Audi LMP1 Discussion

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deltawing

6" min from center to center (when vertical).

I can't post what I have here, but here is a link to another ACO PDF, where on page 8 covers this:

http://www.imsaracing.net/2011/alms/...20Appendix.pdf

You have answered your question yourself.

If the position indicator system is not defined in any of the FIA 2014 regulations, the new Audi solution is automatically legal.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by deltawing

6" min from center to center (when vertical).

I can't post what I have here, but here is a link to another ACO PDF, where on page 8 covers this:

http://www.imsaracing.net/2011/alms/...20Appendix.pdf

That's it. Thanks. Interestingly, this part of the 2011 regulations has not apparently been carried over in subsequent versions of the regulations...

[deltawing]

I don't think it is this simple, but will get back to you next week.

[chernaudi]

EDIT: source was in error.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by deltawing

I don't think it is this simple, but will get back to you next week.

It's never simple with the ACO-FIA rules

[deltawing]

Alright, so let's look at this from a different angle - the papers in the link above are from 2010-2011. Those were R15 times. Here is a pix of the R15 From Sebring in 2011 (and I can find you some from 2010 too):



The leader lights are clearly not at least 6" apart, you have a great reference - the rear wheel near by.... So, how did that happen?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Alright, so let's look at this from a different angle - the papers in the link above are from 2010-2011. Those were R15 times. Here is a pix of the R15 From Sebring in 2011 (and I can find you some from 2010 too):



The leader lights are clearly not at least 6" apart, you have a great reference - the rear wheel near by.... So, how did that happen?

Assuming a minimum spacing of 6'' (center-to-center) between the lights, the overall center-to-center height of the leader lights (i.e. between the upper and lower lights) would be of 12'', i.e. approx. 300mm. This is more ore less consistent with the picture you posted, considering that the diameter of the wheel rims is of 18''. It's well possible however that the spacing between the lights is below 6'' though.

Now, you can also have a look at the Peugeot 908s of 2010 and 2011 to see that Audi where not the only team adopting a similar leader lights configuration:

2010 Peugeot 908 at Spa (source)

2011 Peugeot 908 at PLM (source)

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It's well possible however that the spacing between the lights is below 6'' though.....

It is, indeed. Just did quick circles over the picture and if we use the rim as a known unit, then the lights are actually less than 4" apart, center to center. See here:



But you are right, Peugeot did the same thing. Looks like even worse on the second picture you posted!

[MyNameIsNigel]

After some further search, I found this Appendix 3 to the 2013 Sporting Regulations which talks about the mandatory leader lights (see page 13). According to this document, the minimum distance between the lights is reduced to 3.5''.

It's worth noting that Appendix 3 of the 2013 Sporting Regulations has disappeared in the 2014 Sporting Regulations. In effect, the 2014 rules do not appear to contain any similar provision regarding leader lights...

[gwyllion]

Thanks MyNameIsNigel. That mistery has been solved.

[MyNameIsNigel]

It has been reported in a German paper dated December 17th, 2013 that André Lotterer did crash the new Audi R18 at Sebring. Driver was unhurt. The car was allegedly 1.4sec faster than the record lap at Sebring...

[chernaudi]

If true, that confirms some's suspicions that the new cars won't be slower than the older cars, and if anything faster, for sure eventually.

Cars might be narrower and have narrower wheels and tires on them, but they probably have (a lot) more power and I'd bet that Audi might have a bit of a head start on everyone (except maybe Porsche) with the narrower tires and their second hybrid system, which sounds a lot like what the FIA/ACO asked Audi not to run on their 2013 cars and re-wrote equivalency rules for to discourage Audi adopting it for the '13 cars (I think that "air hybrid" is a cover for "electric VTG turbocharger/heat energy recovery system).

If that's the case, we do wonder how much faster Audi could've been in '13 if they were allowed to run that on the R18--it for sure could've made Toyota's time harder since the second hybrid system would've cancelled out a good part of the 120km/h limit on the front wheel drive hybrid system.

And also to think that Audi didn't have the second hybrid system fully active at that test according to reports...

[gustavobamba]

Well if the car is 1,4 seconds faster in Sebring that´s about what compared with Le Mans?!?!?!?

2 seconds faster... 3 seconds????

If that´s true, we could be talking in 3m 21s / 3m22s in Le Mans... uuuuuaaaauuuuuuu!!!!!!!

[JoestForEver]

And then the Equivalence of Tech + politics come in . For the sake of safety, smaller fuel flow will be implemented et cetera.

[TF110]

The 2013 car was a lot faster than the 2012 car which last ran at Sebring in race conditions in 2013's 12 hour race. The record lap is a 1:43.886 set by them. That would mean this car was in the 1:42.4's. Iirc the 2013 car was also in the 1:42's in testing.

[carbon_titanium]

Great result, but we need to consider what was the setup of the test. Was the engine equipped with fuel flows sensors or was full power? Was the hybrid system releasing more than the energy allowed per lap?

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

Great result, but we need to consider what was the setup of the test. Was the engine equipped with fuel flows sensors or was full power? Was the hybrid system releasing more than the energy allowed per lap?

Car is built for 2014 regs. Though for sure it seems not the final iteration of the car as far as aero/bodywork, it wouldn't make sense for Audi not to test the car to what the 2014 regs are.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If true, that confirms some's suspicions that the new cars won't be slower than the older cars, and if anything faster, for sure eventually.

It always happens ..... when they screw about with the rules , the hunt becomes more desperate for more power and speed ..... more expensive too , and they find it ..... and the rules will change again

[gwyllion]

In testing Audi does not have to comply with the fuel allocation rules...

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In testing Audi does not have to comply with the fuel allocation rules...

But it would not make much sense to not comply. Playing tricks on their own ?!... mhm...

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Flo aus N

But it would not make much sense to not comply. Playing tricks on their own ?!... mhm...

To test the engine performances without fuel flow sensors can be usefull to acquire data that can help to improve the optimization between fuel consumes and maximum power output available.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The February issue of Racecar Engineering contains a good article by Andrew Cotton about the new Audi R18. It's worth reading.

There are interesting comments that contradict Marshall Pruett's earlier comments that we discussed in previous posts. It is in particular confirmed that the MGU on the front axle includes a single motor, not two as in 2012-2013. This therefore excludes any form of torque/power vectoring...

One can also learn that Audi are not anymore working with Dallara, but with Ycom. Ycom has apparently been a technical supplier of Audi for more than 5 years, as claimed on their website. This is news to me.

Go get your issue of Racecar Engineering. It's worth it.

[gwyllion]

I was suggesting that they could have run with the maximum fuel flow restrictor, which limits the power output.

However, Audi might not have respected the energy/fuel allocation per lap (which determines the average fuel flow). This allocation is completely track specific and determined with some math:

VALUES OF ENERGIES AND POWER FOR CIRCUITS OTHER THAN LE MANS
The amount of releasable energy per lap will be limited in the proportion of length of circuit relative to the length of Le Mans circuit multiplied by factor 1.55.
The amount of fuel allocation per lap will be limited in the proportion of length of circuit relative to the length of Le Mans circuit multiplied by factor 1.11.

source: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...AnnexesD-E.pdf

For the race the fuel allocation will be verified with a three-lap average. As far as I know, it is unclear how/whether this will be enforced during qualifying.

[gwyllion]

In the RCE article Thomas Laudenbach (leader of electronic systems) nicely explains that Audi has retained the flywheel accumulator mainly for weight reasons. They added the second hybrid system (MGU-H) and the minimum weight is reduced from 925 to 870 kg.

If you go to battery, you have far more energy there. A flywheel is very good at power, but the amount of energy is less, and in terms of the solution for what we need, this is the lightest one. I am not saying that the flywheel is the best solution, but for what we need and what we know so far, it is the lightest.
...
We had to fit another system in, and we had to get the weight out of the car. The biggest challenge is that the diesel will always be heavier than gasoline, so we made the biggest effort to use the rules in a proper way.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

There are interesting comments that contradict Marshall Pruett's earlier comments that we discussed in previous posts. It is in particular confirmed that the MGU on the front axle includes a single motor, not two as in 2012-2013. This therefore excludes any form of torque/power vectoring...

So you were correct in your analysis that two electric motors in the front MGU-K and one in the MGU-H would not be allowed

The rules have changed. Last year we had an MGU with two electric motors on it, which would mean two systems. You can do it, but then you cannot do anything else. For the FIA they need a clear definition. This is one motor, one control unit.