Audi LMP1 Discussion

[GasperG]

The autonomy difference is only 14.4 vs 14.5 laps at LeMans. Or to put it another way 8MJ petrol lasts only 0.7% longer than 6MJ diesel.

As for the skid pad fiasko, the question is was it the FRIC fault or were they really running lower as they should. It would be good to know so we can see what the performance will be at coming races.

[chernaudi]

If Audi are appealing, they must have some data or info that says that the excessive wear was due to an unforeseen or mitigating circumstances. I think this is why the ACO/FIA have an appeals process, since I don't think that the race officials aren't usually tech people and can only go by what the rules and info they're presented with says/suggests. Even NASCAR has an appeals process that's more detailed than what the race officials' decisions are.

I hope that Audi Sport are able to get the penalty rescinded or at least reduced. I don't want to see their hard work spoiled by a rules technicality that probably had little if any bearing on performance. Though at least the season is early and Porsche (one car DNF'd) and Toyota (problems and being off pace in the race) scored far from max points, and at least Audi have 1 point in each championship provisionally from the pole.

It could've been a lot worse like 2014 where both Audis DNF'd and Porsche and Toyota scored well.

[ederss7]

The engine seals penalty and now this DQ, along with stupid strategy calls and questionable use of aero packages. What's going on with Audi?

[TF110]

I think anyone would appeal the decision to strip you of a win. Even if you're in the wrong, an appeal can give you time to come up with a plausible reason why the car was the way it was. Why Audi had excessive wear and not Toyota or Porsche is what they'll have to explain to the rule makers.

[chernaudi]

Of course, since this will have to be heard by one of the FIA's new sporting/appeals tribunals set up by Jean Todt over sporting and tech rules violations/inquiries, it'll probably be weeks before we know who actually won. That's unless Audi withdraw their appeal or the WMSC/ACO overrule the race officials/their own tech delegate.

I have a feeling that this isn't like NASCAR where appeals are a fairly speedy process, even with their new appeals rules.

[MihokS5]

Originally Posted by bella

they are mounted above the windshield/windscreen, so the driver has to look up instead of down to make changes.

Thanks so much! I figured since that was the only place they could fit. Just wish Audi would give us some cockpit photos...

[chernaudi]

If last year is anything to go by, they might be out anywhere before Spa and LM, when they release pics of their LM spec car.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If Audi are appealing, they must have some data or info that says that the excessive wear was due to an unforeseen or mitigating circumstances. I think this is why the ACO/FIA have an appeals process, since I don't think that the race officials aren't usually tech people and can only go by what the rules and info they're presented with says/suggests. Even NASCAR has an appeals process that's more detailed than what the race officials' decisions are.

I hope that Audi Sport are able to get the penalty rescinded or at least reduced. I don't want to see their hard work spoiled by a rules technicality that probably had little if any bearing on performance. Though at least the season is early and Porsche (one car DNF'd) and Toyota (problems and being off pace in the race) scored far from max points, and at least Audi have 1 point in each championship provisionally from the pole.

It could've been a lot worse like 2014 where both Audis DNF'd and Porsche and Toyota scored well.

It is either black or white. If the excessive "wear" is the result of an unforeseen event like damage caused by a debris, then the penalty could or should be cancelled. If not, then the penalty should be enforced in full. I don't see any "in-between" outcome.

It's really a highly frustrating situation for Audi Sport after yesterday's show.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think anyone would appeal the decision to strip you of a win. Even if you're in the wrong, an appeal can give you time to come up with a plausible reason why the car was the way it was. Why Audi had excessive wear and not Toyota or Porsche is what they'll have to explain to the rule makers.

I honestly believe that this is not the motivation behind Audi's appeal. They should already have a sensible explanation to put forward and develop in the context of the appeal proceedings (they already presented their initial explanation to the stewards BTW). And it remains to be seen if the issue is the result of excessive "wear" or actual damage caused by a debris of some sort. In the first case, there would be no point in appealing. In the second case, it's debatable and worth being argued on appeal.

BTW, "Stewards Decision No. 27" is still not accessible to the public ?

[chernaudi]

The only reason why I can see Audi getting the penalty reduced or completely rescinded is if the ACO officials and the WMSC accept their explanation as being reasonably plausible. Otherwise, I doubt it'd be worth Audi wasting their time and that of the ACO and the FIA WMSC or whoever will be involved in the hearing. If they didn't feel it was worth their time, they'd have just taken their licks and not even bothered.

Either that, or Audi Sport are hoping that it ends up like the engine seal deal, which seemed to be a honest mistake but was nevertheless a potentially big deal as far as the tech regs went. Only thing that Audi got out of that after the ACO/FIA inquiry was a fine and a restriction on the number of engines to use post LM. IMO, the engine seal faux pas was a much bigger deal than a wooden skid that was a few millimeters out of spec--5mm is slightly smaller than a .22 caliber bullet, for example.

Also, I'm sort of suspecting that the race officials told Audi Sport that they were going to provisionally penalize them (as they had to take some action) and referred them to the ACO/FIA appeals process for whatever reason.

Of course, I'm also a bit biased in that in the past Toyota (rotating wing) and Porsche (messing with the fuel inlets on their cars) basically got away with, compared to this, was blatant cheating IMO

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Of course, I'm also a bit biased in that in the past Toyota (rotating wing) and Porsche (messing with the fuel inlets on their cars) basically got away with, compared to this, was blatant cheating IMO

Plank wear has been an instant DSQ every time it's been spotted in any FIA-governed motorsport since 1994. Off the top of my head I can only think of a single occasion where a DSQ for this reason was overturned on appeal in 22 years of this rule, think it might have been a Jordan at the USGP in '01.

And ESM lost a podium place in LMP2 last year at the same track due to a worn plank-related disqualification, let's not forget. So I wouldn't give an Audi appeal any chance tbh.

[chernaudi]

Yet Toyota got away with breaking an even bigger rule (no movable aero devices) and Porsche for fooling around with the fuel inlet on their car. I don't see how that's fair. Also, if we're going to talk about intent, there's undeniable intent to push the rules in the cases with Toyota and Porsche.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

And ESM lost a podium place in LMP2 last year at the same track due to a worn plank-related disqualification, let's not forget. So I wouldn't give an Audi appeal any chance tbh.

Well remembered

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Yet Toyota got away with breaking an even bigger rule (no movable aero devices) and Porsche for fooling around with the fuel inlet on their car. I don't see how that's fair. Also, if we're going to talk about intent, there's undeniable intent to push the rules in the cases with Toyota and Porsche.

So you said. These situations are different to this one. Those were about interpretation of the rules - which you can agree with or not. These were eventually changed by clarifying or tightening the rules. Up until then there was interpretation.

Because of this difference, and whichever you think is worse, they will be dealt with in a different way.

This is a simple measurement of a parameter that is outside the rules. Let's not try and drag this into a tit for tat. Especially when it isn't comparable.

Remember in a breaking a measurement Porsche got pinged for fuel flow. That was noticed and served with a penalty. This is more like that, although not quite the same, as it can only be noticed after the race and the penalty is hard to assess as you don't know how long it had been like that.

[Adam43]

Back to more technical things. Here is the Audi's backside.

Also it is hard to tell exactly, but I think at that point he'd like a little more front end grip? Still plenty of run-off so it doesn't matter too much

[Artur]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

in 2014 and more clearly in 2015, audi lacked of combined final power because of lower energetic class. This year the gap is basically recovered, so audi, toyota and porsche are all in the same range of combined power.

I'm not sure of that. They now have the same total energy, per lap, but the combined power of the 8MJ is greater, I think. The energy is the same because Audi is allowed a bit more power on their ICE but Porsche/Toyota had 2MJ extra to deploy as they want(limitless) while Audi's ICE is limited by fuel flow.

It's better to release more energy(power) at lower speeds(Porsche and Toyota) than spread it over the lap(Audi).

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

This year audi had a great top speed at silverstone, comparable with porsche. Considering that porsche used a medium-high downforce set, while audi used a high downforce package, is clear that overall power isn't anymore an audi's weakness. The price to pay for audi is a slightly worse fuel milliage. Anyway, let's wait for spa to make other speculations....

As posted on the TS050 thread, Audi's top speed was the same in 2015 and 2016 while Porsche was much closer to Audi, this year.

Originally Posted by bella

(i was just lucky enough to be taken into the pit and it's not really familiar territory), but from an untrained eye point of view the entire cockpit did look more compact than the non-manufacturer lmp2 and lmp1 cars. but then checking some parc ferme pictures i grabbed on my phone that's possibly because audi's single seater style high nose design seems to necessetate (sp) the cockpit bulkhead being higher than the porsche as well.
another incredible thing (to my eye) was that with certain bits of bodywork removed, you can see how much clear air there is tunneled underneath the front of the audi. isolated from the more traditional front end that porsche runs, that thing really does look a lot like a single seater.

Did you capture pics, from similar angles, as the ones I suggested on this post, please? :
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....6&postcount=78

[chernaudi]

I'd like some cockpit photos since the control console is now mounted (from what I've read here) next to the rear view mirror.

[ederss7]

Why between 2012-2014 a hybrid problem didn't mean loss of performance while since last year it either means a huge performance drop or a retirement, like what happened at Silverstone? Examples:
In 2012 Audi turned off the hybrid system when the last Toyota retired and it had almost no impact on performance;
In 2014 the hybrid stopped working in the winning car at Le Mans, yet performance was there;
In 2015 a hybrid problem meant huge performance drop(#9 had at Le Mans, apparently);
And now in 2016 their first retirement related to the hybrid system.
I remember back in 2013 when Toyota had hybrid issues at Spa and they had to retire. Apparently one of the advantages Audi had back then was that. No hybrid working=not necessarily huge performance drop or retirement.

[GasperG]

Think of it as in the past hybrids where like Honda IMA, but now they are like Toyota Prius. If you want full potential from hybrid system then it must be fully integrated in the drivetrain, there is also no weight left for some backup situations.

[cokata]

The reason it was not much of problem before is that they had a low power/low capacity hybrid system. Which meant that in absolute terms they don't loose much performance, and more importantly they weren't heavily relying on the electric motor(s) to do their breaking, so in an event of a failure the disc breaks could cope.

[YorkshireLad]

Found this on LMPone's Twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bella]

Originally Posted by Artur

Did you capture pics, from similar angles, as the ones I suggested on this post, please? :
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....6&postcount=78

afraid not, the only thing i have is this from parc ferme, which misses out the detail you're looking for.

[Artur]

Well, a pitty but thanks very much, anyway

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by YorkshireLad

Found this on LMPone's Twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting, now I'm even more convinced that the DSQ is due to aggressive FRIC settings or chassis angle (similar to what Red Bull has been doing) of Audi. Hope they don't get disqualified for this anymore.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using Tapatalk

[Deleted]

If this had happened at Le Mans I'm pretty sure they would not have DSQ'd the Audi as it would have been the biggest PR disaster possible for everyone involved, incl FIA and ACO. Yes, had they finished 2nd or 5th or whatever there with illegal car, or even if we were talking of lower class wins like GTE-AM, then DSQ would've been quite possible, but not overall win...

Their scrutineering methods are probably bit more detailed up there so the chances of these flukes getting through are lower?

Anyway, at least it's possible to get disqualified from any other ACO event, unlike IMSA/IndyCar/NASCAR where they think people are too dumb to understand if winner's illegal car gets axed from the results even at the most low key of events.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Anyway, at least it's possible to get disqualified from any other ACO event, unlike IMSA/IndyCar/NASCAR where they think people are too dumb to understand if winner's illegal car gets axed from the results even at the most low key of events.

It is nice to see the rules being enforced. But just so I understand, the issue with the Audi was that it had a skid plate that was worn to thin, correct? So they must have been scraping on the ground too much which caused the excessive wear? Or is there another reason for this? I'm asking because I am curious if they attempted to gain an advantage or if wear and tear just took its toll.