Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

I don't think that the Audi telemetry is that accurate, and that's from watching videos of it. It seems that the gear changes and RPM lag noticeably behind what it seems that it should be, so I'm not surprised if the speed's not very accurate.

Then again, the ACO's own speed trap data this year wasn't particulary accurate, either, mostly because of Toyota and Porsche breathing the throttle to try and harvest more hybrid energy, and even some of the Audi trap speeds are questionable.

But we do have to remember that in the shorter races that Audi--namely Dr. Ulrich--have ultimately admitted that the sprint R18 was too draggy, especially for the point and shoot Tilkedrome tracks that comprise half the schedule, and they relied too much on downforce/cornering performance to make up the difference. It sorta worked at times, but it also sorta didn't--it's generally easier to pass down a straightaway than in a corner, though at Sao Paulo Audis did pass Porsches and Toyota out of one of the later corners like they were standing still.

I'm thinking that Audi will mix and match parts and concepts from the sprint and LM R18s to make a hybridized/intermediate package for the sprint races, and it might look like a cross between the sprint R18, LM R18, and the 2013 sprint R18 as well. That's what I sort of suspect that the revised sprint package might look like, but we won't know until Audi release photos and info, which should be by the end of this month if the Autosport article is correct.

[carbon_titanium]

at le mans audi used the usual long tail bodywork, but most of all the rear wing was a single element! that's the reason of the great top speed shown by audi only at le mans. Anyway real top speeds were achieved a lot before the speed trap! porsche, audi and toyota were easily able to hit 340km/h and over using the hybrid boost. During free practice the #7 TS040 hit 355km/h (shown by the on screen telemetry)

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

What I think is they made that their reason for being off pace because they were disadvantaged by going 2mj. But why weren't they behind so much at LM? Imo it was more of the car's aero direction in the sprint package. Yeah I know 2mj is nowhere near 6mj. I think Audi plays a good game and aren't far off pace. They should've ran the LM package!

Are we comparing apples to oranges here? On pace alone, the Audi was no match for Porsche Toyota because simply put, they are higher ERS class.

Obviously the reasons the Audi ran Toyota and Porsche close are because Porsche reliablity and Toyota drama.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It has to be remembered that the hybrid systems on the Porsche and Toyota didn't fail so much as an electrical bit on the Toyota that wasn't hybrid system related fail and set the car's cockpit ablaze.
....

And having a more powerful hybrid system is virtually a must, because Audi have admitted that the cars should be significantly faster this year just based on being able to more effectively able to get the most out of the hybrid systems.

As far as Audi being more "innovative" with the exhaust system, they really can't be because of the box that the ACO has put teams in with it because of their IMO psychotic and paranoid fear of the F1 exhaust blow diffuser deal blowing a huge hole in their whole "green" and "efficiency" agenda.

Ironically, the Audi exhaust blown diffuser deal was basically the polar opposite of what the ACO feared--Audi used their EBD for drag reduction, instead of increasing downforce in cornering; the decrease in Audi's fuel mileage between '12 and '13 was simply the consequence of burning 10% more fuel for probably close to 10% more horsepower.

About the only thing that Audi can do much different compared to '14 is use a version of the periscope exhaust that they had on their LM cars, which as it was used at LM is now basically illegal because of that 50mm/2 inch gap between the trailing edge of the engine cover and top of the rear diffuser (odd how the ACO are all about improving both performance and efficiency whilst putting bans and restrictions on stuff that would further those goals).

Audi will probably run a solution similar to that that suits the ACO's revised regs, or maybe a Toyota/Porsche/Nissan inspired solution. TMG don't run any ERS system that uses exhaust or heat energy, so there has to be an aero benefit, and if Audi could run an exhaust blown diffuser off their 3.7 TDI, I can't see why they couldn't benefit from a periscope exhaust on the R18 now.

I like "blow diffuser deal blowing a huge hole in their whole "green" and "efficiency" agenda." lol

Yet i think its still forbidden.

About "the only thing that Audi can do much different compared to '14"...

There can be so much things that is hard to know where to start. WEC will start to look like F1 in investments soon, as it gains more notoriety the more the investments will be (i think it will be a dead stone on the privateer romanticism) ...

Porsche Toyota Nissan will be running new cars (Nissan then is really completely new)... bet Audi wont be behind... perhaps not even 10% of parts of last year will go into this one. Most emphatically engines. Audi needs a 4% more efficient engine to run 4MJ and 8% gain to run 6MJ. I think its relatively easy to achieve even 6 to 7% or so, go for 4MJ which is *double launch potential of electric boost* and yet gain 20hp more, which is quite nice if at lower engine regimes...

Then the aeros, suspension and gearbox ratios... if they run *double* the electric boost capacity, a new balance must be achieved.

https://www.audi-motorsport.info/v2/...single/id/9819

"Every manufacturer will try to recover and reuse as much energy as possible. Therefore, Audi expects greater leaps in terms of performance and lap times than in the past years."

If they expect that and don't prepare, is because they are leaving... try to win LM once more by luck and fatigue of other contenders (a bet on robustness)... then leave. Or 2015 best race lap at LM could yet reach 3.20min... and i wont be surprised if its Audi again, meaning a double bet of the VAG, that could extend for more years.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

Are we comparing apples to oranges here? On pace alone, the Audi was no match for Porsche Toyota because simply put, they are higher ERS class.

Obviously the reasons the Audi ran Toyota and Porsche close are because Porsche reliablity and Toyota drama.

How is it apples to oranges? They were good at Silverstone and LM. So what happened? They should have ran the LM spec car more imo. Their pace was much closer in that trim.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by cokata

Nissan is a wild card. But while it is rumored that toyota (might) stay with 6mj, it was also said that they will sacrifice performance in the WEC rounds where they will be quicker with 6mj, but instead homologate to 8mj which they can achieve @ Le Mans. Also a rumor popped up that they may have found 2 secs per lap @ Paul Ricard and that is pretty big improvement considering the advantage they already had.

Toyota staying at 6MJ (more fuel more engine) is exactly because they are betting on winning LM. To win WEC with much more slower circuits rounds that don't *simulate* at all the environment of open road races from where LM derived, 8 MJ (more launch power, less engine) is better.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Audi's tubs since the original R18s have been molded in one piece, which means that the roll-over structure is an integral part of the tub, which can't be changed unless they modify the design and build new tubs. So I can't see how Audi can "keep" the 2014 tub design and at the the same time modify that area of the tub.

Not only Audi but everyone else. The monocoque is basically the cockpit and adjacent areas noting more. You can have totally different everything else.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Audi's tubs since the original R18s have been molded in one piece, which means that the roll-over structure is an integral part of the tub, which can't be changed unless they modify the design and build new tubs. So I can't see how Audi can "keep" the 2014 tub design and at the the same time modify that area of the tub.

It would be no different than repairing a broken tub. Cut out the section you don't want, put tub in new mold, lay it up, autoclave it.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

Does anyone recall Audi's stream from LM last year? On Autosport forums, a user ther claims Audi hit 355kmh with Bonanomi behind the wheel. He posted this picture of Lotterer hitting 351kmh according to their live telemetry.



Think this shows Audi are fine in terms of power. Imo, theres no way they were lacking in that area. I think the issue was the car was too much drag and their gearing was off, especially at Spa.

Aeros and gearing... seamed striking evident specially at Spa. concur.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Articus

Are we comparing apples to oranges here? On pace alone, the Audi was no match for Porsche Toyota because simply put, they are higher ERS class.

Obviously the reasons the Audi ran Toyota and Porsche close are because Porsche reliablity and Toyota drama.

The Sprint Package of Audi was clearly unbalanced... its not only a question ERS class, its much more. At LM Audi matched and even passed Toyota pace, ppl focus on the real fast #7 beginning, but forget that Lotterer clearly surpassed that pace 20 hours later.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by hcl123

The Sprint Package of Audi was clearly unbalanced... its not only a question ERS class, its much more. At LM Audi matched and even passed Toyota pace, ppl focus on the real fast #7 beginning, but forget that Lotterer clearly surpassed that pace 20 hours later.

We never saw the real Toyota pace. #7 retired and the #8 car was badly compromised and was not in the race at the end. And yes 20 hours later when the track is well rubbered in. Audi's were going purple in sector 3 and sector 1. Still behind the Toyota and Porsche by close to a full second in sector 2.

Beyond that, forget what the telemetry says. They may be able to get to decent top speed but just go rewatch a race. Watch the Porsche or Toyota blow past the Audi on corner exit like it was a P2 car.

Being fast on a straight on straightaway is not just about top speed. It's about acceleration. If I could reach 0-250km/h in 0.05s and have 250 km/h as my top speed then I'm in way better shape against an competitor that could hit 260km/h by the end but could only do 0-250km/h in 3 seconds.

The ERS is the difference. There is nothing new in what I am saying. Toyota Porsche accelerate much faster.

If you comb through Le Mans trap speeds you will see that on the Toyota's fastest qualy laps they only reached ~295km/h in the first mulsanne speed trap.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

It would be no different than repairing a broken tub. Cut out the section you don't want, put tub in new mold, lay it up, autoclave it.

I'm sorry, but how can just cutting out a piece of the tub turn this:

http://fourtitude.com/emAlbum/albums...-Audi-1221.jpg

Into this:

http://dlymotorsportimages.files.wor...2/hc7a3712.jpg

http://electricsandbox.freeforums.or...ile.php?id=110

The rooflines are very, distinctly different. It's gonna take a lot more than just cutting out a piece of the tub to change that, adding into the fact that Audi have had Dallara and YCom build their tubs up in one piece; you can't just even replace the upper half of the tubs because it's all once piece.

If Audi wanted to do that, they'd have new tubs built, and the changes would be so involved that it'd be about the only way to make the change.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Articus

We never saw the real Toyota pace. #7 retired and the #8 car was badly compromised and was not in the race at the end. And yes 20 hours later when the track is well rubbered in. Audi's were going purple in sector 3 and sector 1. Still behind the Toyota and Porsche by close to a full second in sector 2.

Beyond that, forget what the telemetry says. They may be able to get to decent top speed but just go rewatch a race. Watch the Porsche or Toyota blow past the Audi on corner exit like it was a P2 car.

Being fast on a straight on straightaway is not just about top speed. It's about acceleration. If I could reach 0-250km/h in 0.05s and have 250 km/h as my top speed then I'm in way better shape against an competitor that could hit 260km/h by the end but could only do 0-250km/h in 3 seconds.

The ERS is the difference. There is nothing new in what I am saying. Toyota Porsche accelerate much faster.

If you comb through Le Mans trap speeds you will see that on the Toyota's fastest qualy laps they only reached ~295km/h in the first mulsanne speed trap.

Problem with your statement is that I've seen video from Silverstone, Spa and Sao Paulo where Audi could at least keep up with Porsche and Toyota under acceleration, and even pass Porsche and Toyota on acceleration out of corners.

I don't trust that telemetry figure because all the official speeds from the ACO have Audi typically in the 330-340km/h (205-210 mph) range. Porsche and Toyota's speeds were often 10km/h higher into the speed traps.

Even more telling was Fuji and Shanghai where Audi could out-corner Toyota and Porsche, but once they got up to them, there wasn't a damned thing that Audi could do aside from hope for a major braking/cornering screw up from the Toyota or Porsche in front. That's because their top speed was much greater. IMO, that's where the ERS incentive screwed Audi the most. At Fuji, Toyota and Porsche were over 10mph faster into the speed traps than Audi, and that was with Toyota and Porsche backing off much earlier for energy harvesting.

Comparing the Audi aero packages for LM and sprint is like apples and oranges, I know, but that shows, among other things, what Audi said about the ERS incentive/EOT BOP change made prior to Paul Ricard equalling basically Toyota and Porsche being gifted an extra 30 or so BHP.

This, and the fact that the sprint package being biased seemingly towards a high downforce, IMSA style track format rather than the Tilkedrome, is why Audi had such a hard time at those tracks last year. The sprint package only really worked well at Silverstone and COTA, the tracks that were least dependent on top-end speed.

Audi officials, namely Dr. Ulrich in a recent edition of AutoHebdo, admitted that their high downforce sprint package was too much of a compromise favoring cornering speed. I can't say running an unaltered LM race package would've been a cure all, but maybe a mix and match of those parts, and the move to 4MJ, might give Audi a more versital package, rather than one that worked well for LM, worked well for COTA and Silverstone, but left them with little to work with elsewhere.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Problem with your statement is that I've seen video from Silverstone, Spa and Sao Paulo where Audi could at least keep up with Porsche and Toyota under acceleration, and even pass Porsche and Toyota on acceleration out of corners.

Each team deploys slightly differing ERS strategies around the track at different stages of the race which explains what you are saying. We are used to seeing the Porsche's be untouchable on straights early in races and then turn the dial down as race goes on because it is hard on the equipment. Porsche Toyota have 6MJ system and Audi a 2MJ system. ERS is instant torque compared to the combustion engine. This means the cars that are using ERS for a larger percentage of their energy production are faster around the track.

If you were to line the 3 cars up with full charged KERS for a" Drag" race the Audi is the loser. while it's not linear relationship because the Toyota can't store 6MJ at a single time, it's still more than the Audi. Porsche more than both.

Audi ran sprint at Fuji so is it surprising they are down big time not only on top end but also the acceleration? (2MJ vs 6MJ crudely speaking).

Audi didn't have top speed problems at Le Mans. They were being out accelerated. Again look at the Toyota's doing 295km/h on their qualy laps into Mulsanne. Sprint bodywork just exacerbates the issue at all the other race tracks. Now they don't have top end or acceleration.


Heck even back in the day when the Lola Aston's were topping out quicker than the Audi's, where they every truly any match on the straights against the diesel acceleration?

[TF110]

The only time I saw Audi out drag a Toyota was maybe in Sao Paulo. 4mj this year wont be enough. If Toyota has found 2 seconds at Aragon and Paul Ricard, thats 4-5 seconds at LM. They were already a second a lap better on race pace. So Audi need to find major gains. Will they try for low drag this year instead of high downforce?

[chernaudi]

Dr. Ulrich has already said that the "hyper" high downforce bodywork won't be back, certainly not as it was last year, in an article in AutoHebdo that Nigel has mentioned a page or two back. Ulrich himself has stated that the HD bodywork was one of the biggest issues that Audi had in the sprint races because it severely limited both acceleration at higher speeds (fighting against drag) and top speed period.

I don't think that Audi will say goodbye to a dedicated sprint package, but they'll probably adopt one that's more adjustable and aimed at a better drag to downforce ratio. For example, I'd bet that the multiple slats in the front end and the highly cambered engine cover trailing edge won't return as they were last year. I'd think that Audi would trim the number of slats in the nose from 4 to 2 as on the 2013 R18, without the one ahead of the sidepod being opened, but instead closed to form an extension of that sidepod.

The splitter feet and maybe twin diveplanes will probably remain, as well as the basic concept to the front fender shape. The front fender shape was actually fairly efficient and I'd expect something along those lines--or a very mild version of the LM version--to feature. Also, the splitter feet and front diveplanes being used as vortex generators (as well as the splitter feet) are about as close to free downforce as you're gonna get with today's cars.

And if the diveplanes are used as VGs instead of trying to use them to produce on their own, you end up with a huge downforce gain for little drag by using the vortexes shed off of them to interact with the whole car instead of just to add front downforce.

And if Audi adopt a Toyota/Porsche inspired periscope exhaust, that can gain them some aero benefits as well compared to last year's pretty simple system.

We won't know until later this month what exactly Audi have up their sleeves, because no spy shots of the revised R18 have leaked, and when you consider that they've been testing those parts since last year, that's quite an accomplishment in today's world where paping race car tests is insanely easy since they've done more testing dating back to last year than Toyota have with their 2015 spec car.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

We won't know until later this month what exactly Audi have up their sleeves, because no spy shots of the revised R18 have leaked, and when you consider that they've been testing those parts since last year, that's quite an accomplishment in today's world where paping race car tests is insanely easy since they've done more testing dating back to last year than Toyota have with their 2015 spec car.

Agreed I think the coming R18 is going to have many changes. It just doesn't add up that we have not seen spy shots unless Audi has been deliberate about covering up their tracks. There must be a reason for the secrecy.


Will it be a petrol engine?

[chernaudi]

Any rumors or thoughts on a more precise date of when Audi will release info '15 R18? All I know is that Autosport did say that this should happen by the end of the month. Problem is that means anytime between today and 2 weeks from now. And I wouldn't hold it against Audi if they--like Toyota--are stalling for as long as possible to release such items, probably just prior to the Sebring test in early March.

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by Articus

Agreed I think the coming R18 is going to have many changes. It just doesn't add up that we have not seen spy shots unless Audi has been deliberate about covering up their tracks. There must be a reason for the secrecy.


Will it be a petrol engine?

I doubt it. There is simply a different reason: lap times and discussion about EoT and safety. The bfsc rule is gone. By improving your thermal efficiency by 1,5% and going up one MJ class, at least for the petrol cars, this gives you almost 3 secs per lap at Le Mans. (2,5 at least). To this add some significant improvements, made on the tyre side and on suspension and still something in aerodynamics, this will give you another 2 secs per lap according to the numbers, which are circulating under the hands. This would result in an improvement of 5 secs per lap at Le Mans. Last years pole tim was a 3:21.7. The 2015 cars will, especially at Le Mans be fast like hell and everybody at the factory teams knows this. It will be a battle at Le Mans at outright speed. Every Team will bring some "creative thinking about the rules, especially on the aero side" so nobody wants to loose any advantage. Thats the reason why nobody is telling anything.

[Spyderman]

If the times get into the 3:15-3:16 range, the regulators will be all over the rule book like a hot rash.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

If the times get into the 3:15-3:16 range, the regulators will be all over the rule book like a hot rash.

unlikely, basically impossible. To me, pole will be in the 3.19/3.20 range.
To keep under control lmp1-h performances ACO should ban the usage of custom compounds and force everyone to use the same kind of tyres (more or less like TUSC), then it could increase the min.weight to 950-1000kg and use more restrictive fuel flows. Could ban engine and aero development during the season too. F1 style

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

If the times get into the 3:15-3:16 range, the regulators will be all over the rule book like a hot rash.

I don't see that much of a difference in lap time to be honest, that would equate to backmarker F1 times on the other circuits.

I would have thought this would have already happened, given the cars clearly had more to give and were already in the 3:21-3:22 range. I suppose it's also about the way they make the time - 3:30 laps which can only be made by taking big risks in traffic are more dangerous than 3:20 laps where traffic is dealt with on the straights.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

unlikely, basically impossible. To me, pole will be in the 3.19/3.20 range.
To keep under control lmp1-h performances ACO should ban the usage of custom compounds and force everyone to use the same kind of tyres (more or less like TUSC), then it could increase the min.weight to 950-1000kg and use more restrictive fuel flows. Could ban engine and aero development during the season too. F1 style

Oh God! Please no! The last thing I would like to see is the regulators have a Pavlovian moment. I like to let sleeping dogs lay.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by J Jay

I don't see that much of a difference in lap time to be honest, that would equate to backmarker F1 times on the other circuits.

I would have thought this would have already happened, given the cars clearly had more to give and were already in the 3:21-3:22 range. I suppose it's also about the way they make the time - 3:30 laps which can only be made by taking big risks in traffic are more dangerous than 3:20 laps where traffic is dealt with on the straights.

Don't get me wrong: I would love to see lap times in that order. It's the regulators that would have conniptions.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Oh God! Please no! The last thing I would like to see is the regulators have a Pavlovian moment. I like to let sleeping dogs lay.