Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Bandicoot17]

How on earth could they have anticipated the EoT revisions that the ACO-FIA decided in March 2014 when key decisions regarding the new car and hybrid architecture had to be (and were) taken months before ?

I doubt the FIA just decided on a whim to bring in these changes. There must have been discussions between all involved. I imagine the petrol teams didn't feel that the risk of running more hybrid was worth only a stint advantage. Porsche were still trying to run 8MJ right up to Paul Ricard iirc, what was stopping Audi from homologating their car later??

Whilst I agree that the late adjustment to the rules most likely hurt Audi, they have had the whole year to sort out their issues and try different avenues with finding hybrid power. If they remain at 2MJ and the petrol teams all run 8MJ in '15, then they really only have themselves to blame.

[TF110]

I dont see reasons, but excuses for them not running 4mj. In regards to vehicle weight, in 2012 the same 3.5mj existed, the car was 900kg, so it was -30kg from the least weight, not 55kg. Then Audi claim that the 2014 R18 is their lightest car yet! Imo, you check that box off. The thought of they didnt know of an ers incentive is wrong. The incentive existed but was for stint length in the beginning iirc. What they did was figure their diesel advantage was enough imo. I have to laugh a little that theyre politics werent as good to sway some ruling in their favor. Theyve had it their way for the better part of a decade. No way that didnt come from some favorable discussions with the rule makers.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

(iv) have been focusing too much on the petrol-vs-diesel equivalence, while a critical element in the whole LMP1-H performance equation ultimately happened to be hybrid energy allocation; and/or
(v) suffered from the belief that diesel technology had been favored under the pre-2014 LMP rules.

I think these two items are the key. In the U.S., diesel is viewed as great for large trucks. trains, and large machinery.

We all can attest to the power of diesel. But, it always seems a bit messy, stinky and polluting in the eyes of many. Petrol seems so much more refined.

It appears that the ACO trend is to increase efficiency for the most predominate fuel while adding the ERS of your choice.

[TRuss]

Of course there has always been a performance incentive to run higher MJ. What would be the point if there wasn't? Nobody is going to put in the extra, time, effort and money to run 6MJ or 8 as seems the case for 2015 if they aren't going to make a gain or at least keep up with the competition by doing so. For whatever the reason(s) Audi wasn't able to produce the car they needed this year. That said they turned either the fastest or second fastest (not sure) race lap in Brazil.

[chernaudi]

But just like the LMP2 vs DP battle in IMSA, being able to run fast lap doesn't really matter when you're faster than your competition in the areas of the tracks that are hardest to pass in--the corners.

Because of the EOT changes, Porsche and Toyota had the benefit of having a swing in terms of top end power compared to Audi. That not only meant that Audi had to leverage their car's agility (which was probably built into the car from the start to maximize tire wear), but that advantage came with the penalty of being slow down the straights and not having as easy a time in traffic.

Also, ironically, it seemed at times that Audi were also "too easy" on their tires given what Davidson said about the Toyota's tire usage.

But the lack of top speed has been their biggest problem compared to last year, and I'm betting that if this was still run to an air restrictor formula (where top end power is basically equal), Audi would be in a much better standing in terms of performance.

But then again, one can also say that Audi made the mistake once again of designing their car to favor ALMS/IMSA type circuits as opposed to the start-stop flow typical of many Grade 1 Tilke-dromes that make up about half the WEC schedule.

Audi have played the cornering/handling/agility card quite regularly since the days of the R8 even (almost never the fastest car in a straight line at LM), but in an era where power matters more, it's too much of a compromise.

Especially if Audi want to stick to running a higher downforce package next year, they need to get up to 6MJ unless they get some breaks from the ACO and FIA, which as we already know aren't likely to come no matter what data they have and, like the IMSA officials, keep playing the laptime vs raceability card.

[chernaudi]

Also, to get away from the ERS BOP talk, I've wondered all year what the current R18 would look like if it had some of the design elements of the older generation cars, such as the 2000mm max width and the fastback roof of the older cars.

Or what the older cars would look like with some of the aero and design stuff (front diveplanes/headlights/front diffuser, and the up-turned camber of the tail gurney area) from the newer cars.

That's interested me all year, and it got to me more when I was looking at a 1:18 scale model of a 2012/13 R18 in the lobby of an Audi dealer in Columbus when I visited one earlier today.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TRuss

That said they turned either the fastest or second fastest (not sure) race lap in Brazil.

Which says a lot about the inherent qualities of the Audi R18 (RP4) chassis.

IMHO Audi have probably produced one of their best LMP1 cars. The previous iteration of the Audi R18 e-tron quattro reportedly suffered from a lot of understeer issues. None of these issues have been reported with the newest iteration. It's now a very agile, nimble car that drivers clearly like to be at the wheel of. It frustratingly lacks power.

The power deficit/handicap imposed by the current EoT rules is highly unfortunate for Audi. It somewhat distorts the whole picture by suggesting that Audi failed to produce a performant car this year, even though this apparent lack of performance is mainly induced by the regulations.

There were times this year where the Audi R18 looked good performance-wise, but Audi cannot be satisfied with the current situation, and clearly they are not.

Winning LM this year is a nice reward for the amount of work that Audi put in the new car. Luck played a part in this victory, but this was once again the demonstration that pure performance is not everything and that reliability and the ability to quickly recover from reliability issues when they happen are key at LM.

The EoT will not be revised before LM. One can be pretty sure about that as the ACO-FIA will stick to the current EoT rules. If Audi fail to close the gap next year (which I hope will not happen, at least for the interest of the sport), it will be interesting to see how the ACO-FIA will react post-LM.
- Will they revise their position on the ERS incentive part ?
- Will they try to ensure a more level playing field in the LMP1-H category ?
- How will they ensure that guys competing in the LMP1-L class can remain reasonably competitive with respect to the guys playing in the middle-top ERS classes ?
- How will they ensure that the lowest ERS classes can still be attractive for e.g. privateers ?

[TF110]

Their car was too draggy/high downforce. The LM spec car was good because it was lower drag. In every other race they lagged behind except Silverstone and Brazil. Silverstone was up for grabs being the first race. Brazil they gained on Toyota because of the altitude playing into their turbo. They won Austin because a timely red flag put the Toyota too far behind. They can be happy they won LM though. But their car is not that good. Its got good downforce, but that isnt winning you races as evidenced this year.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by TF110

Their car was too draggy/high downforce. The LM spec car was good because it was lower drag. In every other race they lagged behind except Silverstone and Brazil. Silverstone was up for grabs being the first race. Brazil they gained on Toyota because of the altitude playing into their turbo. They won Austin because a timely red flag put the Toyota too far behind. They can be happy they won LM though. But their car is not that good. Its got good downforce, but that isnt winning you races as evidenced this year.

Audi also did well in Bahrain which was supposed to be their worst circuit (lots of straights and slow corners) , but they ran lower downforce in Bahrain and Brasil. The DF level was very close to Toyota's and this has the side effect of lowering fuel consumption allowing you to have more bhp and/or less lift and coast.

The altitude didn't really hinder Toyota because in the race it could have been seen that it was still the fastest car off-boost. Audi could have been much more competitive the whole season if they didn't screw on so much DF (and drag) on the car.

This year Toyota "dominated" because it had the best engine, and the best L/D. Also for the most part they were bulletproof. No turbo fails, no CTR+ALT+DEL, no overheating or anything like that, they #7 car had in Oil pressure problem in LM qually, and a FIA wiring loom melting, while the #8 had alternator problem in Bahrain. Also this may be overlooked, but the #8 had probably the best driver pair this year. Both Buemi and Davidson were very quick and almost faultless, it was as if they were two Lotterer's in the car. If it wasn't for Lapierre they could have won every single race this year.

Porsche's hybrid system clearly performed better though in most circumstances but it was having problems almost every race and even if it didn't it seemed to loose performance towards the end of the race, i don't know if this is because of the battery or something else.

[carbon_titanium]

need to say also that because of fuel flow and EOT, diesel engine has not anymore the huge power advantage that had in the 2011-2013 rules, when 3.4 V8 NA barely had 550hp, while 3.7 turbo diesel easily could get 600hp and more, just burning more fuel.
I don't think toyota has the best engine, toyota simply had the whole best package: a low drag car that however is able to generate a great amount of downforce (think about that toyota used the HD package only at paul ricard test and silverstone), a great driver (nakajima) and a great duo (buemi and davidson), the most reliable and best hybrid system and a team that acquired a lot of knowledge during 2012-2013 seasons. Next year will be harder for audi if porsche and toyota will finally switch to 8MJ for real.

[ger80]

Audi should paint one car green, give it to Veloqx and stick the 4.0 FSI V8 with 8MJ hybrid in the back

[cokata]

Originally Posted by ger80

Audi should paint one car green, give it to Veloqx and stick the 4.0 FSI V8 with 8MJ hybrid in the back

VAG like most manufacturers have gone turbo-crazy and there is that mindset that at the same power level a FI will always be more efficient than NA. If they ever switch to petrol i suspect we will see a 2.0L I4 TSI engine.

[pedrocor]

Originally Posted by cokata

VAG like most manufacturers have gone turbo-crazy and there is that mindset that at the same power level a FI will always be more efficient than NA. If they ever switch to petrol i suspect we will see a 2.0L I4 TSI engine.

Not a question of "going turbo crazy", with current technology it's the best power x comsuption ratio, weight and size. Even Toyota went naturally aspired due budget constraints, not because it's the best solution.

The downside on the turbo engine is the development cost and a bit more problems to deal. But, in Audi's case, it would always be less expensive than the TDI engine.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by ger80

Audi should paint one car green, give it to Veloqx and stick the 4.0 FSI V8 with 8MJ hybrid in the back

Replace the green with the silver and purple that the Veloqx R8s ran and it'd be perfect

[pedrocor]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Very good question.

Maybe because there was no "need", prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, to run in any particular ERS category.

Maybe because running in the 2 MJ class, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, was a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Maybe because running in the 2 MJ class, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, provided basically the same level of overall energy allocation as the higher ERS classes.

To think that Audi already knew, prior to the March 2014 EoT adjustments, that they would end up at a disadvantage by opting to run in the 2 MJ class is preposterous IMHO.

Why would Audi intentionally give away the equivalent of 1.4 sec/lap of theoretical performance at LM compared to the petrol guys running in the 6 MJ ERS class ? I don't buy the theory that they would intentionally sacrifice performance under the new-for-2014 fuel-flow-based rules.

How on earth could they have anticipated the EoT revisions that the ACO-FIA decided in March 2014 when key decisions regarding the new car and hybrid architecture had to be (and were) taken months before ?

Have they been "misled" ? I don't think so either, but they possibly:
(i) have been too naive;
(ii) lacked the lobbying talent that the competition had;
(iii) did not see the 0.5sec/lap-per-MJ-hybrid ERS incentive coming in late December 2013;
(iv) have been focussing too much on the petrol-vs-diesel equivalence, while a critical element in the whole LMP1-H performance equation ultimately happened to be hybrid energy allocation; and/or
(v) suffered from the belief that diesel technology had been favored under the pre-2014 LMP rules.

On the other side, the minimum weight increase from 850kg to 870kg came very handy to Audi.

[ger80]

Originally Posted by rich07

Replace the green with the silver and purple that the Veloqx R8s ran and it'd be perfect

Nah, its the Bentley engine, so must be green
The R8 and Bentley engines were also turbo charged - 3.6 & 4.0 V8 turbo with direct fuel injection.

[gustavobamba]

Maybe Audi will suply a private LMP 1 (no hybrid )car to some private teams in 2016.

Probably they will leave in the end of 2015 returning in the future with fuell cell technology ( new marketing strategy).

This is all about selling cars and make profite... racing is just an "excuse". In Racing they could develope "things" for road cars allot faster, thats why racing is so important

[carbon_titanium]

to me is very unlikely that audi will supply private hybridless cars in future, and the reason is simple:
in 2004-2005 there was no other manufacturer involved in lmp1, just private teams; audi could win races without the joest work team effort... less money for budget, same successful results. If porsche, toyota (and maybe nissan) will have a long term program for le mans, is very very unlikely that a private team (however supported by audi) with an hybridless car could be able to fight against them... and honestly nobody cares about "LMP1-L or private LMP1 sub-class win" ...predictable poor results won't give any benefits to audi.
More logical the audi move to step outside for a while, leaving porsche as the only VAG group brand in WEC.

[Pandemonium]

You guys are mad. There is no reason for Audi to step down from endurance racing. It would be like Ferrari leaving F1. Endurance is in Audi´s DNA. Let´s hope I am right anyway.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by pedrocor

Not a question of "going turbo crazy", with current technology it's the best power x comsuption ratio, weight and size. Even Toyota went naturally aspired due budget constraints, not because it's the best solution.

The downside on the turbo engine is the development cost and a bit more problems to deal. But, in Audi's case, it would always be less expensive than the TDI engine.

Toyota have enough money for a brand new engine In Super GT their RC F uses a brand new 2L turbo if they want to go that way. They went with the V8 because its as good as going a turbo route. The V8 was also enlarged from 3.4-3.7L. Its made in Japan, not at TMG, so theyre the ones making the choice. Kinoshita had a interview explaining what the benefits were by using a NA V8. Weight and simplicity among them. I dont think we'll see Audi use petrol again. No time soon at least. Diesel still has an efficiency and energy advantage. Its definitely not the end of Audi!

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by Pandemonium

You guys are mad. There is no reason for Audi to step down from endurance racing. It would be like Ferrari leaving F1. Endurance is in Audi´s DNA. Let´s hope I am right anyway.

The last 15 years makes endurance racing their DNA? Why weren't they doing it prior to that, then??? The bottom line is still what is their DNA...






7495

[TF110]

Not sure if posted- http://electric.buildersworkgroup.co...s-for-2015-wec. Among other things, Ullrich says their not at their limit with the flywheel.

[ederss7]

So is it that much complex having 2 ERS-K (if possible) like Toyota does? I've always thought Toyota's approach of having another ERS-K would be the best option because you'd be working with something you already know how it works.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by jimclark

The last 15 years makes endurance racing their DNA? Why weren't they doing it prior to that, then??? The bottom line is still what is their DNA...






7495

"Vorsprung durch Technik"
Endurance Racing is and remains the best place to test, showcase and market their technology. In that respect, technological freedom is key, and other series - like F1 - do not offer similar opportunities from a regulatory point of view.

Audi basically came to Endurance racing 15 years ago as a result of a series of rule changes that were imposed by the relevant regulatory bodies running the series they were involved in at the time. As long as Endurance racing still provides adequate technological freedom, there is objectively no reason for them to leave.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Not sure if posted- http://electric.buildersworkgroup.co...s-for-2015-wec. Among other things, Ullrich says their not at their limit with the flywheel.

Unless I am mistaken, this interview was carried out a while ago, not long after GKN purchased WHP. I do hope that they have been working on the issue since then and can aim for the 6MJ option next year, but it remains to be seen if the flywheel system is sufficient for that purpose (which is doubtful).

EDIT: the same info was indeed reported by Autosport back in July this year.