[WEC] LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules - now hypercar rules)

[hcl123]

Heck!... the torque is potentially so big, that a diesel version of this Revetec for an LPM would only need 3 or 4 gear ratios ... (2014 we will start to see many 7 ratio gearboxes).

Only a 4 cylinder in X as the example... is equivalent to 12 cylinders that used to run some years ago... is 2.4L in the example... no! its equivalent 7.2 L of the obsolete tech that we are used to ... that small motorbike engine in that picture LOL

may look large but is very thin... imagine 8 cylinders lol

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Another design somehow kind of inspired on Bourke, without lateral parasitic torque forces is this

http://www.revetec.com/

Ingenious design to, gives very light and compact configurations, up to 4 cylinder per double trilobate (3 lobed) .



Its more of an orthodox design with an open "crank" case (so to speak since it has no crankshaft whatsoever)... typical for 4 stroke... but it could also be adapted for 2 stroke... and has no problem with petrol, or the problems of lubrication and cooling of Bourke.

A 4 piston in "X" configuration with double trilobate



The remarkable thing is that it does 3 firings(since its trilobate, 3 times up and down per revolution) per 2 revolutions of each cylinder... while a normal 4 stroke engine with a stupid crankshaft of today only does 1 firing per 2 revolutions in each cylinder. So the output of this engine has a tremendous torque, so much that the output rotation is multiplied by 3x, that is, if the engine internally in the trilobate rotation is doing 1k RPM, the output is 3K RPM ( or 6K if another multiplying (+2 x) with a bigger flywheel, as is common with many 4 stroke engines of today-> output 2x crankshatf) in the engine output plate.

So the Revetec itself revs very low (3 to 4 K RPM max) but has a tremendous output... 12 to 24K RPM( if 6 X the lobates)... so is very economical also.

A prototype build tested and deployed ( the whole think is going really commercial soon... he!.. i hope!.)



we could yet see this in a LMP ... it can even pass the stipulations of having everything reciprocating ( poppit valves etc) ... don't now if a reciprocating crankshaft is mandatory or if the stupid FIA/ACO would classify this as a rotary engine ( which obviously is not).

Rotaries aside, I hope FIA/ACO would not get stingy on engine configurations. Having this X-shaped configuration is unique in my opinion. Let's hope that it can run both petrol and diesel.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

SportAuto.de have published an interesting article about the Porsche 919 Hybrid confirming that the engine is a wide-angle 2.0L V4 with a single turbo inside the V:


There is furthermore a suggestion that Porsche have opted for the 8 MJ/lap ERS option:


Indeed, the only ERS option that comes close to the quoted figure of 134.8 MJ/lap is the 8 MJ/lap ERS option for which the petrol energy allocation is 134.9 MJ/lap according to Appendix B of the 2014 LMP1 Technical Regulations as published on December 19th, 2013.

Yes and their solution is identical to Audi with an ERS-K and ERS-H (exhaust)... and they will only use traction release on the front axle (if the translation is any good !..)

http://translate.google.com/translat...e-8014374.html

"Under these circumstances, we have decided to use a traction engine at the front, giving better weight distribution of the vehicle," explains Alexander hitzinger.

Unless they surprise Toyota will still have the advantage of handling with 2 ERS-K one per axle (something like torque vectoring effects, with fast but tight cornering trajectories, comes to mind)... and Audi will have clearly the advantage of power (torque) with the Diesel, even if they go only for 6MJ/lap.

@ Spyderman

Toyota has always run at 100% like everybody else... but their advantage as been cornering speed ( just a little better than Audi), and braking distances(on braking they clearly gain a lot of ground). IIRC Toyota in 2013 never passed an Audi on a straight (equal tire conditions on dry) on pure acceleration.

Without the 120kmh limitation some *tiny* advantage Toyota had on 2012 on ERS-K kicking in, nullified in 2013, will revert back to Audi advantage (pure acceleration just after slow(er) corners,and from the very begging-> engine rulez lol!). I don't think Porsche can't counter point this, not with a petrol engine, not with only 2L even if turbo, and not with only 1 traction ERS-K.

But from first views it seems Porsche has made a terrific job in lowering the center of gravity of the car... their car looks the widest of all because they tryed to push all car masses down (the stepped roof top is evidence). Perhaps they will try to battle Toyota in cornering speeds, but in braking distances Toyota is hard to beat(and normal aspirated engines help in this edt), even more so because in 2014 is the only one with 2 traction/recuperative braking ERSs, one per axle, while the rest only has one 1 axle.

Porsche may have a chance in "slower" circuits... yet i think Toyota is the one with more chances there... on the faster or fastest circuits Audi will be king again.

[Spyderman]

Thank you hcl123. We are in agreement. ( I have found your posts with calculations far beyond my comprehension to be most informative) Thank you once again.

[hcl123]

you'r welcome ! lol

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by TF110

...... Anyone with any idea?

Here few ideas....

I believe drag is going to be the biggest issue in 2014. If you take the drag numbers from a 2013 car, no one can make a full lap at LeMans with the fuel allocation. So teams need to focus on drag, so they can actually make a complete lap without lifting. Once you start lowering drag, you lose downforce. You can lose it at different rates as each team will apply different tricks, but the 2014 cars will have slower cornering speeds, not just because they are narrower, but because the downforce will be sacrificed to the point they all get their drag numbers to allow them full lap at speed for the given fuel.

My feeling is, from looking at the Porsche design, that they are focused on drag reduction a lot more than expected. Perhaps their bet is to sacrifice cornering speed, but then to have plenty straight line speed, which counts a lot at LeMans. Low drag would also get you extra lap or maybe even more on the same tank, which at the end of the day could work for them. It is a big gamble and if you do the calculations, they may be onto something, but the actual races will show if the simulations can meet real life situation.

On the other hand, I believe Audi's game is in the "nobody knows what the diesels actually do". That is, my feeling is their engine is so unbelievably amazing, that they actually do NOT need the hybrid at all, so they can subscribe to the 2 MJ story just because they can not go with 0 MJ. But I suspect the diesels they have are far ahead from what anyone is even daydreaming about. Rumors were they ran in Sebring in non-hybrid configuration and people were wondering why. I believe is because they just don't need it.

Toyota is the really interesting car to me, because it would be interesting to see what they have opted for and it would be interesting also to see if they can get away with higher downforce numbers/higher drag - how do they do it and to what extend they would be willing to sacrifice downforce for drag. My personal expectation is that they will be somewhere in the middle between P-car and Audi, but we have to wait and see which part of the "middle" that would be. Their package my be overall the best compromise, but it will be so hard to fight with the Audis because I suspect we have never actually seen the full potential of their diesels to this date. I believe they are smart enough to always win by "just enough" to let everyone believe they are within reach, but in reality they never had the need to unleash the full potential.

But that is what makes 2014 a very interesting year as very soon we are going to see who's bet on the drawing board was the best on the track.

[GTfour]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Thank you hcl123. We are in agreement. ( I have found your posts with calculations far beyond my comprehension to be most informative) Thank you once again.

I second that. Great tech info there hcl123.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

Toyota had the same top speed as Audi at LeMans iirc, maybe faster (2012 they did)? At Spa they were very equal in that category. The lower drag of the Toyota kept them in the same ballpark. I think everyone knows the diesel made a good bit more power. But they sacrificed fuel economy as well. I think it will be much easier for Toyota to use the hybrid power. They wont have any issue with generating enough energy with both axels recovering. Im not sure how much energy an exhaust recovery system is worth. Anyone with any idea?

No it hadn't specially on straights... and specially at night when the air is colder/denser...and the diesel can overcome some of the constraint of running with an "hand covering their mouth" ( the stupid imposition of the admission restrictors)

An onboard video that starts with a Toyota in front(onboard)... goes middle with the Audi's 2 and 3 chasing it , up until the Audi 2 passes the toyota in the straight before the 2th chicane (2th lap at 2/3 of the video)... ends with the toyota (onboard) chasing the Audi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0zAoD0iHUA

Clearly where the Toyota gains is in braking distances... if you said most of time lap times of Toyota and Audi are identical, one goes faster at accelerating the other faster at breaking and it balances off, we are in agreement... but at night it seems the balance tips off a little in favor of Audi.. Audi won Le Mans 2013 at night, Treullier crashed Toyota party in Shangai at night...

Another video showing the excellent handling of the Toyota and the amazing braking power...on wet it clearly gains for Audi approaching corners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cpGOAA1YlA

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Here few ideas....

I believe drag is going to be the biggest issue in 2014. If you take the drag numbers from a 2013 car, no one can make a full lap at LeMans with the fuel allocation. So teams need to focus on drag, so they can actually make a complete lap without lifting. Once you start lowering drag, you lose downforce. You can lose it at different rates as each team will apply different tricks, but the 2014 cars will have slower cornering speeds, not just because they are narrower, but because the downforce will be sacrificed to the point they all get their drag numbers to allow them full lap at speed for the given fuel.

My feeling is, from looking at the Porsche design, that they are focused on drag reduction a lot more than expected. Perhaps their bet is to sacrifice cornering speed, but then to have plenty straight line speed, which counts a lot at LeMans. Low drag would also get you extra lap or maybe even more on the same tank, which at the end of the day could work for them. It is a big gamble and if you do the calculations, they may be onto something, but the actual races will show if the simulations can meet real life situation.

On the other hand, I believe Audi's game is in the "nobody knows what the diesels actually do". That is, my feeling is their engine is so unbelievably amazing, that they actually do NOT need the hybrid at all, so they can subscribe to the 2 MJ story just because they can not go with 0 MJ. But I suspect the diesels they have are far ahead from what anyone is even daydreaming about. Rumors were they ran in Sebring in non-hybrid configuration and people were wondering why. I believe is because they just don't need it.

Toyota is the really interesting car to me, because it would be interesting to see what they have opted for and it would be interesting also to see if they can get away with higher downforce numbers/higher drag - how do they do it and to what extend they would be willing to sacrifice downforce for drag. My personal expectation is that they will be somewhere in the middle between P-car and Audi, but we have to wait and see which part of the "middle" that would be. Their package my be overall the best compromise, but it will be so hard to fight with the Audis because I suspect we have never actually seen the full potential of their diesels to this date. I believe they are smart enough to always win by "just enough" to let everyone believe they are within reach, but in reality they never had the need to unleash the full potential.

But that is what makes 2014 a very interesting year as very soon we are going to see who's bet on the drawing board was the best on the track.

I dont think Audi is fooling anyone. They may have the most experience in endurance racing with a diesel, but their tech is not some space age magic. Peugeot beat them at their own game in terms of power and speed. Audi imo was just smarter in strategy and had some good fortunes on their side to lose to Peugeot only once. Everyone knows what diesel is truly capable of. Toyota has companies they own that do diesel. They have their own diesels. Porsche are part of VAG, theyre not clueless either. No more leaning the rules in diesel's favor I think.

Anyway, my question was more asking what type of power could be expected to be recovered from the exhaust gasses?

[hcl123]

Also also Toyota didn't sacrifice fuel... its that way alright... the gearbox like the Audi's is very well balanced, and in toyota to work most of the time in medium high revs where torque and power is best in that normal aspirated engine.

Their *braking* power has much to do(at least some) with the balancing of the electric recuperative braking action... without it (hybrid power) most likely short braking distances wont be so good, matter of fact without it that engine doesn't have the "push" (torque) to splash so fast out of slower corner, like the chicanes, as it does... almost looks like a diesel lol

Toyota to me seems the best balanced car bare none... absolutely brilliant... that car with a diesel engine and Audi would had been in woe by now. If Porsche can pass that without a diesel engine seems very unlikely for the first year.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

Peugeot only once. Everyone knows what diesel is truly capable of. Toyota has companies they own that do diesel. They have their own diesels. Porsche are part of VAG, theyre not clueless either. No more leaning the rules in diesel's favor I think.

No! i don't think yet ... that is , have you noticed that in 2013 Truellier with 3.22 pole was approaching the records of the big V12s ? ... with half cylinders, and lot of less displacement... and with narrower and narrower intake retrictors... that is the one thing that penalizes much more diesel than petrol -> petrol needs RPM (its throttled), diesel wants to "breath" (its throttle-less) lol.

There is a reason why Audi stayed with diesel. Matter of fact i think their 2014 engine will have a little less displacement (perhaps < 3.5L) with a little more turbo, in spite of the roof top air intake been considerably larger than in 2013, suggesting the contrary... it could be more economical yet more powerful... now it can "breath" ! lol

The future of petrol also points to "throttle-less" engines... for that they would have to discover ways to make petrol a decent engine at "lean" fuel air mixtures... and better direct injection systems with the same *STRATIFIED* action of the diesel injectors ... but then know what ?... most of the *noise* will be gone LOL...

Mercedes Benz seems on the right track ( though i don't think they can surpass the advantage of diesel fuel, either for lean combustion either for superior efficiency derived from compression ratios... ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE OTHER, so potentially diesel will be superior)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014...140207-mb.html

Originally Posted by TF110

Anyway, my question was more asking what type of power could be expected to be recovered from the exhaust gasses?

A lot... *but* the problem with Audi, since it has a flywheel, is the potential of this contraption... according to this http://www.flybridsystems.com/F1System.html it started with

60 KW and 400Kj usable per lap

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918 ..and the RSR model with a flywheel.. and since its the same Volkswagen Group... they are pointing to 150 to 160KW (200 -210 hp), but with an usable energy density that i think doesn't surpass 1MJ ( to spin faster the flywheel *can't* be much bigger).. .so to have 8MJ per lap ERS-H will be needed

Toyota OTOH is already 220KW (300 hp)... and form some of the statements are pointing the same 1MJ.. perhaps a little more... (for sure they will need double VERY GOOD recuperative action)

Meaning Toyota "push" from hybrid, will be much stronger in the bursts but less in duration..

Porsche with a battery will be like Audi... perhaps in between... perhaps a little better since the reason of a V4 is a lot of battery (for more power dense)... so they could go to 200KW yet have longer burst than Toyota ( for the same 8 Mj)

All in all for what wins races Toyota in the hybrid part is the best equipped (and that as a lot to do with "capacitor")... its possible Audi will stay only at 6MJ, a little more fuel flow ratio might help the engine, and in this part Audi is clearly the best.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by deggis

I didn't directly claim anything.

They have obviously opted for the "Tortoise" strategy (much to my chagrin), and whilst I get the "efficiency" thing, neither Audi nor Toyota are complete idiots, so someone has their figures wrong.

That's the part I didn't get. "Obviously" at this point when not a single race has been run under the new regs yet and there is no statement or anything hinting at such tortoise strategy in the first place. I don't think the engine configuration is a proof considering what has been expected... small turbos. If anything Toyota's engine choice should cause more eye rolling because it is most likely not a clean sheet design and possibly budget played a role in that decision.

That fine. You, like the rest of us, are entitled to your opinions and are free to express them (although now-a-days I have my doubts). Perhaps expressing them in a less facetious and aggressive way will avoid unwarranted conflict.

[hcl123]

I believe drag is going to be the biggest issue in 2014. If you take the drag numbers from a 2013 car, no one can make a full lap at LeMans with the fuel allocation.

He! a circular statement and not at all truth. To have more downforce usually implies more drag... and this drag only penalizes the very top of the top speed.. much more important is how fast you get there, and to be fast accelerating you need downforce (so drag).

2014 will have more downforce, the rear wing is larger and there is a front wing... so there will be a little more drag. Of course who can maintain high downforce with less drag will be better, but i wouldn't sacrifice much downforce for less drag, lap times would be worst for sure no matter if you could reach higher *kmh* in the straights.

Besides the cars are *lighter* and just a little more aerodynamic (front coefficient)... so even if you eliminate a good deal of drag top speeds wouldn't be that much higher... cornering speed and balance are as important if not more ( like everything **balance** is needed, including drag)

----
As for the fuel... you can finish a lap even with much less fuel than you are imagining... you have to go slower lol

To maintain "performances" means your engine must be more efficient... same performance for less fuel... that is why everybody will have new engines, and in the management of the engine, no matter how powerful they could be is the biggest secret ( longer gear rations, more torque for lower revs, cylinder deactivation, very precise fuel injections etc etc --> and hybrid power can help very much accomplish this efficiently)

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by hcl123

He! a circular statement and not at all truth. To have more downforce usually implies more drag... and this drag only penalizes the very top of the top speed.. much more important is how fast you get there, and to be fast accelerating you need downforce (so drag).

2014 will have more downforce, the rear wing is larger and there is a front wing... so there will be a little more drag. Of course who can maintain high downforce with less drag will be better, but i wouldn't sacrifice much downforce for less drag, lap times would be worst for sure no matter if you could reach higher *kmh* in the straights.

Besides the cars are *lighter* and just a little more aerodynamic (front coefficient)... so even if you eliminate a good deal of drag top speeds wouldn't be that much higher... cornering speed and balance are as important if not more ( like everything **balance** is needed, including drag)

----
As for the fuel... you can finish a lap even with much less fuel than you are imagining... you have to go slower lol

To maintain "performances" means your engine must be more efficient... same performance for less fuel... that is why everybody will have new engines, and in the management of the engine, no matter how powerful they could be is the biggest secret ( longer gear rations more torque for lower revs etc etc --> and hybrid power can help very much accomplish this efficiently)

So; and let me put this in simplistic laymen terms (as I grapple with trying to get my head around the Porsche 2.0L V4 option):
Porsche have opted for the small (in comparison to the competition) V4 Engine for efficiency. They have added the turbo in order to get torque (along with the engine design) and some horsepower (550hp-600hp?) and are relying on the hybrid systems to add to the efficiency and torque.
I continue to have my doubts that the 20.L V4 will be up to the task of taking on the bigger engines from the competition, but am I correct in saying that it seems that Porsche have tried to go for a overall "balanced" package that will produce a car that will be "a car of many trades, but master of none" (so to speak)? (I understand that they had reduced options as they needed to go for the gasoline option).

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by hcl123

He! a circular statement and not at all truth. To have more downforce usually implies more drag... and this drag only penalizes the very top of the top speed.. much more important is how fast you get there, and to be fast accelerating you need downforce (so drag).

Think again....

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

So; and let me put this in simplistic laymen terms (as I grapple with trying to get my head around the Porsche 2.0L V4 option):
Porsche have opted for the small (in comparison to the competition) V4 Engine for efficiency. They have added the turbo in order to get torque (along with the engine design) and some horsepower (550hp-600hp?) and are relying on the hybrid systems to add to the efficiency and torque.
I continue to have my doubts that the 20.L V4 will be up to the task of taking on the bigger engines from the competition, but am I correct in saying that it seems that Porsche have tried to go for a overall "balanced" package that will produce a car that will be "a car of many trades, but master of none" (so to speak)? (I understand that they had reduced options as they needed to go for the gasoline option).

It a question of balance... and in that engine design and its management counts a lot.

In F1, the 4 cylinder engines with 1.5L, turbo, went to races with more than 900hp and more than 500Nm... in tests some passed the 1000 hp... Of course for this they had to rev (RPM) high since they were already at the top of how much fuel+air you could put on a cylinder without knock. That high rev and that amount of fuel+air was reached with turbo pressures of 4bar and higher... and the combustion of the fuel+air had to be on the rich (very) side (soaked in fuel literally-> has a cooling effect) exactly to avoid knock...

So that *little* engine was even more of a gas guzzler then the bigger 3.5 L V12s. Now days this extreme could had produced engines with 1500hp or more which is quite a waste.

And quite a waste because in the example of 1.5L turbo to reach 4+bar of pressure it takes a while... turbo lag is very pronounced... and leads to sudden burst of power making the car dangerous. So the *hp* and the *torque* take some time to came.. and bursted... which is far than ideal for races... ( it can have gazzilions of hp and torque, but if takes an eternity to get there your engine is absolute crap for races )

So a V4 2L turbo can have lots of power... but it has inherently a low torque at low(er) revs, and to have lots of power it must sacrifice some of the extraordinary fuel economy at lower revs by *constantly* reving much higher... so again its balance... how much economic it has to start with, how much does it sacrifice to be competitive...

2 things seems clear... it *can't* have the same torque of a diesel (even in V6 approaching the 900 Nm)... and for sure it *can* have more power (hp not torque) than the Toyota NA V8...

So its not inherently lack of potential... the problem is how much they will trash on the conditionals of efficiency and usability to get higher potentials... and in this is where it seems short, at least in the first year, specially because torque can be more important than hp... unless they can balance this off!...

So there are engines and engines... but hey!... there are electric motors and electric motors...

And that is the other side of the coin... if Porsche could come out with a super electric motor(tremendous power (torque) for the electric consumption foreseen), with the 8 MJ the conditional of the engine can be relaxed a lot, specially because the hybrid "push" happens where it matters the most...

So lets wait and see ... but don't get too much hope... not even Porsche as officially stated has it lol

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Think again....

Of course who can maintain high downforce with less drag will be better, but i wouldn't sacrifice much downforce for less drag, lap times would be worst for sure no matter if you could reach higher *kmh* in the straights.

What is the reason why Audi went with a bow diffuser( a way to produce *downforce* without drag)... when stated by the developer that it could waste up to 20% of fuel economy to function the most efficiently ?

answer that convincingly and correctly ... then i'll think again

[silente]

well, as far as i know, Audi did have a kind of blown diffuser, but they were not using more fuel to create an effect similar to the one used in F1.

They were simply using more fuel because they wanted to have more power --> being faster on lap times. They have proved that this strategy worked: their purpose was to be faster in a lap so to compensate for the less fuel economy and the higher number of pit stops they had to do.

On the other hand, i agree about the downforce vs drag story: to reduce downforce too aggressively in order to have a very low drag could be very counterproductive.

But also remember that 2014 cars will have some 10 cm smaller width compared to 2013. I am pretty sure, as you said, that downforce could potentially increase because of the rules, but reduced frontal area will also play a role.

[deltawing]

The conversation is about 2014, there are no blown diffusers, and there are fuel limitations per lap, so no one is even going to think of burning fuel to enhance DF, even if it was allowed.

Think again about the DF vs Drag relation, especially when you talk about "drag hurts only the top of the top speed". According to your statements, a higher DF car will accelerate faster to 300 km/h than a low drag car, everything else being equal..... now, think again, considering that a high DF car (which according to you comes with high drag) can not even get to 300 km/h - so how is it faster to get there if it can not even get there?

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by hcl123

It a question of balance... and in that engine design and its management counts a lot.

In F1, the 4 cylinder engines with 1.5L, turbo, went to races with more than 900hp and more than 500Nm... in tests some passed the 1000 hp... Of course for this they had to rev (RPM) high since they were already at the top of how much fuel+air you could put on a cylinder without knock. That high rev and that amount of fuel+air was reached with turbo pressures of 4bar and higher... and the combustion of the fuel+air had to be on the rich (very) side (soaked in fuel literally-> has a cooling effect) exactly to avoid knock...

So that *little* engine was even more of a gas guzzler then the bigger 3.5 L V12s. Now days this extreme could had produced engines with 1500hp or more which is quite a waste.

And quite a waste because in the example of 1.5L turbo to reach 4+bar of pressure it takes a while... turbo lag is very pronounced... and leads to sudden burst of power making the car dangerous. So the *hp* and the *torque* take some time to came.. and bursted... which is far than ideal for races... ( it can have gazzilions of hp and torque, but if takes an eternity to get there your engine is absolute crap for races )

So a V4 2L turbo can have lots of power... but it has inherently a low torque at low(er) revs, and to have lots of power it must sacrifice some of the extraordinary fuel economy at lower revs by *constantly* reving much higher... so again its balance... how much economic it has to start with, how much does it sacrifice to be competitive...

I sort of ignored the F1 power and engine stats as F1 engines (at that time) had very little durability and even less efficiency.
If we work off the 3.6L Turbo Boxster engine (480) which produces +/- 133hp/L and the current 3.8L Boxster Turbo (560) that produces +/- 147hp/L and assume that the new 2.0L V4 Racing engine manages to produce double the hp/L (due to design, higher revs, etc) then we arrive at an estimated hp figure ranging from 266hp/L= 532hp and 294hp/L = 588hp
Do you think my estimates are way off?

[JoestForEver]

The reason why a small displacment turbo from Porsche suprises us is because really really, few of them ever succeed.
As far as the very early WR01 a 2.0L Peugeot turbo has only 350hp but it's reliable enough to run 24 hours. And none of the 2.0T ever had a good story later on, the Lola MG LMP675, AMR One, Dyson-Mazda(Elan), either lack of power or lack of endurability.
I'm pretty sure the 2.0 V4 from Porsche won't have power more than 550hp, less than Toyota, but they will have mid-range torque advantage when it comes to a straight. Remember what happened in 2012 at Road America between Lucus Luhr and Guy Smith?

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by hcl123

A lot... *but* the problem with Audi, since it has a flywheel, is the potential of this contraption... according to this http://www.flybridsystems.com/F1System.html it started with

60 KW and 400Kj usable per lap

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918 ..and the RSR model with a flywheel.. and since its the same Volkswagen Group... they are pointing to 150 to 160KW (200 -210 hp), but with an usable energy density that i think doesn't surpass 1MJ ( to spin faster the flywheel *can't* be much bigger).. .so to have 8MJ per lap ERS-H will be needed

Toyota OTOH is already 220KW (300 hp)... and form some of the statements are pointing the same 1MJ.. perhaps a little more... (for sure they will need double VERY GOOD recuperative action)

60kw and 400KJ is restricted by F1 regs as the flywheel is developed originally by Williams but abandoned for packaging issues.(The volume)
And under the 2011-regs of LMP1, any more energy above 500KJ is meaningless as this is all you can get each harvest zone. So there is no need for either of the dual to introduce a system with the capacity of 1MJ.
According to Porsche's press release, 911 GT3 R Hybrid is able to do another lap more than normal 911 GT3 R, with 120Kw of 6 to 8 seconds, so that's 960KJ at most. http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/15/p...-drive-review/ also the 911 GT3-R Hybrid 2.0 Version is having 150kw, same as 2012 R18, at 36000rpm. Don't forget on R18 it's 45,000. So I doubt if 160kw is the honest figure.
I know it's off topic of this thread again, and move it if so (Thanks ).

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by deltawing

The conversation is about 2014, there are no blown diffusers, and there are fuel limitations per lap, so no one is even going to think of burning fuel to enhance DF, even if it was allowed.

Think again about the DF vs Drag relation, especially when you talk about "drag hurts only the top of the top speed". According to your statements, a higher DF car will accelerate faster to 300 km/h than a low drag car, everything else being equal..... now, think again, considering that a high DF car (which according to you comes with high drag) can not even get to 300 km/h - so how is it faster to get there if it can not even get there?

To reach the 320 to 330kmh that the LMP1s are reaching now you don't need that much horse power... Mercedes did that in 1970 with a car with a diesel engine with only 190 hp. Of course it was a very aerodynamic design with very low drag, but just imagine the passe of acceleration !!!.. perhaps not even a long aviation runway would suffice to reach that front standing still ( most certainly not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_automobile_racing (diesel racing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C111 ( the C111-III )

So if you have fast circuits with some long straights its obvious the winner is the one who can accelerate faster... when we say engines have 500 to 600 hp is really overkill, but even so its a max number, what happens in between is more important, that is, its very important to put the very high levels of power into the ground instantaneously along the all phase of acceleration... straights are not that long... so seems to me downforce can play a much decisive role than drag.

On slower circuits with lots of slow(er) curves, more prevalent is the play of downforce (into limits)... more so because its also important for cornering speed.

EDIT: Matter of fact the Toyota V8 can have a little more horsepower (hp) than the Audi diesel.. but for sure the Audi can accelerate a little faster along those strights ... that is one PROPAGANDA misconception ppl have not yet overcame... more hp doesn't mean faster in any situation but very loooooong striaghts

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by hcl123

So if you have fast circuits with some long straights its obvious the winner is the one who can accelerate faster... when we say engines have 500 to 600 hp is really overkill, but even so its a max number, what happens in between is more important, that is, its very important to put the very high levels of power into the ground instantaneously along the all phase of acceleration... straights are not that long... so seems to me downforce can play a much decisive role than drag.

I have to agree, during 2011 le mans because of lower drag design than the R18, peugeot 908 was able to hit more than 340km/h on mulsanne, with the R18 also 10km/h slower. Assuming that audi and peugeot had a comparable power output, audi having more downforce was slower on straight but faster than peugeot in the porsche sector.
Result = peugeot 908 fastest laps were slower than R18 fastest laps.
Of course Audi paid this strategy with a worse fuel miliage, afterall more downforoce = more drag = more kg that push the car down to the road = heavier car = more consumes.
With a better fuel consume optimized engine there are no doubts that downforce is more important than low drag, also in tracks with long straights.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I sort of ignored the F1 power and engine stats as F1 engines (at that time) had very little durability and even less efficiency.
If we work off the 3.6L Turbo Boxster engine (480) which produces +/- 133hp/L and the current 3.8L Boxster Turbo (560) that produces +/- 147hp/L and assume that the new 2.0L V4 Racing engine manages to produce double the hp/L (due to design, higher revs, etc) then we arrive at an estimated hp figure ranging from 266hp/L= 532hp and 294hp/L = 588hp
Do you think my estimates are way off?

I think are close ... but doesn't matter much... much more important would be the figures of Torque (Nm or ft/lb ) along the reving. And electric motors also have a considerable say (very high instantaneous torque density figures).

In pure engine torque figures nothing can beat the diesels... yet a turbo petrol can also have higher torque figures than a normal aspirated engine even with much lower displacements, so Porsche bet is not that crazy.

Then all depends how efficiently you put those levels of power into the ground.

A better metric for engines (independent of fuel etc) is MEP (Mean Effective Pressure) that is the average effective pressure that an engine generates inside the cylinders... and in that figures turbo diesel engines have more than double of petrol engines (from where comes the torque). But because higher pressures also mean higher resistances for internal rotation, diesel engines also tend to rev more than half slower( they must be heavier and more resistant to fatigues and internal forces).

But here is the catch... slower rotations can be much faster to attain than much higher rotations... and that is the secret that with some simulations pointed that diesel could be a very effective racing engine, no matter if they developed less "hp" ... and the rest is history as we use to say.

And with a page turned in motorsport history is clear that the current reciprocating engine designs with a crankshaft are not favorable to diesel engines at all, the much higher MEPs generated against the top of the cylinder head when tis is reaching TDC (top dead center - the highest point) rob then of much efficiency. A Rotary engine would be much better..

any doubt this one (on diesel) reached 3000hp and 5000 Nm ??
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=3148



other designs could also benefit diesel ... perhaps as much as petrol... http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...07659&page=211

That is why FIA/ACO banned rotary engines and demands everything reciprocating (selling liquid fuels the more the merrier with motorsport as propaganda vehicle, the catch). If its lifted and Mazda awakes up from hibernation with a Wankel type on diesel long before anyone else, we may have not only a repetition of once a success but a new king for many years (considering Hybrid remains equal to all).

So Porsche engine choice specifically, is not that all determinant... more determinant is the combination of engine and electric motor(s)... and for 2014 forward high levels of efficiency... yet Porsche is very good at turbo petrol engines since their involvement in F1 that brought Alan Prost a couple of championships... and has some experience with electric hybrids, so they are not off a priori.