|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 May 2014, 10:44 (Ref:3402435) | #3526 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Andrew Cotton also claims that the decision to abandon the ERS-H had no bearing on the hybrid class in which Audi are running. The ERS-H was apparently only going to be exploited to combat turbo-lag. As regards the so-called "ERS incentive", there was and still is nothing in the rules in that respect. This provision was introduced as part of the EoT process which was only announced back in December 2013. So Audi did not know about this "ERS incentive" when they made the choice to go for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option. It's however a bit surprising that Audi did not contemplate to keep their options open by testing different iterations of the hybrid system. Laudenbach is again reported to claim that they could have opted for the 4 MJ/lap ERS option instead. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
5 May 2014, 19:43 (Ref:3402564) | #3527 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Like I replied in the Audi thread, seems like the flywheel is the weak link in Audi's arsenal and in the hybrid group in general. If they had trouble doing 3.5mj last year yet still managed to go below 3:25 at Le Mans quite often, it suggests the diesel is stronger than what they lead on. I think everyone knows this though. I dont believe in the ers incentive thing btw. Just a what-if theory.
|
|
|
5 May 2014, 20:05 (Ref:3402573) | #3528 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
I don't agree with the flywheel being the weak link. The minimum weight is issue for Audi. It is too difficult to fit a big hybrid system and a heavy diesel engine.
|
|
|
5 May 2014, 20:16 (Ref:3402579) | #3529 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
I however don't get that the Audi diesel engine is "heavy" because, after all, that engine is lighter than the R8's engine (about 330lbs for the R8's engine), and the Porsche engine isn't exactly light because it's a turbocharged engine. And Toyota's engine is the heaviest of the V8s compared to like the Judd DB or the Zytek V8s (Toyota's V8 is almost 270-280lbs).
Biggest problem for Toyota and Porsche is that supercapacitors and battery's aren't exactly light. Biggest problem for Audi, though they may have a "heavy" engine, they do have a car that tends to be nose heavy. |
||
|
5 May 2014, 20:29 (Ref:3402586) | #3530 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Apparently its not on the level of the supercap nor the battery solution Porsche is using. At least, if they had trouble doing 3.5mj in 2013. So why is it Audi upsized the engine if its such a heavy unit? Didn't they claim weight savings on the engine side this year anyway? They do say its their lightest prototype yet. Why not downsize the engine and try for the 4mj with the flywheel instead would be my idea. They went another direction for a reason. Seems the reason is the flywheel is not worth the time and more fuel is.
On engine weight, Toyota says less than 100kg for last year, thats <220lbs. |
|
|
5 May 2014, 20:31 (Ref:3402588) | #3531 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
I'd actually argue that Audi's biggest problem is aero. Their downforce gives them tons of cornering speed and excellent tire life. But it also took about 5-10km/h off their top speeds compared to last year at most circuits.
Toyota, even in sprint trim, shed a bit of downforce to get more top speed compared to the TS030. At Spa, things were more lopsided because of the full season Audis running HD while Toyota and Porsche were LD. Things might level out in Audi's favor at other tracks where tire wear and cornering will be at a premium, but right now for speed circuits where top speed can be an advantage, they are at a disadvantage, not so much in pace, but they've got their speed advantage in the place that it's usually hardest to exploit to the full--the corners. That being said, the LD Audi was driven basically by rookie drivers who were probably ordered to bring the car home in one piece if possible--probably goal #1 for everyone on the team--and it seems that Audi were experimenting with strategies to evaluate at the LM test day. |
||
|
5 May 2014, 21:06 (Ref:3402613) | #3532 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
The Audi 3.6 V8 TFSI engine weighed 175 kg. See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2519525 Last year's Toyota 3.4 V8 engine weighed 100 kg. See http://ms.toyota.co.jp/en/wec/hv.html I would guess that the current Audi V6 TDI weighs at least 50 kg more than its petrol competitors. |
||
|
5 May 2014, 21:25 (Ref:3402620) | #3533 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
I am still very pessimistic for Le Mans. With the current EoT only Porsche will be able to challenge Toyota, but Porsche will lack the reliability to win Le mans. |
||
|
5 May 2014, 23:11 (Ref:3402636) | #3534 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Quote:
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 03:03 (Ref:3402668) | #3535 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 734
|
I believe the volume rather than weight is the problem for flywheel. Unlike capacitor and battery packs to be located with flexibility, the flywheel storage has to be located beside the driver. With greater ERS option than 4 MJ, Audi needs a flywheel of larger diameter, causing problem in arranging ballast and therefore, handling.
Also packaging(i.e. volume)is the reason why its supplier Williams gives up flywheel KERS on F1. From what the broadcast shows, the ERS system now works exactly like F1-the energy recovered this lap is available next lap-requiring a much better energy density than pre-2014 era. You need to store 2/4/6/8MJ now rather than 500KJ in the past. They need to double the diameter of flywheel if storage capacity jumps from 500KJ to 2MJ. Formula source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel Last edited by JoestForEver; 6 May 2014 at 03:23. |
||
__________________
Eat, sleep, race, repeat. |
6 May 2014, 06:08 (Ref:3402696) | #3536 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Is that apparent gap of performance solely due to the current EoT and its ERS incentive provision ? I would hope not as this would mean that Audi have absolutely no chance to recover this year, unless the EoT is changed after LM. That would furthermore mean that there is potentially something inherently flawed in the whole EoT process. I rather hope that Audi still have some more performance to produce out of their LM package to close that gap with Porsche and Toyota at LM. I would love to see a three-way battle between all three manufacturers. Is it unreasonable to hope this ? |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
6 May 2014, 08:32 (Ref:3402736) | #3537 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
It would be the failure of EoT if it became the deciding factor in the performances of the cars.
Why couldn't we just follow Group C fuel limits? |
|
|
6 May 2014, 08:42 (Ref:3402741) | #3538 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Because there are two different fuel types (petrol and diesel) and five different ERS options (0 MJ to 8 MJ). If everybody would compete with the same fuel and the same hybrid size, there would be no need for an EoT process
|
|
|
6 May 2014, 08:55 (Ref:3402748) | #3539 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
They cannot design and test (windtunnel + track) a new aero package in one month. The rear wing on the LM aero is already completely flat. They cannot design a new monocoque with the legality bump like Porsche, to lower the cockpit. They cannot change the fact that their big diesel engine requires more cooling (radiator + intercooler) than the petrol engines of their competitors. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 09:13 (Ref:3402754) | #3540 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Quote:
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 09:15 (Ref:3402756) | #3541 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Ban diesel +25kg ballast for every hybrid MJ (0MJ = 0kg, 8MJ = 200kg) Nothing else gets touched - not even fuel |
||
|
6 May 2014, 09:25 (Ref:3402758) | #3542 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 09:40 (Ref:3402761) | #3543 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
That would actually provide vair more verstatile class seeing as manufacturers weren't FORCED to go hybrid route, but choice was free as it currently is for privateers. And just adding weight to the cars is easy to explain, doesn't require tons of complicated math, doesn't need constant data logging and babysitting of manufacturers, doesn't need changing mid way season, and eliminates the fuel formula. And teams can still build the best car and hybrid system possible. Yes banning diesel would result in one less free format but it's not like that type of fuel is allowed in any other category either (got deleted from ACO P2 after Mazda got bored). One can point out what's the point of different fuels anyway if they just end up being performance balanced. It's not like things like tyres are equalized. Audi's had plenty of years to prove diesel and they've done so proudly, now time to move on. |
||
|
6 May 2014, 10:09 (Ref:3402766) | #3544 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 734
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yet again it means nothing arguing about whether 2014 EoT is equal or not, regardless of where the opinion comes from so I'm not going to say anything more about it. Number speaks and personally I respect simulation a bit more. Honestly, what I like it about the 2014-regs is that it makes exploring the rulebook fun even for funs like us. There's no more room for loophole-hunting and speculating as the rules have made performance predictable. Cool. |
||||
__________________
Eat, sleep, race, repeat. |
6 May 2014, 16:34 (Ref:3402920) | #3545 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
This is a repost of my post in the Audi thread:
Motorsport-total.com are reporting in this latest article that "ACO-FIA technical representatives" have declared at a press conference before the Spa race that Audi's deficit at LM resulting from their choice to opt for the lowest ERS option is expected to be in the range of 1.4 seconds per lap. That's a massive deficit: Quote:
Quote:
I must admit that I struggle a bit to understand the logic behind the ACO-FIA's apparent posture reported by motorsport-total.com. |
||||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
6 May 2014, 16:54 (Ref:3402929) | #3546 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Quote:
EDIT: Maybe they're considering introducing higher MJ classes later on in the regulations? |
|||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
6 May 2014, 16:54 (Ref:3402930) | #3547 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I would like to know what ACO's calculations for lap time difference were if Audi had chose 8MJ. Because that time gap does sound like penalty for opting for smaller system, no matter what is being said of there not being differrence. And that is fundamentally wrong.
Somehow I also don't think the diesel-petrol balance had been this restrictive if two manufacturers were running diesel against one petrol manufacturer. Say diesel Audi and Porsche vs petrol Toyota. Had Peugeot switched for petrol at some point, especially when AMR joined the show I'm sure the diesel had been dragged to pieces. You know what, I kinda now hope Audi gets the upper hand if Porsche (or Rebellion) cannot do anything. |
|
|
6 May 2014, 17:49 (Ref:3402962) | #3548 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Why would the ACO-FIA intentionally "distort" competition between three great manufacturers (and possibly one privateer team) by enforcing a rather "obscure" provision that basically amounts to putting one LMP1 player out of contention for a "fair" fight for victory (so it seems) ? Do the ACO-FIA want to teach a lesson of some sort to Audi ? On which ground ? Is that a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to force Audi to drop diesel technology ? All this is not a very "elegant" way (and I am carefully choosing my words) of approaching the matter. This sends the wrong message IMHO, both to potential new LMP1 entrants and to endurance fans. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
6 May 2014, 17:51 (Ref:3402963) | #3549 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
||
|
6 May 2014, 18:52 (Ref:3402992) | #3550 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
|
Quote:
Afterall, this is endurance racing and they are after increased efficiency, which is diesel's forte. It really is slightly ridicilous to be seeing diesel cars having shorter stints purely because of EoT. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |