|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
25 Jun 2014, 10:56 (Ref:3426262) | #1176 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Sounds like Rob Leupen knows his onions:
“From our point of view there is no balancing required, there is no review required,” he said. “They (Audi) should not get a change because they went out with a hybrid system that is not developed, that is off the shelf and is only two megajoules." I couldnt have said it better myself!!.....he obviously reads 10-10ths posts! |
||
|
25 Jun 2014, 11:01 (Ref:3426263) | #1177 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
25 Jun 2014, 13:09 (Ref:3426289) | #1178 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
That would be yet the latest in a series of rather uninformed comments from Mr. Leupen...
I don't know how anyone can believe a single word from any of the teams. Last year Audi said they could build a better petrol engine. At the same time, Toyota said the equivalency was wrong. This year it's role reversal. How can you reconcile the difference? Seems like we just end up here with baseless facts caused by overt brand favoritism... Last edited by Articus; 25 Jun 2014 at 13:19. |
|
|
25 Jun 2014, 13:39 (Ref:3426299) | #1179 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
Rob Leupen has always struck me as a very reasonable guy and I can see nothing wrong with his comments.
He's right about Audi not taking any risks at all with their car. Going by the current level of technology in LMP1-H, their car can be labeled as pretty conservative. That is their choice and it worked out in their favor at Le Mans, all fine. But I don't see why they should get any break. LMP1-H is all about innovation and Audi's doing very little on that front, especially compared to Toyota and Porsche. Rewarding them for that with a rules break would send the entirely wrong signal and actually discourage manufacturers from taking development risks, which is what Toyota & Porsche have done. The whole argument is simply not reasonable. Audi have just won Le Mans, less than two weeks ago. And yet they're already complaining again. It's so tiresome. |
|
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:01 (Ref:3426305) | #1180 | |
Rookie
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 51
|
So, Audi should not complain becouse they chose the simpler 2MJ hybrid option, and it is there fault that it is wors. But Toyota can complain that the diesel is better becouse they chose a simpler non turbocharged petrol engine for there car?
That makes sence. |
|
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:03 (Ref:3426306) | #1181 | |||
Racer
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:26 (Ref:3426316) | #1182 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
So they need to save more weight for using the more powerful system. The power is not the problem of the supercapacitors but they stored the power very fast and gave it also very fast back onto the drivetrain. So you cannot use your power over a longer time period which is possible with batteries. For me this is the reason why Toyota is looking for a combination of both systems to elimiate the only drawback of the supercapacitors. |
|||
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:33 (Ref:3426320) | #1183 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
Quote:
Words couldn't do justice for how wrong it would be for you to think that. |
||
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:34 (Ref:3426321) | #1184 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
Peugeot had nearly all the years the faster car but succeeded only once at LM and also Toyota failed until now. At LM the sentence " For to finish first you have first to finish" counts even more compared to all other races. Rob Leupen is a great guy, but using a term " shut up" is not okay against any rival, as it concerns no respect. Toyota know like all others that politics behind the lines is a great part of works motorsports and all manufacturers try to get and advantage by the rules. |
|||
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:38 (Ref:3426323) | #1185 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,510
|
Quote:
Looking forward to it already |
|||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
25 Jun 2014, 14:40 (Ref:3426326) | #1186 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
Conventional? It's a diesel. The Audi, Porsche, Toyota are all very innovative cars. To think that the Audi having a 2 MJ hybrid system makes it "conventional" or any less innovative than the Toyota or Porsche. Lets just break that line of thought ok?
|
|
|
25 Jun 2014, 14:51 (Ref:3426330) | #1187 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
It is fact that Peugeot had a more advanced car in terms engine, aero and mainly suspension system. Porsche uses a highly innovative engine/hybrid system. Toyota has a more advanced aerodynamics. Conventional does not mean old-fashioned or something like that. It only means that Audi did not take the same risks as their rivals. They used a bit more conventional route. Nevertheless they have great success and of course introduced their own innovative parts like first diesel engine, VGT's, laser light and so on. |
|||
|
25 Jun 2014, 15:15 (Ref:3426337) | #1188 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,884
|
Quote:
You get far further at LM through preparation than trying to be clever. |
|||
|
25 Jun 2014, 20:13 (Ref:3426449) | #1189 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 596
|
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Jun 2014, 23:27 (Ref:3426494) | #1190 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 575
|
I don't think they're ahead of Audi but they certainly aren't behind. The engine is running a 17:1 compression ratio this season, and has run trouble free all season, including Le Mans. If that's not innovative and/or advanced, frankly I don't know what is!
|
|
__________________
You must always strive to be the best, but you must never believe that you are - Juan Manuel Fangio |
25 Jun 2014, 23:34 (Ref:3426496) | #1191 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 575
|
Quote:
They're running the compression ratio at 17:1 and have done so all season with no engine issues. What's weak about that...? |
||
__________________
You must always strive to be the best, but you must never believe that you are - Juan Manuel Fangio |
26 Jun 2014, 00:34 (Ref:3426515) | #1192 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
I'd say that whether we know the details or not, pretty much everything on any of theP1Hs is about the most advanced the engineers can dream up because, except for some margin for reliability, there guys know they have to push the boundaries to succeed.
Yeah, it's a petrol V8---but it has a 17-1 compression ration! yeah, it's just another Audi turbo-diesel---but it makes the same power on 1/3 less fuel!! I'd bet there are engineers looking at every system on the car from wheel nuts to water bottles and thinking of better ways to achieve the needed function, and then thinking of new functions. None of it is "conventional." Audi might leave slightly larger margins for error, and at Le mans that might pay off ... but it seems this year attention to detail was what crippled the #7 Toyota---another area where Audi has learned from its experience and still rules. Not much "conventional" about 1000-1100-bhp hybrids lapping Le Mans at those speeds on 1/3 less fuel. |
|
|
26 Jun 2014, 01:28 (Ref:3426534) | #1193 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 44
|
|||
|
26 Jun 2014, 01:36 (Ref:3426536) | #1194 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,932
|
|||
|
26 Jun 2014, 02:51 (Ref:3426559) | #1195 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 734
|
Speaking of compression rate, 17:1 isn't a huge figure considering its nature as a NA high rev engine. Not to mention that E20 bio petrol is inherently better compressed. As a result, to say the compression rate as a sign of innovative engine tech is misleading.
|
||
__________________
Eat, sleep, race, repeat. |
26 Jun 2014, 03:52 (Ref:3426576) | #1196 | |||
Racer
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
Its pretty damn high for a non-restricted NA engine. And you're right E20 is more preignition resistant than regular petrol but not enough to do 17:1 without some clever tricks. The two other examples in which a similar figure has been achieved on a port fueled engine is in -2013 F1 and NASCAR. In NASCAR they were running restricted carburated engines so that is not so surprising since the restrictor caused low volumetric efficiency and carburators meant a relatively heterogeneous mixture in the chamber. In -2013 F1 they ran similar octane fuel to E20 (~98ron) and they ran at 18000rpm which means there is little time for preignition (spot of homogeneous) to happen. In short 17:1 is pretty ridiculous seeing that most port injected engines of similar size don't get beyond 12 or 13:1. Though temperature ratio during compression only scales at about ^0.3 of the pressure ratio, increasing compression is not a trivial task. Even directed injection engines don't get far past 14:1 (skyactiv) with the advantage of having a localized fuel pockets so you don't have to worry about homogeneous preignition which would turn your engine into a small bomb and ability to inject fuel whenever you please in the combustion chamber. The Toyota engine has a lot tiny features that make this possible and while we don't know what they are, its clear a conventional approach to engine design will not be able to pull off what they did. I ran the numbers and I'll be honest, the best I can do is guess what they have been doing. It would be an insult to say guys working at Toyota (Audi and Porsche too of course!) aren't being innovative and trying new things. |
|||
|
26 Jun 2014, 03:54 (Ref:3426579) | #1197 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 203
|
Kinoshita did say that the ideal V8 for their paradigm was 4.0L. He mentioned that if the circumstances were right to design another architecture it would be a 4.0L block
|
||
|
26 Jun 2014, 05:34 (Ref:3426592) | #1198 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 771
|
||
|
26 Jun 2014, 07:47 (Ref:3426628) | #1199 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
26 Jun 2014, 08:05 (Ref:3426639) | #1200 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,576
|
Quote:
Another point on Vasselon's comments vs. Luepen's; Vasselon was speaking of the balance between the fuel tech, Luepen was speaking on Audi using only 2mj of hybrid power. Two totally different aspects. The 'ers incentive' is apparently "higher mj, faster lap time". Thats got nothing to do with the equality of Petrols performance to Diesel's. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audi LMP1 Discussion | gwyllion | ACO Regulated Series | 11685 | 16 Feb 2017 10:42 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
Strakka LMP1 discussion | Pontlieue | Sportscar & GT Racing | 56 | 12 Jul 2015 19:12 |
The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga | The Badger | ACO Regulated Series | 6844 | 8 Jan 2014 02:19 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |