Audi LMP1 Discussion

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I mean how hard is for Audi to make a lighter and smaller engine with the same power? BMW will have a diesel engine with 127.3 hp per litre of displacement in a NORMAL ROAD CAR. Add a bigger turbo with MGU-H to handle the turbo lag and there you have it.

With the new regulations, the primary requirement for engine department is brake specific fuel consumption: more power with the same fuel or same power with less fuel.

Audi could have gone smaller. The 2013 engine was smaller than this year (3.7 vs 4.0) and put out more power. Yet the Audi engineers believe that more displacement and more boost is a better way to improve the efficiency.

Engine weight is only a secondary requirement. Anyway it turns out the new engine is a bit lighter than last year:

Far from being an evolution, the V6 engine is completely new. ‘It is a brand new rulebook; the conception is completely new,’ says Ulrich Baretzky, head of engine design at Audi. ‘We could never do for 2014 what we did from 2012-2013. That would be the wrong way to go. We always have to save weight, but I don’t know how much we saved. The most important thing about the engine is that it has to last. We have saved some kilos, but we are not in Le Mans yet, tests are not finished yet, we have to wait until it is done.’

source: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/audi-lmp14/

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I was wondering how much time do you have under the full braking in one braking zone? Averege?

1340 KJ would mean recuperation of 450 kW in 3 seconds
1000 KJ would mean recuperation of 330 kW in 3 seconds

Is every braking zone longer than 3 sec?

For Le Mans we know that an LMP1 car brakes around 30 seconds over a complete lap. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...23#post3033923

It is more difficult to find numbers for other tracks.

According to http://formula1.brembo.com/en/brakings-and-tracks in F1 only 8% of each lap is spent on the brakes. With a lap time of 1:45 that would mean a bit more than 8 seconds. Obviously this number is completely unrealistic because an F1 car is much lighter than an LMP1 and hence it can brake a lot later.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I was wondering how much time do you have under the full braking in one braking zone? Averege?

1340 KJ would mean recuperation of 450 kW in 3 seconds
1000 KJ would mean recuperation of 330 kW in 3 seconds

Is every braking zone longer than 3 sec?

Giving 2013 cars, 160kw as Audi claim, and 500KJ per braking zone is the number to reference for your calculation.
Also, a braking zone is defined by a negative acceleration of 1G per 2013 regs.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

With 45 kg less weight? Probably not for Le Mans, but maybe for some other WEC tracks it would be harder.

I believe Volume or packaging issues might be the main factor rather than weight, as the flywheel system is made out of carbon fiber to reduce momentum but its density is low comparing with conventional material..
What's more, 2 MGUs in the front nose is no longer allowed isn't it?
Still, this doesn't alter the conclusion that new regs might force Audi to choose a smaller option whatever the reason is, and they are suffering from their best choice.

[chernaudi]

The biggest thing I don't like about any BoP is that it removes a lot of the incentive to be innovative and to build what you feel to be the best race car to exploit the regs as originally written.

Look at the Ferrari 458. It's mid-engined, aerodynamically advanced, and has a DFI system. But everyone else--namely Aston Martin and Porsche--got concessions, namely the 458 has the smallest fuel tank of any GTE car because it runs a DFI system. Ferrari are effectively being penalized for running a road relevant technology on their car that's sold with it.

Same thing IMO with Audi here. They built a car it seems to take advantage of the original idea of the energy allotment. Big, low-revving, forced induction diesel engine mated to a light weight flywheel hybrid system. Porsche: light weight V4 turbocharged DFI engine, mated to a more powerful battery based hybrid system. Toyota: small NA V8, an evolution of an old engine, mated to a weighty supercapacitor hybrid system.

As mentioned, the ACO seemingly favoring cars with more powerful hybrid systems when the class is supposed to be about variety and taking different paths to the same goals is oxymoronic and hypocritical on the ACO's part.

The attraction of these rules were that everyone in LMP1-Hybrid and LMP1-Light would be given the same amount of energy allotted and it was up to them to best decide how to use it--like original Group C racing. But though what is essentially BoP, Audi have seen quite a bit of their work basically squandered and made redundant by a last minute rules quirk over something that the ACO may've included in their regs, but seemingly had no intention of seriously enforcing.

In other words, essentially the same arbitrary BoP hogwash that dominated GTE, dominated the talk in TUSCC, and used to be the weekly byword for NASCAR racing until the common template cars took over in 2003.

Simply put, the rules should be as written: you have this much energy based on a sliding scale of engine power and hybrid power and the energy calculated on both. Do with it as you wish.

IMO, Toyota and Porsche, Toyota especially it seems, is getting a gift for throwing all their eggs into the hybrid basked, and I think it stands to reason that Toyota probably has the weakest engine in the LMP1 field aside from Rebellion's obsolescent 3.4 Toyota V8s with sonic air restrictors on it.

The 3.7 V8 alone doesn't have the power of the 4.0 Audi V6 TDI, nor probably the Porsche 2.0 V4 TDFI engine, and it certainly doesn't have the torque. If the TS040 didn't have the hybrid system on it, Toyota'd be dead in the water.

Stuff like this is why there should be no BoP in the top category of racing. Audi had a gasoline engine in the R8 and dominated in the ACO-backed series it ran in, and no one complained, though in LMP turbocharged engines had a clear advantage.

IMO, Audi are it seems being penalized for building the best engine and the best car for it. And, IMO, if this is how the game has to be played now, there was no incentive for them to work on the R18 to make it what it is, and possibly the same for Porsche with the 919.

Only saving grace here is that if everyone ran to the energy allotment that they were supposed to be running in the upcoming races at the PR test, was that Audi were still faster than Toyota usually were over a lap, and that Porsche will likely struggle at Spa and especially Silverstone, considering that Audi were turning the lap times they did with a high downforce set up vs Porsche's LM set up. And Spa and especially Silverstone don't favor low downforce set ups.

[GasperG]

The whole point was to create a race car that is efficient on a race track, the efficient engine is only one part of the equation.

Now you have a different classes where petrol hybrid should compete with 137,2 MJ of petrol against a diesel car with 140,2 MJ of diesel. You are seeing things if your argument is that Audi is more efficient.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Technical specs of the 2014 Audi R18 e-tron quattro:

(source: Audi MotorsportInfo)

This document contains the updated technical specifications of the 2014 R18 (in German).

The WHP electrical flywheel accumulator have a capacity of more than 600 KJ.

The front MGU is more than 170 kW. It has integrated power electronic and is watercooled.

This means the numbers in this interview with Baretzky were not completely random:

The flywheel now exactly fulfills our demands, which we have for the new rules. Anything else would be stupid. It is the same principal, some components we took over. A hybrid system is a system. If you have an MGU with a max power of 170 kW, and a storage system capable of 100. You also need to work out how much storage do you need, and you don’t take more because it is weight.

source: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/audi-lmp14/

[chernaudi]

The problem is that the new energy allotment that teams got briefed on last Thursday haven't yet been made public. But Audi saw something that they're not pleased about, and it probably has to do with Toyota and Porsche being given an arbitrary energy bump when already everyone should've had about the same amount of energy.

The diesel engine will be more efficient automatically. It revs much lower than it's competitors, and diesel fuel alone has 10-15% more energy per a unit than E10 gasoline does.

It also stands to reason that Toyota's engine is the least efficient. It has to be revved a lot to get power out of it due to a torque shortfall, more RPM equals more fuel to be burned to make the same power, and it doesn't have the benefit of forced induction nor likely direct fuel injection, both of which are technologies that ironically Toyota's road car divisions are familiar with.

Even last year, Audi on average got about one mile per gallon more on range than Toyota did. The difference in range was down to fuel tank capacity. Give them the same amount of fuel, Audi would go much further than Toyota could.

Toyota might have an advanced hybrid system, but it's about the most advanced thing on the car. Audi and Porsche have the newest engine technologies in the field, while Toyota's engine design can trace it's roots back about 15-20 years or so. And as I said, it probably doesn't even have modern DFI technology, at least Toyota with all their engine know how could've made that upgrade easily.

As I said, give them all about the same amount of energy, and let them race. Don't just go into BoP based on a rule that initially didn't seem to be enforced, and decide to enforce it at the 11th hour.

And according to that document, Audi have already given up .8 of a liter of fuel compared to what they originally had.

I guess the BoP politicking game has begun.

[chernaudi]

And according to conversion, 170kw equals almost 230bhp. Basically the same as the original electric motor arrangement.

If we assume that Audi have the same 600bhp as last year, they'd have basically 830+bhp. Of course, we don't know how much power the engine makes, though we can assume that it'd be more (even with fuel metering) due to capacity bump and increased turbo boost. Why make those changes if you didn't expect a power boost?

After all, these cars aren't any slower than their predecessors, so they have to be making comparable engine power.

Also, we have to look at this. Audi still have a 54 liter fuel tank. That's only 4 liters less than last year, meaning that on ICE power, they have only bit less energy to work with than last year.

[GasperG]

We don't know all the engine tech that is used in any of the teams. Looking at the simple fact that one doesn't use turbo or DI (we don't know) doesn't exactly mean that engine is outdated. I hear similar comments on Mazda's skyactiv tehnology.

What we know is that regulation penalises diesel by around 5% of fuel energy. Every diesel fan will agree the efficiency of diesel engine is higher than that 5% (more like 10%) no mater what money you throw at a petrol engine. The only advantage the petrol engine has is spare weight to have a bigger hybrid system. Who does not agree with me?

And about the consumption last year, what happens when you restrict air to an engine but at the same time you want max power? Who got more restricted air flow through the engine?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

For Le Mans we know that an LMP1 car brakes around 30 seconds over a complete lap. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...23#post3033923

It is more difficult to find numbers for other tracks.

According to http://formula1.brembo.com/en/brakings-and-tracks in F1 only 8% of each lap is spent on the brakes. With a lap time of 1:45 that would mean a bit more than 8 seconds. Obviously this number is completely unrealistic because an F1 car is much lighter than an LMP1 and hence it can brake a lot later.

I figure its around 10% of the lap for braking. No restrictions on 1g braking this year. If thats the case its maybe 9-11 seconds per lap of braking at Silverstone. They made the decision to drop the ers-h, and decrease the ers-k. Was that wise? We see people complaining its not "fair". But what Id like to focus on is why people think its unfair when its definitely possible for Audi to do a bit more hybrid than last year, seeing you can use every braking instance?

Now we have reports their engine weight was decreased, and the hybrid system has nearly the same aspects as last year, so the logic of being too heavy begins to look less like the reason Audi went 2mj. So why announce 2mj after the fact if the "ers incentive" was a known aspect in December? I just cant fathom Audi feel hard done by this and didnt know or chose to stay this route.

[TF110]

Just wanted to highlight the kind of talk you throw around bashing Toyota at every chance. Imo its kinda funny

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Same thing IMO with Audi here. They built a car it seems to take advantage of the original idea of the energy allotment. Big, low-revving, forced induction diesel engine mated to a light weight flywheel hybrid system. Porsche: light weight V4 turbocharged DFI engine, mated to a more powerful battery based hybrid system. Toyota: small NA V8, an evolution of an old engine, mated to a weighty supercapacitor hybrid system.
...
IMO, Toyota and Porsche, Toyota especially it seems, is getting a gift for throwing all their eggs into the hybrid basket, and I think it stands to reason that Toyota probably has the weakest engine in the LMP1 field aside from Rebellion's obsolescent 3.4 Toyota V8s with sonic air restrictors on it.

The 3.7 V8 alone doesn't have the power of the 4.0 Audi V6 TDI, nor probably the Porsche 2.0 V4 TDFI engine, and it certainly doesn't have the torque. If the TS040 didn't have the hybrid system on it, Toyota'd be dead in the water.

IMO, Audi are it seems being penalized for building the best engine and the best car for it. And, IMO, if this is how the game has to be played now, there was no incentive for them to work on the R18 to make it what it is, and possibly the same for Porsche with the 919.

Only saving grace here is that if everyone ran to the energy allotment that they were supposed to be running in the upcoming races [b]at the PR test, was that Audi were still faster than Toyota usually were over a lap, and that Porsche will likely struggle at Spa and especially Silverstone, considering that Audi were turning the lap times they did with a high downforce set up vs Porsche's LM set up. And Spa and especially Silverstone don't favor low downforce set ups.

That was one post. And then you go on in your next post.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

...But Audi saw something that they're not pleased about, and it probably has to do with Toyota and Porsche being given an arbitrary energy bump when already everyone should've had about the same amount of energy.

The diesel engine will be more efficient automatically. It revs much lower than it's competitors, and diesel fuel alone has 10-15% more energy per a unit than E10 gasoline does.

It also stands to reason that Toyota's engine is the least efficient. It has to be revved a lot to get power out of it due to a torque shortfall, more RPM equals more fuel to be burned to make the same power, and it doesn't have the benefit of forced induction nor likely direct fuel injection, both of which are technologies that ironically Toyota's road car divisions are familiar with.

...Give them the same amount of fuel, Audi would go much further than Toyota could.

Toyota might have an advanced hybrid system, but it's about the most advanced thing on the car. Audi and Porsche have the newest engine technologies in the field, while Toyota's engine design can trace it's roots back about 15-20 years or so. And as I said, it probably doesn't even have modern DFI technology, at least Toyota with all their engine know how could've made that upgrade easily...

Nice to have opinions, but why youve the disdain towards one competitor is beyond me.

Originally Posted by GasperG

We don't know all the engine tech that is used in any of the teams. Looking at the simple fact that one doesn't use turbo or DI (we don't know) doesn't exactly mean that engine is outdated. I hear similar comments on Mazda's skyactiv tehnology.

What we know is that regulation penalises diesel by around 5% of fuel energy. Every diesel fan will agree the efficiency of diesel engine is higher than that 5% (more like 10%) no mater what money you throw at a petrol engine. The only advantage the petrol engine has is spare weight to have a bigger hybrid system. Who does not agree with me?

And about the consumption last year, what happens when you restrict air to an engine but at the same time you want max power? Who got more restricted air flow through the engine?

Good post. And good question. Not sure who would need to rely more on air flow, Id assume Petrol would be worse off with the same size restrictors.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

I figure its around 10% of the lap for braking. No restrictions on 1g braking this year. If thats the case its maybe 9-11 seconds per lap of braking at Silverstone.

Assuming 10 seconds of braking, the required power output of the MGU and energy store can be calculated for Silverstone:

• 2 MJ ERS: 1340 kJ / 10 s = 134 kW = 182 hp
• 4 MJ ERS: 2680 kJ / 10 s = 268 kW = 364 hp
• 6 MJ ERS: 4020 kJ / 10 s = 402 kW = 547 hp
• 8 MJ ERS: 5360 kJ / 10 s = 536 kW = 729 hp

This suggests that it might be challenging for Toyota to recover enough kinetic energy in Silverstone, because their combined electric motors are only 354 kW = 480 hp. In order to recover 4020 kJ, they need at least 11.4 seconds of braking.

Originally Posted by TF110

So why announce 2mj after the fact if the "ers incentive" was a known aspect in December?

It is very difficult to make fundamental changes to the car concept (e.g., add KERS on rear axle, change battery technology, ...) at such a late stage. The concept of the new car was established in July 2012 and the "ERS incentive" is published officially in December 2013!

These are some key milestones of the project.

July 2012: Shortly after our first hybrid victory at Le Mans, the concept of the new R18 e-tron quattro is established – even though the regulations have not been finalized at the time.

October 2012: Initial tests in the wind tunnel – aerodynamics play a major role at Le Mans and have significant influence on the overall design of the car.

December 2012: Start of the engineering design stage – the new Audi R18 e-tron quattro consists of over 4,200 single parts. Almost every one of them will be redesigned.

March 2013: Production of the first components for the new R18, followed shortly afterwards by initial component tests on test rigs and the race track.

June 2013: Shortly before the race at Le Mans, the new V6 TDI engine for the 2014-specification R18 is run on the dyno in Neckarsulm for the first time.

July 2013: Start of the simulator tests – in parallel to the real-word race car, Audi continues to develop the virtual version of the R18.

September 2013: Assembly of the first test prototype (chassis number 401).

October 8, 2013: A special day in any race car project: the roll-out on the race track. In this case, it is Le Castellet in the south of France. Lucas di Grassi is at the wheel before Oliver Jarvis takes over driving duties. On the following days, the main focus is placed on checking the functionality of all the components of the new R18.

source: https://www.audi-motorsport.info/v2/...single/id/8344

[gwyllion]

Perhaps it helps for the current discussion to read the announcement about the technical regulations from 14 June 2012.

This was the thinking behind the 2014 regulations:

In December 2010 it was also announced that the technical regulations coming into force in 2014 would allocate a quantity of energy to each car. This fundamental notion is the cornerstone of this new text. Thus to win the race the entrant has to make the best possible use of this quantity of energy. Efficiency becomes just as important as outright performance and reliability. The introduction of new regulations based on the allocation of a quantity of energy was adopted almost unanimously in June 2010 by the ensemble of manufacturers and teams (works and private) entered in the various Le Mans Series.

Page 6 of the announcement shows the famous table with the different ERS sizes:

2014 LM P1 synthesis table
This table enables each manufacturer to choose the option that best suits his project and his budget. For the public the distinction is simple: all the cars are prototypes in the LM P1 category whether petrol or diesel.

All the figures are defined on the basis of one lap of the Le Mans circuit.
Autonomy: Difference up to 2 laps between 0 and 8 MJ, thus between a car with no hybrid system and another fitted with the most powerful hybrid system.
These figures are given as an indication and are based on simulations.
The final figures will be confirmed after tests on test beds in September 2012.
Note that the manufacturers officially entered cannot enter with cars with no hybrid systems.

As you can read, originally the main incentive for a bigger ERS was to ability to do longer stints. All the options have the same tank size, but less fuel can be used every lap with a bigger ERS.

The EoT announcement of December 2013 introduces an additional ERS incentive, namely faster lap times. So in the end, the ERS incentive is double: longer and faster stints!

[GasperG]

To answer my own question what happened with consumption/power last year (2013), here is the data of the air restrictors (apendix 1):
3.4L petrol: 43,3 mm, 30,6 mm
2.0L Turbo petrol: 42,9 mm, 30,3 mm + 2500 bar
3.7L TDI: 45,8 mm, 32,4 mm + 2800 bar

From the numbers alone one would conclude that Diesel is less restricted. But the problem is that Diesel engine can not run close to stochiometric 14,5:1, because a huge amount of sot would be produced. A petrol engine on the other hand MUST run around stoch (E10 = 14,1:1). But Diesel lean burn is advantage by it self, because it gives better fuel economy. Petrol engine was restricted with air and possibly because of this for the max possible power fuel economy went down the drain.

Does this make sense?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Perhaps it helps for the current discussion to read the announcement about the technical regulations from 14 June 2012.

This was the thinking behind the 2014 regulations:


Page 6 of the announcement shows the famous table with the different ERS sizes:

As you can read, originally the main incentive for a bigger ERS was to ability to do longer stints. All the options have the same tank size, but less fuel can be used every lap with a bigger ERS.

The EoT announcement of December 2013 introduces an additional ERS incentive, namely faster lap times. So in the end, the ERS incentive is double: longer and faster stints!

With the Audi timeline you posted, there is no mention of deciding to drop the ers-h, no mention of deciding 2mj either. When were those decisions made? You point out in December this incentive was announced. So that means it may have been in discussion before then. Even if it was a sudden announcement, that's 5 months before the start of the season. So Audi Toyota AND Porsche announced their ers class after this, but its catching Audi out? Im trying to think of ways these teams were left out of the loop and how much time they had to respond.

I dont see how these teams could have been left out. And assuming they were left out of this decision, why would Audi drop to 2mj if 4mj is easy (at least at Le Mans) seeing as how they did 3.5mj last year? This is just my take, but these guys aren't fools. Le Mans is definitely the prize so why not go for it? Especially with this incentive business.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

Le Mans is definitely the prize so why not go for it? Especially with this incentive business.

You should ask this question to the three manufacturers. They all said that their ERS class choice was based on a tradeoff between Le Mans and WEC. So apparently nobody is willing to give up the WEC for a small advantage in Le Mans

Like I tried to explain, 4 MJ with a single ERS is easy in Le Mans, but no in some other WEC tracks.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Perhaps it helps for the current discussion to read the announcement about the technical regulations from 14 June 2012.

This was the thinking behind the 2014 regulations:


Page 6 of the announcement shows the famous table with the different ERS sizes:

As you can read, originally the main incentive for a bigger ERS was to ability to do longer stints. All the options have the same tank size, but less fuel can be used every lap with a bigger ERS.

The EoT announcement of December 2013 introduces an additional ERS incentive, namely faster lap times. So in the end, the ERS incentive is double: longer and faster stints!

Stuff like this is what I'm going on about and why it seems that Toyota have been given a BoP favor. They still have the weakest engine in the field as far as power and especially torque. For that, Toyota would've been better off running the 2 liter turbo engine they're developing for Super Formula and Super GT. Why stick with an engine that's ancient when you have a brand new engine with a lot of development potential? It also has turbocharging, a technology that Toyota should be familiar with from IMSA GTP racing and the WRC and Super GT, and I also think that the engines have to have, or are at least allowed, to have DFI on them, which Toyota has on their road cars.

Toyota are basically getting a BoP reward for having the least advanced engine in the field. And the fact that it's basically a bored out version of the old 3.4 V8 means that once again I question how seriously Toyota in Japan is taking the project. IMO, it seems that TMG have been shafted by their parent company again and had to hope for the ERS incentive to save them.

Either that, or Audi went for the route to favor the WEC sprint races (where they're system according to the chart is adequate), while Porsche and Toyota are favoring LM over the WEC.

[chernaudi]

Also, why would the ACO enforce this reg so late when all the teams were already homologating or getting ready to homolgate their systems?

And as pointed out, the original theoretical penalty for opting for a smaller MJ system was reduced range per stint. Now Toyota and possibly Porsche (who are in the same MJ category) also may have a speed advantage implied in the regs.

Only reason I can't see them doing both, especially Toyota becuase unlike Porsche, they can't crank up or down turbocharger boost to suit specific power requirements, is that unless they get a fuel capacity bump, they can't get more power without reducing their range.

But then again, could this also be related to Audi reportedly saying that they think that Toyota and Porsche may've been given a 3% power bump before the test, which corresponds to about 20-30bhp? I at first though it was due to fuel flow sensor irregularities, but could that be part of the ERS BoP we're also talking about?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

had to hope for the ERS incentive to save them.

So let me get this straight. Audi opted for the best package for their car not knowing about the ERS incentive but Toyota somehow knew it would happen and designed their car around it by not building a new engine?

Porsche aren't getting any hate either it seems despite them having an unproven engine that we know they've had to turn the power down on and so probably isn't the fastest either. Surely this 'crazy' 2 second addition is boosting them up too?

[chernaudi]

You need to read the posts and comments that Gwyllion has been leaving. It seems that the ACO decided to enforce this while Audi and Toyota were homologating their systems. Once the system is homologated, only a technical waiver from the ACO will allow for a change.

In effect, it seems that Audi are being penalized for homologating their car first, while Porsche were busy with the engine problems and Toyota didn't even hit the track with their car until December of last year.

IMO, the ACO's method of bringing this up when Audi were in the middle of getting the R18 homologated is questionable from a ethics and sporting stand point.

Again, this is down to the ACO being arbitrary and wishy-washy with enforcing their technical rules/waivers/BoP. It happened with the Toyota "wheel arch extension" deal, and it's happening with the front tuning vanes that all the LMP1 teams ran at PR during the test. Only reason why that stuff remained/remains legal is that no one protested because everyone wanted their own version.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

So let me get this straight. Audi opted for the best package for their car not knowing about the ERS incentive but Toyota somehow knew it would happen and designed their car around it by not building a new engine?

Porsche aren't getting any hate either it seems despite them having an unproven engine that we know they've had to turn the power down on and so probably isn't the fastest either. Surely this 'crazy' 2 second addition is boosting them up too?

Its a weak argument. His comments look like pure hatred for Toyota. Repeating "Toyota's engine is the weakest" or "Theyd be lost without hybrid" doesn't make it so.

Imo, this incentive isn't a surprise to any team. Audi chose 2mj because the flywheel is not a superior hybrid technology, but diesel fuel is a superior fuel technology. And if, thats IF they had no idea this ers incentive was to be, they realize that more fuel is better for them and it shows the flywheel solution is not really worth spending more time with to 'improve'. Id say the same if Toyota used it.

Whats confusing is how anyone can say Toyota knew this incentive was coming, but not Audi, or Porsche; or even reversed. Thats why this is really confusing. If one team knew, all teams knew. If thats the case, Audi deciding to drop the ers-h and 'turn down' the ers-k is not the brightest decision.

[chernaudi]

Fine, if you don't wanna take it from me, take it from someone like gwyllion who is probably the most technically minded person here IMO, and also knows more about the rules and how the ACO seem to want to enforce them.

If it's true that no one knew about the ERS incentive and how it might be enforced before hand, then we have to question the ACO's motives. Because of that, Toyota, whether or not they wanted it or not, seem to being given a gift.

My beef isn't with Toyota, even if it seems that way. But I feel that they should be allowed to succeed or otherwise, on their on merit, not though some rules quirk that a sanctioning body seemingly pulled out of it's rear end one day before a test session.

This could just be the ACO being vindictive or wanting to favor hybrid technology. And there's no French teams in the series, but Toyota is partly managed by Oreca, which makes TMG about the closest thing to a French team in the top class at LM this year. If that's so, it's not the first time that the ACO put their nationalistic interest above the sport's best interest.

Like the diesel regs you've complained about. I don't think that the ACO would've taken the Audi diesel or ethanol suggestions seriously without an ulterior motive. The ACO were anxious to get a French factory team back to LM, and put out the diesel engine regs hoping to get Renault or Peugeot, and they got Peugeot. ACO putting French pride ahead of other considerations? IMO, you bet.

Whether or not Toyota lobbied for this or even wanted this break is immaterial at this stage. I believe that the ACO are acting on an ulterior motive here, and it's not necessarily in the WEC's best interest for itself as a series to have it's co-sanctioner possibly doing something of that nature. Nor in the ACO's own interest to tick off someone who not only was the WEC's biggest champion, backer and lobbyer for it's creation, but has supported ACO-style racing for a decade in a half while others bailed for what seemed to be greener pastures. And that included at one stage, both Porsche and Toyota.

[TF110]

I think its obvious diesel is a much stronger fuel than petrol and there was hardly any equality between the two. Btw, Oeca doesn't manage Toyota. They help with team operations. Youre coming up with conspiracies and seems your negative bias is towards one team. Porsche could very well have a more powerful lighter hybrid system, but you focus seems to be the aco favortising Toyota. But in reality, Porsche said they were going for 8mj up until this past month. So actually Porsche would be 3, not 2 seconds faster than Audi according to this incentive! That throws a wrench in the theory they want Toyota to win. Maybe it was to make Porsche happy?

[chernaudi]

No, you seem to be missing my point once again, as always. And if you're gonna pick apart my post and pigeon hole everything I write, be prepared for me to respond in kind from now on.

If this is the treatment I receive for pointing out how wishy washy the ACO have been over the years with enforcing their own regs, then I'll probably be leaving this forum soon, and I know that I won't be missed.

Toyota being favored or not is immaterial. As Gwyllion and others have pointed out, this is all down to the ACO seemingly pushing an agenda. You know, like what you and I have accused NASCAR and ISC of doing with TUSCC. To argue that when anyone acts on an ulterior motive with what seems to be some type of a "business" decision--IE, trying to promote something--to say that they aren't hoping to get some outcome that they favor out of it is like saying "Candle in the Wind" by Elton John isn't the best selling rock single of all time as of now.

Auto racing is a business, and almost all motorsports sanctioning bodies outside of the FIA--and even they behave like it a lot of the time (Officially the FIA is a not-for-profit organization)--are privately owned businesses. NASCAR is a privately held incorporated company for example. And I'll bet that the ACO is a privately owned body itself.

Motorsport is a business. I don't like to say it, but it is a business. I doubt that Audi race out of the bottom of their heart. I doubt that Toyota race out of the bottom of their heart. We for damn sure can't make that argument for Porsche. Hell, Porsche is the king of racing for profit! All car makers and OEMs who run factory supported efforts want their ROI from what they do. So do the sanctioning bodies, most of whom are privately owned companies and LLCs nowadays.

I see this as Audi wanting their ROI (diesel hybrid tech and win races) and tried to build a car to exploit the original rules as proposed in 2012 and for most of 2013. Toyota and Porsche wanted their ROI (hybrid tech) and did the same. If all three teams didn't know about how the ERS incentive would be enforced, one can argue that Toyota and Porsche (if their car was sorted) got lucky.

The big question here is what was the ACO trying to do with holding off on announcing this until the day before the test? Audi and Toyota had homologated their cars well in advance it seems. Porsche were the one's dragging their feet on announcing which hybrid class they wanted to race in.

So, possibly, you're right, the ACO, knowing of Porsche's issues in testing, wanted to throw them a bone. Problem is that with Porsche confirming 6MJ, they had to give that same bone to Toyota.

Problem with your theory there is that it's not so much that the ACO would play favorites, but yet they might still try for some outcome, and I have to believe that they're tired of German teams dominating Le Mans. Just sayin', TMG is the closest thing to a "non-German" team racing at LM. But even at that, if one wants to poke holes in that statement, it's fair to say that the team's full name is Toyota Motorsport GmbH, GmbH being an initalism for the German rendering of "private company with limited liability". TMG is also based on Cologne, a prominent city in far-western Germany. So by that logic, the ACO are kinda screwed with having a "non-German" team win LM, right?

Only thing the could do then is try and hand Rebellion the win, but instead of risking alienating 1 or maybe 2 teams, they could risk alienating all the LMP1 factory efforts.

And like any other business in a capitalist society who want to turn a coin off of something, the ACO want to make money off the LM24, and it's known that Audi and Porsche are probably the biggest spenders in terms of not only entries, but promotion. And the ACO has drawn off those financial and promotional pipelines for a while.

No matter how you slice it, the ACO it seems has some agenda going on with how they implemented this rule, and it doesn't seem to be in everyone's best interest. And if you ask me, it's not in the ACO's best interest long term to enact a little-known rule when one of the most attractive aspect of LMP1 this was that variety was supposed to be rewarded, not who had the most powerful hybrid system.