[LMS] Audi R18 (including Cake Analysis)

[chernaudi]

Design drawings and sketches on the Pannullo blog: http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it/

[gwyllion]

Short interview with Dr. Ullrich: http://www.lemans.org/en/races/24h/u...air-_3769.html

An interesting comment:

Finally, will the German carmaker follow the lead of French rivals with a hybrid prototype? The response of Dr. Ullrich was clear: "No, for me, the hybrid, it's just marketing!"

[chernaudi]

Only reasons why I can see Audi going with a hybrid version of the R18 is:

1--marketing of their hybrid road cars and trying to improve them, or

2--if Peugeot can get the 908 HY working and can get some fuel mileage advantage out of it, which the 908 may already have for all we know from the test day.

If Peugeot can get it to work, look for Audi to follow suit with their own hybrid system--after all, it took years of the Pugs being nearly 10mph faster down the straights at LM for Audi to adopt a closed car.

[gwyllion]

That comment of Ullrich contradicts what Audi said earlier about the R18.

During development of the new LMP1 sports car the integration and future electrification of the powertrain and various possible concepts for energy recuperation have been taken into account.

"We are very conscious of such systems," explains Head of Audi Motorsport Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich. "In our opinion, just as soon as this technology proves to be the most efficient we will use it at Le Mans."

What Ullrich really meant is that they will not go the same route as Peugeot (i.e., lithium ion battery pack and electric motor/generator connected to gearbox).

I predict that Audi has a big surprise for next year: the R18 will get a waste energy recovery system instead of a kinetic energy recovery system! A KERS works very well when there are a lot of braking zones, which is not the case in Le Mans. Waste heat recovery on the other hand works best with full throttle.

In interviews about his global race engine concept Baretzky has repeatedly mentioned this type of technology:

Baretzky is a big fan of 'waste energy recovery systems' and was very disappointed with the FIA's bungled introduction of KERS to F1.

"The other thing that's very important that we should not lose sight of is all kinds of waste energy recovery systems. I don't say KERS. I say waste energy recovery by using the exhaust and turbo where you really could get more efficiency into a race car. When you use a small engine like an in-line four that gives you a lot of room in the car you have a lot of possibilities with the turbocharging system to get more energy out of what you are burning.

Baretzky is in regular dialogue with the EPA and says EPA officials share his enthusiasm for 'waste energy recovery systems'.

"When we were in Sebring I had a nice conversation for an hour with some people from the EPA. We are talking regularly now at least one or two times a year. We realize we have the same vision where at the end of the day we will get an energy-based type of racing that would take whatever shape or form of energy and make power out of it. We all agree on that and there's a broad agreement that some type of waste energy recovery system should be installed to give people a real incentive to develop new technologies which could really help road cars to save fuel and make the car more efficient and more environmentally friendly."

source: http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no228.html

Baretzky points out that an in-line, four-cylinder provides plenty of room for energy recovery systems.

"Small engines allow us to combine a lot of energy recovery systems. If you want to look at all the efficiency components you want to incorporate in the future, like waste energy recovery systems from the exhaust or the cooling system, then you need a little bit of space on the left and rightside of the engine. A four-cylinder gives you that space but a vee engine is the wrong thing to have because you are so limited in space. You have an exhaust system on both the left and rightside and you also have to double all the energy recovery systems which makes it very heavy, very complicated and very inefficient. So it's better to have the hot side on one side of the engine and the cool side on the other side so you can arrange all these things accordingly. That's the opportunity with the four-cylinder."

source: http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no257.html

The marketing people might not have allowed Baretzky to build the engine he wanted to (2.0 liter 4 cilinder turbo). With his "hot side inside" V6 TDI engine, he can still apply his favorite waste energy recovery system. I wonder which technology Baretzky will chose: electric turbo-compounding, mechanical turbo-compounding, thermo-electricity, ... If they use an electric system they can use it to replace the alternator or to power an electric motor connected to the wheels.

BTW there is a French company called heat2power that promotes a solution for racing and they explicitely mention Le Mans:

Waste heat regeneration increases the power of engines

The second reason why WHR is interesting for racing is that it can considerably increase the amount of power delivered by the engine while respecting the regulations. On gasoline race engines that run between 8000 and 11000 RPM we have seen power levels in the exhaust about 1.8 times as high as the power on the crankshaft. That means that there is a huge amount of power being lost. By simply converting a part of that into torque, the engine power is increased. Imagine what a 25% of regeneration efficiency can do. The heat2power system was designed to have high regeneration efficiency at high RPM and could thus achieve about 1.2 kW per kg added to the vehicle. The effect on laptimes is classified as "considerable", especially on tracks like Le Mans with long straights and few corners. The WHR would function at full power almost all the time.

The race series heat2power started to work for is the Le Mans Series but we expect Formula One to pick up very soon as well, even though the F1 engineering teams for the moment focus on WHR from the engine cooling system.

source: http://www.heat2power.net/en__markets_racing.php

[gwyllion]

In case you are wondering, the current LMP1 rules allow "recovery from the heat of the exhaust fumes" (article 1.13). However, I have no clue how the ACO can regulate such system.

There is a rule which says "the amount of energy used between 2 braking must not exceed 0.5 MJ". Waste heat recovery is working all the time and does not rely on braking energy.

And there is the "famous 400 meter at 60 km/h on hybrid only" rule. The engine needs to be running in order to produce enough waste heat.

[gustavobamba]

Hello!!!!

Excuse my ignorance, but if Dr. Baretzky wanted a 2.0l I4 engine with such energy recovery, why is a 2.0l I6 Aston Martin option so bad...???

[gwyllion]

Baretzky's comment in MotorSport magazine:

"They made an open car with the wrong engine." He scoffs. "A straight six engine with a turbo - sorry, but this is one of the worst combinations I have ever seen. First of all, if you want to have a 2 litre, they have 2 cylinders too much. A four cylinder would be enough to make this performance. And a straight six has a really critical thing with torsional vibrations, because you have a very long crankshaft. BMW did something similar in the late seventies with the M1 and they had only engine failures. It was a really robust engine, but the torsional vibrations were destroying everything. They will find out. I'm sure about that."

Remember that Baretzky worked with BMW Motorsport in the 80s.

[The Badger]

I dont care for his condisending attitude ..... he should remember that one of the reasons Audi have done so brilliantly at Le Mans since 2000 , is to be honest lack of works backed competition .

I have no doubt that Audi are a brilliant motorsports engineering department along with Joest Motorsports , but that doesnt give him or anybody else the right to scoff at others .

If nothing else , I hope AMR get this engine to work , and well , just to plant that pompous **** back in his pot !!!

[gwyllion]

The word "scoff" was chosen by the reporter of that article. Baretzky just expressed his personal view that turbocharging a straight 6 is a difficult task, based on his experience at BMW Motorsport. The famous BMW F1 turbo engine must have been a straight 4 for a reason...

[gustavobamba]

So, or Aston Martin find something that could fight the vibrations, or they don´t care about the money they invest (PRODRIVE).

I don´t believe they (PRODRIVE) are stupid´s but...

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Slightly off topic but we have talked about the Audi/F1 rumour in here before. An interesting (new?) article about what Audi thinks of Formula 1:

Why Audi motorsport bosses think F1 is irrelevant

By Ben Whitworth
Motorsport
17 May 2011 15:30

Despite being invited to advise the FIA on developing the new rules that will govern F1 from 2014 onwards, Audi is simply not interested in the sport, Ingolstadt top brass have told CAR.
'There’s a very good reason why we are not in F1,' says Wolfgang Ullrich, Audi’s motorsport boss. 'There’s no relevance to the road. Audi has always been engaged in motorsport that’s relevant to our customers such as rallying and touring cars, which brought quattro, FSI and TFSI to our road cars.
'This is why in 1999 we decided against F1. Instead we decided to take on the greatest race in the world. We went for Le Mans.'
Why Audi thinks Le Mans is tougher than F1

Audi has enjoyed unprecedented success at La Sarthe. Under Ullrich's watch Audi has racked up nine wins in 11 years, putting itself on a par with Ferrari and behind only Porsche (16 wins) in the constructor’s championship standings.
'Our goal is track to road technology,' Ullrich told CAR. 'The best proof of technology is success in motorsport. Lightweight construction, downsized engines and greater economy – they are as relevant for the road as they are for the track.'
That old chestnut: win on Sunday, sell on Monday

Ullrich is adamant that Le Mans endurance racing is a better testbed than Formula One will ever be.
'Let me show you how – at Le Mans, one of our cars will cover 325 miles more than an F1 car will cover in an entire season, our average speed including pits stops will be 20mph higher than an F1 car and we will use 42% less fuel.
'You cannot argue with those figures.'

Good on them I say, and it appears that Audi (at least if Ullrich has his way) will be racing at Le Mans for a long time to come.

[AGD]

Ullrich is adamant that Le Mans endurance racing is a better testbed than Formula One will ever be.
'Let me show you how – at Le Mans, one of our cars will cover 325 miles more than an F1 car will cover in an entire season, our average speed including pits stops will be 20mph higher than an F1 car and we will use 42% less fuel.

Those are some interesting numbers. I wish Porsche was allowed to feel the same way. We'll see I guess, but it would be nice to see both Audi and Porsche fighting things out at Le Mans along with Peugeot and anyone else who wants to join in.

[arakis]

'Let me show you how – at Le Mans, one of our cars will cover 325 miles more than an F1 car will cover in an entire season, our average speed including pits stops will be 20mph higher than an F1 car and we will use 42% less fuel

some of those facst are lies , an F1 car has a higher average speed on any race LMP1 and f1 cars race on, f1 cars had a 15sec lower qualifying laptime in 2010 then SPA LMS 2011, the overall distance record of Le mans is 5410 km, there are 19 races in an f1 calendar and an average leinght of 300 km or 5700 km, even if we ad Le mans testing there are also 19 * 3h practices in F1 during the season witch is again more then Le mans.
the only fakt he is correct is that the diesels consume less gas.

[Lola T70]

Originally Posted by arakis

'Let me show you how – at Le Mans, one of our cars will cover 325 miles more than an F1 car will cover in an entire season, our average speed including pits stops will be 20mph higher than an F1 car and we will use 42% less fuel

some of those facst are lies , an F1 car has a higher average speed on any race LMP1 and f1 cars race on, f1 cars had a 15sec lower qualifying laptime in 2010 then SPA LMS 2011, the overall distance record of Le mans is 5410 km, there are 19 races in an f1 calendar and an average leinght of 300 km or 5700 km, even if we ad Le mans testing there are also 19 * 3h practices in F1 during the season witch is again more then Le mans.
the only fakt he is correct is that the diesels consume less gas.

I was surprised as well but when I re read the article Ullrich is talking about the all of the F1 racing season and all of Le Mans, and if you can be bothered to add up the 2010 F1 races he looks right.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by arakis

'Let me show you how – at Le Mans, one of our cars will cover 325 miles more than an F1 car will cover in an entire season, our average speed including pits stops will be 20mph higher than an F1 car and we will use 42% less fuel

some of those facst are lies , an F1 car has a higher average speed on any race LMP1 and f1 cars race on, f1 cars had a 15sec lower qualifying laptime in 2010 then SPA LMS 2011, the overall distance record of Le mans is 5410 km, there are 19 races in an f1 calendar and an average leinght of 300 km or 5700 km, even if we ad Le mans testing there are also 19 * 3h practices in F1 during the season witch is again more then Le mans.
the only fakt he is correct is that the diesels consume less gas.

On any individual track an F1 will be faster, however, the avergae speed of all F1 races together (so including for instance Monaco) will be lower (20%?) than what the Audis average at Le Mans ONLY... Le Mans has also several practice sessions, including the eight hour test day. So Dr. Ulrich might not be that far off the mark.