Audi LMP1 Discussion

[JoestForEver]

The livery looks hideous from front! That massive white area makes it like pig face! Oh my god!
The side vision is decent though

[GT6]

There seems to be very little in the way of sponsorship decals on the car and no shell advert that i could see

[wewantourdarbyback]

Some pictures of the ride through town

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...3622911&type=1

[FxL]

IMO much better than the designs of 2012 and 2013, I really like it

[claude2cv]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

From the top it also looks decent.

I think we all hope we will not get to see that view, even though it the best one and the design make some sense from above. Like the Porsche I am left wondering why they went for a design you cannot see properly unless from a view no one will get.

[gwyllion]

The official explanation for the strange decision to go for 2 MJ ERS:

After testing various energy recovery systems, Audi decided to compete in the class of up to two megajoules of recuperation energy at Le Mans. The energy exclusively flows through a motor generator unit (MGU) at the front axle and is stored in a flywheel energy storage system. “We opted for this concept following extensive testing,” says Head of Audi Motorsport Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich. “In our opinion, it provides the optimum balance between efficient energy use, size, weight, energy conversion efficiency, responsiveness, drivability and a favorable operating strategy – combined with durability, which is the basic prerequisite for success at Le Mans.”

source: https://www.audi-motorsport.info/v2/...single/id/8495

[gwyllion]

Full size pictures released by Audi Sport: http://www.motorsport.com/lemans/pho...allery/?r=7901

Very cool to see the car in the streets:




Closeup of laserlight:

[TheNo1F1Fan]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Full size pictures released by Audi Sport: http://www.motorsport.com/lemans/pho...allery/?r=7901

Very cool to see the car in the streets:

[gwyllion]

Weight and reliability appear the main reasons for the decision to drop the exhaust ERS.

Audi Sport boss Wolfgang Ullrich told AUTOSPORT that the system did not offer the gains that had been hoped for and that there were concerns over its reliability.

"We did not get out of the system what was expected, and therefore, a lot of risk and not a lot of benefit is not a good decision for the Le Mans 24 Hours," he said.

Ullrich explained that the demands of getting a turbodiesel LMP1 challenger under the new 870kg minimum weight limit in order to optimise weight distribution also played a part in the decision.

...

Ullrich said that Audi's calculations suggested that it has chosen the best way forward for a turbodiesel-engined LMP1 car.

"From the calculations we have done, we think the combination of the diesel engine and the 2MJ system is a better combination than going into a bigger class and having the problem of not getting the weight where you want it," he explained.

Gary Watkins personally considers this decision as a small setback.

The latest decision illustrates two things: the complexity of the machinery demanded by the new LMP1 rulebook; and Audi's inherent conservatism. Having a reliable package is always right at the top of Audi's list of priorities.

That, however, doesn't fully explain why Audi told the world about its second hybrid system late last year. It was under no obligation to do so at a time when it was withholding other technical details about the new R18.

That means this has to be regarded as a U-turn by Audi and even a set-back in its attempt to retain the WEC crown.

source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113077

[wewantourdarbyback]

Via Craig Scarborough

[Salamus]

The livery is fine. The car is really pretty. Just disappointed that we now have white Porsche's and white Audi's.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by wewantourdarbyback

Via Craig Scarborough

He also take a nice picture from the cockpit.

[TheNo1F1Fan]

Originally Posted by Salamus

The livery is fine. The car is really pretty. Just disappointed that we now have white Porsche's and white Audi's.

We would also get a white Toyota, or just a standard one...

[NelisB]

Toyota probably will go for the usual blue and white.

[gwyllion]

Another article about the COTA test: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/au...n-your-garage/

Audi plans to improve the efficiency of the diesel engine by 5% for next year.

For 2014, Audi will have to limbo under even stricter efficiency standards.

“The target is that the whole efficiency of the car should be improved that much that we can run as fast as last year with more than 20 percent less energy. And that’s a big step,” says Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich, Head of Audi Motorsport. “In the next year, we’ll have five percent per year as a target.”

To achieve increased efficiency numbers, Audi motorsport engineers counter intuitively upped the displacement of the TDI engine from 3.7 liters up to 4.0 liters, and upped the boost pressure of the turbocharger.

[PascaLM]

In my opinion, the new livery is rather nice, recalling the two past years. I like the white front, waiting for other sponsors.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Gary Watkins personally considers this decision as a small setback.

source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113077

I don't really get Gary Watkins' point on this.

Audi's decision to drop the ERS-H is evidently a U-turn after their announcement of last December and Gary is right to point out that they were not at all obliged to make such an announcement back at the time.

Set-back ? I don't quite understand why this decision would as such constitute a set-back in their attempt to retain the WEC crown as Gary suggests. That assumes that the right way to go would be to make use of an ERS-H (what about Toyota then ?) and/or opt for one of the highest ERS options (which would indeed require two ERS).

Based on what I understand and have heard, Audi could have run in the 6 MJ/lap ERS class even with a single ERS-K. They ultimately opted for the 2 MJ/lap ERS class, which option offers them the opportunity to burn more fuel, while remaining on an comparable overall energy allocation level.

I would rather say that it's a set-back for Audi's marketing that probably screwed it up a bit (or badly, depending how you see this).

[TheNo1F1Fan]

Originally Posted by NelisB

Toyota probably will go for the usual blue and white.

Yep!

[PascaLM]

Today's happiest man :

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You do not seem to understand what MyNameIsNigel is saying.

The original target efficiency numbers on which the table in Appendix B are based, are totally unimportant!

As clearly explained in decision 13-D0031, the real numbers will be calculated based on the BFSC data provided by the manufacturers to the FIA.

I added some highlights to EoT text.

Audi is automatically "best in class" in the formulas for the Fuel Technology Factor. So they will have no technical incentive to improve their BFSC, except for marketing reasons.

No incentive for improving? So whats this?

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Another article about the COTA test: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/au...n-your-garage/

Audi plans to improve the efficiency of the diesel engine by 5% for next year.

Not that it mattered what I said but telling me they have no reason to improve their efficiency is now proven wrong. Just like I said with the "target" efficiency being some number that was thrown out there, which you agreed on! It matters only after testing and the official figures Audi give the ACO/FIA. THEN we'll see what they do to equalise the cars. Which is what Im saying.

As for the livery, I think its a lot better than last year. I'd drop the silver though and leave it red white and black!

[gwyllion]

Roman Wittemeier has three articles with a lot of technical information:
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032505.html
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032506.html
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032507.html

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Roman Wittemeier has three articles with a lot of technical information:
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032505.html
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032506.html
http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14032507.html

Very interesting.

Wolfgang Appel clarifies that they could have compensated for the additional weight of the ERS-H, but that this would have compromised an important freedom to play with ballast:

"Wir hätten das Zusatzgewicht des zweiten Systems sicher kompensieren können, aber es wäre im Bereich Gewichtsverteilung wichtiger Spielraum verloren gegangen", meint Appel.

He further clarifies that - from Audi's perspective - the advantages of a big ERS-K upon exiting curves, are counterbalanced by the negative impacts of the big ERS-K under braking. They even seem to believe that a small ERS-K is probably better overall than a big ERS-K, which could negatively impact tyre wear, lead to a compromised set-up and affect weight distribution:

"Wenn man an der Vorderachse rekuperiert, dann tut man dies vor den Kurven. In diesen Abschnitten passiert erst das Bremsen, dann Einlenken samt Untersteuern. Je mehr du dort rekuperierst, desto eher kommst du in einen Bereich, den du nicht mehr beeinflussen kannst. So etwas ist ja schließlich pure Bremsleistung, die dort umgesetzt wird", sagt Appel. "Die Bremsphase ist immer gleich lang. Je mehr ich rekuperieren möchte, desto größer muss das System sein und desto stärker wird die Vorderachse beeinflusst."Insgesamt habe man festgestellt, dass diese negativen Auswirkungen beim Rekuperieren die Vorteile eines großen Hybridschubs am Kurvenausgang auffressen können. "Im Prinzip geht es immer darum, am Ende der Runde möglichst schnell gewesen zu sein. Es klingt gut, wenn man viel Energie aufnehmen und nach der Ecke wieder abgeben kann. Aber wenn man die gesamte Kurve betrachtet, dann verliert man in der Anfahrt und kann das vielleicht am Ende wieder herausholen. Es ist vielleicht ein Nullsummenspiel. Vielleicht gewinnt man sogar etwas dabei, aber das geht dann zu Lasten von Reifenabrieb und erfordert auch Kompromisse bei Fahrwerkssetup und Gewichtsverteilung."

While it seems that the simulations regarding the use of a big ERS-K were promising on paper, Wolfgang Appel claims that they did not translate onto the track:

"Den potenziellen Zeitgewinn durch einen Hybrid kann man ganz einfach simulieren", so der Chefentwickler von Audi. "Wenn man dann aber auf der Strecke schaut, dann stellt man fest, dass diese Werte nicht erreicht werden. Wenn man sich später die Daten anschaut, dann sieht man, dass man die Energie sowohl aufgenommen als auch abgegeben hat. Aber es wird ebenfalls sichtbar, dass beim Aufnehmen der Energie etwas Zeit verloren geht, die den Wirkungsgrad schmälert."
"Unter dem Strich steht, dass vom Reglement ein 8MJ-System nur theoretisch bevorteilt wird. Ob am Ende wirklich Zeit dabei herausspringt, müsste sich erst noch zeigen", fasst Appel die Erkenntnisse aus dem Bereich Hybridtechnik im LMP1 zusammen.

[TF110]

Im thinking thats diesel specific. The flywheel isn't the best solution either and Audi are probably better with more fuel. I see that they claim weight and balance were issues, but were they not asking for even lighter cars? Do we think the larger engine could be a bit heavier? I also wonder if the ers-h was giving them gains but decided its best to drop it and use 4wd with the lowest 2mj option to help the balance. With less 'standard equipment' taking up weight and space, the ballast positioning could have more effect.

[gwyllion]

For what it is worth, Andrew Cotton tweeted the following:

Originally Posted by @RacecarEd

Our technical consultant Peter Wright reckons Audi has made a smart move with its 2014 R18. It's going to be an interesting year!

source: https://twitter.com/RacecarEd/status/448496375920340992

[gwyllion]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/10-thin...-le-mans-racer lists 10 interesting facts about the new R18.

The injection pressure is said to be 2400 bar.

Audi’s setup was a bit more complicated, however, and used the turbo’s vanes to capture energy via a motor/generator that, in turn, later could be used to spool the turbos quicker. (The system was separate from the flywheel-based kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) powering the R18’s front axle.) Trouble is, Audi didn’t see much of a reduction in turbo lag, so, concerned about potential reliability snafus, it shelved the idea in favor of a more-or-less carryover turbocharger with variable vane technology.