Audi LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Wonder who he might replace, or if it's going to be in the third car for LM or select WEC rounds? Next on the retirement list would probably be Kristensen, which if this was '11 or '12, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to step aside. Thing is, in '13, Tom has done a ton better than in either of the previous seasons.

I don't think that anyone's going anywhere on the established squads unless they want to step aside.

I don't see TK retire as early as next year. Now, Audi obviously have to look for new "young" drivers for the future of their LMP programme.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Marc Gené would leave Audi to free the path for Marco Bonanomi or Nico Müller in one of the three race cars that would at least run at LM. Marc Gené is still a Ferrari development driver, isn't he ? I suspect that he may have some work ahead in respect of the development of the new 2014-spec Ferrari.

[Creep89]

I think Gene is still a Ferrari development driver, but he is also a F1 commentator for the TV, isn't he?

[Dead-Eye]

I too think we might see Gené leave. Replaced by Bonanomi, who could then be replaced by Müller as test and reserve driver.

[MyNameIsNigel]

This video highlight of the Shanghai race contains some interesting close views and slowmo takes of the Audi R18 e-tron Quattro.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

" Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel
I think there is confusion between the "braking zones" (or rather "entries" of such "braking zones") that are defined by the Endurance Committee for each track and the "energy recovery zones" (which I would rather call "hybrid sectors") that result from such definition and which correspond to the track sectors "between each defined entries" of the "braking zones". Once again, the rules merely limit the amount of energy that can be released "between each defined entries" of the "braking zones".

There is no limitation in the rules as regards the harvesting of energy. In that respect, harvesting energy upon braking all around the track fully complies with the rules.

Vasselon is talking rubbish then ? Is that your conclusion ?

What was the cause of the saturation of the energy storage if this was not the result of harvesting too much energy ? Why was Vasselon arguing that more opportunities to release energy would have solved this saturation issue ?

The sole technical explanation that makes sense to me, as an engineer, is that Toyota (as well as Audi) are harvesting energy upon braking all around the track.

I am happy to have a different explanation that is technically sound and fits in the rules. "


You must have misinterpreted what he meant. Just because he wanted 6 zones doesn't mean they were storing energy at every opportunity. You keep repeating the same argument by quoting the rules in the pdf file. But you also see the rules state the hybrid zones will be determined by the FIA before each event. The rules are also dated BEFORE the article Toyota and the LeMans site carry, in which they explicitly say there are determined areas set by the FIA where you can harvest energy. There is no confusion on the wording, read this

Why not ? ... i mean in the 2014 last draft, titled "FINAL", is clearly stated that the engine ancillary can be driven by electric means. The obvious advantage of this is considerable less drag on the engine itself with the corresponding fuel saving that it can provide.

Also is sated a low voltage circuit, 16V, for all the car functions including lights, yet is not forbidden to include a second battery in connection to the high voltage circuitry that is part of the electric hybrid drives.

Also in that "FINAL" draft is not mentioned any restriction upon harvesting, only releasing (as all know). Which makes sense, since 16V may be too short to run all the ancillary by electric means. So nothing is stipulated against "constant" harvesting, which can be like in F1 by "turbo" compounding, that is, a moto/gen or simply a TIGERS connected to the exhaust turbine, eliminating in the process the need for a waste-gate, by the moto/gen drives ( up to 2, 1 per axle) upon braking (braking recuperating)...

... and or by thermoelectric means connected also with exhaust, it could be also by a kind of wind turbine -small- placed in the front, and by the suspension dampeners, and or a second turbine on exhaust like that Japanese engine builder for LPM is proposing. ( there are more possibilities lol)

Also, since the ancillary is electric, the "alternator" connected to the engine ( the only thing directly connected to engine) could be bigger, and though the low voltage and high voltage circuitry must be separated, i think is possible the bigger but low voltage battery "spill" into the high voltage battery (which most probably would be smaller but Lithium Phosphate of Lithium-Ion )

Originally Posted by TF110

" The number of designated hybrid braking zones varies with each circuit. At Le Mans for example, there are seven and the TS030 HYBRID recovers 500kJ each time; valuable energy which is used later in the lap to improve performance. "

As for the saturation, you should read on the hybrid system and why its important in reference to the braking

If you go above 6 MJ/lap... seriously doubt harvesting only by the "braking recuperation" system, would be totally adequate for the hybrid function... much less if you want electric ancillary. As said with Le Mans example, if only 7 braking recuperation zones and 500MJ each, but then a 8 MJ/Lap car setup, then there is an enormous deficit. Even if it where possible to recuperate the double it would not be enough... i think recuperation zones will be "free" (-> always the wisest choice)

Originally Posted by TF110

" Also critical to the process is the regenerative braking system. As with a standard race car, hydraulic brakes work on all four wheels of the TS030 HYBRID, however an additional regenerative braking system is fitted to the rear. Here the Motor Generator Unit (MGU) performs as a generator during braking, harvesting energy directly from the drive shaft in a process which also slows the car, and converting it to electricity for storage in the super capacitor. "

" Originally Posted by Starfish Primer
In my opinion, the harvesting and releasing of the hybrid system should be free. "


It will be next year, to a certain limit of energy, that is.

No, harvesting as it seems will be free, release not.

And the "prejudice" about hybrid should be gone... the excuses invented cannot apply, like driver helping etc... they know it... even the harvesting function can have a direct influence on performances , that additional braking GU in Toyota made it one of fastest (if not the faster) braking car of the championship... they can always brake later on harvesting zones, clearly shown in videos, clearly shown at the beginning of this year La Sathre edition on semi-wet conditions.

Release should also be free... the grand winner of all will be our road cars... and nothing more leveling the playing field between petrol and diesel and or other ICE, than Hybrid... after all, all the energy for hybrid comes also from the fuel( which puts the car in motion), and the more the engine wastes the more there is to harvest... lets complain hard LOL

[TF110]

Release of energy will be 'free' as in no 'zones' between two turns. At least thats what the rules look like as of now.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Audi are apparently testing at Monza with their "hybrid" 2013-2014 car.



Its got like vanes on top of the fwd wheel arch . Its got what looks like a big round hole in front of the aft L/H wheel arch and the rear wheel arch continues to the rear wing element .

Yes the vanes should direct airflow into the rear brake air intakes... which seems kind of larger holes yet lower in the position of the wheel arch ( those holes are the rear brakes cooling intakes)

Also it seems wider in front (just a tiny bit) that in the rear (axle widths)... a better aerodynamic config... and also improves cornering handling.

And is kind of a "long tail".

Engine sounds like the same V6... just a little less "guttural" sound (perhaps my impression) more metallic... perhaps more RPM more turbo pressure (digress)

And is very fast lol... attending its a "test"... i always though that 2014 will have faster races than 2013, and if FIA/ACO thought that by cutting the average fuel flows (they are lower than 2013) would reduce speed, they are in for a big surprise (specially for diesel) LOL

[gwyllion]

That car is just a 2013 LM spec ("long tail") R18 with the narrower 2014 tyres. No special engine or aero development for next year.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CTD

Compared to the test from Yas Marina circuit last year, where it was rumored to be testing the Air-Hybrid. It doesn't sound as loud, could this mean that the 2014 Audi Le Mans car won't feature the air hybrid?
- I know that they could be focusing their testing on specific areas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhpUNDE5aa4

If it involves something "variable" in the all exhaust system... except for a turbine for the "turbo" system, or other ESR turbine (exclusive)... then they are explicitly forbidden.

After all there is no need to. That "air" hybrid, i think is not exactly "air motive", that is, was only a system to store some exhaust pressure to release it upon low "turbo" rpm (and consequently low engine rpm)... see it like a "air" supercharging...

Better of all would be exactly electric supercharging or the so called "turbo compounding"... a good "switched reluctance" motor/gen connect to the turbo can quadruple the rpm of this turbo in much less than a second...

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That car is just a 2013 LM spec ("long tail") R18 with the narrower 2014 tyres. No special engine or aero development for next year.

Hard to tell without clear pictures to compare, but coincidently there **seems** to be visible differences in the wheel arch/houses, even the underfloor extensions in front and back seems a little different.

"long tail" 2013 in Monza (also)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgMxeaVuDY

compare "new" in Monza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFaGiCcHC0
( the engine sound seems different...at least to me... and the "new" seems faster lol, thought in the earlier test for 2013 it was kind of semi-wet conditions)


What is *not visible* is pretty much any one guess lol... but it doesn't validate or invalidate anything different.

Nevertheless (coincidently or not), is a good guess that the 2014 Audi will be pretty much a 2013 car adapted to the new rules, for me it would be a surprise if they come out with a totally different design and or different engine (V6).

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

Release of energy will be 'free' as in no 'zones' between two turns. At least thats what the rules look like as of now.

Can't be "free" when its restricted to <2MJ <4Mj <6Mj or <8Mj per lap.

What might be gone is the strict stipulation of release zones (its an advancement in the right direction).

[TF110]

Ok. I guess you didn't understand the relative meaning of free in this instance. Theres no more zones, so you're free to use hybrid power (up to the 2, 4, 6, 8 MJ) anywhere on track.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Ok. I guess you didn't understand the relative meaning of free in this instance. Theres no more zones, so you're free to use hybrid power (up to the 2, 4, 6, 8 MJ) anywhere on track.

As free as a bird in a cage

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Hard to tell without clear pictures to compare, but coincidently there **seems** to be visible differences in the wheel arch/houses, even the underfloor extensions in front and back seems a little different.

There are various pictures of the car during the Le Mans test day. Feel free to analyse them.






The only difference that has been spotted, is a small additional cooling duct.

source: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/c...-tron-quattro/

Originally Posted by hcl123

( the engine sound seems different...at least to me... and the "new" seems faster lol, thought in the earlier test for 2013 it was kind of semi-wet conditions)

For what it is worth, the test car was quite a bit slower than the 2013 cars during the Le Mans test day. Smaller tyres means less mechanical grip. See http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/Res...ACTICE%202.PDF

[MitchZ06]

Shouldn't this car have constant AWD?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Shouldn't this car have constant AWD?

It's still going to be part-time AWD, but the 120kph activation rule is gone for next year, since two hybrid systems means that probably all the factory cars will use recovered energy on both front and rear axles.

[Maelochs]

Well, the 2014 car needs to be taller and narrower, with narrow front wheels, so I don't see how they can use the 2013 tub.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Well, the 2014 car needs to be taller and narrower, with narrow front wheels, so I don't see how they can use the 2013 tub.

Test of Hybrid system!?

[Maelochs]

Sorry to be unclear. I meant "I don't see how they can use the 2013 tub next year." It only makes sense to use the 2013 car for both motor and hybrid tests while the new chassis is being designed and built

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Well, the 2014 car needs to be taller and narrower, with narrow front wheels, so I don't see how they can use the 2013 tub.

why not ?

Taller it can be accomplished the same way as Porsche.. a stepped roof shape, some structure fused above what is already there (no need to design or build a totally different cockpit)... and this considering that what is already there doesn't follow the 2014 rules( we don't know, can't measure)

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay13.html
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept13.html

Narrower would be even easier.

And in this structures there has *always* been many small "subtle" changes( perhaps they have subtle different, easily replaced front and rear sections according to circuits) ... the laterals and the wheel arch/houses... and probably ( not quite visible) the front and rear underfloor.

As example with gwillion pictures and comparing with the car for 2011/12 there are differences ... this video has many close images

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCYwjEhTiJo

... there are some differences in the "curvature" and "shape" of some structures, though the design and general shape is pretty much the same.

@ gwillion

The only difference that has been spotted, is a small additional cooling duct.

ummm... i think the "mule" at Monza has more differences than that test for 2014 tires at Le Mans... at least the guiding vanes on top of the front wheel arch seems clearly more pronounced... and there is what seems to be wider "air entrances" just below the the front lights, which Le Mans race car doesn't have... not visible changes can be many ... which doesn't mean that is the car for 2014 as is, far from it... times of this tests doesn't mean much, and we don't know the times at Monza.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The car seen at the LM Test Day in June and at Monza is merely supposed to be a running "lab" designed to simulate the down-force levels of the 2014-spec car and to extensive testing with the narrower 2014-spec Michelin tires.

You can bet that there is more under the skin, but I sincerely doubt that the new Audi "R18" will share the same tub. It's likely going to be an entirely new car.

But that's an "educated" guess

[gwyllion]

The guiding vanes on top of the front air extractor holes have always been very pronounced. To me they seem unchanged.


I agree with MyNameIsNigel that the next R18 will be a totally different car.

[hcl123]

Great picture... it shows clearly that the "openings" ( by rules) on top of the wheel arch (they can be 'lateral'), on the Monza tests must be much more behind...

So different...

BTW have you noticed that openings and airs intakes in the left and right of the car can vary lol... even from circuit to circuit lol

Yes for all purposes 2014 will be a "new" car... but i think the general design philosophy will be the same and the 2014 car will resemble the 2013 a lot ( there is a lot of drag/grip/downforce study/tests/experiments with this design)... also think the engine will be a V6... but now that the engine rules are free (kind of), for amazement it will have a little more displacement and charging, yet consume a little less fuel (average-> the presupposes for a petrol engine are quite different for a diesel) lol

It could be faster on 2014 than 2013, in spite of the less mechanical grip ( could be counter-balanced by "hydrid" at any speed)

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Great picture... it shows clearly that the "openings" ( by rules) on top of the wheel arch (they can be 'lateral'), on the Monza tests must be much more behind...

So different...

Sorry, I don't see it. Do not forget that the livery is black around the front air extractor holes.

Originally Posted by hcl123

BTW have you noticed that openings and airs intakes in the left and right of the car can vary lol... even from circuit to circuit lol

No it is not. That is just the angle of the picture On this picture the right brake cooling hole appears bigger, whereas on the previous the left hole appeared bigger.

[hcl123]

Yes black and "perspective" can play tricks



BTW those "Red Arrows" on the car are from origin ( very odd )... or are photoshoped from a different "analyst" indicating precisely the differences he encoutered. At least one of those red arrows seems the indicate the "additional" air intake you mention before... but there are 3 red arrows !?...

And this in a comparable perspective







The front of the underfloor doesn't seem to extended so forward in the Monza tub, the vanes on top of the wheel arch still seems to me more pronounced, there seems to be a subtle but different curvature on the all front wheel arch, and there seems to be "entrances" just below the front head lights, just below those front below head light diffusers...

But we don't need to continue debating this, black doesn't help at all... yet i see a couple of subtle differences, which doesn't invalidate that the car is pretty much the same... for sure the 2014 will have plenty of clear differences, only i think the design rules will be identical, they will resemble (can be wrong of course .. lol... otherwise i would have inside info, which is not the case at all).