![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2876 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
![]() |
Maybe it's a PR thing, all Toyota hybrids uses NA engine, but in a race car with fuel flow limit the issue is efficiency to weight ratio, power to weight ratio comes second.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2877 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 771
![]() |
torque again...... seriously?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2878 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
![]() |
Quote:
A more torquy engine fits the bill, that is, less bore more stroke length with more 'Miller' aspect of it (more expansion time)... since it would rev less for the same levels of power, in one hand friction could be diminished and fuel appetite in check... But the problem is the balance tuned for higher RPM with already quite light materials due to their experience in F1, if they spoil this balance with heavier parts to withstand the more torque, friction can raise quite higher than now, and a more displacement, more burning efficiency could result in a less powerful engine. So its a chase to fine details, could take lots of time of testing and lots of money.... it could be improved... but OTOH a turbo engine will have much more low hanging fruit to pick. [ a trick where they could gain some good level of efficiency is with variable valve timing (VVT)... could address nicely the admission pumping losses that plague above all NA engines... problem being FIA/ACO banned VVT and similar techs in the rules... -> complain hard against the ban ] Last edited by hcl123; 6 Jun 2015 at 19:13. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2879 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
![]() |
Quote:
Toyota for sure can harvest even >8MJ if they wanted, only by 'regenerative braking' with those 2 MGUs they have. Being a capacitor and if the controls are good (else its not a problem of capacitor tech), they can have the most varied release strategies imaginable... better than anyone else (since are the ones only using capacitors). The main problem IMHO is the monocoque and aeros(lack of a proper front wing) that are showing their age (not that are not good, only others are better) And the super uber duper engine, even recently stated as the best choice... perhaps is not that super uber duper, and perhaps are better choices for engine (again not that the engine is not good, only others are better) |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2880 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,444
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Porsche dont have some super aero tricks that Toyota lack, they have more hybrid power on demand and in total. That means their car is making more power than Toyota. Even if not on a single boost, they can match it, but boost longer. So if its 600hp from the engine, 600hp from the capacitor/ battery from both teams, Porsche's battery can put that energy out longer. Thats where Toyota need to gain and they probably will have that better solution next year.
Last edited by TF110; 8 Jun 2015 at 05:32. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2881 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 122
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Chassis wise I think it's Audi, Toyota close behind, and Porsche a bit further down, but improving little by little. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2882 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
![]() |
I don't agree, they said that they can harvest 8MJ at LeMans but not on the other tracks, they just didn't want to compromise the whole WEC season because of LeMans. My guess would be they are lacking in every department just a little bit and that just adds up.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2883 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
![]() ![]() |
If am I not wrong, because of batteries, porsche 919 is the only car that can harvest and release at will, while toyota ts040 need first to release completely the energy stored before to harvest again. I guess that porsche can't harvest 8MJ in other tracks, simply because other tracks are too short (compared to le mans).
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2884 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
__________________
When in doubt? C4. ![]() |
![]() |
#2885 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 230
![]() |
Quote:
When does a turbo not need all the energy of the exhaust? When it reaches top-speed? Part-throttle? Lift-and-coast? |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2886 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 833
![]() ![]() |
Toyota admit they won't be on the pace this year, a big review to take place for all components.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119388 |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2887 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,498
![]() ![]() |
So basically this year they are trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst inside a moving train.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2888 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In a way, it's good that they're this obviously behind because it means Toyota has to face reality and see that half-measures won't do.
Looks like they plain and simply underestimated the gains Porsche & Audi were able to pull. That sucks but it's excusable, once. They can't bank on that a again so they have to make sure to make a massive jump in terms of speed next year, and not just be "reasonably competitive". |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2889 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 68
![]() |
Quote:
I agree that it's good in a way, but I also find Toyota's latest statements (still) worrying. Some may call my criticism harsh, but a harsh revamp is what Toyota needs in order to beat endurance racing masters like Audi and Porsche. Quote:
Truth be told, they should have already been evaluating the entire program from top to bottom immediately after Silverstone. Also them thinking their advantage would last until 2016; that's just pure arrogance. When you're going up against Porsche *and* Audi, you cannot afford such arrogant thinking. Also their continued admission that they have less resources is probably the most worrying, because it implies they won't get any significant resource increase next year. It all goes back to and boils down to some key fundamental problems for Toyota's program. They need more resources from Japan HQ, and they absolutely NEED a third car to have a better chance at Le Mans. Others can talk about all the different variables where a third car may not be needed, but you cannot disregard the odds. The odds will forever be against Toyota running two cars, when ALL their other P1 competitors are running 3 cars at Le Mans now. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2890 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,143
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Really disappointed,I'll keep hope for them this weekend.but they need a radical evolution for next year or not bother showing up.very frustrating. Last edited by Lagunaseca_4life; 8 Jun 2015 at 18:03. |
|||
![]() |
__________________
RACE CAR: noun: an automobile built or modified for racing. ![]() |
![]() |
#2891 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,444
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Why read into the PR so much? Everyone should get it by now. Vasselon is being a good employee. He's not going to blast Toyota for not giving him $200million to build brand new cars every year. It's obvious he's saying "we make due with what we have".
They knew Audi and Porsche were going to spend time and money they don't currently have, and that's why their gains arent as great. All this about evaluating and examining, that's common sense. They're just answering Autosport's (probably simple) questions. We know it'll stay David vs Goliath(s) until Toyota increases the budget. Expecting more from the team is fine, but knowing why they don't do this or that keeps expectations in check. At least for me. It's not ideal for Toyota fans, but the costs to compete should'nt be near F1-level. But they still need more than they have now, that's for sure! Hopefully with everything were hearing, 2016 forward shows a new increased effort from them. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2892 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 771
![]() |
When it rains it pours for Toyota
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2893 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Plan A: a ts050 with turbo engine and battery for the highest energy class with a more generous TMC effort and budget. Plan B: a ts050 with turbo engine and battery for the highest energy class, but as always, with a very low budget program from TMC Plan C: Goodbye everybody - I've got to go (to WRC). Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth... anyway I was really impressed by toyota last year, but now I'm just using to see the ts040 as some kind of lola aston... as I'm starting to see porsche as peugeot successor! a team with a more powerfull car but less reliable than audi, and for sure less expert and wise than audi sport/joest guys |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2894 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 117
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2895 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2896 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,922
![]() ![]() |
If Toyota has half of the budget of Porsche and Audi maybe they should think about developing some revolutionary concept in the same way that Nissan is doing.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2897 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
![]() |
2017 comes new rules, probably not drastic but enough to stop speculating about what drivetrain will work best.
Would a bigger displacement engine be really such a weight killer? Is 10-20 kg more for 5.0 V8 not possible? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2898 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 614
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2899 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,833
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
To quote the WWE wrestler the Undertaker:
Sometimes, it's hell tryin' to get to heaven. Audi and Porsche were there last year, and now evolution has turned the tables. The TS040's story is much like the Jaguar XJR-14 in Group C in 1991 when similarly sweeping rules changes happened. Jaguar dominated by being in the right place at the right time with the right car. But the competition caught up and by the end of the season, they were hanging on in terms of performance. That's where TMG are now. And both examples show the indifference that corporate bean counters can have to racing programs. Ford basically killed the Jag program in Group C at the end of '91 and didn't give Jaguar the money to develop the car outside of running it in IMSA GTP in '92 (and even that was marginal--check out the wheel failures at Lime Rock and Road America that year). And Toyota in Japan have kept TMG on a shoestring budget the whole time they started the LMP1 program. It's clear that Toyota can easily spare some money for the LMP1 project, but TMC's motorsports priorities are elsewhere it seems. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2900 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 771
![]() |
Well the engine in itself won't be much heavier, but it will produce more torque so the whole drivetrain will need to be a little beefier (and heavier) to deal with that. Still it won't be a massive difference. If they finally go for carbon case gearbox they should easily manage a bigger engine.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |