car with 8L diesel engine running to only ~3500 redline, and it will have 50+hp advantage over the hybrid P1s.

[TF110]

If Toyota rumors are true (2+ seconds at Aragon/Ricard) thats pushing into 3:17's at LM in qualifying. I think Audi will be strong but wont improve as much. Why? Because going 4mj reduces 'diesel power' a bit more than going 8mj for 'petrol power'.

Audi would go to 138.3mj/lap +2mj hybrid to 134.8mj/lap +4mj hybrid. So overall it would be a decrease in total energy from 140.3mj/lap total to 138.8mj/lap total. But with efficiency in electric power it could negate that. In turn the petrol sees an increase in total power by going from 6-8mj; 139.5mj/lap +6mj hybrid to 138.0mj/lap +8mj hybrid. Thats an increase in total energy from 145.5mj/lap to 146.0mj/lap. In my mind, this is what Audi saw and figured the most total power (within reach) would be best.

[Starfish Primer]

If they get below the 3:20 the ACO will modify the rulebook to make them slower. They have been doing this in the latest 15 years.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Starfish Primer

If they get below the 3:20 the ACO will modify the rulebook to make them slower. They have been doing this in the latest 15 years.

soon or later, surely rear wing will come back to 1800mm with the ban of the "toyota double plate" trick

[TF110]

Rear wing is already 1800mm

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

soon or later, surely rear wing will come back to 1800mm with the ban of the "toyota double plate" trick

Just saying… add some weight in the cars and problem solved :-)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

If Toyota rumors are true (2+ seconds at Aragon/Ricard) thats pushing into 3:17's at LM in qualifying. I think Audi will be strong but wont improve as much. Why? Because going 4mj reduces 'diesel power' a bit more than going 8mj for 'petrol power'.

Audi would go to 138.3mj/lap +2mj hybrid to 134.8mj/lap +4mj hybrid. So overall it would be a decrease in total energy from 140.3mj/lap total to 138.8mj/lap total. But with efficiency in electric power it could negate that. In turn the petrol sees an increase in total power by going from 6-8mj; 139.5mj/lap +6mj hybrid to 138.0mj/lap +8mj hybrid. Thats an increase in total energy from 145.5mj/lap to 146.0mj/lap. In my mind, this is what Audi saw and figured the most total power (within reach) would be best.

Account should however be taken of the actual engine efficiency.

If one assumes that the current efficiency targets for diesel and petrol are respectively of 44.48% and 41.30% (matching the FTF of 1.077 according to the current EoT) - and a MGU efficiency of 95% (which is probably a bit pessimistic) - the overall effective energy allocation should in effect increase slightly as a result of moving to the 4MJ ERS option:
2MJ diesel: 138.3 * 44.48% + 2 * 95% = 63.42 MJ/lap
4MJ diesel: 134.8 * 44.48% + 4 * 95% = 63.76 MJ/lap

That's an overall gain of slightly more than 0.3 MJ/lap @ LM, i.e. approximately 0.15 MJ/lap for each MJ of hybrid energy, which gain is logical since the additional hybrid energy should more than offset the decrease in fuel energy allocation. That is as a matter of fact the reflection of the "ERS incentive" in the current EoT.

Interestingly, the improvement is indeed more substantial when it comes to a switch from the 6MJ to 8MJ in the petrol class. The gain is closer to 1.3 MJ/lap if one uses the aforementioned hypotheses. And that should not be the case as a matter of fact if the ERS incentive were to be applied uniformly. For all ERS options, except the 8MJ petrol, the gain should also be of the order of 0.15 MJ/lap for each MJ of hybrid energy.

This remains a very weird element in the current EoT.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Account should however be taken of the actual efficiency that Audi will be able to achieve with the 2015 engine evolutions.

If one assumes that the current efficiency targets for diesel and petrol are respectively of 44.48% and 41.30% (matching the FTF of 1.077 according to the current EoT) - and a MGU efficiency of 95% (which is probably a bit pessimistic) - the overall effective energy allocation should in effect increase slightly as a result of moving to the 4MJ ERS option:
2MJ diesel: 138.3 * 44.48% + 2 * 95% = 63.42 MJ/lap
4MJ diesel: 134.8 * 44.48% + 4 * 95% = 63.76 MJ/lap

That's an overall gain of slightly more than 0.3 MJ/lap @ LM, i.e. approximately 0.15 MJ/lap for each MJ of hybrid energy, which is logical since the additional hybrid energy should more than offset the decrease in fuel energy allocation. That is as a matter of fact the reflection of the "ERS incentive" in the current EoT.

Interestingly, the improvement is indeed more substantial when it comes to a switch from the 6MJ to 8MJ in the petrol class. The gain is closer to 1.3 MJ/lap if one uses the aforementioned hypotheses. And that should not be the case as a matter of fact if the ERS incentive were to be applied uniformly. For all ERS options, except the 8MJ petrol, the gain should also be of the order of 0.15 MJ/lap for each MJ of hybrid energy.

This remains a very weird element in the current EoT.

Basically for 8MJ the "K factor" for diesels goes to 1.0. I would assume that is because if you can go within a weight limit with a diesel engine and 8mj system you don't have an "overweight" diesel engine.

[TF110]

Not strange imo. Logical. If the rules are an incentive to run higher ers's, it makes sense that the highest allowed class in terms of energy recovered is the best. What would be the point in having ers systems if running them accounted for no gain?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Not strange imo. Logical. If the rules are an incentive to run higher ers's, it makes sense that the highest allowed class in terms of energy recovered is the best. What would be the point in having ers systems if running them accounted for no gain?

Not logical in any way I am afraid. There is an incentive to run in higher ERS classes and this ERS incentive is the same for all ERS classes, except for the 8MJ petrol. As you should recall, the current EoT assumes a uniform theoretical performance gain of 0.5 sec/lap @LM for each MJ of hybrid energy. Based on the aforementioned hypotheses, this equates to approximately 0.15 MJ/lap for each MJ of hybrid energy.

Irrespective of the actual hypotheses, if you plot the relevant figures in a chart, the ERS incentive should be reflected as a substantially linear curve of a given slope. This is true, except for the 8MJ ERS petrol option. That clearly illustrates that the ERS incentive is not applied uniformly and consistently, which is at odds with what the ERS incentive is supposed to be.

If this difference is supposed to find an explanation in the increased weight that would come with the 8MJ hybrid, then why isn't this also reflected in the case of diesel ?

This is not logical, but weird.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The following chart illustrates the "weird" element in the current EoT (assuming an MGU efficiency of 98%). The slope of each linear curve is the reflection of the ERS incentive. Note the very noticeable inflection from 6 to 8MJ in the case of petrol, which should not be there if the ERS incentive were to be applied uniformly:


This being said, this also shows that Audi should be reasonably performant with the 4MJ ERS option.

I am still of the opinion that this "ERS incentive" is just a big unnecessary complication. The ACO-FIA should have opted for a different approach by ensuring equivalent overall effective energy allocation irrespective of the ERS option.

[TF110]

Theoritical is the key word. Just because a person on a forum calls the incentive weird or strange doesn't make it so. No, its not exact. Why does that matter? A theoritical half second per lap per mj class doesnt match up with the highest class. Why does it matter? The aco never said the science was exact. Thats what a theory is. Criticize it, thats fine. But how is it illogical to have the highest class the fastest, even if its not matched up exactly with a linear progression?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Theoritical is the key word. Just because a person on a forum calls the incentive weird or strange doesn't make it so. No, its not exact. Why does that matter? A theoritical half second per lap per mj class doesnt match up with the highest class. Why does it matter? The aco never said the science was exact. Thats what a theory is. Criticize it, thats fine. But how is it illogical to have the highest class the fastest, even if its not matched up exactly with a linear progression?

I struggle to understand your logic.

If the ACO-FIA themselves claim that the ERS incentive should apply uniformly (whatever the theoretical performance gain that is supposed to be associated with the ERS incentive), then why is it that they don't appear to stick to their words and reflect it in the EoT ?

Unfortunately, the EoT figures don't lie. I am just highlighting the "weird" element that is in the current EoT.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by cokata

Basically for 8MJ the "K factor" for diesels goes to 1.0. I would assume that is because if you can go within a weight limit with a diesel engine and 8mj system you don't have an "overweight" diesel engine.

Note that the KTF has no bearing on how the ERS incentive should apply within one and a same fuel category. It's just supposed to be there to compensate for the diesel overweight.

In that respect, if the more "generous" fuel energy allocation for the 8MJ ERS petrol is intended to compensate for the increased weight of the 8MJ hybrid system, then this should arguably also apply for diesel which is already overweight.

If the ACO-FIA do want to push the petrol guys to opt for the highest ERS class, then why don't they apply the same philosophy in case of diesel and also include a more generous incentive to opt for the 8MJ (or 6MJ) ERS option ?

I don't see the logic in there.

[cokata]

anyway 0.5 sec per MJ category is too little for such a long lap (for petrol or diesel). If you have a problem with the hybrid system you loose a a ton of time and you may have problems with the brakes, since the higher the MJ the smaller brakes you have.

Audi could have done 4mj last year, but for the sake of Le Mans chose not to. The rules should be made so that if you get within the minimum weight you should be in the biggest MJ class which your hybrid system can handle.

For the WEC rounds the situation is different since their is a 1.55x multiplayer to the hybrid energy, and only 1.11x for the fuel. So there the bigger MJ classes have too big of an advantage.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The ACO-FIA should definitely get rid of the ERS incentive altogether and let the manufacturers decide the amount of hybrid energy that they are willing to release. Let them homologate their cars with whatever ERS they see fit and adjust the fuel energy allocation accordingly to ensure that everybody has to play with basically the same amount of overall energy allocation. If somebody wants to run with a 20MJ hybrid system then fine. If somebody want to runs with a 2MJ hybrid system then equally fine. One single energy equivalency rule. Period.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The ACO-FIA should definitely get rid of the ERS incentive altogether and let the manufacturers decide the amount of hybrid energy that they are willing to release. Let them homologate their cars with whatever ERS they see fit and adjust the fuel energy allocation accordingly to ensure that everybody has to play with basically the same amount of overall energy allocation. If somebody wants to run with a 20MJ hybrid system then fine. If somebody want to runs with a 2MJ hybrid system then equally fine. One single energy equivalency rule. Period.

So you are suggesting that a 20MJ and 2MJ systems should have equal total energy (Hydrocarbon + ERS). Why would anyone have more than 0.1MJ, then?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by cokata

So you are suggesting that a 20MJ and 2MJ systems should have equal total energy (Hydrocarbon + ERS). Why would anyone have more than 0.1MJ, then?

There would still be an inherent incentive to run a higher ERS in the form of better mileage, i.e. longer stints. That would be sufficient IMHO. Not to mention that it would be easier to enforce and would only necessitate adjustments in the fuel equivalence. No KTF.