[LMS] Audi R18

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Actually the ACO themselves had said KERs is not to be used for performance gain at all, but fuel efficiency:

Art 1.13:

The use of such a system must not be aimed at obtaining additional power but at reducing fuel consumption.

Hence why, as far as I understand from the previous discussions on KERS, the ACO has insisted that the systems be automatically activated by the cars' electronic systems, hence eleminating the driver activated "push to pass" element.

Still, the fact that KERS can provide a power boost has seemingly partly motivated that rule, as they don't want to see it used as in F1, where it's exclusively a power boost system--why does the Prius use KERS and other hybrid cars? To save fuel, not to provide a power boost, though the Porsche 911 GT3H shows how both are possible, though the 911 can provide 160+bhp for a short burst if needed.

I definently don't think that the ACO want to see that, and would rather see it used to boost fuel mileage, not a push to pass system.

Maybe more justification for Audi and Peugeot to ditch KERS for at least this year (no matter the promotional gains as Audi and Peugeot are offering more hybrid road cars), as the complexity isn't worth either the 80 or so more hp if available, or a few more miles/gallon or kilometers/liter as of yet.

[johnyardley]

I think the point I was trying to make is that a lot of people equate power with bhp automatically - and forget torque.
So lets see them publish kers torque and bhp figures seperately

[chernaudi]

And that's a valid point, but I don't think that the F1 fraterntiy and the rules-making body of the ACO entirely agree with you, or at least consider torque secondary to power, or in the ACO's case, fuel economy.

The F1 guys see KERS as a free 80bhp if they can afford to carry the 25-35kgs of extra weight--I'll bet you that a big part of how Hamilton ran down Vettel at China was because Lewis' KERS was working right, and Seb's wasn't. And with Shanghi's long straights, that extra 80hp is worth it's weight in gold, if used properly.

From the ACO perpsective, they don't want KERS to be a mere push to pass--they want it to be used for the reason why KERS is used on hybrid cars, to boost fuel mileage.

The torque might be a useful feature, but as with power, I think that the ACO's regs might minimize the impact of any torque boosting. And I'll bet you that the R18 or the 908 will still have quite a bit more torque than any KERS equipped gasoline LMP1.

[johnyardley]

Agreed completely.
See you at lm?

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And that's a valid point, but I don't think that the F1 fraterntiy and the rules-making body of the ACO entirely agree with you, or at least consider torque secondary to power, or in the ACO's case, fuel economy.

The F1 guys see KERS as a free 80bhp if they can afford to carry the 25-35kgs of extra weight--I'll bet you that a big part of how Hamilton ran down Vettel at China was because Lewis' KERS was working right, and Seb's wasn't. And with Shanghi's long straights, that extra 80hp is worth it's weight in gold, if used properly.

From the ACO perpsective, they don't want KERS to be a mere push to pass--they want it to be used for the reason why KERS is used on hybrid cars, to boost fuel mileage.

The torque might be a useful feature, but as with power, I think that the ACO's regs might minimize the impact of any torque boosting. And I'll bet you that the R18 or the 908 will still have quite a bit more torque than any KERS equipped gasoline LMP1.

[johnyardley]

apologies i don't think it's the 80bhp extra that makes the huge difference it's the immediate torque

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The F1 guys see KERS as a free 80bhp if they can afford to carry the 25-35kgs of extra weight--I'll bet you that a big part of how Hamilton ran down Vettel at China was because Lewis' KERS was working right, and Seb's wasn't. And with Shanghi's long straights, that extra 80hp is worth it's weight in gold, if used properly.

Hamilton passed Vettel in Turn 7, one of the fastest corners of the track. That had nothing to do with KERS, but everything with Vettel's completely worn tyres. Massa and Alonso also fell back at the end of the race, again illustrating that the 2 stop strategy was wrong.
Of course all this is completely

[chernaudi]

Off Topic: Speed.com's writers filed a report where Vettel admited that his RB7 had to do without KERS most of the last half of the Chinese GP. There was only a few laps between his and Hamilton's tires, and Lewis was definently closing on Seb down the straights with the DRS wing and a fully functioning KERS system.

On Topic: This illustrates why the ACO wants KERS to be mainly for fuel saving, not as a push to pass, as that bares little relevance to why road cars use KERS, as well as why Audi and Peugeot don't want to run KERS in 2011--if Red Bull can't get their system to last a two hour or shorter GP, and if other teams destroy the batteries in theirs by the end of a GP weekend (though that's more down to how the teams use KERS as as power boost system than anything), why deal with something that if it fails on the cars will basically become numerous kilograms of dead weight?

Now, I think that this would be a good time to take up bets on when the new Audi paint schemes will be revealed. Tech inspection takes place the Friday and Saturday before the test day itself, and there's about 8 hours for the cars to practice on Sunday afternoon.

So what's most likely to happen: Audi releases photos before the test weekend, the cars show up painted for inspection days, or Audi does a reveal before the test proper?

Either way, some reveal during the upcoming week/weekend is guarenteed.

However, going back to the R18 itself and the roof intake that was seemingly inspired by the McLaren MP4-26. Is the MP4-26's intake behind the main engine intake for cooling the KERS system? And if so, could it bare any relevance to the R18's intake modifications, or is it to vent/acellerate air to funnel more air into the engine/cockpit intake at high speeds, enhancing the ram-air effect?

[gwyllion]

Sorry to continue off topic.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Off Topic: Speed.com's writers filed a report where Vettel admited that his RB7 had to do without KERS most of the last half of the Chinese GP. There was only a few laps between his and Hamilton's tires, and Lewis was definently closing on Seb down the straights with the DRS wing and a fully functioning KERS system.

DRS does not help to close the gap. It only becomes active when two cars are 1 sec apart.
Vettel switched to the hard tyre on lap 31 (of 56) and Hamilton only on lap 38. That is what made the difference!

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sorry to continue off topic.DRS does not help to close the gap. It only becomes active when two cars are 1 sec apart.
Vettel switched to the hard tyre on lap 31 (of 56) and Hamilton only on lap 38. That is what made the difference!

This is completely wrong. Hamilton caught Sebastien because he did not have kers. Vettel had kers in qualifying but not at the end. If he dad that boost going down the strainghts each lap like hamilton he would have had a better hshot at keeping a gap to hamilton.

He didnt want to admit that the teams Failed Kers system cost them the race

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

On Topic: This illustrates why the ACO wants KERS to be mainly for fuel saving, not as a push to pass, as that bares little relevance to why road cars use KERS, as well as why Audi and Peugeot don't want to run KERS in 2011--if Red Bull can't get their system to last a two hour or shorter GP, and if other teams destroy the batteries in theirs by the end of a GP weekend (though that's more down to how the teams use KERS as as power boost system than anything), why deal with something that if it fails on the cars will basically become numerous kilograms of dead weight?

Well no. You seem to be forgetting that the porsche Flybrid that ran at Petit lemans with no issues.

in addition as stated numerous times the reason the teams destroy the batteries is because they purposely overcharge(to get the maximum boost) them knowing it only has to last a GP weekend. If your trying to go enduro(12hrs etc..) you will not be overcharging the battery.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

This is completely wrong. Hamilton caught Sebastien because he did not have kers. Vettel had kers in qualifying but not at the end. If he dad that boost going down the strainghts each lap like hamilton he would have had a better hshot at keeping a gap to hamilton.

He didnt want to admit that the teams Failed Kers system cost them the race

I'm going to put this off topic to rest now.
The reason why Hamilton caught and overtook Vettel, was because that Vettels tires was worn down.
Of course the fact that Vettel had no KERS, didn't help him, but in the former two races, Red Bull have proven that their car is just as fast as the McLaren, without KERS (ei. see the Malaysian GP, where Vettel is told not to use KERS, but still pulls a gap to Hamilton).

KERS is something that can close the gap between the best car, and the second best, and equalize them (in speed). But Red Bull has proven that a good car is more important that KERS.

But red line between this thread and the F1 race is fading, so please let it rest. (otherwise i have a feeling someone is going to get warnings)

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

This is completely wrong. Hamilton caught Sebastien because he did not have kers. Vettel had kers in qualifying but not at the end. If he dad that boost going down the strainghts each lap like hamilton he would have had a better hshot at keeping a gap to hamilton.

This discussion is useless.

Fresh tyres are worth a lot more than KERS, which was only good for 0.3 sec per lap in Shanghai. On multiple occassions Vettel was able stay in front of Hamilton, who used KERS and DRS, on the straigth by driving a defencive line. Yet he was overtaken in one of the fastest corners of the track solely because Hamilton had fresher tyres.

Webber did not have KERS either and he blasted by Button without any problem because he had grippier tyres.

If you don't believe me, read the analysis of James Allen: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/0...se-grand-prix/

And it wasn’t because of the DRS wing, the pass Hamilton pulled on Sebastian Vettel happened in Turn 7, one of the faster corners on the track, when Vettel least expected it and it came about because of differences of strategy.

Or the analysis of Matt Beer: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90818

The McLaren driver's three-stop strategy proved a better bet than Vettel's two stops, allowing Hamilton to hunt down and pass the tyre-hampered Red Bull in the final laps.

[johnyardley]

Hi,

The discussion isn't useless.
From my view I am trying to emphasise the importance of kers torque to overall performance. There are a million and 1 factors that affect performance. It is true that f1 cars are more or less devoid of torque the same as most motorcycle engines. Torque punches a car out of a corner on to a straight. For example the wtcc leon tdi's had a significant advantage over the n.a. petrol cars.
There is no point of producing max power at 19,500 rpm if this occurs before the end of a straight. A sharp 6.7 secs of kers allows an f1 car to reach maximum rpm earlier.

Best wishes

John

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This discussion is useless.

Fresh tyres are worth a lot more than KERS, which was only good for 0.3 sec per lap in Shanghai. On multiple occassions Vettel was able stay in front of Hamilton, who used KERS and DRS, on the straigth by driving a defencive line. Yet he was overtaken in one of the fastest corners of the track solely because Hamilton had fresher tyres.

Webber did not have KERS either and he blasted by Button without any problem because he had grippier tyres.

If you don't believe me, read the analysis of James Allen: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/0...se-grand-prix/

Or the analysis of Matt Beer: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90818

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by johnyardley

Torque punches a car out of a corner on to a straight. For example the wtcc leon tdi's had a significant advantage over the n.a. petrol cars.

Since 2006 we are well aware of the torque advantage that diesel powered prototypes have

[chernaudi]

And no turbocharged gasoline efforts gave a sustained serious shot to the R10 either--the Dyson effort with the AER 3.6 TT V8 had some serious potential, but was never fully developed, as it was ditched when the went into LMP2 with the RS Spyder.

I'd argue that forced induction engines--gas or diesel--have had a huge advantage since the Audi R8 came out in 2000. This is pretty much an established fact because of the torque that a turbo engine can make and the fuel economy that they can also bring to bear, and that the only cars that were able to run with the R8 on a consistant basis were the Panoz (big V8 engine) and the ex-LMP675 Dyson Lolas (lighter weight and turbo engine).

On the subject of the R18, I'm more interested in if having a VTG turbo(s), and if the new 908 has them or not. And if the new 908 doesn't have them, what advantages could Audi gain with a VTG, aside from having virtually no turbo lag and instant response, or if there's any advantage at all.

And to close the subject of KERS, Audi and Peugeot have chosen not to run KERS as they don't need or want the distraction of working with added parts on the car that aren't proven yet. Peugeot even scrapped plans to run the 908 H4 at the test weekend because the car simply wasn't ready yet, and even though Peugeot said that they wanted to start testing after Sebring, I feel that LM and the ILMC has taken precidence and they don't need an extra program to take any resources away from what they want to do this year.

Both cars were designed with KERS in mind, but they don't want the extra complexity to distract Audi or Peugeot from Le Mans, as both cars are still fairly new and not 100% proven in a 24 hour race.

If the R18 and 908 do well in their endurance test programs before LM and at LM, then we might see them work on KERS later this year to prepare for 2012. But I doubt that the hybrid 908 will race before year's end, and that Audi will do much with KERS until after the end of the ILMC season as well.