Audi LMP1 Discussion

[gwyllion]

In http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100484 Treluyer explains that he really suffered from the 120 km/h restriction:

That was the first time that I had crossed Toyota's path that weekend, I hadn't seen it on the track before then and I was surprised by the acceleration it had on the exit of the corners.

The regulation with the hybrid systems from zero onwards for cars with hybrid power going through the rear; I think is a mistake on the regulations and they [Toyota] have a bigger advantage.

I couldn't fight with Nicolas on the exit of corners because his hybrid system was on a lot earlier than mine. He was accelerating and coming alongside me very easily so I think they should change the regulations.

[henk4]

or Audi should refrain from their Quattro system, as 4WD is not allowed in the regulations, but apprently that is marketingwise less acceptable to Audi..

[Velociraptor]

What's more interesting to me is that Ultras ran the fastest lap of the race... either e-trons didn't push that much or Audi's (or should I say ACO's)Hybrid system isn't that good for ultimate speed.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100484 Treluyer explains that he really suffered from the 120 km/h restriction:

I have to laugh at these arguments. Toyota say Diesel still has the advantage, then Treluyer says Toyota has a hybrid advantage. Maybe Audi should rethink their 'Quattro' stance like henk4 has said.

[chernaudi]

And why did the ACO put that restriction on the R18 in the first place--because Audi would run away from the Toyota in the slower corners because of their huge traction advantage, and when Toyota can't use they hybrid system, they're at a massive torque disadvantage. Problem is that we know that Audi were/are still much faster than Toyota is (I think that Toyota could've run 3:26s for sure on a clear track, but not much more than that). I think that the biggest thing that Audi need to fix with the e-tron is reducing the drag on those front wheels, as that limits the top speed of the e-tron--even the Ultra was quite a bit faster at times down the straights. At least Audi have two months to try and remedy that, or else we might see two R18 Ultras at Silverstone, though Silverstone and the other tracks should be more beneficial to Audi because of the shorter straights.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I think that Toyota could've run 3:26s for sure on a clear track, but not much more than that.

Audi almost matched their qualifying lap times in during the race. So why would Toyota not be able to do?

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I think that the biggest thing that Audi need to fix with the e-tron is reducing the drag on those front wheels, as that limits the top speed of the e-tron--even the Ultra was quite a bit faster at times down the straights.

How do you suggest that they do that? With invisible drive shafts?

The extra drag is direct consequence of Audi's decision to got for a front hybrid system.

Vasselon motivated the Toyota's choice to go for a rear hybrid system as follows:

We are using only one set of driveshafts which do everything – combustion engine, energy recovery, energy deployment. We did test with a system at the front of the monocoque. We made the decision because of packaging – it was easier to package the engine and the gearbox. Globally it was a lighter solution, so even with the weight at the rear it freed up the possibility of putting some ballast at the front. Also there is less friction and rolling resistance when you have fewer driveshafts. For all these reasons the decision was clear for us to make the installation in this way.

source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100341

[chernaudi]

The best Toyota had a high 3:24 in qualifying, and the slower had a 3:25, and even if they did, they couldn't do it lap for lap because we saw how hard they had to push in qualifying, and if their own problems didn't kill the cars, driving like that certainly would've. I've also read Mulsanne Mike's comments on his facebook page, and he said that Audi definitely had pace in hand over Toyota when the #7 was battling for the lead, and Audi would speed up within a couple of laps of their and Toyota's pit cycles. He almost hinted that Audi were trying to get Toyota to use up their stuff early. Also, the #1 Audi never really got very close to it's qualifying time (3:23.7 vs a 3:25.2), while the #3 Audi virtually mirrored it's qualifying time and the #2 Audi actually went quite a bit faster than it's qualifying time. Usually, if you can get to within about a second of your qualifying time in the race, you're doing a good job, but then again, I don't think that the #1 Audi ever really forced the issue with pace to get that fast race lap--they ran fast enough to win, basically.

As for the e-tron issues, can't they use lighter drive shafts or different bearings, something to reduce the friction of the shafts when they're not powered? Or could Audi run the Ultra R18's instead? They still have a huge torque advantage over the Toyotas when they can't power up their hybrid system, and on a flyer the Ultra was every bit as fast as the e-tron in the dry. But then again, acceleration maters more on shorter tracks, and even at Le Mans, so while Audi may try and reduce the drag of the system, I think that they want that power and torque above 75 mph or whatever the ACO decide it should be next year.

Audi also have the advantage of having that power when Toyota's system is spent, too, and I think that for traction's sake that a limiter for Toyota would be a good idea.

[gwyllion]

Now that you mention it. It is a bit strange that the ACO did not have the 120 km/h a general rule for all hybrid systems.

[kober]

Wasn't the ability to run through the whole pit lane exclusively on recovered energy one of the highlights of hybrid-allowing rules? It wouldn't work with the 120 kph rule

[chernaudi]

I think that such systems can still operate on the pit road speed limiter though a software program (?). I'm suggesting that Toyota should themselves run a limiter to prevent what happened to Nic during testing when the car got destroyed because of a TC issue (depending on which story you prefer to believe it was either that water shorted out the ASR, or an ECU was used that didn't have traction control on it). Toyota had issues early on with the hybrid system overwhelming the TC, and though it seems that they have that largely fixed, I wouldn't want an extra 100 or so bhp to kick in in the middle of a corner, especially on the rear of the car.

[Maelochs]

I think the 120 kph rule is aimed not at Audi but at All-Wheel-Drive. I think ACO thinks that a hybrid system using all the power in the rear won't be as fast out of slow corners because of the limits of mechanical grip, but an AWD system would give an immense and monstrous advantage out of slow corners.

This would basically mandate putting the hybrid motors up front, thus limiting design choices.

As I recall, AWD was banned entirely, and then an exception was made for FWD hybrid systems. The 120-kph rule is supposed to keep AWD from dominating while still giving manufacturers options (Audi got its FWD system pretty much tested and from Porsche, and would have had to do all new development to make it work in the rear, so Audi got a break (AWD) and a balance (120 kph.)

Just my imagination.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I think that such systems can still operate on the pit road speed limiter though a software program (?). I'm suggesting that Toyota should themselves run a limiter to prevent what happened to Nic during testing when the car got destroyed because of a TC issue (depending on which story you prefer to believe it was either that water shorted out the ASR, or an ECU was used that didn't have traction control on it). Toyota had issues early on with the hybrid system overwhelming the TC, and though it seems that they have that largely fixed, I wouldn't want an extra 100 or so bhp to kick in in the middle of a corner, especially on the rear of the car.

the real story is that Toyota erroneously put in an ECU that was used for dyno testing and was not waterproof. (Source: Racecar Engineering, which is mandatory reading for everybody here )

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

I think the 120 kph rule is aimed not at Audi but at All-Wheel-Drive. I think ACO thinks that a hybrid system using all the power in the rear won't be as fast out of slow corners because of the limits of mechanical grip, but an AWD system would give an immense and monstrous advantage out of slow corners.

This would basically mandate putting the hybrid motors up front, thus limiting design choices.

As I recall, AWD was banned entirely, and then an exception was made for FWD hybrid systems. The 120-kph rule is supposed to keep AWD from dominating while still giving manufacturers options (Audi got its FWD system pretty much tested and from Porsche, and would have had to do all new development to make it work in the rear, so Audi got a break (AWD) and a balance (120 kph.)

Just my imagination.

this sums it up pretty nicely. Peugeot/Citroen now produce normal hybrid cars with the diesel engine driving the front wheels and the electro engine driving the rear wheels, and they are marketed as AWD.

[gregtummer]

Did anyone see the onboard footage from the Audi website during the race?

I watched some of it at night. Driving at Le Mans at night with all the timing and telemetry on screen= ABSOLUTE MAGIC

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The best Toyota had a high 3:24 in qualifying, and the slower had a 3:25, and even if they did, they couldn't do it lap for lap because we saw how hard they had to push in qualifying, and if their own problems didn't kill the cars, driving like that certainly would've. I've also read Mulsanne Mike's comments on his facebook page, and he said that Audi definitely had pace in hand over Toyota when the #7 was battling for the lead, and Audi would speed up within a couple of laps of their and Toyota's pit cycles. He almost hinted that Audi were trying to get Toyota to use up their stuff early. Also, the #1 Audi never really got very close to it's qualifying time (3:23.7 vs a 3:25.2), while the #3 Audi virtually mirrored it's qualifying time and the #2 Audi actually went quite a bit faster than it's qualifying time. Usually, if you can get to within about a second of your qualifying time in the race, you're doing a good job, but then again, I don't think that the #1 Audi ever really forced the issue with pace to get that fast race lap--they ran fast enough to win, basically.

As for the e-tron issues, can't they use lighter drive shafts or different bearings, something to reduce the friction of the shafts when they're not powered? Or could Audi run the Ultra R18's instead? They still have a huge torque advantage over the Toyotas when they can't power up their hybrid system, and on a flyer the Ultra was every bit as fast as the e-tron in the dry. But then again, acceleration maters more on shorter tracks, and even at Le Mans, so while Audi may try and reduce the drag of the system, I think that they want that power and torque above 75 mph or whatever the ACO decide it should be next year.

Audi also have the advantage of having that power when Toyota's system is spent, too, and I think that for traction's sake that a limiter for Toyota would be a good idea.

Toyota made there qualy runs in the night where it was really difficult for there car to generate tire temps. So 3:24 is saying there is more to come after a year of development...PResumably they will be much faster next year.


The fact that the Audi matched its qualy times just means they sandbagged during Qualy. No sane driver would try to put in his best qualy lap in a 24 hour race because we all know that they were not even sure they would bring the car back in one piece on qualy day .
Mabye not neccesarily sandbagging from the drivers but the team sets the engine maps . And they probably plnoked on all the downforce to keep the car from going to fast down the straight...

Davidson also mentioned that the diesels werent smoking. This means they were not running rich.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by Articus

The fact that the Audi matched its qualy times just means they sandbagged during Qualy. No sane driver would try to put in his best qualy lap in a 24 hour race because we all know that they were not even sure they would bring the car back in one piece on qualy day .

No, it's not that simple. The drivers commented on how the track wasn't really all that good at the end of qualifying, it was presumably better during the morning hours of the race.

Plus, with lots of retirements, it simply gets easier to put down clean laps. This isn't a new phenomenon, we've seen Peugeot almost match their qualy times in the race during the past few years...it happens.

[the.cosmic.pope]

The tracks always faster in the 3-6 am period. It's why drivers call it happy hour.

[chernaudi]

Now a question about driver line ups for the WEC. We know that Andre and Ben will most likely be in the #1 the rest of the season, but what about the #2? We know that Allan is currently the only nominated driver, but I read a quote from Capello from Autosport's site where in which Dindo said "when Allan wins the WEC, all will be forgotten". Could Dindo be in the #2 for the rest of the WEC season, or am I reading too much into that?

[gwyllion]

I am certain that it will be Lotterer-Treluyer in #1 and McNish-Kristensen in #2.

[chernaudi]

I think that Dindo may possibly make an occasional appearance, as it's his last year (probably), and he's still got the pace. Also, Toyota are running 3 drivers in their full season entry, so I can see Audi possibly doing the same with the #2, and maybe the #1 if they can't keep Fassler busy.

This scenario doesn't seem likely based on past Audi practices with driver allotments, but Audi have bent their own precedents in the past, especially with Pirro when he entered semi-retirement at the end of '08. We'll find out when Audi reveal their full season WEC lineups.

[gwyllion]

If Kristensen or McNish is replaced by Capello in one or more WEC rounds, this effectively ruins the chance of that driver winning the WEC driver championship. So that is a highly unlikely scenario.

Last year, Peugeot shuffled its drivers during the ILMC races, but that is no longer an option with the driver championship.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

If Kristensen or McNish is replaced by Capello in one or more WEC rounds, this effectively ruins the chance of that driver winning the WEC driver championship. So that is a highly unlikely scenario.

Last year, Peugeot shuffled its drivers during the ILMC races, but that is no longer an option with the driver championship.

I'm talking about Dindo being a third driver in the #2--as I said, Toyota intend on running Wurz, Lapierre and Nakajima in their one full season car, so I can't see why Audi might not be tempted to do the same, though that would run against the grain of their preference of a two driver strategy for races less than 12 Hours.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'm talking about Dindo being a third driver in the #2--as I said, Toyota intend on running Wurz, Lapierre and Nakajima in their one full season car, so I can't see why Audi might not be tempted to do the same, though that would run against the grain of their preference of a two driver strategy for races less than 12 Hours.

I cant see why Audi would do that. To my knowledge they have nearly always run 2 drivers in the 6 hour races. I dont see why what Toyota do would influence that.

[CTD]

Are we even sure Dindo wants to race those races?

A full Le Mans finished by a second place is an worthy exit in my mind (not minding what it could have been).
The only thing i can think of there could change Dindos retirement plans is Audi running short of good drivers when Porsche enters.

[MitchZ06]

I'd happily retire after a mostly fault free run to a podium at Le Mans, whether that be a 1, 2 or 3 finish.