[WEC] Audi to Return in 2022?

[rdjones]

I am just going to leave this here....Audi to return in 2022...????

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2018/0...-targeted.html

[Aysedasi]

Fits into the 'believe it when I see it' category......

[broadrun96]

Yeah, how long have we heard about BMW building a hydrogen car for LM? and how many test cars have had spy shots taken of these? Car builders aren't the most secretive and you'd assume we would have some hints or pictures of some kind until this modified LMP3 car.

Never mind the fact that making hydrogen is not an efficient process.

[deggis]

Remember there is a plan to introduce some sort of sub-class for hydrogen cars for 2024 (Autosport).

So an earlier Garage 56 entry would make sense.

[GT6]

2022 is a long way off, speculation is always going to happen until real plans are published

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Personally this hydrogen fuel cell malarky will diminish my interest in the whole top class by such that I won't even care anymore if Audi joins at that point.

[Akrapovic]

Similar to Sprinkles, I'm worried that all these quiet cars will reduce my interest. I didn't mind the diesels because they were different. One or two quiet cars is fine (same reason you don't want everything to be a Corvette), but when every car becomes the same, I begin to lose interest a bit. Noise is important to me, even if I don't have the ability to put my reasons why into words.

[MaskedRacer]

Audi never left. The R8 LMS folks.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Similar to Sprinkles, I'm worried that all these quiet cars will reduce my interest. I didn't mind the diesels because they were different. One or two quiet cars is fine (same reason you don't want everything to be a Corvette), but when every car becomes the same, I begin to lose interest a bit. Noise is important to me, even if I don't have the ability to put my reasons why into words.

Agreed. My son has been at Silverstone today and has sent me several little bits of video and sound files of a couple of former F1 cars that were out there today. The sound literally had my legs tingling. Formula E? Hydrogen? I'll pass thanks. I agree I wouldn't want a whole field of Corvettes at Le Mans, but thank goodness that two of them are still there every year......

[EffectiveSprinkles]

... which does not race in WEC or ELMS. On top of being a customer GT3 car.

[Akrapovic]

As pointed out by EffectiveSprinkles, the GT3 car is a customer car. It's a profit centre and Audi supports customers in it. Saying Audi never left is like saying BMW and Mercedes never left because they have customers they support racing their GT3 cars.

[GT6]

Sorry if i do not understand but i thought a hydrogen cell engine was an actual engine burning hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel so will never be as quiet as an electrical motor and have an exhaust noise as the gases are expelled.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by GT6

Sorry if i do not understand but i thought a hydrogen cell engine was an actual engine burning hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel so will never be as quiet as an electrical motor and have an exhaust noise as the gases are expelled.

Not a clue Simon….

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by GT6

Sorry if i do not understand but i thought a hydrogen cell engine was an actual engine burning hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel so will never be as quiet as an electrical motor and have an exhaust noise as the gases are expelled.

Negative, these are different things (easy to mix up though, I only did some reading into this last week).

A hydrogen fuel cell engine uses hydrogen and oxygen and combines them in the 'fuel cell' to produce electricity. That's then stored very temporarily in a battery or super-capacitor, and then used to drive electric motors. The only output is water. This is essentially an electric drive, with the electricity produced by a hydrogen and oxygen chemical reaction.

A hydrogen combustion engine uses hydrogen and oxygen but rather than a 'chemical reaction' in a fuel cell, they are burnt in an engine** in a 'traditional' petrol engine style, and that drives the gearbox and drive train etc as we're used to. The only output is water. The reason they don't use hydrogen combustion engines is that for it to work, the hydrogen still has to be in liquid form - which means incredibly cold, and under extreme pressure. The fuel cell does not have this problem. The hydrogen combustion engine block also has to be thicker and heavier than a traditional block, which means the engine weighs more.

** As someone will point out, burning things together is a chemical reaction. What I mean is that in the hydrogen combustion engine, it's more like a traditional petrol engine, which the fuel cell reaction is a completely different type of chemical reaction.

[Adam43]

Another advantage of the fuel cell is that you can use electric motors and the inherent advantages of those (torque, drivetrain). Managed properly you can also extract the power from the fuel in the most efficient way. Whereas a combustion engine rarely runs at its most efficient point.

When you are making a race car the designers ask themselves if they want a louder noise of a faster car. Actually they don’t even ask because they inherently go for the latter.

I love the noise, but I only love it when it is an unintended consequence of the production of power. My road car has an exhaust setting. It makes no difference to the performance of the car, but just makes the exhaust louder and poppy and bangy. It’s stupid. I don’t appreciate that noise.

On the hobby car I fitted a different exhaust. Gets me a few horses. It also makes it louder. The unintended consequence is excellent here. I appreciate it.

I hope I am getting my point across. The noise appeals, but don’t set the regulations for the benefit of the noise. That’s backwards.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Another advantage of the fuel cell is that you can use electric motors and the inherent advantages of those (torque, drivetrain). Managed properly you can also extract the power from the fuel in the most efficient way. Whereas a combustion engine rarely runs at its most efficient point.

When you are making a race car the designers ask themselves if they want a louder noise of a faster car. Actually they don’t even ask because they inherently go for the latter.

I love the noise, but I only love it when it is an unintended consequence of the production of power. My road car has an exhaust setting. It makes no difference to the performance of the car, but just makes the exhaust louder and poppy and bangy. It’s stupid. I don’t appreciate that noise.

On the hobby car I fitted a different exhaust. Gets me a few horses. It also makes it louder. The unintended consequence is excellent here. I appreciate it.

I hope I am getting my point across. The noise appeals, but don’t set the regulations for the benefit of the noise. That’s backwards.

+1

[Akrapovic]

Totally understand the point.

To be fair, we have the technology to allow a combustion engine to run at it's most efficient point at almost 100% of the time - that's what a CVT gearbox is for. When Williams tested that it was rumoured that even during the first on-track tests, it was several seconds a lap faster. Some electric motor advantages are genuine, whilst some are because the equivalent technology for an ICE has been banned. We'd get improved fuel and performance from ICE if we opened up the regulations in that regard.

I totally accept the point that the noise is a by-product, but I do think these things are important. Visuals are also a by-product, but that doesn't stop regulations outlawing stupid nub noises, stepped noises and similar odd appendages on F1 cars. There's no reason for dealing with that other than aesthetics, and noise is a type of aesthetic. I honestly don't have a problem with some sort of regulations which help improve the aesthetics. But even ignoring that, the current regulations aren't great for diversity. The GT regulations heavily favour smaller engines with turbos - so losing the sound is a by-product of decreased diversity allowed by the regulations, which is a shame.

My problem with the lack of sound isn't that we'll lose it from one car. It's that we'll lose it from all cars. Less atmosphere, less diversity and less personality.

In regards to Audi, the fuel cell stuff is interesting because they aren't pushing that in road cars as far as I'm aware. So unless there are projects in Audi they aren't talking publically about (although they do tend to talk about these publically, to show positive steps post dieselgate), then I'm surprised Audi would look at that for racing.

[Adam43]

Yes CVT, could help that for an ICE. Still need a complicated gearbox, but it gets you there. Thing is that would probably have a detrimental impact on the sound appreciation stakes.

I totally agree with what you say visuals and the parallels there too. There are cars that are very beautiful and it has come from form following function. That has been depiminished by regulations. The form can’t breathe because of the boxes it is too.

Also on visuals there is a similar example as the exhaust. All these styling vents we get nowadays that don’t actually do anything. These are awful. Now some extra louvres in a bonnet because the thing will over heat without is great, ducting on new Jags that is actually blanked off, pathetic.

Not commenting on Audi specifically, but all solutions are still possible at the moment. BEV may be the favoured at the moment, but that’s because it is more developed (car and infrastructure) at present. Who knows what the future brings?

Other than it’ll be worse, obviously

[Sodemo]

In an ideal world, all propulsion types would be viable. The move towards turbo charged engines is only happening because the rules dictate that it gives them a performance advantage over naturally aspirated engines. If the rules were written in a way that it didn't give an advantage, you would still see NA engines being competitive.

For example, if a turbo engine had this configuration;
V6 Twin Turbo 1.8L - Fuel tank = 50L, Chassis weight 950kg

And an NA car had this;
V10 3.0L - Fuel tank = 65L, Chassis weight 900kg

...we would still see NA competing and being competitive, but no, thats not what the ACO want. They want people to move to turbo charging and alternative fuels etc.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

In an ideal world, all propulsion types would be viable. The move towards turbo charged engines is only happening because the rules dictate that it gives them a performance advantage over naturally aspirated engines. If the rules were written in a way that it didn't give an advantage, you would still see NA engines being competitive.

For example, if a turbo engine had this configuration;
V6 Twin Turbo 1.8L - Fuel tank = 50L, Chassis weight 950kg

And an NA car had this;
V10 3.0L - Fuel tank = 65L, Chassis weight 900kg

...we would still see NA competing and being competitive, but no, thats not what the ACO want. They want people to move to turbo charging and alternative fuels etc.

But whichever engine gives the team the advantage will be run and the others abandoned. It's not the rules but the efficiency of modelling that leads us down the road of singular engine answers. Teams don't have to test out the engines, they know what will meet the rules before any metal parts are made.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

...we would still see NA competing and being competitive, but no, thats not what the ACO want. They want people to move to turbo charging and alternative fuels etc.

This is painfully untrue

[canaglia]

Yeah, audi may be back in 2022, but don't think WEC will last so long....