[LM24] Audi plans for 2010 revealed

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Arnie, when the predator pulls of his mask: "You are one ugly ************!"

Good Job!!

[skeeskirrt]

It might be the glare of the headlights, but doesn't that look a bit like a rendering? No bother anyhow, though, as the car will surely be photo'd in more detail soon enough.

What are the three 'lines' that appear above the right (driver's right) fender? almost like a mast to support a sensor or antenna? Or is that where they hung the model from the ceiling for the photo!

Already sporting the #1, too. May be apt for Sebring, but not for Le Mans.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by skeeskirrt

It might be the glare of the headlights, but doesn't that look a bit like a rendering? No bother anyhow, though, as the car will surely be photo'd in more detail soon enough.

What are the three 'lines' that appear above the right (driver's right) fender? almost like a mast to support a sensor or antenna? Or is that where they hung the model from the ceiling for the photo!

Already sporting the #1, too. May be apt for Sebring, but not for Le Mans.

It's a pitot tube and supports.

[skeeskirrt]

Thanks MulsanneMike. I thought that might be some sort of sensor, but couldn't resist a joke (or attempted joke as it may be).

Cheers

[Tim the Grey]

That blue square looks like it's mirrored by the side NOT in full light? So I suspect it's a channel with a centre nose support. Dunno what it's channelling to, I suspect Mike M will know way better than I.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by CTD

Interesting that you can see straight thru the nose of the car!
It remind me of the F1 cars.

A nice comparison between the (early) R15 and the R15+: http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/r1511.php

If you look carefully (right of the nose) of the old R15 you can also see through the car.

Also note that the R15+ has huge head lights. The drivers will like that.

[gwyllion]

Marshall Pruett's take on the R15+: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-the-r15-plus/

For me the new nose is a bit a mixture of the Lister Storm LMP Hybrid and the Acura ACX-02a.

[merlot brougham]

I thought we already knew that split noses were fugly, haha.

[JAG]

I don't mind the wacky front ends, what I didn't like were the fins/holes that were increasingly common on the side pods, engine cover etc.

[cmk]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Also note that the R15+ has huge head lights. The drivers will like that.

Indeed they requested that detail in particular!

[chernaudi]

Since Audi went with a fixed single piece front diffuser for '10, I wonder if there was some motivation aside from placating Peugeot. Namely that the single element diffuser is expected to be standard in 2011, and Audi is using the R15 for this year as a design exercise for next year's car.

Also, could the double decker/twin plane front diffuser have been part of the R15's problems at Le Mans last year, since it was designed to work with the areo channels, which aren't needed/used on the new car, as well as the rear element being adjustable and Audi wanted to get back to basics?

And could Audi be actually taking advantage of the rule that you can run basically any wing shaped element on the front diffuser you like if you have at least a 30mm thick trailing edge. On the twin plane diffuser, the elements under 2009 rules had to be symetrical(or 10mm trailing edge for 2010), but with a 30mm trailing edge, you can run a wider slection of wing shapes on the diffuser. If the R15+ has a 30mm trailing edge to it's diffuser and a more aggressive asymmetrical wing on it, then that would make sense, as it seems that the new diffuser(along with most of the front end assembly that's been modified) is inspired in part by the Acura ARX-02's.

[Audi Racer]

The car is still unfinished i think because if you look through the backside of the rear fender on the left you can see right through which is against the rules. You have to close of the rear down up until the centerline of the rear axles. in the picture its pretty much completely open.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Could be a panel of some type attaced to the leading edge of the boat prow/tea tray, though I don't know why such a thing would be fitted there-if anything, it would be a disadvantage.

As for the rest of the front end design, I have this to say. It seems that Audi went with a single piece front diffuser for the '10 R15. I can think of 4 reasons:

1-Peugeot's whining.

2-Useful design exercise for the R15's 2011 replacement.

3-Front end areo efficency in straight line blasts wasn't the orignial R15's fort, as it was originaly designed for the ALMS. The rear section of the channels worked as intended, but the front sections(from behind the front diffuser and down the first half of the sidepods) caused too much drag. Yes, at Sebring and PLM, the R15 was competive with the 908 in straigtline speed, but how much of that was down to the R15's cornering in high speed corners(most of the passes that Audis made on Peugeots at those events was in braking for or coming out of corners). At LM, though, the channels allowed Audi to eventually run laptimes competitive with the fastest Peugeots, but a 5-10mph speed gap equaled being 1-3 seconds a lap slower early on.

And 4-Gives them one less thing to worry about. Back to point 3, some of the front end areo difficulties could've been attrubuted to the front flap. How many times do drivers use the adjustable front wings on F1 cars? Probably not often. It's just a distraction and on of marginal effectiveness and would probably be better replaced with true ballast. And when you have something like that that's adjustable, it's just one more thing to work on-and risk getting wrong, and isn't something that's easy to fix as dive planes or more conventional areo aides are.

It may be butt-ugly, but I though the same of the original R15 and the R10, but they grew on me. It may be that Audi designers were reading a little too much vampire literature(Twilight Saga novels(though Twilight vampires don't have fangs), True Blood, Vampire Kisses, or they had teenage daughters who own all kinds of Twilight and VK stuff). And it may be butt-ugly, but if it works better for Audi, especially at LM, then I'm for it.

You got your stories mixed up. The front nose vent's impact on the R15's overall performance was nil. Not sure why everyone is focused on this as it's never been an issue. The R15's issues go back to the rear of the car and the channel concept. It was excellent for providing efficient downforce at high drag levels. But as downforce was peeled off it simply could not pay for it's ride from a drag standpoint and Audi showed up with a low-drag setup that had more drag and downforce than they knew what to do with. They came to this realization with only a few weeks to go to Le Mans and had to develop a compromise setup to attempt to rectify the situation. And even in the race they were chasing setup in order to fine tune. But the core point; the R15's problems were NOT as a result of the nose vent. They were a result of the channel concept.

[gwyllion]

So what Marshall Pruett is saying in http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-the-r15-plus/ is exactly correct?

With the ACO looking to slow the LMP1 machines down again through engines restrictions and aerodynamics changes, closing the aft sections of the engine cover and wheel arches has necessitated Audi to go after a more conventional aerodynamic scheme on the R15 plus.

While the rear air flow proved to be a noteworthy innovation, airflow at the front of the R15 proved troublesome, if not mysterious at times. Using a channel in the R15's high nose, the car's designers took a page from Ferrari's 2008 F1 car by allowing air beneath the nose to accelerate up and out through the top in a bid to create more downforce.

Nicknamed 'the chimney' by Audi, the concept failed to deliver its desired results, and appears to be abandoned on the R15 plus. It has been replaced by what Audi describes as "a new, distinctive face featuring a split nose."

He suggests that the front of the R15 was the major problem and that the rear was mainly altered because of the ACO rule changes.

The controversial wing-like element that ran the width of the nose directly beneath the chimney has been retained, although its adjustability has been removed, and is now secured at a fixed angle of attack.

Judging from the picture, the front wing is completely removed.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

So what Marshall Pruett is saying in http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-the-r15-plus/ is exactly correct?
He suggests that the front of the R15 was the major problem and that the rear was mainly altered because of the ACO rule changes.
Judging from the picture, the front wing is completely removed.

As I understand it and as I'm told through confidential sources very close to the development of the R15, yes Pruett is wrong on this point. But the wing still does exist. It's a single plane run at a higher angle of attack than previously.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

You got your stories mixed up. The front nose vent's impact on the R15's overall performance was nil. Not sure why everyone is focused on this as it's never been an issue. The R15's issues go back to the rear of the car and the channel concept. It was excellent for providing efficient downforce at high drag levels. But as downforce was peeled off it simply could not pay for it's ride from a drag standpoint and Audi showed up with a low-drag setup that had more drag and downforce than they knew what to do with. They came to this realization with only a few weeks to go to Le Mans and had to develop a compromise setup to attempt to rectify the situation. And even in the race they were chasing setup in order to fine tune. But the core point; the R15's problems were NOT as a result of the nose vent. They were a result of the channel concept.

By front flap, I refered to the double decker/two piece front diffuser, that had it's rear "wing" or "flap" adjustable. I wasn't refering to the chimney, because, though it undoubtedly produced drag, could be capped off with bodywork if Audi desired, and as seen on the R15 for this year, is an easy fix(it wouldn't surprise me if the Sebring vent inspired the nosebox revisions, as that panel is at a similar angle to the divider panel in the Sebring spec chimney).

The front diffuser was designed with the channel concept in mind in 2009. And as we know, it was a two piece element that had a fixed front element(splitter) and and adjustable rear element(the "wing" or diffuser proper). And it seeminlgy was designed to be adjustable for areo blanance and probably functioned with the side pod channels.

Of course, the single piece front diffuser was probably to placate Peugeot as much as anything else. But a simple modifcation(10mm blunt edge to the splitter and wing on the diffuser) was all that was needed according to the ACO to make the '09 design complant for this year.

I pretty much believe that Audi took a back to basics approach to the modified R15. With the channels blocked off, the double decker front diffuser was probably made redundant. And then, as I said, Audi probably took the extra time an effort to exploit the ACO's rule for 2010 that you can basically run just about any wing shape on the front diffuser as long as its a single piece item and has a 30mm trailing edge. Oddly enough, though, it does seem that the old bodywork could be re-fitted(makes sense, as the tub's the same as 2009, though a panel mounted over the front of the tub would have to be replaced or a new chimney installed in the nose box), and that(from what I read at Speed TV.com) much of the rear channel items are still there, probably because they're shrink-wrapped around the engine block and gearbox casing.

I understand that the chimney had virtually no effect on the R15's areo, as at PLM Audi ran the LM vent and didn't replace it with the Sebring item for the rain during the race, and added HD dive planes(used only during practice at Sebring) instead.

What I don't understand is that if the areo problem is focused at the rear of the car, why did Audi have tirewear problems with the front tires at Sebring last year? Was it that Audi had to pack the front end with downforce to balance the car? Or was it a general(ie, all four corners) problem with tire wear, or did the 50/50 front/rear weight distrubution catch Audi and Michelin out and the downforce made matters worse? Because I do remember at PLM that Audi did double stint tires in the dry and no one else did, certianly not Peugeot, and the #2 Audi didn't lose any ground, and with a 2009 car, the drivers said that the R15 was quite a bit easier on it's tires at Sebring than nearly a year earlier.

Or was the Sebring tire wear issues and the LM aero/mechanical grip issues just a case of the the new car blues, as PLM seemed to show?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

By front flap, I refered to the double decker/two piece front diffuser, that had it's rear "wing" or "flap" adjustable. I wasn't refering to the chimney, because, though it undoubtedly produced drag, could be capped off with bodywork if Audi desired, and as seen on the R15 for this year, is an easy fix(it wouldn't surprise me if the Sebring vent inspired the nosebox revisions, as that panel is at a similar angle to the divider panel in the Sebring spec chimney).

The front diffuser was designed with the channel concept in mind in 2009. And as we know, it was a two piece element that had a fixed front element(splitter) and and adjustable rear element(the "wing" or diffuser proper). And it seeminlgy was designed to be adjustable for areo blanance and probably functioned with the side pod channels.

Of course, the single piece front diffuser was probably to placate Peugeot as much as anything else. But a simple modifcation(10mm blunt edge to the splitter and wing on the diffuser) was all that was needed according to the ACO to make the '09 design complant for this year.

I pretty much believe that Audi took a back to basics approach to the modified R15. With the channels blocked off, the double decker front diffuser was probably made redundant. And then, as I said, Audi probably took the extra time an effort to exploit the ACO's rule for 2010 that you can basically run just about any wing shape on the front diffuser as long as its a single piece item and has a 30mm trailing edge. Oddly enough, though, it does seem that the old bodywork could be re-fitted(makes sense, as the tub's the same as 2009, though a panel mounted over the front of the tub would have to be replaced or a new chimney installed in the nose box), and that(from what I read at Speed TV.com) much of the rear channel items are still there, probably because they're shrink-wrapped around the engine block and gearbox casing.

I understand that the chimney had virtually no effect on the R15's areo, as at PLM Audi ran the LM vent and didn't replace it with the Sebring item for the rain during the race, and added HD dive planes(used only during practice at Sebring) instead.

What I don't understand is that if the areo problem is focused at the rear of the car, why did Audi have tirewear problems with the front tires at Sebring last year? Was it that Audi had to pack the front end with downforce to balance the car? Or was it a general(ie, all four corners) problem with tire wear, or did the 50/50 front/rear weight distrubution catch Audi and Michelin out and the downforce made matters worse? Because I do remember at PLM that Audi did double stint tires in the dry and no one else did, certianly not Peugeot, and the #2 Audi didn't lose any ground, and with a 2009 car, the drivers said that the R15 was quite a bit easier on it's tires at Sebring than nearly a year earlier.

Or was the Sebring tire wear issues and the LM aero/mechanical grip issues just a case of the the new car blues, as PLM seemed to show?

Ok, understand my mistake.

For 2010 only you can actually run twin elements at the front as long as they end ahead of the front wheel CL, are symmetrical X-sections, and have 10 mm TEs (3% of chord or 10mm). Note that this years modifications to the various diffuser/wings amount to increasing the thickness of the trailing edges, not leading edges as others have said. Audi's decision to eliminate the wing/flap assembly has a lot to do with the changes at the rear as there's less need for total downforce. They're sacrificing downforce for drag. And I'm told the reduction in height of all the bodywork in that area of the car is a good way to take some drag off. But the problem then becomes that the bodywork is too close to the front wings reducing pressure recovery abilities. Thus the new front device is run at a higher angle of attack for similar balance. So the changes are the front help with rebalancing and taking drag off.

Well if you're running too much downforce at the rear and don't have an effective way to rebalance you will be struggling with understeer which will effect your front tire wear. Could have simply been new car setup issue though I've never made that line of inquiry.

And for what it's worth, other outlets are continuously comparing the Audi's vent to the 2008 Ferrari. While seemingly a pedantic differentiation, the F2008's vent, working in conjunction with the front wing flap's TE, was most certainly designed for better pressure recovery. Typically the air spilling off the wing's TE in that center bit simply slammed into the bottom of the monocoque leading to much less effective downforce production because the air suddenly slowed down. The vent on the Ferrari reduced this as it allowed the airflow an avenue of escape. But on the Audi the vent was well ahead of the flap essentially being above the main plane. In the case of the Audi it was operating as an downforce producing device on it's own. If one was to look at the cross section of the leading edge bit you'd recognize a definitive downforce producing device even if symmetrical.

[chernaudi]

But has Audi 100% ditched the channel or double decker diffuser concepts? The intake infront of the rear wheels is obviously for the rear brake ducting, but it looks a little big to be just a brake duct, and I don't think(due to the original car's packaging) that it's used to feed the intercoolers, and that most of the channel devices are still there(though as I said, it may've been a matter of convience to leave them alone).

But what intreges me more is the front areo treatment. With the channels being blocked off and the desire to balance the car to take into account the latter fact, the double decker diffuser up front is redundant. But it seems that the R15, whilest using a seemingly Acura ARX-02 inspired front diffuser(single piece, with substantial rear kick up and almost certianly a 30mm TE), there seems to be a wing section running between the nosebox and the front fenders infront of the suspension shrouds. Could those be a method of recreating the twin-tier diffuser effect that's rules compliant and have some areo adjustabliltiy or to duplicate the front louver effect of the original R15?

And someone raised the point that it seems from the photo that Audi supplied that the rear of the R15 doesn't yet have a compliance panel behind the rear wheels, though it does seem that there's something in that area of the car above the rear wheel center. Could it be a compliance panel or other bodywork element(it would be nice if Audi supplied a rear shot of the new R15, but with them testing at Homestead this week and Sebring next week, that might not be a problem for long)?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

But has Audi 100% ditched the channel or double decker diffuser concepts? The intake infront of the rear wheels is obviously for the rear brake ducting, but it looks a little big to be just a brake duct, and I don't think(due to the original car's packaging) that it's used to feed the intercoolers, and that most of the channel devices are still there(though as I said, it may've been a matter of convience to leave them alone).

But what intreges me more is the front areo treatment. With the channels being blocked off and the desire to balance the car to take into account the latter fact, the double decker diffuser up front is redundant. But it seems that the R15, whilest using a seemingly Acura ARX-02 inspired front diffuser(single piece, with substantial rear kick up and almost certianly a 30mm TE), there seems to be a wing section running between the nosebox and the front fenders infront of the suspension shrouds. Could those be a method of recreating the twin-tier diffuser effect that's rules compliant and have some areo adjustabliltiy or to duplicate the front louver effect of the original R15?

And someone raised the point that it seems from the photo that Audi supplied that the rear of the R15 doesn't yet have a compliance panel behind the rear wheels, though it does seem that there's something in that area of the car above the rear wheel center. Could it be a compliance panel or other bodywork element(it would be nice if Audi supplied a rear shot of the new R15, but with them testing at Homestead this week and Sebring next week, that might not be a problem for long)?

Yes, the channel concept is gone. The new duct at the rear is vastly too small to supply the volume of airflow needed.

Still not sure what you're calling a twin diffuser. The R15 had a front wing and a flap. The bodywork situated above this area served as rules compliance but was then positioned high on the car and slotted to help with the pressure recovery of these devices. THis was critical to the efficient functioning of the wing and flap below. The R15 plus does away with that. Instead it has a single element wing running at a higher angle of attack for similar balance given the lower bodywork situated above this wing. There are also wing elements either side of the nose but far enough forward that they don't work in conjunction with the lower single element wing and therefore are working as downforce generators on their own, though note they aren't the "equivalent" of the flap on the standard R15 but do help to recover some downforce lost (as much as needed I suspect) when the bodywork was lowered. They don't appear to be adjustable either as there appears to be a glue line on the inboard attachment point.

As for the rear, yes, would appear something is up as the regulation states that they must, "Be designed in such a way that air passing through them is directed toward the ground at the exit," amongst other issues. Therefore I would think that you wouldn't be able to see through them.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

As for the rear, yes, would appear something is up as the regulation states that they must, "Be designed in such a way that air passing through them is directed toward the ground at the exit," amongst other issues. Therefore I would think that you wouldn't be able to see through them.

Okay, so the R15+ is not yet fully rule compliant.

The people whining that Audi has the car ready, but is not willing to race Peugeot in Sebring, can shut up

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Okay, so the R15+ is not yet fully rule compliant.

The people whining that Audi has the car ready, but is not willing to race Peugeot in Sebring, can shut up

Maybe maybe not. Just because the car that was photographed doesn't appear so doesn't mean that's the case. Hell, maybe they've come up with some clever interpretation at the rear.

[templer]

Why is Audi not willing to compete against Peugeot at Sebring. Audi told the IMSA that they will not be able to prepare two ( !) R15 plus for Sebring and they want wo start with the old R15. The IMSA said no ( with some help of Peúgeot) and so Audi don't compete at Sebring but will test against the Peugeot 908 at the Monday after the race.

I think with picture was taken at the first test at the Audi testing facility at Neustadt/Germany. So perhaps the rear is not in the final version, but I think it's hard to see any details of the rear fender from the published pic.

Let's hope we will see some pics of the Homestead test .

[Ur Q 83]

As it was rightly pointed out in this weeks MidWeek Motorsport, do we actually know if the R15plus is even homologated yet ?. And also why would Audi want to enter a race with a car with no testing miles and no turn around time before the race.

[chernaudi]

Unquestionably, the R15's updated bodywork(or at least the design plans) have been homologated by the ACO and IMSA, or else there'd be little reason to test so hard now. But all the body panels may not have been updated yet(Audi says that the cars in south Florida testing now are interm cars, but whether that means that the LM spec for the cars isn't 100% finalized and are tesing with sprint race bodywork or there are some minor issues to be finalized is unknown).

However, in the photo, there does seem to be something mounted in the rear of the car behind the rear wheels positioned with it's bottom near or at the rear wheel centerline. Whether it's a a compliance panel or part of one isn't known. But considering the Pug's broadly dive plane shaped rear panels(with a closed off front end to them, of course(?)), it could be a clever solution that the ACO and IMSA currently "approve" of.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Unquestionably, the R15's updated bodywork(or at least the design plans) have been homologated by the ACO and IMSA, or else there'd be little reason to test so hard now. But all the body panels may not have been updated yet(Audi says that the cars in south Florida testing now are interm cars, but whether that means that the LM spec for the cars isn't 100% finalized and are tesing with sprint race bodywork or there are some minor issues to be finalized is unknown).

However, in the photo, there does seem to be something mounted in the rear of the car behind the rear wheels positioned with it's bottom near or at the rear wheel centerline. Whether it's a a compliance panel or part of one isn't known. But considering the Pug's broadly dive plane shaped rear panels(with a closed off front end to them, of course(?)), it could be a clever solution that the ACO and IMSA currently "approve" of.

That the car has not yet been given its homologation papers is indeed questionable!








L.P.