Audi LMP1 Discussion

[Mal]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I completely agree , and thats exactly what I mentioned before about the McNish Le Mans crash . Those large front tyres should be banned as they inpare sideways vision . Everybody laughed when I brought it up before ..... It cant do anything else but that .

During the Audi pit visit at LM I noticed the large a-pillars in the cockpit and asked Chris Reinke whether it affected the drivers vision - he said no because of the size of the wheel arches.

[chernaudi]

And one can say "big deal" about the wider wheels--the Audi R15 ran 13.5x18 wheels on it and the R18's are only 1 inch wider, and the R15 ran large blisters on the inside of the fenders to allow for wheel travel though the steering lock. But the R15 didn't have 1 inch wider rubber on bot front corners, or the open cockpit, or the fact that the R18 and the 908 seem to have more steering lock in them than the older cars, though with the 908, from head on, you can't really tell that it has wider front tires.

It would be great if Audi can go back to running an open car, but the ARX-02, which started this whole wide front tire business, that was an issue for it too. The only way to get around it is have the drivers sit higher up, but that increases drag. But then again, it's an argument of what good are the safety measures on a car if you can't avoid getting into an accident in the first place?

It was like a comparison between the Spitfire and the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain--the pilot sat low in a Spitfire, which restricted forward vision, which made taxiing difficult and deflection shooting hard at close range. In the Hurricane, the pilot sat higher, but that made maneuvering on the ground easier (along with the Hurricane's wide track undercarrage) and made for easier deflection shooting.

One can argue the case for making the car wider, but that's a can of worms, too, because max width is restricted to 2000mm, and even if it wasn't for that, teams wouldn't want to design their cars to be much wider than that because of drag.

Fact is that it seems like visibility is an issue for the R18 and the 908 can't be much better with it's narrow windscreen (the plus for the R18 is that it's windscreen is wide, but on the negative, its shorter in height, while the Pug's is narrower side to side, but is at least taller), and both cars do seem to have issues with the wider inner wheelwell blisters. At LM, a Speed reporter asked about the useful window of visibility out of the front of the R18, and it's only about the area of a normal sized note book when closed.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And one can say "big deal" about the wider wheels--the Audi R15 ran 13.5x18 wheels on it and the R18's are only 1 inch wider, and the R15 ran large blisters on the inside of the fenders to allow for wheel travel though the steering lock. But the R15 didn't have 1 inch wider rubber on bot front corners, or the open cockpit, or the fact that the R18 and the 908 seem to have more steering lock in them than the older cars, though with the 908, from head on, you can't really tell that it has wider front tires.

It would be great if Audi can go back to running an open car, but the ARX-02, which started this whole wide front tire business, that was an issue for it too. The only way to get around it is have the drivers sit higher up, but that increases drag. But then again, it's an argument of what good are the safety measures on a car if you can't avoid getting into an accident in the first place?

It was like a comparison between the Spitfire and the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain--the pilot sat low in a Spitfire, which restricted forward vision, which made taxiing difficult and deflection shooting hard at close range. In the Hurricane, the pilot sat higher, but that made maneuvering on the ground easier (along with the Hurricane's wide track undercarrage) and made for easier deflection shooting.

One can argue the case for making the car wider, but that's a can of worms, too, because max width is restricted to 2000mm, and even if it wasn't for that, teams wouldn't want to design their cars to be much wider than that because of drag.

Fact is that it seems like visibility is an issue for the R18 and the 908 can't be much better with it's narrow windscreen (the plus for the R18 is that it's windscreen is wide, but on the negative, its shorter in height, while the Pug's is narrower side to side, but is at least taller), and both cars do seem to have issues with the wider inner wheelwell blisters. At LM, a Speed reporter asked about the useful window of visibility out of the front of the R18, and it's only about the area of a normal sized note book when closed.

I thought the R18 had larger diameter front wheels - making them taller?

I dont think the R18 has a wider screen due to the 2 large A pillars

[chernaudi]

LMP1 diesels have had 680mm diameter tires since the first days of the Audi R10, so they've had the taller tires for a while.

In the R18, the drivers sit lower in the car than in the earlier open cars to have a lower roofline. The windscreen seems to be wider than the 908, but that could be the effect of if appearing "squished" because of the anti-glare strip on the upper section and it being curved more than the 908's.

If there's a way for the drivers to sit higher in the R18 without huge modifications to the tub, that might cure the issues at least to an extent. The taller tires have been around for quite a while, but the drivers have never had a roof over their heads, a smallish windscreen, a lower sitting position, and tires and wheels about 1 inch or so wider than on the previous open cars.

Also, McNish wrote a piece for his website and was also posted on Speed.com. In it, he doesn't blame Bell for the incident, and he doesn't see the logic in him being penalized and thought that a one minute stop and hold was definitely excessive. Allan also talked about the incident with Rob, and Rob said that he couldn't see Allan because the Ferrari's rear view camera had a blindspot where Allan was. If Rob knew that Allan was there, he'd have stayed off to the side.

I will say this, if the vision out of the R18 or the new 908 isn't anything to write home about, the vision out of most GT cars has to be equally as appalling, especially on mid engined cars. And the seat's head/neck protection and the HANS doesn't help much, either.

It seems that as long as car designers are pushing for performance and onboard safety equipment, incidents like this will happen. And there enters a question of how safe may be "too" safe, as far as being protected in an accident as opposed to not getting into one in the first place? There has to be a balance somewhere without entailing excessive compromise on either count.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Mal

I thought the R18 had larger diameter front wheels - making them taller?

Correct , just like the Acura P1 .

[chernaudi]

Michelin standardized on the 680mm diameter tires shortly after the Audi R8 ALMS program ceased to be in July of 2006, and definitely after early '07, all Michelin runners ran with the diesel LMP1 tires designed around the R10.

The ARX-02 used the same rear tires as the R10/R15/old 908 on all four corners. The taller tires have been in use since '06 when the R10 first raced, but were initally exclusive to that car and, also early on, the Pug 908. But then Michelin disconintued the 650mm LMP900/LMP1 tires because no manufacturer team was interested in "paying" to keep them in production, which is why the R18 and the new 908 have front end specific "rear" tires, and the Acura didn't--Audi and Peugeot payed to have their special "rear" front tires not just tailored to do the job of being fronts, but virtually unique to their own cars. HPD didn't make such an investment.

But the 30mm taller tires have been around for nearly 6 years, and it seems that the taller front fenders to clear the tires have only become an issue when the wider tires were introduced and the wider clearance bulges on the inner faces of the fenders to account for the steering lock.

[chernaudi]

First of all, Mulsanne Mike has seemingly confirmed that the R18's gearbox is a quick-change solution to get around the restrictions on R8-type quick change solutions.

And I do believe that the R18 undeniably has visibility issues, as do most of the closed LMP1 cars. Even though one can say advancing years and all that yada yada, I don't believe that Allan McNish and Tom Kristensen have forgotten how to drive, and they never had such issues in the older open Audi LMPs.

Problems that the R18 has in common with the new 908 and the Rebellion Lola is the wider front tires teamed with a closed cockpit. I do wonder if the R18 can be adapted to use some optically flat windscreen by China, or if the 2012 car can use such an item? I think that the standard Lola windscreen is a good compromise--it's curved, but not as aggressively as the R18's currently is.

I believe that the visibility issue is something that Audi can't just dance around anymore, because it's cost them some races, and it's cost them more than Peugeot, who's car, though I'm sure no bed of roses, does seem to score slightly better in terms of forward visibility, and even the Pug guys still have had issues with it recently, and both the R18 and the 908 seem to have issues with determining that they're "clear" when working traffic.

[JAG]

There's a simpler explanation, drivers are pushing 100% for the full 1000k, 12hrs or 24hrs.

Mistakes will happen.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

First of all, Mulsanne Mike has seemingly confirmed that the R18's gearbox is a quick-change solution to get around the restrictions on R8-type quick change solutions.

And I do believe that the R18 undeniably has visibility issues, as do most of the closed LMP1 cars. Even though one can say advancing years and all that yada yada, I don't believe that Allan McNish and Tom Kristensen have forgotten how to drive, and they never had such issues in the older open Audi LMPs.

Problems that the R18 has in common with the new 908 and the Rebellion Lola is the wider front tires teamed with a closed cockpit. I do wonder if the R18 can be adapted to use some optically flat windscreen by China, or if the 2012 car can use such an item? I think that the standard Lola windscreen is a good compromise--it's curved, but not as aggressively as the R18's currently is.

I believe that the visibility issue is something that Audi can't just dance around anymore, because it's cost them some races, and it's cost them more than Peugeot, who's car, though I'm sure no bed of roses, does seem to score slightly better in terms of forward visibility, and even the Pug guys still have had issues with it recently, and both the R18 and the 908 seem to have issues with determining that they're "clear" when working traffic.

Surely some carefully positioned cameras and screens in the car could help the problem

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Mal

Surely some carefully positioned cameras and screens in the car could help the problem

perhaps they should hire 50 slow Porsches or so and let these loose on their test track so the drivers get better used to traffic....Testing on a free track seems to be not sufficient to race the cars, just to make them fast.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

First of all, Mulsanne Mike has seemingly confirmed that the R18's gearbox is a quick-change solution to get around the restrictions on R8-type quick change solutions.

And I do believe that the R18 undeniably has visibility issues, as do most of the closed LMP1 cars. Even though one can say advancing years and all that yada yada, I don't believe that Allan McNish and Tom Kristensen have forgotten how to drive, and they never had such issues in the older open Audi LMPs.

Problems that the R18 has in common with the new 908 and the Rebellion Lola is the wider front tires teamed with a closed cockpit. I do wonder if the R18 can be adapted to use some optically flat windscreen by China, or if the 2012 car can use such an item? I think that the standard Lola windscreen is a good compromise--it's curved, but not as aggressively as the R18's currently is.

I believe that the visibility issue is something that Audi can't just dance around anymore, because it's cost them some races, and it's cost them more than Peugeot, who's car, though I'm sure no bed of roses, does seem to score slightly better in terms of forward visibility, and even the Pug guys still have had issues with it recently, and both the R18 and the 908 seem to have issues with determining that they're "clear" when working traffic.

For once I agree with you, the issues are painfully obvious really. Tom K and Mcnish haven't both turned into boneheads over the winter that run over everything that moves... they just don't see these cars or see them too late.

Good point about the testing on an empty track, I think Audi failed to spot this problem in the early developments of the car. Stubbornly denying that it exists won't help for sure.

I guess their lack of experience with coupes shows here, on the driving side as well. The Peugeot drivers have been dealing with the somewhat limited visibility (especially to the right side) for years, for the Audi drivers it must have been quite a difficult challenge to adjust.

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by Acid09

For once I agree with you, the issues are painfully obvious really. Tom K and Mcnish haven't both turned into boneheads over the winter that run over everything that moves... they just don't see these cars or see them too late.

Good point about the testing on an empty track, I think Audi failed to spot this problem in the early developments of the car. Stubbornly denying that it exists won't help for sure.

I guess their lack of experience with coupes shows here, on the driving side as well. The Peugeot drivers have been dealing with the somewhat limited visibility (especially to the right side) for years, for the Audi drivers it must have been quite a difficult challenge to adjust.

Camera's could be viable option. If I'm correct the Corvette's already have these instead of a rearview mirror in the cockpit.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by JAG

There's a simpler explanation, drivers are pushing 100% for the full 1000k, 12hrs or 24hrs

And with reduced vision ..... I agree Jag .

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Acid09

For once I agree with you, the issues are painfully obvious really. Tom K and Mcnish haven't both turned into boneheads over the winter that run over everything that moves... they just don't see these cars or see them too late.

It's hard to say what is going on at Audi. These guys have been making a lot of mistakes even with the old car. I remember TK (I think) doing the bump and grind through traffic in the R15++ at Sebring even when his car was already out of contention. I don't think the heat of the battle or visibility was an issue in that regard. Maybe some of their drivers just aren't used to dealing with the kind of traffic we have now? I don't know. There are a lot of different classes out there now. We have not seen Treluyer and Lotterer often enough to know what they are capable of in these new cars, but maybe they have better craft in traffic? I don't know. I'm just throwing out guesses here. Anyway, they need to figure something out because they've had some very dangerous moves this year and they're lucky that nobody has gotten injured when they have tried to drive through the traffic.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by AGD

It's hard to say what is going on at Audi. These guys have been making a lot of mistakes even with the old car. I remember TK (I think) doing the bump and grind through traffic in the R15++ at Sebring even when his car was already out of contention. I don't think the heat of the battle or visibility was an issue in that regard. Maybe some of their drivers just aren't used to dealing with the kind of traffic we have now? I don't know. There are a lot of different classes out there now. We have not seen Treluyer and Lotterer often enough to know what they are capable of in these new cars, but maybe they have better craft in traffic? I don't know. I'm just throwing out guesses here. Anyway, they need to figure something out because they've had some very dangerous moves this year and they're lucky that nobody has gotten injured when they have tried to drive through the traffic.

could it not simply be that before Peugeot entered the scene the Audi drivers, for many years representing the only factory team, were never forced to continuously give 100% and hardly put under serious pressure, because all other cars were vastly inferior?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by henk4

could it not simply be that before Peugeot entered the scene the Audi drivers, for many years representing the only factory team, were never forced to continuously give 100% and hardly put under serious pressure, because all other cars were vastly inferior?

It could be. The shuffling off of some of the solid veteran drivers who would get results for Audi even if their lap times weren't the most impressive might have sent the wrong message as well.

I don't know what you guys would do, but if I'm the head of Audi Sport, I put three drivers in each car for Zhuhai and tell each of them that no matter whose fault it is or what the race situation is, if you make contact of any kind with another car out there, we're pitting you in right away and taking you out of the car for the rest of the race. Maybe that will send the message that finishing the race is important and put some peer pressure on the guys not to screw up. I know there is some risk that doing this may make the drivers too conservative, but look at the alternative situation that has occurred this year.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by henk4

could it not simply be that before Peugeot entered the scene the Audi drivers, for many years representing the only factory team, were never forced to continuously give 100%, because all other cars were vastly inferior?

Porsche pushed them to the brink in the ALMS I think and for years McNish was the best driver in traffic.

Just remember the closing laps of Petit 2008 against Montagny...McNish used the traffic to his advantage.

An interesting observation is that none of the three drivers in the #2 have any substantial GT experience in the past few years while the drivers in the #1 all race on the Nordschleife in a GT car where there is lots of traffic and you have to be extremely patient.

Maybe that helps them keep their cool and anticipate the traffic a little better.

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by JAG

There's a simpler explanation, drivers are pushing 100% for the full 1000k, 12hrs or 24hrs.

Mistakes will happen.

Spot on.

Since Peugeot challenged them in 2007 with that "ultimate pace" philosophy, Endurance has increasingly become a lenghtened sprint. 6h / 10h / 24h sprint races really.

In the first times they could respond with wisedom and experience, but somehow Peugeot persisted in their way, and they've been forced to up the race pace too (which has been quite a struggle for some time).

That's the main reason we witnesses so much driving mistakes these days, as drivers are locked in F1 style dogfights, coupled with terrible traffic (worst traffic conditions ever with the high number of "slow" car coupled with amateurs drivers - spec classes really hurts there).

Seeing that most of the times those clashes occurs to the rear, and that coupes are more prone to those accidents, we obviously think there's a visibility related problem there.

But honestly, given the situation at that point of the race, do you believe that if Dumas had a good visibility of the left rear (with either his mirrors or a camera or whatever) he would have had the time to look at it, realise he hadn't yet completed the pass on the GT, and react accordingly?

I believe not.
He was very (too much) focused on overtaking #8 (because he knew his pace advantage was very relative and very temporary), and he also had realised that despite having a slightly better pace at that moment he was lacking top speed to put an academic overtaking move on such a short track, so he knew he had to do something audacious in traffic, and was quite desperate about it.

Both his attempts at passing were started from too far behind, yet were logical attempts to get the better of an opprtunity raised by traffic. He did his best to do the best possible job, but failed...

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Porsche pushed them to the brink in the ALMS I think and for years McNish was the best driver in traffic.

Let's just consider real endurance racing and not the short races on even Mickier Mouse tracks than Road Atlanta

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Spot on.

Since Peugeot challenged them in 2007 with that "ultimate pace" philosophy, Endurance has increasingly become a lenghtened sprint. 6h / 10h / 24h sprint races really.

In the first times they could respond with wisedom and experience, but somehow Peugeot persisted in their way, and they've been forced to up the race pace too (which has been quite a struggle for some time).

That's the main reason we witnesses so much driving mistakes these days, as drivers are locked in F1 style dogfights, coupled with terrible traffic (worst traffic conditions ever with the high number of "slow" car coupled with amateurs drivers - spec classes really hurts there).

Seeing that most of the times those clashes occurs to the rear, and that coupes are more prone to those accidents, we obviously think there's a visibility related problem there.

But honestly, given the situation at that point of the race, do you believe that if Dumas had a good visibility of the left rear (with either his mirrors or a camera or whatever) he would have had the time to look at it, realise he hadn't yet completed the pass on the GT, and react accordingly?

I believe not.
He was very (too much) focused on overtaking #8 (because he knew his pace advantage was very relative and very temporary), and he also had realised that despite having a slightly better pace at that moment he was lacking top speed to put an academic overtaking move on such a short track, so he knew he had to do something audacious in traffic, and was quite desperate about it.

Both his attempts at passing were started from too far behind, yet were logical attempts to get the better of an opprtunity raised by traffic. He did his best to do the best possible job, but failed...

At least it would have been available to him. That way it would have prevented some discussion between peugeot and audi because it would have been his fault.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by NelisB

Camera's could be viable option. If I'm correct the Corvette's already have these instead of a rearview mirror in the cockpit.

Not only in the Corvettes - these cameras are nowadays very common in GT cars.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by deggis

Not only in the Corvettes - these cameras are nowadays very common in GT cars.

we actually noticed one in one of the 908s at Silverstone a month ago...

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/galle...--mirror-.html

[deggis]

Oh. I've seen that gallery and noticed that pic too. Didn't know it was from the 908 though.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by deggis

Oh. I've seen that gallery and noticed that pic too - didn't know it was from the 908 though.

what you see in the mirror is a Peugeot. And as Peugeot occupied the first boxes in the pitlane, the car in which the camera was placed can only be the other Peugeot...in this case the number 7 car. (but I admit, the caption could have been more specific)

[Simmi]

vyselegend + JAG I think that is (literally) the long and short of the situation. I completely agree.

Especially with regards to the visibility and split second timing. I don't think it is the cause above making low percentage moves born out of the pressure and close racing.

I imagine with the mechanical grip on tap these cars seem to offer some amazing possibilities in terms of moves which can't always work. I don't think a few centimetres of visibility or a rearward camera is really going to help you make a split second decision such as Romain's.