Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

If the diesel engine suffers from an overweight of e.g. 40-50kg compared to the best-in-class petrol engine - which translates into the inability to integrate additional ERS "performance" within the minimum car weight - I do not see where the problem would lie if the petrol cars had to carry 40-50kg of ballast to put them in the same situation.

Weight eats performance, and that's where Audi seemingly feel that the current EoT does not properly balance diesel vs. petrol. The rules currently balance the 8MJ petrol class with the 6MJ diesel. Nothing would prevent a proper balance of both fuel categories within one and a same ERS class, be it 8MJ, 10MJ, 15MJ, etc. provided they get rid of the KTF and impose some sort of "diesel engine overweight compensation" ballast. Compensating this overweight through a more favorable fuel allocation is just messing all up.

[GasperG]

It would not put them in the same situation, diesel engine weight is there for a reason, it's called THERMAL EFFICIENCY and that directly means MORE power under same fuel energy flow. If you just give ballast to the petrol engine, that engine won't get more efficient, it's like giving stones to the runners that are lighter.

The way things stand the last 3 years is THE BEST possible way to mix different technologies, some of you should really stop nagging about it especially those of you that don't understand it.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Well, I guess I have to thank you for taking time to put forward explanations to "those of us that don't understand it". It's highly appreciated

I do have to admit that the rules have worked pretty well for the last three years. If the current rules are indeed the "best" way to mix the technologies is still very much debatable, and evidently Audi believe that adjustments are necessary. The rules won't be perfect for sure and finding the proper balance between the various technologies is always going to be a tricky exercise.

[sssssssss]

i think with the current rules, it's been quite amazing how audi kept up with their competitors in the latter years and just by looking at their aero packages you can tell how much work they have to put into it. but last year kind of demonstrated that, even though they built a very fast car, it isn't enough. i also think the perpetual strategy disadvantage of making your decision first and then waiting for the others to reply plays a certain role in this.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

i think with the current rules, it's been quite amazing how audi kept up with their competitors in the latter years and just by looking at their aero packages you can tell how much work they have to put into it. but last year kind of demonstrated that, even though they built a very fast car, it isn't enough. i also think the perpetual strategy disadvantage of making your decision first and then waiting for the others to reply plays a certain role in this.

Indeed.

I am sure once again that the rule-makers could do better with balancing the technologies within one and same ERS class. Maybe I am not getting the subtlety, but I still don't "understand" why the ACO-FIA could not get rid of the KTF altogether and balance the technologies by playing with the FTF - as far as balancing the engine efficiencies is concerned - and compensating for the diesel engine overweight using ballast alone. Tweaking the equivalence of technology would still be very much possible by adjusting the relevant fuel energy allocations and fuel flow rates via the FTF.

IMHO this KTF creates unnecessary "imbalance" by forcing the rulemakers to actually try to balance two different ERS options.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It's stuff like this why I suggest that there's a lot more to come out of this car.

Well, Treluyer is very optimistic about it:

...we didn’t really know how we’d stack up against Porsche – we thought they’d be a bit quicker....

“We didn’t do great in wet conditions during practice and we hadn’t specifically set up the car for this kind of weather. So in qualifying we just went for it, and Andre and Marcel claimed pole ahead of the sister #8 Audi R18 of Duval, Di Grassi and Jarvis!”

“Andre pulled away as soon as Sunday’s race got underway,” “We then slipped back behind but that was only due to differences in tyre strategy and a slightly lengthy first pit stop. After taking over from Andre my stints were pretty solid and the tyre changes got better and better as the race unfolded. The mechanics just keep progressing; a lot of the guys are still young but their work is first class, so hats off to them! “I hadn’t driven that much before my first spell behind the wheel, so I needed to mark my on-track reference points. I made a slight mistake by entering a corner too fast. I spun and lost a bit of time there as a result, but I managed to get going again and climbed back through the order. Then came the full course yellow after the #1 Porsche’s accident.
“Tyre pressures dropped quite a lot at that point, so once the race resumed I really had to push to take the lead and try to open a gap to the #2 Porsche.”

...I’m also confident that the season is going to be great; we were quick right off the bat, with a brand new car that we’re not 100% familiar with yet, and which still has a lot of room for improvement. What’s more, we’ve worried people at Porsche. They knew we would be competitive at some point during the season, but perhaps they didn’t expect it to happen so soon! And it was such a pleasure to drive a car with plenty of mechanical grip and much improved aerodynamics. And let’s not forget our hybrid system, which already works very well. In short, when everything is at 100% our Audi R18 will be pretty mighty!”

source : http://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/b...red-up-690269/

Originally Posted by chernaudi

...unique aspects of Silverstone (mostly fast corners, very few slow corners, and short straights compared to most other WEC tracks)...

Actually, Silverstone has only 4 non-flatout high speed corners(Copse, Beckets, Chapel and Stowe) while 4 corners there are 100kmh or slower.

Originally Posted by GasperG

The way things stand the last 3 years is THE BEST possible way to mix different technologies...

It puts Audi in disadvantage. The rules equalise the total energy, per lap, for the 8MJ Petrols and 6MJ Diesels but, because the Petrol engine is lighter, it allows Toyota and Porsche to have more room for ballast(essential for setup, handling, enhanced cornering etc....) as well as more flexibility with managing more efficiently their energy as they have 2MJ, of ERS, extra to be deployed with no restrictions(bar LM), unlike Audi's extra 2MJ, on the ICE, which are controled by fuel flow. Porsche & Toyota can deploy their 2MJ on low speed rather than spread it over the lap, as Audi is forced to.

Another disadvantage for Diesel/Audi is that, due to the heavier engine, they have more trouble putting secondary devices to harvest energy and end up not even getting their equivalent 6MJ, outside of LM.

All in all, I think the R18 has been a much more sophisticated and aerodynamically advanced car in the last couple of years(and now). The EoT(sticking with Diesel) is just holding them back, IMHO.

[Adam43]

On Silverstone it is acknowledged that it is a little different to other circuits. The energy recovery from braking is more difficult there especially if you only have one recovery system. The problem is not just the relative lack of slow corners, but that the entry speed into them. Why try and say otherwise?
Audi themselves haven't been able to confirm that they can utilise all their 6MJ at all tracks (see the big pre-season Autosport article).

To be on the pace there bodes well for them. We can see reasons to be optimistic for all teams. Toyota set-up looks Le Mans focused. Porsche were leading on merit at Silverstone and won Le Mans last year.

Well worth watching how it pans out.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by GasperG

It would not put them in the same situation, diesel engine weight is there for a reason, it's called THERMAL EFFICIENCY and that directly means MORE power under same fuel energy flow. If you just give ballast to the petrol engine, that engine won't get more efficient, it's like giving stones to the runners that are lighter.

The way things stand the last 3 years is THE BEST possible way to mix different technologies, some of you should really stop nagging about it especially those of you that don't understand it.

And I don't see any sense in equalizing the performance of diesel and petrol while doing nothing about the weight. Then how about we don't do anything about the weight, but we allow the same fuel mj per lap?Only then it would be fair, and it will still compensate what is fair to be compensates - the higher density of diesel fuel. You do that by messing with the fuel flow only. And did I mention EOT is nothing more than a simple BOP once you go into the details

The "mixing up" of technologies could seem successful to some fans, but currently it comes more or less at the expense of Audi. I see more fair rules in the future, because one day Audi might just say they can't deny any rumours of them entering F1 and the ACO will **** themselves

[MyNameIsNigel]

As a side note, ORIS have launched their new contest in anticipation of LM. Participate. It's worth it. I still very much like the watch I won last year

[JoestForEver]

ERS incentive is crap because it basically forces everyone to go for the same tech as we are witnessing now. Different MJ classes were supposed to be balanced for different combinations of ICE and ERS power. No matter what combination, the winner is still the most efficient. It's only that there are many ways to do so, and bigger hybrid is absolutely not the only one whatsoever.
If the race is decided by who has the biggest battery, the ERS incentive is fine, but if it's genuinely about efficiency, this crap have to be removed ASAP.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using Tapatalk

[TF110]

New rules are coming, soon we can complain about different technologies. I have to laugh a little at the 'poor Audi' comments. They've had their way for the better part of a decade against petrol powered cars. Now that they have a big heavy engine the voice concerns over higher MJ classes. Mazda's diesel was ~130kg. That's about the weight of current F1 engines. If little Mazda can do a lightweight diesel, so can Audi. I don't think they aren't smart people, but 4.0L turbo diesels with near 45% thermal efficiency are going to weigh a lot. I'm sure Toyota and Porsche would love for their Petrol engines to be close that.

[chernaudi]

What about the argument of Audi using forced induction in the R8 vs almost everyone else using NA engines? Never heard any complaints back then.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

New rules are coming, soon we can complain about different technologies. I have to laugh a little at the 'poor Audi' comments. They've had their way for the better part of a decade against petrol powered cars. Now that they have a big heavy engine the voice concerns over higher MJ classes. Mazda's diesel was ~130kg. That's about the weight of current F1 engines. If little Mazda can do a lightweight diesel, so can Audi. I don't think they aren't smart people, but 4.0L turbo diesels with near 45% thermal efficiency are going to weigh a lot. I'm sure Toyota and Porsche would love for their Petrol engines to be close that.

Well, sure, that V6 TDI engine is heavy. Make it lighter. Simple. Why on Earth are Audi intentionally running with a 40-50kg weight handicap when they could easily make a lighter engine ?

Evidently, this is not as easy as it seems.

[TF110]

Who said it was easy? I didn't. But I don't buy that they can't make a lighter engine and need the rules rewritten for them because of this. Like the example I gave, Mazda's production based diesel engine they ran up to last year was about 130kg iirc, which is not much more than current F1 engines. Audi have no reason to complain imo.

[MyNameIsNigel]

And this Mazda engine was a very successful engine indeed...

So Audi should put a crappy production-based engine at the back of the R18 and stop complaining about the rules ?

It's Audi's full right (I would dare to say responsibility) to negotiate more favorable rules for 2018 onwards. They would be foolish not to try, especially since the ACO-FIA need to maintain a minimum contingent of three manufacturers and no further manufacturer is banging at the door at the moment. It's the right time to do so.

At a minimum the ACO-FIA need to come up with a set of rules that still give a reasonable chance for diesel to remain a competitive technology to race. It's okay at the moment, but I am once again sure that the EoT is perfectible. Otherwise, the ACO-FIA may as well ban diesel technology altogether and come up with a one-fuel-only formula.

[TF110]

That's a weak argument. My point is that little Mazda should be a slap in the face to Audi's weight excuse since that production based engine weighs about the same as a petrol engine. There's nothing stopping Audi from researching a small 4-cylinder disel. VW runs a bunch of those on the street, so there's plenty of relevance.

[Creep89]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

As a side note, ORIS have launched their new contest in anticipation of LM. Participate. It's worth it. I still very much like the watch I won last year

Haha yeah, in 2014 I won the lottery and went to Le Mans as an Audi VIP. Best 24 hours of my life so far

[bobec]

Originally Posted by TF110

That's a weak argument. My point is that little Mazda should be a slap in the face to Audi's weight excuse since that production based engine weighs about the same as a petrol engine. There's nothing stopping Audi from researching a small 4-cylinder disel. VW runs a bunch of those on the street, so there's plenty of relevance.

I would say the Mazda argument it's weak. As a fellow member here said once, the topic is LMP1, not production cars

I think the argument here is very simple. The superior efficiency of the diesel is compensated for, but not so much the higher weight of the diesel. It's an unbalanced situation. It has resulted in the three hybrid cars and technologies being pretty well matched sometimes, as others have said. But that's at Audi's expense, who are facing an uphill battle.

I'm not sure how Audi have "had their way" for years and how it would apply to the current situation.

[chernaudi]

Audi have mastered aluminum for use in engines, car bodies and even unitbody chassis on the A8/S8 and the R8. Maybe they should move to titanium, which is about as light as aluminum, but stronger for the weight and density:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3fBkNIROg4

That shows how strong titanium is. This guy also shot various pistols and rifles at a 6-7 inch thick block of aluminum and did tons more damage to the much bigger chunk of aluminum than he did the titanium.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by bobec

I would say the Mazda argument it's weak. As a fellow member here said once, the topic is LMP1, not production cars

I think the argument here is very simple. The superior efficiency of the diesel is compensated for, but not so much the higher weight of the diesel. It's an unbalanced situation. It has resulted in the three hybrid cars and technologies being pretty well matched sometimes, as others have said. But that's at Audi's expense, who are facing an uphill battle.

I'm not sure how Audi have "had their way" for years and how it would apply to the current situation.

A race engine will be lighter and stronger than a production based one. That's the whole point. All the talk about their engine weight isn't accounted for is silly. The rules are there. You choose diesel, you get a more powerful fuel. It's engine tech is a little heavier. Even so, you don't see Toyota and Porsche using 4L turbo engines just because they are 'lighter' petrol. Audi facing an "uphill battle", though I find it funny. That doesn't mean I'm right.

[sssssssss]

it certainly doesn't. audi did have it their own way when they were the only major manufacturer involved, and even moreso when only they and peugeot were running diesels, of course the two big companies had the rules somewhat in their favor. but since now it's two other major manufacturers using the same technology (petrol) against only one using another (diesel), the regs obviously got biased in the other direction. i'd just like to have it even for everyone, but of course the big boys will always have it their way. but let's at least have a fair battle between them!

anyway, is it known (or at least rumored) what aero package(s) audi will run this weekend at spa? porsche seem to be running intermediate aero.

[Deleted]

Same number of diesel factories vs same number of petrol factories = theoretical equal treatment
One diesel factory vs two or more petrol factory = petrol favoring
Two or more diesel factory vs one petrol factory = diesel favoring
X diesel factory vs only privateer = duh, diesel favoring

[sssssssss]

yes. it would be nice if racing would be more about racing than about political influence though. last year was spectacular in terms of on-track action, but it was at the expense of audi a little bit, alhough they have huge political influence, because porsche have the same and toyota adds up to that. i'd prefer to see what each of these guys can truly technically do under circumstances as similar as possible and see who builds the faster, the more reliable and the overall better car instead of having them negociate regs behind closed doors. that's what racing should mean.

[chernaudi]

Any word on what aero package Audi plans on running at Spa? Toyota are running their Silverstone package and Porsche have admitted to running a hybrid Silverstone/LM package.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Same number of diesel factories vs same number of petrol factories = theoretical equal treatment
One diesel factory vs two or more petrol factory = petrol favoring
Two or more diesel factory vs one petrol factory = diesel favoring
X diesel factory vs only privateer = duh, diesel favoring

I don't see it that way (surprise, surprise).

FTF is a factor adjusted every year post LeMans.

FTF in 2014 was 7.4% and PMAX 8.8% and KTF was 0.987
FTF in 2016 is 6.9% and PMAX 6.6% and KTF is 0.979

The ones that don't understand the above, should really stop posting how the rules are hard on Audi, because they are the only diesel manufacturer. It's the complete opposite, Audi doesn't have to worry about the engine efficiency because it's automatically adjusted to be on par with best of petrol competitors.