Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Audi Racer]

nvm

[gwyllion]

I don't get your point. Peugeot ran with more downforce (higher wing, bigger gurney flap, full set of front fender louvers) than in Le Mans. Audi also showed up with a new high downforce aero package. Some both manufactuers added more downforce for Imola.

[Audi Racer]

i don;t get it either.....Audi intentionally runs more downforce(its not that the car is draggy...)the drag is from the downforce...Thats typical Audi style to run extra downforce.


mulsanne mike has given numbers that say the Audi is the more aero efficient car. in its lemans trim at least

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

To illustrate my point, here's a 908 from early practice at Spa with the low wing:

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio..._05_05_055.jpg

From the race with the high wing:

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio..._05_07_182.jpg

And guess which configuration Peugeot chose for Imola?:

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...Course_040.jpg

Simply put, Audi guessed wrong with their aero package, and I hope that they don't make that mistake again, as it's pretty clear that Peugeot are showing the way to go aero wise with the current rules package.

wouldn't the high wing indicate more down force on the 908...However everyone knows the Audi ran even more down force than the 908 did.. Evidenced by sector 2 times.

i think both teams went in the same direction.....

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

You only need to look at the peugeot to see that they're not packing any extra downforce than they need to be.......The rear wing isn't angled and they're not alot of diveplane angle up front.

Compared to Audi....those are some meaty diveplanes on the front of that R18.

Are you referring to the "meaty diveplanes" that Audi also uses on their low drag Le Mans aero?

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

wouldn't the high wing indicate more down force on the 908...However everyone knows the Audi ran even more down force than the 908 did.. Evidenced by sector 2 times.

During the race there was only a slight difference in the sector 2 times:

• Audi #1: 38.701
• Peugeot #7: 38.912
• Audi #2: 38.955
• Peugeot #8: 39.081

I don't think that suggest a very big difference in downforce level between both cars. It could just be that Audi used the tyres better, which of course resulted in worse tyre wear than Peugeot...

[gwyllion]

In Spa Audi was also worse in traffic. Back then the Audi drivers suggested that this could be explained by Peugeot running with more downforce.

In Imola Audi had a proper high downforce aero package, but they still struggle in traffic. Maybe there are other reasons: less powerfull engine, poor visibility, inexperience of drivers with coupe. Of course the overheating front brakes did not help either.

[chernaudi]

What ever the issue is, Audi had better fix it, and soon. LM showed that it's shouldn't be the engine, as to equal the Pug in straightline speed means that either the R18 has at least equal power, or is much more aero efficient. If the engines can be run at Le Mans at full power and not break, than a 6 hour race should be a cake walk.

Peugeot had better straightline speed at Imola, and that helped them immensely in traffic. And your comments seem to point to the fact that they ran their basic LM package adapted to suit a shorter track--the changes outlined where the same that Audi would make to the R8 to convert it to run at a normal ALMS race vs LM.

Allan McNish's piece at Speed TV does outline that straightline speed was the biggest issue that Audi had in regards to working traffic:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-mcnish-imola/

It's a lot easier to pass cars down the straight than into a corner. And by Peugeot taking their LM nose and rear deck and adding parts like gurneys and other things, it shows that Audi should be able to make similar gains by modifying their LM aero kit to suit. Besides, when both cars were in LM aero trim, the R18 was the better car vs the 908.

Either Audi are running too much drag for the downforce they were making or they hoped that their areo kit would suit Imola, which it didn't. Or Peugeot at LM sandbagged on the engine and cranked up the power for the shorter races.

Whatever the issue, Audi need to fix it if they want to win some more races, because Silverstone, Road Atlanta, and Zhuhai have some long straights that the Pugs could leave Audi sitting on if they continue to lose out on top-end speed.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Are you referring to the "meaty diveplanes" that Audi also uses on their low drag Le Mans aero?

During the race there was only a slight difference in the sector 2 times:

• Audi #1: 38.701
• Peugeot #7: 38.912
• Audi #2: 38.955
• Peugeot #8: 39.081

I don't think that suggest a very big difference in downforce level between both cars. It could just be that Audi used the tyres better, which of course resulted in worse tyre wear than Peugeot...

The Audi was hardly in low drag config for Lemans..... It got eaten alive on the straights.

did you see how hard it was for Andre Lotterer to pass Franck Montagny....He was up Montangy's tailpippes and in the draft for the first two straights that make up the mulsanne and still couldn't even pull out of the tow and let alone get beside him..... It wasn't until the entry to mulsanne corner that he out braked him by a large margin.....

In addition don't you think looking at the best sector 2 times is a bit premature...The problem with sector 2 times is the consistency.......The Audi was consistently quick through sector 2...The peugeot was well off the Audi's in sector 2 for pratically the entire race....The sector time your using is the best times..Of course on an absolute flyer from Bourdais he gains time through sector 2 but he could not do that every lap like the Audi could.....

[chernaudi]

Being only 3-4km/h slower down the Mulsanne is hardly getting eaten alive, when compared to the fact that the old R8 was often much slower than that at LM when it was dominant, and espeically compared to the 10km/h that the R18s were slower down the straight at Imola, and that lack of speed was what killed them in traffic.

The cars make quite a bit less power than under the old regs, and whoever can ballance downforce with drag will likely win in race condtions with traffic.

And of course, having to outbrake cars to pass them was what probably lead to Audi's brake issues--something else that they have to fix before Silverstone.

Good news is that when Audi find out about a problem is that they often fix it. Bad news is that the grip issues at Spa, the brake problems at Imola, and being slower down the straights at Imola by the amount that they were shouldn't really be problems that Audi should be having in the first place!

That, and the aero stuff they did at Imola seems to be to the extreme when they should probably be doing as Peugeot, and refining a good package rather than make whole new body panels to suit a specific track when the Pug's subtle changes can do the job just as well, if not better. Not to mention that it could've caused some of the brake issues, too.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Being only 3-4km/h slower down the Mulsanne is hardly getting eaten alive, when compared to the fact that the old R8 was often much slower than that at LM when it was dominant, and espeically compared to the 10km/h that the R18s were slower down the straight at Imola, and that lack of speed was what killed them in traffic.

The cars make quite a bit less power than under the old regs, and whoever can ballance downforce with drag will likely win in race condtions with traffic.

And of course, having to outbrake cars to pass them was what probably lead to Audi's brake issues--something else that they have to fix before Silverstone.

Good news is that when Audi find out about a problem is that they often fix it. Bad news is that the grip issues at Spa, the brake problems at Imola, and being slower down the straights at Imola by the amount that they were shouldn't really be problems that Audi should be having in the first place!

3-4km/h? thats not the the whole story....

Try 10km/h slower at Lemans.The audi was 10km/h slower on the straights at Lemans.......dont use the best sectors or the best trap speeds...Those are very decieving....Those traps speeds for the Audi where no doubt achieved while in the tow of the peugeots. By themselves they were lost.

Audi knew about the brake issue prior to the race at Imola.(It was not a case of having to out brake cars i dont think) They did not have the time to get the new parts(ducts or whatever) brought in....

[MitchZ06]

Having to outbrake cars means leaning on the brakes harder, not sure if you get that concept. Harder brake use = more heat and this is what made the problem worse for Audi...

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

3-4km/h? thats not the the whole story....

Try 10km/h slower at Lemans.The audi was 10km/h slower on the straights at Lemans.......dont use the best sectors or the best trap speeds...Those are very decieving....Those traps speeds for the Audi where no doubt achieved while in the tow of the peugeots. By themselves they were lost.

Audi knew about the brake issue prior to the race at Imola.(It was not a case of having to out brake cars i dont think) They did not have the time to get the new parts(ducts or whatever) brought in....

Why do you think that Audi was able to pass the Pugs down the straights? They had to be close enough to draft them, and if they were consistantly 10km/h slower down the straights, there's be no chance of that happening.

I don't know what you saw, but I watched Speed's entire coverage of the LM24, and Pugs weren't running the Audis down on the straights by any major degree, and when in front, the 908s were strolling away from the R18s, either.

The speed differential was such that who got by who down the straights on into corners and chicanes depended entirely on who was drafting, and who was the last to mash the brake pedal. IE, the speed difference on th straights was minimal compared to the time that Peugeot lost in the Porsche Curves because of a lack of rear grip, and they couldn't make it up down the straights, which with less drag, should've been, at least in theory, possible.

In the end, Audi wasn't much slower than Peugeot down the straights at LM, which oddly doesn't carry over to Imola, where there was a 10km/h difference, which at a track like Imola, is much more huge a difference than 2-4km/h at Le Mans.

[cdsvg]

Comparing top speeds from LM and Imola might not be a wise thing to do, since at Imola the cars may not have been reaching terminal velocity. At LM, they were topping out at 340ish, which is definitely drag limited, but at Imola the top speeds were around 300. If they didnt reach their drag-limited top speeds, then the difference in trap speeds at Imola would be more to do with the acceleration out of the corners and the mid-range acceleration, rather than the drag level.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I feel like maybe I should be trying to talk to Audi about this, because it seems that they haven't learned the lesson the Peugeot had demonstrated to them so many times

I am sure that would solve all their problems, they are in urgent need of professional help....

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

In addition don't you think looking at the best sector 2 times is a bit premature...The problem with sector 2 times is the consistency.......The Audi was consistently quick through sector 2...The peugeot was well off the Audi's in sector 2 for pratically the entire race....The sector time your using is the best times..Of course on an absolute flyer from Bourdais he gains time through sector 2 but he could not do that every lap like the Audi could.....

All the timing data of Imola is available at http://www.lemans-series.com/fr/s52_...&id_circuit=23

I calculated the average lap time and sector times (excluding in and out laps) and the median of top speed during the first 50 laps. I highlight the sector 2 time.

• Audi #1: 3:36.127 20.209 40.268 35.650 286.5 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.236 20.154 40.158 35.923 287.2 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.919 20.095 40.385 35.438 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.038 20.024 40.436 35.578 294.3 km/h

At this stage of the race Audi was presumably not yet suffering from the overheating brakes. Still Peugeot was pulling away at around 0.2 sec a lap. Note that the difference is top speed is around 6-7 km/h.

I did the same calculation for the lap 100 to 150:

• Audi #1: 3:36.578 20.279 40.322 35.976 285.7 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.849 20.428 40.381 36.041 285.7 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.721 20.121 40.216 35.384 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.151 20.330 40.452 35.369 293.5 km/h

Davidson (who was in the #7 from lap 62 until 157) wiped the floor with the Audis by pulling away at almost 1 sec a lap. Note that Davidson was even faster in sector 2 than the Audis!

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Why do you think that Audi was able to pass the Pugs down the straights? They had to be close enough to draft them, and if they were consistantly 10km/h slower down the straights, there's be no chance of that happening.

I don't know what you saw, but I watched Speed's entire coverage of the LM24, and Pugs weren't running the Audis down on the straights by any major degree, and when in front, the 908s were strolling away from the R18s, either.

The speed differential was such that who got by who down the straights on into corners and chicanes depended entirely on who was drafting, and who was the last to mash the brake pedal. IE, the speed difference on th straights was minimal compared to the time that Peugeot lost in the Porsche Curves because of a lack of rear grip, and they couldn't make it up down the straights, which with less drag, should've been, at least in theory, possible.

In the end, Audi wasn't much slower than Peugeot down the straights at LM, which oddly doesn't carry over to Imola, where there was a 10km/h difference, which at a track like Imola, is much more huge a difference than 2-4km/h at Le Mans.

I don't think there was a 2-4km/h difference because there wasn't, it was 10km/h just like at Imola.....The best trap speeds on the ACO data are lying to you......Those traps speed by the Audi were achieved running in the Peugeot's draft....When the Audi was alone it was 10km/h slower down the straights.....

Yes Audi was able to pass the Peugeot on the straight......After being in the Pegueot DRafts.....And the peugeots most likely using some kind of fuel econ -1 click on the engine map they usually use....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEpPQiNXtEY

Please watch this video and tell me what you see......All you see is the audi being in the draft and still struggling to keep up....when the pegeuts were on "rich" The audi couldn;t even keep up in the draft........They only reason they stay near is because the Audi was so much better on the brakes...

>Sam's been working on figuring out the protagonist's race strategies: Peugeot is running a lower drag car – this is seen in their better speed trap figures (maximum speeds of 343 km/h to Audi's 334 km/h) and better fuel mileage. Note Peugeot's "anti wicker" wing (below, 6.8.11), it gets around the gurney and cuts drag. Meanwhile the Audi, which has higher downforce, is better in the twisty bits.

Straight from Mulssanes Corner........I'll leave it to you to believe now.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

All the timing data of Imola is available at http://www.lemans-series.com/fr/s52_...&id_circuit=23

I calculated the average lap time and sector times (excluding in and out laps) and the median of top speed during the first 50 laps. I highlight the sector 2 time.

• Audi #1: 3:36.127 20.209 40.268 35.650 286.5 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.236 20.154 40.158 35.923 287.2 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.919 20.095 40.385 35.438 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.038 20.024 40.436 35.578 294.3 km/h

At this stage of the race Audi was presumably not yet suffering from the overheating brakes. Still Peugeot was pulling away at around 0.2 sec a lap. Note that the difference is top speed is around 6-7 km/h.

I did the same calculation for the lap 100 to 150:

• Audi #1: 3:36.578 20.279 40.322 35.976 285.7 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.849 20.428 40.381 36.041 285.7 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.721 20.121 40.216 35.384 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.151 20.330 40.452 35.369 293.5 km/h

Davidson (who was in the #7 from lap 62 until 157) wiped the floor with the Audis by pulling away at almost 1 sec a lap. Note that Davidson was even faster in sector 2 than the Audis!

Gwyllion i was talking about at Lemans not Imola. Sorry for the confusion.....but to add Audi new about the overheating brakes prior to the race.....They found out about it during the practice sessions but they said that they were unable to get the new parts(ducts,bodywork etc....) to Imola before the race so they just raced knowing about the issue. It wasn't a surprise in the race.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Gwyllion i was talking about at Lemans not Imola. Sorry for the confusion.....

I am completely lost. First you mention that the sector 2 times are "evidence" for Audi running more downforce than Peugeot in Imola. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...59#post2922559

Now you say that you were talking about Le Mans. Sector 2 in Le Mans is the Mulsanne straight and Peugeot set the fastest times in that sector!

• Peugeot #8: 1:19.544
• Peugeot #9: 1:19.765
• Audi #2: 1:19.800
• Peugeot #7: 1:19.881
• Audi #1: 1:20.226
• Audi #3: 1:20.553

See http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/...sification.pdf

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

but to add Audi new about the overheating brakes prior to the race.....They found out about it during the practice sessions but they said that they were unable to get the new parts(ducts,bodywork etc....) to Imola before the race so they just raced knowing about the issue. It wasn't a surprise in the race.

There is no need to repeat yourself.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...89#post2922589
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...99#post2922599
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...85#post2922785

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I am completely lost. First you mention that the sector 2 times are "evidence" for Audi running more downforce than Peugeot in Imola. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...59#post2922559

Now you say that you were talking about Le Mans. Sector 2 in Le Mans is the Mulsanne straight and Peugeot set the fastest times in that sector!

• Peugeot #8: 1:19.544
• Peugeot #9: 1:19.765
• Audi #2: 1:19.800
• Peugeot #7: 1:19.881
• Audi #1: 1:20.226
• Audi #3: 1:20.553

See http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/...sification.pdf
There is no need to repeat yourself.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...89#post2922589
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...99#post2922599
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...85#post2922785

lol. brain fade....I was trying to reference the porsche curves sector of Lemans......total mixup and different tracks. anyway regardless of the the times you have show for Imola....througout all the practice sessions at Imol the Audi was showing purple in sector 2. while the peugeots where showing purple in sectors 1 and 3.

I repeat because im not convinced that everyone reads all the post.....Well thanks for reading...

well im glad you put up the sector 2 times for Lemans......See how far the audi is from the Peugeot..... some say that the gap was only 3-4km/h that doesn;t come from a 3-4km/h diff.....thats from 10km/h.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

All the timing data of Imola is available at http://www.lemans-series.com/fr/s52_...&id_circuit=23

I calculated the average lap time and sector times (excluding in and out laps) and the median of top speed during the first 50 laps. I highlight the sector 2 time.

• Audi #1: 3:36.127 20.209 40.268 35.650 286.5 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.236 20.154 40.158 35.923 287.2 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.919 20.095 40.385 35.438 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.038 20.024 40.436 35.578 294.3 km/h

At this stage of the race Audi was presumably not yet suffering from the overheating brakes. Still Peugeot was pulling away at around 0.2 sec a lap. Note that the difference is top speed is around 6-7 km/h.

I did the same calculation for the lap 100 to 150:

• Audi #1: 3:36.578 20.279 40.322 35.976 285.7 km/h
• Audi #2: 3:36.849 20.428 40.381 36.041 285.7 km/h
• Peugeot #7: 3:35.721 20.121 40.216 35.384 294.3 km/h
• Peugeot #8: 3:36.151 20.330 40.452 35.369 293.5 km/h

Davidson (who was in the #7 from lap 62 until 157) wiped the floor with the Audis by pulling away at almost 1 sec a lap. Note that Davidson was even faster in sector 2 than the Audis!

All the more reason why Audi has to pick up their straight line speed. With the way things are with the traffic, you can't afford to (on the average) be a smidge faster in the twisty bits only to be blown away down the straights and such, and that speed in the twisty bits isn't useful when you cook the brakes (probably in part to maximize cornering performance) and get stuck in traffic.

Perhaps Imola, with that one long straight and a lot of start-stop, suited the Peugeots better. It seems that the R18 is the better car for the medium and high speed corners, as demonstrated at Le Mans in the Porsche Curves. That's a product of downforce and a near 50/50 weight distribution. The Pugs, with that heavier V8, probably has obviously more of a rearward weight bias, which means more rear grip out of slow corners. And the Pugs having less drag and possibly more power meant more top speed, and at tracks like Imola, anything that would've helped with traffic was a desirable attibute.

Whatever Peugeot is doing, I suggest that Audi should figure it out and try to emulate that, be it cranking up the engine power, refining their aero (the Pug aero at Imola was definently a "sprint" version of the LM package--take the best bits of the LM and Sprint packages and adapt them to suit), or both.

If a more agile car is to pass a faster car, it can't afford to merely be slightly faster in the twisty stuff--it has to be a lot faster in the twisty stuff to really make a lot of difference, with the opposite also being true. But remember this: where is it easier to pass cars, in a corner on down a straight? The answer at Imola seemed to be pretty clear, as traffic is what really killed Audi in the race.

Oddly, Audi hinted that at Spa, the Pugs had the edge in the race because they had more downforce, and it seemed at Imola that if anything, the R18's may've carried too much.

If the R18 and the 908 are roughly equal on power, then we have to look at the aero. Either that, or Peugeot de-tuned their engines at LM to finish (not wanting to repeat 2010), and amped up the power for Imola.

[JAG]

What's the next available Audi codename, the 2012 car may not be called the R18, according to Autosport.

[TF110]

Why not go the name route like the past? R18+?

[chernaudi]

Where is this stated: Certianly not on their website.

And why would Audi ditch the R18 after one year? It has the potential to upset the Peugeot apple cart (it certianly did at Le Mans) if they can get the power and aero right.

Only reason why I think that the 2012 car might not be called the R18 is if they go the hybrid route, but if the tub, engine, and other features that mark the R18 to be what it is are retained, why change the designation and just call it the Audi R18 TDI-H or whatever Audi would call a hybrid car?

Other than maybe coming up with a general purpose areo package like Peugeot have for the 908 as well as other changes possibly dictated by the proposed ACO rules changes, I don't think we'll see many changes with the R18 even if it uses a hybrid system, for which the car was obviously designed with that in mind.

And besides, you're quoting Autosport, which, from impressions I've gotten from this site, is more often wrong than right when predicting anything sportscar related.

[JAG]

Ullrich is quoted, the car will look similar to the R18, but it's going to be a substantional evolution, and use hybrid technology.

They say VW gave Audi an ultimatum to match Peugeot's pace, to guarantee a long-term sportscar future, one of the reasons the Porsche decision came after Le Mans.

[chernaudi]

Again, where is this found? Autosport print?

I do find Autosport less than trustworthy, because they've gotten a lot of sportscar stuff wrong, and if they're gonna print it in the magazine, why not have it available on line?

What other changes are outlined? Different engine, etc.? Because Audi have said that the R18 from the start was designed with the use of a hybrid system in mind.

Is this the implementation of those plans?

And Audi had no problems matching or exceeding the pace of Peugeot at LM. The only problem is that Audi has yet to translate the success of their Sebring testing and performance at Le Mans to places like Spa and Imola, which I put down to their LM and sprint areo being too much of a one track pony, and maybe being conseravtive on the power route.

I'll bet that if Audi can get their aero right and find some more engine power before Silverstone, Peugeot will have a hell of a fight from there on out. And with the ILMC manufacturers' title just short of already being lost, why not use that as an excuse to develop stuff for the next evolution of the R18? Really, at this stage, having won (and to an extent dominated) Le Mans, which was the main goal for this year, Audi really doesn't have much to lose, and if they can win races and maybe snag the teams' title and it sets them up for the WEC next year, they can have a lot to gain.