Audi LMP1 Discussion

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CTD

Volkswagen is using a 2L I4 Bi-turbo Diesel in the Passat producing 240BHP and 500NM.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Audi taking a 4 cylinder approach with Bi-Turbo.

IIRC the 'Bi' is the small electric 'supercharger' to complement at lower revs.

They don't need a I4 since they don't need to rev above the 5K rpm anytime in the near future (today the engine doesn't go above 4.5K rpm, half of Porsche as example-> seen in telemetry videos).... and to maintain the levels of power of a bigger engine the smaller one needs to rev higher making it inherently less efficient, besides a V6 at 120º is close the best balanced it can be (is primarily balanced for a 4 stroke> 720º(1 firing each 2 revs for a 4 stroke) / 6 = 120; while 720º / 4 = 180 meaning 4 cylinders is only primarily balanced as a 'boxer'-> a no no fit for this formulas) making it prone to easier gain efficiency by making all the moving parts less weight.

So the 'Bi-turbo' (electric supercharging complement) could go even better to a V6... and contrary to the respectful but much biased opinions (no scientific data whatsoever, only a 'popular' myth -> much more weight in a modern diesel is more and more a urban myth)... i'm convinced Audi hasn’t adopt it because of complexity, since a 'bi-turbo' kind of config needs a 'bypass' apparatus, and today monoturbo engine has no 'bypass' whatsoever.

Could it go in the future ? ... depends! on what the scientific data tells of tests and and simulations (ahh!!) .. .and since there is a direct relation between 'turbo-lag' and 'instantaneous torque' (power of acceleration), i'm sure Audi has already tested it, but since this engines go most of the time at full load specially at Le Mans (where turbo-lagging is almost negligible) and since for 'instantaneous torque' there are the electric motor(s) (where Porsche dominated quite above all since the engine is kind of lame... nothing beats electric at torque), i'm sure for 8 MJ (as example) a config like Toyota's with a smaller electric motor in the gear box could prove much more efficient and powerful, since its much closer to engine output it has a double effect of better accelerating not only the wheels but also the engine crankshaft without relying on stronger combustion inside the cylinders(wastefull!).

So the gains in efficiency of Audi is the a continuation of the same, less weight on the moving parts ( 1kg gain in all can already be significant, better control injenction and combustion, better engine mapping etc... and much less complexity compared with alternatives....

kind of doubt we'll ever see a Audi 'bi-turbo' with the current regulation trends... much less a I4...

[TF110]

The ers incentive is there for a reason- to push manufacturers/competitors to rely less on fossil fuels. The wec is now at the lead in road related technology like hybrids. Going back to using more fuel is not the image they want to portray.

[Deleted]

IMO only when the fossil fuel reliance is brought down to the level where it's just a co-factor instead of primary power source marginally aided by other systems, will it seem less gimmicky of a point.

[TF110]

The oil industry is trying their best to not let that happen. That's an entirely different topic though!

[Deleted]

Indeed!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Chiana

IMO only when the fossil fuel reliance is brought down to the level where it's just a co-factor instead of primary power source marginally aided by other systems, will it seem less gimmicky of a point.

How can that happen? The batteries need to be recharged. The vehicle needs a source of fuel, which will be the primary power. The batteries require (indirectly) the fuel to recharge them. Assuming we don't have a plug-in solution, the batteries could never provide the primary power.

[chernaudi]

IMO, there's no reason for the ERS incentive other than the ACO to push their "green" agenda. Doesn't make up for the fact that diesel engines, even when made out of the same materials, are heavier due to relying on high compression for ignition, or that hybrid systems add weight to a car, or that gasoline engines alone can't be as fuel efficient as a diesel or hybrid car.

We also have to remember though that Audi proposed the use of diesel, ethanol and bio-fuels at LM to the ACO in 2002, the ACO only took the proposal seriously because they thought that it'd keep Audi at LM longer term and, above all else, to dangle a carrot at PSA or Renault to return to LM.

Hybrids got Audi to stay on though the more recent rules cycles, and got Toyota and Porsche to join in. This "agenda pushing" is just a con to get carmakers to join on the basis of, marketing or R&D, real or imagined, would reflect well on their product line ups that have diesel or gas/hybrid or diesel/hybrid systems on their vehicles.

Not to mention my biggest objection, which the rules have yet to address IMO, is that Audi, Porsche and Toyota are using hybrid basically as a performance enhancer (AKA, go faster button) than to seriously save fuel. They're saving fuel, but IMO, that's more a beneficial side effect of the rules as they are. Teams will go for what they feel best suits them with performance being the number one reason for justifying their decision. Even without the ERS incentive, teams would still go for the best ERS/fuel energy mix to suit them for performance reasons.

Basically, the fuel savings are positive PR spin on something that's little more than a positive side effect of teams' search for performance.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Adam43

How can that happen? The batteries need to be recharged. The vehicle needs a source of fuel, which will be the primary power. The batteries require (indirectly) the fuel to recharge them. Assuming we don't have a plug-in solution, the batteries could never provide the primary power.

I wasn't talking of solutions in use now, but in the coming years (decades). Right now the non fossil fuel techs are in the baby steps, it's gimmicky triviality even if technically speaking the "right way"

[Artur]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I don't know what's not clear here. Diesel engine gets penalised with FTF (6,6%) because of higher engine thermal efficiency. But gets back a little of that with KTF.

That is why 6 MJ diesel has advantage over 6 MJ petrol. Agree?
That is why 8 MJ diesel would have advantage over 8 MJ petrol if KTF <1.

ACO made it simple and equalised both 8 MJ classes. The only other way out of this situation would be if they introduced 10 MJ class or lowered min weight.

I still don't get this (please, be patient with me )

FTF corrects for the Petrol engine thermal efficiency' disadvantage, thus roughly making Diesel and Petrol have the same power values. But the Diesel is still heavier, so the KTF accounts for that(however that is done?!), thus making Petrol and Diesel fully 'equalised'.

Why does a 6 MJ diesel have an advantage over 6 MJ petrol? It will have a little more ICE power, but that's to compensate for the over weight. Why would you stop compensating for the over weight on the 8MJ category?

About what Chiana is talking about. Currently, with 8MJ, Porsche have around 13% of their total power coming from the ERS(135MJ at LM=> ~40% ICE efficiency means 54MJ per lap while ERS is limited to 8MJ). Will ERS ever get much higher figures? I ask this regardless of the number of sources or devices(MGU-k or h)

[GasperG]

6 MJ diesel has the advantage over 6 MJ petrol IF both cars meet same min weight.
In reality diesel car will always lag behind in MJ class, but the cars evovled to such a stage where 8 MJ class represents a ceiling, and petrol car does not have an option to step up MJ class where diesel is evolving to realisticly achive 8 MJ class.

6 MJ petrol: 127,2 MJ * 0.4000 + 6 MJ = 56.9 MJ
6 MJ diesel: 121.6 MJ * 0,4267 + 6 MJ = 57.9 MJ
8 MJ petrol: 124.9 MJ * 0.4000 + 8 MJ = 58 MJ
8 MJ diesel: 116.9 MJ * 0,4267 + 8 MJ = 58 MJ

If there was KTF in 8 MJ diesel class we would get the most superior class on paper:
- 119.4 * 0,4267 + 8 MJ = 58.9 MJ

When cars evolve to such a degree, where 8 MJ diesel is possible to achieve in min weight, with KTF it would have no competition. Petrol competition could just pack and go home.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Not to mention my biggest objection, which the rules have yet to address IMO, is that Audi, Porsche and Toyota are using hybrid basically as a performance enhancer (AKA, go faster button) than to seriously save fuel. They're saving fuel, but IMO, that's more a beneficial side effect of the rules as they are. Teams will go for what they feel best suits them with performance being the number one reason for justifying their decision. Even without the ERS incentive, teams would still go for the best ERS/fuel energy mix to suit them for performance reasons.

Basically, the fuel savings are positive PR spin on something that's little more than a positive side effect of teams' search for performance.

You underestimate the importance of performance enhancement of hybrids in road cars. If hybrid cars want bigger market share then this "feature" becomes just as important as fuel saving feature.

First hybrids were there just for fuel saving, but recent ones are going more and more into performance direction. You can spot this trend even in the most sold Toyota Prius, where with last generation handling and low center of gravity suddenly becomes important, then we have hybrids like Golf GTE, Audi e-tron, Volvo xc90 ... not to mention latest hybrid performance cars (Porsche, McLaren, Ferrari).

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, there's no reason for the ERS incentive other than the ACO to push their "green" agenda.

Uhh, maybe, the buying public actually does want more efficiency? Notice that the newly introduced Tesla Model S has 325,000 cars pre-ordered the first week they were announced with $14.5 billion in potential sales?

http://www.computerworld.com/article...ial-sales.html

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

Uhh, maybe, the buying public actually does want more efficiency? Notice that the newly introduced Tesla Model S has 325,000 cars pre-ordered the first week they were announced with $14.5 billion in potential sales?

http://www.computerworld.com/article...ial-sales.html

But efficiency comes from more than one way. What the ERS incentive has been doing is BoP everything and force everyone to go hybrid.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using Tapatalk

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Chiana

IMO only when the fossil fuel reliance is brought down to the level where it's just a co-factor instead of primary power source marginally aided by other systems, will it seem less gimmicky of a point.

Even so, if the ICE is only a "range extender", there will be huge differences between contenders...

Even fitting this formulas, not all electric motors are the same, not by a long shot... "that is another 'urban myth'"... and then there will be the complaining season again(as upon the big diesels), as aggressive as before if not nastier...

And anticipating this trend is why the regulations limit max power of the electric parts.. its only beginning i think, more will come... and not only that, the "motorsport" icon with the 'motor prefix' associated with an ICE will be lost in large extend... better call it WEC-E lol

3 things for sure from nowadays

1) performances will never be 'equivalent' with the current trends(or all trends, its a futile exercise the equivalence of performances mantra) inside a class for all contenders

2) the ICE is losing more and more preponderance relative to potential performances.... but as stupid as it sounds! is where almost all of the complaining targets nowadays concerning 'equivalences'!...

3) Drivers and regulations will be on opposite poles... drivers will be less complex but more determinant for performances no matter the regulations...regulations will be more and more complex trying to regulate performances, where the drivers seems to count for nothing!...

[Artur]

@GasperG, thanks very much for your response!

I think the introduction of ERS was important in WEC. How much power did the LMP1 cars produced before? I'm sure it's a far cry from the peak of +1000HP that they currently achieve. And all of that while using much less fuel as the ERS just picks up what would, otherwise, be just more wasted energy.

R18 doesn't have MGU-h, so their recovery comes solely from the brakes' heat and they hinted that they could harvest to potentially 8MJ. With such an ERS, this Tesla model could reach almost 400km, on a single charge. Not bad! It's not a car to cross the USA nor for 'track days', but perfect fo any other use.

btw, everybody already saw hundreds of pics of the new R18 but I think it's nicer to see it in video(and running a bit through Audi's private track), so I'll share this little video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mAQaBL-Mns

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Artur

I think the introduction of ERS was important in WEC. How much power did the LMP1 cars produced before? I'm sure it's a far cry from the peak of +1000HP that they currently achieve.

2010 5.5 liter LMP1 diesels were quoted officially by the manufacturers at 500-600 bhp at the time, but the guys who have driven for Peugeot in those years have come out and said that the real figure was more towards 800-900 bhp for the 908, so we can assume the R15 was into the high-700bhp range too at least.

[chernaudi]

And in the pre-2014 rules cars, I wouldn't believe what Audi and Toyota were saying on engine power, either. Especially by 2013, Audi and Toyota in race trim, even at LM, were pumping out close to, if not a bit over, 600bhp on engine power alone (if not more, as I've implied), plus 250-300bhp from the hybrid systems (2011-2013 hybrid systems were limited to 3.5 MJ max around LM).

[chernaudi]

Anyone know if any worthwhile coverage of the 2016 R18 appears in the May Racecar Engineering? A photo of the R18 is featured on the index page near the front.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Anyone know if any worthwhile coverage of the 2016 R18 appears in the May Racecar Engineering? A photo of the R18 is featured on the index page near the front.

No, this month the 919 receives in-depth coverage, curiously split into two articles - one for the car and one for the power unit. I've read both and I'll be "Cliffing" them as soon as I get back home, although unlike last year there isn't much new information. I suppose that is to be expected given that the 919 is the least removed car from its 2015 counterpart. What could be of interest is that the PU feature might very well contain Hitzinger's last public words before he left Porsche...

I assume the pattern from the last couple of years will repeat though, so the R18 & TS050 will get their cover features in the next two issues.

[Giba]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Anyone know if any worthwhile coverage of the 2016 R18 appears in the May Racecar Engineering? A photo of the R18 is featured on the index page near the front.

Not for this month but the top left corner of the index page says that the new Audi and Toyota LMP1 cars will be covered in later issues.


Also there is a feature in this week's autosport about the new R18, the magazine definitely seems to be having more non F1 content in there now. No massive revelations but an interesting read.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Adam43

How can that happen? The batteries need to be recharged. The vehicle needs a source of fuel, which will be the primary power. The batteries require (indirectly) the fuel to recharge them. Assuming we don't have a plug-in solution, the batteries could never provide the primary power.

I still think the roofs of the transports are power-generation real-estate areas going unused. I think it is possible that teams can become energy sufficient at the track without plugging in. Charge the cars up at the beginning and see how far you can go and then use regen to keep them going.

[chernaudi]

Too bad that I don't know anywhere in the US to purchase Autosport from a news stand. Maybe I'll have to hope for back issues or this issue to pop up on Amazon or Ebay.

At least Barnes and Noble carry RCE, but the issues in order they go on sale about a month behind the UK/EU.

[Deleted]

You can buy the digital issue.

[Adam43]

It's a decent article on the R18. Without specifically tackling that subject it gives good insight into why matching 6MJ diesel to 8MJ petrol may, at this point in time, be sensible. Something that troubled the last few pages of this thread.

Originally Posted by Chiana

You can buy the digital issue.

That's my approach.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Giba

Also there is a feature in this week's autosport about the new R18, the magazine definitely seems to be having more non F1 content in there now. No massive revelations but an interesting read.

A rather good article including interesting bits of information, in particular:
- Audi estimating that the four-litre turbo-diesel V6 is 40kg heavier than the petrol engines of rivals Porsche and Toyota;
- the new central hydraulics to control the car's system allowed them to achieve a weight saving of approximately 4kg compared to the previous solution;
- the move to second KERS on the rear axle or to an exhaust-driven ERS was contemplated but apparently put aside due to weight implications.