Audi LMP1 Discussion

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by The Badger

To be honest , he is correct . It amazes me how few FSI/TFSI petrol engined machines there are , and why it took so long . possibily its an economic issue .

We had AMR with their Lola , and now Toyota are here ..... who else was there .

Glad about capello , brilliant driver and still sharp too .

Good point. Shows the relative lack of money available in the privateer space. Wasnt there meant to be a DI version of the AER 2L at some point?

[MitchZ06]

Would it work if Audi or Peugeot produced say a 3.4L FSI petrol engine solely for privateers sold at a price relative to the current privateer engines?

[Pandamasque]

DI won't give you extra 200Nm of torque. IMO, the current gap between the works cars and the petrols is made of:
wrong equivalence formula > advanced aero > advanced engine technology.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Would it work if Audi or Peugeot produced say a 3.4L FSI petrol engine solely for privateers sold at a price relative to the current privateer engines?

I suppose they could do that, but I don't know why they would if they would have to sell it at a reduced cost. Even if teams were willing to pay top dollar, would they want to risk competing against themselves? I know Audi has supplied engines before, but that probably did not cost them a whole lot and it wasn't a threat.

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

DI won't give you extra 200Nm of torque. IMO, the current gap between the works cars and the petrols is made of:
wrong equivalence formula > advanced aero > advanced engine technology.

The advantage goes beyond the cars themselves and the rules (and that is debatable). Just look at the drivers. We see all-star drivers running lap times quite a bit off their teammates within the same team. It's hard to explain the gaps, but the factory teams are probably pushing so hard that small differences in driving style vs. the preferred setup can lead to pretty sizable gaps. Even then, the factory teams have so many drivers that they can match the drivers by styles and such. Then there is the testing and simulation packages. If Audi and Peugeot entered a wheelbarrow race at the local fair, they'd probably spend millions doing their homework on the best ways to get the job done. Theoretical advantage with the rules or not, the biggest advantage Audi and Peugeot has is money and time.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Would it work if Audi or Peugeot produced say a 3.4L FSI petrol engine solely for privateers sold at a price relative to the current privateer engines?

Perhaps you do remember the 2007 Swiss Spirit Lola that had the Audi TFSI engine...it never worked.

[Pandamasque]

@AGD
Sure. Driver and team ability do play a big role of course. My point is that at the moment the diesels can afford to have major f*** ups, breakdowns and all the rest, and still be ahead of every petrol car, even when the privateers with good pro drivers have had a perfect day. This is nonsense of galactic proportions and giving those privateers some FSI engines won't even come close to fixing that, it will be negligible in the grand scheme of things.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

@AGDMy point is that at the moment the diesels can afford to have major f*** ups, breakdowns and all the rest, and still be ahead of every petrol car, even when the privateers with good pro drivers have had a perfect day.

Hey, it happens. Strakka was able to overcome some issues of significance at Silverstone in 2010 to take victory in LMP2. I don't know how perfect of a race everyone else ran in P2 that day, but the bottom line is that it is not unheard of for teams to have such an edge that they can park their car in the garage for a couple of laps while the car gets a detail job. Even if you think the diesel regs are wrong right now, the rules tend to hurt the likes of Audi and Peugeot more than the low-budget privateers. It may not be of great relevance today, but Audi could spend the money to develop quick change rear ends for the R8. That gave them a great legal edge until it was banned. These factory teams spend a lot of money to develop things that just end up useless because the rulemakers don't want them to get too much of an advantage.

Anyway, the diesel haters should not be looking at the equivalence rules. The visible smoke/filters rule is where they should focus their attention. I have a feeling we may see this become more of an issue in the future as the diesel teams have been forced to push things further.

[The Badger]

Why have a rule that says , no visable smoke , and not enforce it at all . Why not get rid of the rule . Its just a joke .

[AGD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Why have a rule that says , no visable smoke , and not enforce it at all . Why not get rid of the rule . Its just a joke .

It's a tough situation. Do you penalize a team during a race for showing smoke? The rulebook says they should, but the team themselves would not be amused to say the least and fans may become outraged if the battle royale they expected is short circuited by the ACO rulebook. So it's a tough call. I'm guessing Audi and Peugeot won't cry to the officials about the smoke since any penalty would probably hurt both of them, but I wonder if the privateers put any pressure on the officials on this point. I don't think I've heard any privateer team managers publicly complaining about it, but maybe I missed something.

But, yeah, the cars sometimes look like Pig-Pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. At least it does on TV.

[haribo]

Originally Posted by AGD

It's a tough situation. Do you penalize a team during a race for showing smoke? The rulebook says they should, but the team themselves would not be amused to say the least and fans may become outraged if the battle royale they expected is short circuited by the ACO rulebook. So it's a tough call. I'm guessing Audi and Peugeot won't cry to the officials about the smoke since any penalty would probably hurt both of them, but I wonder if the privateers put any pressure on the officials on this point. I don't think I've heard any privateer team managers publicly complaining about it, but maybe I missed something.

But, yeah, the cars sometimes look like Pig-Pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. At least it does on TV.

I'm surprised that the privateers haven't made a bigger stink about the visible smoke as well. I mean - yeah, diesels smoke under power. Mine smokes like a chimney if I floor it after pootling around for a while.

But the visible smoke is so obvious, and since there's a line in the ACO rulebook about it, I'm surprised that no-one has said anything.

[vyselegend]

The ACO is known for arranging things for manufacturers etc, but they're not fools. I'm sure there must be some reason behind the lack of punishment for the smoke rule. IIRC in the early days of the R10 TDI and 908 HDI, the rule was respected, and people complained the cars were sanitised with no sound / smoke.

First time I remember a diesel spitting dark smoke was the "laboratory 908" engaged in the 2008 Sebring race. (but I think the rule was not enforced by IMSA so it was legal) . Then 2008 passed and came the heavy rule tweaks, with restrictors and boost reductions etc, and from then the Audis and Pugs were smoking a lot with no sanctions.

So I'm inclined to think there must have been a sort of derogation toward that smoke rule because certainly the two diesel manufs complained that smaller air restrictors forced them to run richer mix, and that was not working together with the smoking deal, or something like that...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by AGD

It's a tough situation. Do you penalize a team during a race for showing smoke? The rulebook says they should, but the team themselves would not be amused to say the least and fans may become outraged if the battle royale they expected is short circuited by the ACO rulebook. So it's a tough call. I'm guessing Audi and Peugeot won't cry to the officials about the smoke since any penalty would probably hurt both of them, but I wonder if the privateers put any pressure on the officials on this point. I don't think I've heard any privateer team managers publicly complaining about it, but maybe I missed something.

But, yeah, the cars sometimes look like Pig-Pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. At least it does on TV.

Its not a tough call at all ..... no visable smoke can only mean one thing ..... no visable smoke , or am I getting something wrong ? This can also be tested on a gyno .

Im not complaining about the smoke , just the rule that says no visable smoke . While the ACO are consistant about other rules , but not about this . Change the rule then .

Its really quite simple , and it doesnt look green friendly , does it .

[joeb]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Its really quite simple , and it doesnt look green friendly , does it .

Audi's commercials for "Clean Diesel" ring a little hollow when seeing the R18 puff smoke out of corners.

[rabbit_racer]

Originally Posted by joeb

Audi's commercials for "Clean Diesel" ring a little hollow when seeing the R18 puff smoke out of corners.

In Audi's defense, their 2.T FSI motor puffs more than the any of the new 140hp diesels I've seen here in the States. Come to think of it most of the FSI/TFSI motors let out a nice big puff of smoke when you get on them fairly hard and they go to "full rich."

TDI's.. not so much at least in the version we get here.

Just some perspective from a VW/Audi owner.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Its not a tough call at all ..... no visable smoke can only mean one thing ..... no visable smoke , or am I getting something wrong ? This can also be tested on a gyno .

I'm not sure what a gyno is going to tell you about engine smoke. Maybe they'll recommend a good douching to clean things up!

Originally Posted by rabbit_racer

In Audi's defense, their 2.T FSI motor puffs more than the any of the new 140hp diesels I've seen here in the States. Come to think of it most of the FSI/TFSI motors let out a nice big puff of smoke when you get on them fairly hard and they go to "full rich."

TDI's.. not so much at least in the version we get here.

Just some perspective from a VW/Audi owner.

I'm not sure about the normal operation of current VAG gas engines, but as someone who looks after a 1.8T gas engine, I'm unfortunately well aware of the sight of smoke billowing from a VAG petrol engine!

[cmk]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Im not complaining about the smoke , just the rule that says no visable smoke . While the ACO are consistant about other rules , but not about this . Change the rule then .

Well, to be fair, they are nothing if not consistent with this rule - I am pretty confident nobody has ever been sanctioned for it!

It's a little daft that they love to call teams in over broken louvres or missing cheese wedges and not this, and they should be encouraging diesel technology to be as clean as possible, but they also need to preserve the racing entertainment and judging from the penalties levied for the former two we don't need another thing for them to call at inopportune moments...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by AGD

I'm not sure what a gyno is going to tell you about engine smoke. Maybe they'll recommend a good douching to clean things up!

Ermm ..... a bit of a typo that one !!!

[The Badger]

@CMK , well change the rule that says "No visable smoke" then . As I said before , its really quite simple .

[CTD]

Originally Posted by AGD

I'm not sure what a gyno is going to tell you about engine smoke. Maybe they'll recommend a good douching to clean things up!

Originally Posted by The Badger

Ermm ..... a bit of a typo that one !!!

That should be nominated for typo of the year .

But no, i don't know what a "gyno" could tell about a smoking diesel, i think they are better at looking at not so mechanical stuff

[Tim the Grey]

They're used to peering up things with a torch, so perhaps they could check for DPF being fitted???
Most diesels will smoke when provoked. My Golf 1.9TDI does. The thing is, Diesel Particulate Filters are fitted to STOP visible smoke. So somebody isn't playing by the rules, surely? Especially as diesels now make SOME noise... Added together, makes you wonder.

[Pandamasque]

Maybe that's the reason why 908s no longer FAP.

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Maybe that's the reason why 908s no longer FAP.

Officially, the 908 V8 exhausts are still fitted with FAP. In this article from the car's launch there is this quote of Famin:

Engine: "We have also made full of our experience with the V12. We ultimately decided to opt for a turbocharged diesel V8, the characteristics of which are very similar to those of the V12. The angle of the 'vee' is 90 degrees (compared with 100 degrees in the case of the V12) for balance reasons. The cubic capacity is 3.7 litres and the new V8 HDi FAP boasts peak power of 550hp. We ran it for the first time on the dyno on January 25, 2010."

I believe rules states FAP is mandatory for diesels. I'll have a look at the rules after diner...

[gustavobamba]

Look how would be a private R18, fabulous job

http://h7.abload.de/img/80c978ea39f8fe7b4558267u1a.jpg

[ger80]

Originally Posted by gustavobamba

Look how would be a private R18, fabulous job

http://h7.abload.de/img/80c978ea39f8fe7b4558267u1a.jpg

huh? whats that?

[Simmi]

Definitely some talented photoshoppers out there. I'd love Audi to be a bit more 'out there' with their works liveries. Or for Pug to change just one of their cars. Obviously asking too much.