Audi R15 TDi - the thread

[gwyllion]

During the Petit Le Mans weekend I also talked with Audi's racing boss Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich. Dr. Ullrich said Audi will probably race at Sebring and Road Atlanta again next year but is not likely to run any more ALMS races next season. He also warned that too much rule-changing and instability would push Audi out of Le Mans prototype racing.

...

Dr. Ullrich said he appreciates the ALMS's reasoning in combining its P1 and P2 cars into a single category for next year. But he says the move has added to his problems in convincing his board of directors to keep its prototype sports car budget alive.

source: http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no203.html

[chernaudi]

So at this rate, the R15 is probably gonna be Audi Sport's biggest waste of money unless Audi can be convinced to open things up for more races.

[fiend540]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

So at this rate, the R15 is probably gonna be Audi Sport's biggest waste of money unless Audi can be convinced to open things up for more races.

Or if the ACO stops messing with Aero year after year. Must be real frustrating to homologate a car, change aero on it 2-3 times a year because of ACO requests and then have to have a giant redesign in the off season cause of new aero rules yet again and only for one year of racing due to another giant rule shift. This would be hard to explain to a board of directors in good economic terms, let alone the one we are in now.

[chernaudi]

Doesn't stop F1 teams from spending $100-300 million a year for cars that become obsolete after 1 years worth of use-a full season ALMS program for Audi in the R10 days(2006-'08) cost $15 million. But it's hard to justify such things when the budget is set and Audi doesn't want to spend much more on it.

Hence, the waste of money comments-Audi seems to want to return to the ALMS on at least the basis of running many of the races, if not the full schedule if they can help it. But having to spend that much money on a car to basically rebuild it for one year because of one team's whining-and that team maybe not racing at LM next year anyways to boot-is the dumbest thing I heard in a long time.

Maybe Audi should just run ALMS only next year and ditch Le Mans-Dyson does it, and Penske did it, and Acura's doing it. Maybe this is what Audi gets for supporting the ACO through thick and thin for the last decade.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Maybe Audi should just run ALMS only next year and ditch Le Mans-Dyson does it, and Penske did it, and Acura's doing it. Maybe this is what Audi gets for supporting the ACO through thick and thin for the last decade.

That does not make any sense at all. Who would they race in ALMS? Acura is leaving. In Le Mans they can at least compete against Peugeot.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That does not make any sense at all. Who would they race in ALMS? Acura is leaving.

That hasn't bothered them before though, has it?

[Fogelhund]

Acura "may" be leaving, but that doesn't mean that "Acuras" will be leaving. Expect at least Mazda, Porsche and Acura nameplates to compete against.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Acura "may" be leaving, but that doesn't mean that "Acuras" will be leaving. Expect at least Mazda, Porsche and Acura nameplates to compete against.

And Mazda, i believe, and hope, is going to be a mayor competitor next year!

[Jonerz]

Those small, biobutanol turbo fours will be quite something. Hopefully the ALMS won't just drop the weight of the P2 cars, but also give them a little larger restrictor so that the power can go up and we can see those Mazdas sideways on a few occasions.

Chris

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

Those small, biobutanol turbo fours will be quite something. Hopefully the ALMS won't just drop the weight of the P2 cars, but also give them a little larger restrictor so that the power can go up and we can see those Mazdas sideways on a few occasions.

Chris

Although the ALMS hasn't announced the equalization formula yet, I thought it was going to be more like slowing the P1 cars down to match the P2 cars. But then again I have also heard from Mr. A. that they want to return to the 2008 rules that produced good racing, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Slowing the P1 cars would make a little sense since that is more close to what the 2011 P1 rules will look like.

[Jonerz]

But the potential 2011 rules seem to require so many technical changes it wouldn't be the same if you just slowed P1s to that level. However, with all the backlash from manufacturers and privateers I'd be surprised if the ACO didn't reconsider their decisions to constantly change the rules. I think it was Jutner who said Audi may go as far as leaving ACO prototype racing if the economics don't add up. But manufacturers coming and going is a part of top level sports car racing.

Chris

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

I'd be surprised if the ACO didn't reconsider their decisions to constantly change the rules. Chris

I would like to be educated on this please. As far as I know the petrol engines have been the same since at least 01, the diesels the same since their intro in 04/05. Which also was the last major chassis rule chage (which was a phase in).

So how is that constantly changing the rules? Or does the wing change for this year quantify constant change? Lets not forget that the mfgs., including the customer car mfgs., usually do an aero update every year anyways, so how does that truly merit the angst towards the ACO (in the light of constant change).
Also it has been common knowledge that there was a 3:30 barrier all along and if it was pierced that the cars would be brought back into line, also is the mix was the increased frequency of airborn incidents to which the wing was a stop gap fix and there would be more to rectify the problem coming in the future (this to rectify a safety issue!).

I do agree that the ACO should hold off on the implimentation of the aero fix (especially with the current economic clime) until the 2011 rule set (no airborn incidents), which they have in the most part, via Mike, except the frt aero. Which is, IMO, the ACO closing the loophole that Audi took advantage of and appeasing Peugeot and others in the process.

So what have I missed, other than minutiae?


L.P.

[Fogelhund]

Minutia?

A shame "minutia" costs hundred thousand dollars plus everytime....

Oh, and on topic, I doubt we see the R15 racing much in the ALMS next year.

[chernaudi]

Depends on the ACO's 2010 rules(yet to be made offical aside from proposals), ALMS LMP1/2 equvalancy formula(again yet to be made offical), and where Audi will get the money to do a full ALMS season-it cost Audi $15 million to run the R10 in the ALMS in both '07 and '08, and it stands to reason that the R15 would cost at least as much, and finding outside sponsors to pony up that cash isn't easy, which is why Audi and Peugeot sposored themselves with their TDI and HDi-FAP branding, along with Shell(Audi) and Total(Peugeot).

Audi would probably like to run in the ALMS next year for if nothing else to advertize their diesel cars(the raison d'être for the R10 and the R15 in the first place), but where are they gonna get the money, especially if the Audi board is skeptical over the ACO's proposed rules and IMSA proposed LMP equalization.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I would like to be educated on this please. As far as I know the petrol engines have been the same since at least 01, the diesels the same since their intro in 04/05. Which also was the last major chassis rule chage (which was a phase in).

So how is that constantly changing the rules? Or does the wing change for this year quantify constant change? Lets not forget that the mfgs., including the customer car mfgs., usually do an aero update every year anyways, so how does that truly merit the angst towards the ACO (in the light of constant change).
Also it has been common knowledge that there was a 3:30 barrier all along and if it was pierced that the cars would be brought back into line, also is the mix was the increased frequency of airborn incidents to which the wing was a stop gap fix and there would be more to rectify the problem coming in the future (this to rectify a safety issue!).

I do agree that the ACO should hold off on the implimentation of the aero fix (especially with the current economic clime) until the 2011 rule set (no airborn incidents), which they have in the most part, via Mike, except the frt aero. Which is, IMO, the ACO closing the loophole that Audi took advantage of and appeasing Peugeot and others in the process.

So what have I missed, other than minutiae?


L.P.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Minutia?

A shame "minutia" costs hundred thousand dollars plus everytime....

Oh, and on topic, I doubt we see the R15 racing much in the ALMS next year.

So I must not have missed anything, if all that can be done is, complain about the cost of parts of/on a carbon fiber prototype race car. Which I grant you are quite expensive, and alluded to in my post by agreeing, that was one of, if not the main reason, to wait until 2011 to impliment the further changes!!!!!



L.P.

[Fogelhund]

Why won't we see the R15 in the ALMS next year?

http://murphythebear.com/blog/index....-hip/#more-539

[ger80]

Shouldnt it be possible to run a season for less than 15Mil$?

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I would like to be educated on this please. As far as I know the petrol engines have been the same since at least 01, the diesels the same since their intro in 04/05. Which also was the last major chassis rule chage (which was a phase in).

So how is that constantly changing the rules? Or does the wing change for this year quantify constant change? Lets not forget that the mfgs., including the customer car mfgs., usually do an aero update every year anyways, so how does that truly merit the angst towards the ACO (in the light of constant change).
Also it has been common knowledge that there was a 3:30 barrier all along and if it was pierced that the cars would be brought back into line, also is the mix was the increased frequency of airborn incidents to which the wing was a stop gap fix and there would be more to rectify the problem coming in the future (this to rectify a safety issue!).

I do agree that the ACO should hold off on the implimentation of the aero fix (especially with the current economic clime) until the 2011 rule set (no airborn incidents), which they have in the most part, via Mike, except the frt aero. Which is, IMO, the ACO closing the loophole that Audi took advantage of and appeasing Peugeot and others in the process.

So what have I missed, other than minutiae?


L.P.

I don't mean the constant rules changes from 01-09 or whatever. I guess I misspoke. But ACO regulations for next year, dictate that rear end bodywork must be redesigned, not mesh etc., and then on top of that for 2011 all new cars will be required. Audi has protested this, and Peugeot has as well. The ACO, if they want Audi or Peugeot in LMS next year, or care about the ALMS, they would consider not forcing the bodywork changes, or not forcing the new rules on 2011. If manufacturers are complaining about the cost, private teams are taking just as bad a hit. However, if everyone remains committed to the oversubscribed Le Mans 24 Hours entrylist the ACO won't HAVE to make a change to support all that matters in the European sports car world, and will thus not make a change. However, if they do want to build and grow Le Mans, the LMS and ALMS are important championships and they should be concerned about teams leaving due to the added costs in a slowly recovering global economy. So minutia (or minutiae - plural form IIRC)? Perhaps. But consequences of overlooking this COULD be dire, unless there is a dramatic growth in the economy.

Chris

[chernaudi]

Did anyone say that the ACO or IMSA had to make sense? Audi and even Peugeot think that's the case.

The future of Audi Sport's LMP program is unclear because the ACO and IMSA won't come clear with their proposed rules changes-the ACO has been rather coy about the front end areo regs proposals(ie, they haven't gone into specifics), and IMSA hasn't come clean about how the LMP class for next will have the cars equalized yet-hopes are that the return to the '08 formula(LMP1s run to ACO regs, LMP2s run with lighter weight and/or more power).

And then there's the ACO's cherished(and if you ask me, stupid) 3:30 limit, which is partly driving those rules. I think that Marshall Pruett has a good idea-if the ACO's so concerned about speeds at LM, make the teams run high downforce sprint race bodywork, and smaller air restrictors, instead of making daft, short-sighted rules that cost teams time and money to come up with solutions that have no long term validitiy. That's a sign that the ACO only pretty much cares about the LM24, and little else.

And for IMSA, Audi might race there next year, but the LMP1/2 equlization regs haven't been published. Some say that a return to the '08 regs mentioned previously is the way, but there are rumors that LMP1s may be slowed to near LMP2 levels, or that the regs would meet both half way. I doubt that Audi(and other teams) appreciates having to modify the R15 from ACO performance regs just to run in the ALMS.

Basically, if the ACO and IMSA agreed to leave the rules alone for 2010, Audi would've been back in the ALMS and at Le Mans in a heartbeat. But now, they have to see how things play out before making a decision. We've already lost Aston Martin for 2010, Peugeot seems to be on the way out for next year as a factory team, and Audi may be headed that way.

Unless things change(IMSA and the ACO do as they should-stablize the rules for 2010 as far as the ACO, and IMSA running the combined LMP classes to the '08 formula, or the econony has an explosive boom soon), both parties may've screwed themselves for next year, and they only have themselves to blame-if a company that has supported and propped up sportscar racing for a decade says that there are big problems, then that should be a wake up call.

[johntt]

re. the rear bodywork changes, it appears there is waiver for cars built before 2010. Audi, Peugeot and Aston Martin know that 2011 will require new cars and are working on them as of now.

What the ACO needs to do in 2011 is freeze the rules until 2014 and stop fiddiling with them!

[The Real DMN]

In Autosport today it says the ACO have given Audi permission to run the R15 with only minor changes next year, much to Peugeots chagrin.

[ger80]

Aero update
http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ocus-2523.html

[isynge]

Originally Posted by The Real DMN

In Autosport today it says the ACO have given Audi permission to run the R15 with only minor changes next year, much to Peugeots chagrin.

Given Peugeot wins at Le Mans and Road Atlanta, plus Sarrazin's claim that the 908 is now the car to beat, Peugeot have somewhat undermined their claim that the Audi is unfairly illegal.

Somehow it seems harder to argue that a slower illegal car should be banned.

Nice to see the ACO taking the good pragmatic decision to keep Audi on board.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by isynge

Given Peugeot wins at Le Mans and Road Atlanta, plus Sarrazin's claim that the 908 is now the car to beat, Peugeot have somewhat undermined their claim that the Audi is unfairly illegal.

Somehow it seems harder to argue that a slower illegal car should be banned.

Nice to see the ACO taking the good pragmatic decision to keep Audi on board.

I believe we had this discussion before, so i'm only going to state this, so other people knows there is split minds about that case!
Peugeot didn't file for banning the R15!, but for clarification on why the R15 was allowed to run with the certain aero parts, which was believed to be illegal. Peugeot knew that ACO would never ban Audi from the 24h Le Mans.

[HORNDAWG]

And you still have not convinced anybody of that being the case it seems.




L.P.