Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

Strange detail from the Audi Sport Nurburgring photos: Audi are switching back and forth between the standard and LM low drag rear wheels.

[MoMedic9019]

After reading that report it would seem that they likely changed engines and attempted to use seals off the old endinge on a fresh one....when they attempted to re-install old seals on new engine, they failed.

That's................ something.

[TF110]

Good read here- http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...-they-are.html. Audi want the rules as is for '17. I wonder what discussions are going on?

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by TF110

Good read here- http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...-they-are.html. Audi want the rules as is for '17. I wonder what discussions are going on?

Early start on the car.

[chernaudi]

Anyone else believe that Audi would've been better off to run the sprint aero kit at the Nurburgring? I'll bet that we'll see some iteration of the sprint oriented kit at COTA, with the Spa kit returning to the tracks where top speed matters more.

Anyone have any idea of what Audi would be testing at Magny Cours? Old sprint package, something modeled on the Porsche's tail flap concept?

All I can say is that they need something different for COTA, because they were pretty much junk today compared to Porsche.

Also, I hope (but highly doubt it's going to happen) that the ACO either enlarge the Audi refueling restrictor or reduce Porsche's/Toyota's. There's no reason why Audi should be dropping 5 seconds a stop due to fuel flow.

[chernaudi]

Caught this on Sportscar 365 and might pertain to the test at Magny Cours later this week that Audi picked up when Toyota abandoned it:

"Audi has yet to decide what aero package it will run for the remainder of the season. Audi Sport Team Joest technical director Ralf Jüttner told Sportscar365 they have two options, with a plan set to be made following today’s race."

It seems that Audi have at least two options for their aero package, and it seems that how well they ran in today's race would be the main factor in scheduling their plans for their aero for the rest of the season.

I doubt that we'll see the LM kit back, at least in this form except for maybe Fuji and other tracks that are heavy on straightline speeds. I also sort of doubt that we'll see the sprint package back in a configuration that's 100% identical to Silverstone.

So I'm suspecting that Audi Sport have something up their sleeves perhaps, and I'm hoping that though it seems that it's a private test, some brave soul will be able to get photos or video from there, though to be fair Magny Cours is in the middle of nowhere, which is probably why TMG wanted to test there, and why Audi took up that date when Toyota cancelled their test.

[ederss7]

Isn't it clear that Audi will only beat Porsche with better strategy and double stinting their tyres?

[TF110]

If they had more engines theyd be less pressed about their mileage relative to its performance. That might be the difference maker.

[chernaudi]

Not really. Silverstone should've been a cake-walk for Audi as their car there in race time was often a second a lap faster than Porsche usually were and their fastest race laps for both Audis were nearly 2 seconds quicker than Porsche and Toyota were. If not for not pitting during a full course yellow and a questionable stop and go penalty late in the race, Audi should've won that race by about 55 seconds, not 5. The penalty and not pitting under that early yellow cost them about 50 seconds of their potential end of race lead.

And the Nurburgring shares more characteristics with Silverstone than Spa or LM. Also with the 8 sets of tires, there was really no incentive for Audi or Porsche to try and double stint. However, I believe that Audi probably would've been faster at Nurburgring with the sprint body kit (or some iteration of it--Audi are considering doing that for sure at COTA it seems based on what Juttner told Sportscar 365), and it might have given them a chance to double stint.

Audi weren't horrible at the Nurburgring, but Porsche's high downforce kit was better and Audi had no clear advantage anywhere, and the Nurburgring is more suited to higher downforce cars from a performance standpoint; Audi just couldn't consistently match Porsche's pace, and ironically it was traffic that really hurt Audi, since their supposed top speed advantage wasn't very useful when dealing with traffic bottle necks down the straights even.

Postscript: Porsche were actually superior--only slightly--in terms of top speed. But they usually still had at least .5 of a second in hand over Audi and were a bit quicker in the twisty bits, which I think that was in large part due to downforce. Porsche's advantage wasn't huge, but it snowballed over time during the race.

Judged from data from the WEC timing and scoring stat PDFs.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

After reading that report it would seem that they likely changed engines and attempted to use seals off the old endinge on a fresh one....when they attempted to re-install old seals on new engine, they failed.

That's................ something.

Can you link the part that shows this is likely?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Postscript: Porsche were actually superior--only slightly--in terms of top speed. But they usually still had at least .5 of a second in hand over Audi and were a bit quicker in the twisty bits, which I think that was in large part due to downforce. Porsche's advantage wasn't huge, but it snowballed over time during the race.

Judged from data from the WEC timing and scoring stat PDFs.

Top speed is only a part of dealing with traffic down the straights. Reaching your top speed quickly is significant in passing the traffic early on the straight and catching the next early before getting on the brake into the next corner.
Porsches hybrid system gives them this advantage over Audi, who relies more on the traditional IC unit.

[chernaudi]

I know that it's early to ask, but what are the chances of someone getting a hold of video and/or photos of the Audi test at Magny Cours that starts on Friday? I'm hoping for something, but not expecting much if anything at all because of this being basically a private test and how remote the track is.

I'm pretty sure that Audi will be testing their COTA package as well as probably what they'll run the rest of the season away from COTA.

If we're talking about new bodywork, I'm expecting some hybrid of this:



and this:



With changes made to suit the characteristics of each track.

Or they'll just use the sprint package for COTA and go back to the Spa package for the remaining rounds.

I guess that we have to hope that some photos or info comes out of the test this weekend and what Juttner meant by "options".

[MyNameIsNigel]

A very interesting article (as often) from motorsport-total.com regarding Audi's performance at the Nurburgring.

First of all, Jörg Zander confirms that the car was as an evolution of the Spa-spec, which should in theory have worked better according to their simulations.

The front tires were apparently the main limiting factor in terms of performance at the Nurburgring, Audi being apparently unable to reach the optimum performance window of the front tires, which led to understeering issues at the start of the race and towards the end of the race.

Jörg Zander further confirms that Audi are planning substantial development steps for 2016 with a new chassis, new hybrid system and new energy storage (no word about any major evolution on the engine side). Interestingly, Audi are already planing to track test the new car in autumn or early winter this year. New components of the 2016 car are likely going to be tested earlier than this, either on an interim car or on the test bench in Neuburg and Neckarsulm.

Motorsport-total.com also report that Audi are expected to switch to batteries next year, with Audi apparently partnering with LG/Samsung for the supply of the battery cells (which is consistent with the recent press release regarding the Audi-LG/Samsung parntership for their road-going applications). Zander remains silent about the partnership with the South Koreans but basically confirms the switch to batteries next year by acknowledging that Audi Sport are currently actively working in this area.

[Gingers4Justice]

Just wondering aloud here, but does anyone think that Audi's Nurburgring performance is a sign that Audi have got themselves in a bit of a muddle? The idea of having a HD package like the one at Silverstone, and a LD one we saw at Le Mans, and the something-in-between (MD...?) package we saw testing at Monza and then sort of mix-and-matching for various circuits sounds great on paper. But maybe they've made things a little to complex for themselves.

The difference between the R18 at Silverstone and LM is huge. I'm not really sure how you can take a "best of both" approach when the two packages are treating the airflow in such different manners.

Audi and Porsche are quite different in their approach to the season, and I wonder if Porsche's might be a bit more sensible. They start off with a fairly slippery 919, perhaps running more rear wing and larger diveplanes than Toyota or Audi and what they may run at LM, but the car they take to Silverstone and Spa in '14 and '15 is essentially the car they take to Le Mans - still competitive, but shy on downforce.

Once Le Mans is done and dusted, it's a pretty simple case of just finding more downforce on the 919, rather than a complete change in aero philosophy. Porsche may give us high percentages of how much new bodywork is on the HD configuration, but even to eyes trained as well as ours, it still very much looks like a 919, just with more wingy bits on it. Audi on the other hand, looking at the two pictures posted by Chernaudi above, you could forgive Audi for classing the cars as two separate chassis designs...

So the question is, have Audi over-complicated things and given themselves so many options that they don't really know which package has the most potential or the best set-up for the remaining races? And do Porsche have a slight advantage in having a car with more obvious weaknesses (tire wear, lack of fundamental down force) which they can focus on exclusively for the rest of the season?

The Magny Cours test should clear a few things up for Audi at least.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Can you link the part that shows this is likely?

It's inferred but, they used a process for engine/tag installation that isn't in line with the normal process. While it doesn't confirm something nefarious was going on, it sure would seem to be out of line with what is expected....

Audi isn't exactly stupid. They'd know to have an official around for the stuff they need to. Hell, even when I was still working for a P675 team we knew when to have someone around and we were a bunch of amatures....

So, it would seem odd that would have just not had one around for a seal change, and engine installaton of what was, alledgedly, a used engine.

[Adam43]

Even so, which bit infers it?

Sorry, but I'm struggling to see it.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Just wondering aloud here, but does anyone think that Audi's Nurburgring performance is a sign that Audi have got themselves in a bit of a muddle? The idea of having a HD package like the one at Silverstone, and a LD one we saw at Le Mans, and the something-in-between (MD...?) package we saw testing at Monza and then sort of mix-and-matching for various circuits sounds great on paper. But maybe they've made things a little to complex for themselves.

The difference between the R18 at Silverstone and LM is huge. I'm not really sure how you can take a "best of both" approach when the two packages are treating the airflow in such different manners.

Audi and Porsche are quite different in their approach to the season, and I wonder if Porsche's might be a bit more sensible. They start off with a fairly slippery 919, perhaps running more rear wing and larger diveplanes than Toyota or Audi and what they may run at LM, but the car they take to Silverstone and Spa in '14 and '15 is essentially the car they take to Le Mans - still competitive, but shy on downforce.

Once Le Mans is done and dusted, it's a pretty simple case of just finding more downforce on the 919, rather than a complete change in aero philosophy. Porsche may give us high percentages of how much new bodywork is on the HD configuration, but even to eyes trained as well as ours, it still very much looks like a 919, just with more wingy bits on it. Audi on the other hand, looking at the two pictures posted by Chernaudi above, you could forgive Audi for classing the cars as two separate chassis designs...

So the question is, have Audi over-complicated things and given themselves so many options that they don't really know which package has the most potential or the best set-up for the remaining races? And do Porsche have a slight advantage in having a car with more obvious weaknesses (tire wear, lack of fundamental down force) which they can focus on exclusively for the rest of the season?

The Magny Cours test should clear a few things up for Audi at least.

Too many cooks...

Let's apply some exacting standards - I think Audi have been caught spinning too many plates by pursuing such distinct avenues of development for their aero. Maybe there was an assumption that the stability from the FRIC system would give a good base for parallel development of LD/HD packages? I don't think it's a bad thing to have separate aero, but they clearly made the wrong choice for this race. The question now is whether the HD aero has been worked on at all or mothballed, because even for Audi it wouldn't be trivial to bring the sprint aero "up to date" for whatever remaining races it can be used for.

There has also been a fairly consistent issue with getting the tyres up to temperature from Le Mans onwards. These seem specific to the Le Mans-based aero packages, but I don't remember anything about this at Spa. Weren't there murmurs from Audi that the 'Ring and CoTA wouldn't suit them as much as the later races? Maybe they knew before this race that they had made a mistake that can't be corrected for whatever reason.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by J Jay

but they clearly made the wrong choice for this race.

I'm gonna disagree with this.

If it had suited the HDF better they'd have ran it. We should not forget that the LDF package performed better in s2 of Spa than the HDF car (for whatever reason), All cars tested here just a few weeks ago too so Audi knew exactly how their car would perform.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Even so, which bit infers it?

Sorry, but I'm struggling to see it.

http://www.les24heures.fr/images/24h...Decision67.pdf

Point #3.

The only way this issue happens is by removal, and replacement of seals.

For example, is engine #1 was in the car during scrutineering, and recording of the RF tag number, and engine #2 is placed in the car with seals from #1, then you'd assume, as an official it was engine #1.

When the seals failed to read, they were damaged during the removal and replacement of them. The only way that occurs is what placed them on a new engine, and in the wrong positions.

It's assumed they changed engines, and lost track of where the seals should have gone, regardless of working or not.

[Adam43]

I agree that the seal could have been taken off and put back on.

I don't see how it infers that they were trying to take it off a old engine to put on a new engine. They could be inspecting, falsely thought the engine was finished, or other reasons that to me is more likely than full on cheating.

The end result is that the ACO inflicted a penalty as if they had used a new engine. Which is right, transgressions are punished by the worse situation.

So, I don't feel it is fair to infer that it is "likely" that real extreme cheating was going on. I suspect the ACO would have a harsher punishment of that was the case.

I disagree with your assertion it is "likely". A possible, of course, but there is no evidence or inference that something really bad was going on.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I agree that the seal could have been taken off and put back on.

It was taken off, all of them were.

I don't see how it infers that they were trying to take it off a old engine to put on a new engine. They could be inspecting, falsely thought the engine was finished, or other reasons that to me is more likely than full on cheating.

If the engine was done, why not just tell the stewards?

So, I don't feel it is fair to infer that it is "likely" that real extreme cheating was going on. I suspect the ACO would have a harsher punishment of that was the case.

Why not? During the Road America weekend in 2003, we swapped tires before we rolled the #17 viper out to the grid. They were stickers that did all of an out lap during moring warmup. The offcials weren't good at checking tires.. we knew it, we did it because we knew we'd get away with it.. not to mention that we attempted to falisfy the post-quali markings so even if they did, it looked similar enough they'd not notice.

I disagree with your assertion it is "likely". A possible, of course, but there is no evidence or inference that something really bad was going on.

I think there is plenty of evidence, perhaps not written explicity, but, why such a harsh penatly then?

Listen, I think there is plenty of stuff that goes on we never hear about because nobody gets caught.. It seems that they got caught, but it couldn't be proven other than seal issues.

[Adam43]

Listen, I disagree. The penalty isn't harsh for what you accuse them of. There are other explanations that are as likely or more likely.

Sorry, you've failed to convince me. Your main evidence seems to now be that you were party to cheating.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Listen, I disagree. The penalty isn't harsh for what you accuse them of. There are other explanations that are as likely or more likely.

Sorry, you've failed to convince me. Your main evidence seems to now be that you were party to cheating.

And that's fine.. you are allowed to belive what you choose, and If I can't convince you otherwise, I don't mind. I have no solid proof, and I don't think anyone does... That's my assumption based on my history as a mechanic in an arguably crappy team, but, high level series. I think the penalty is pretty bad considering what kind of money goes into these programs.

I'm curious to know what the other reasons are though?

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Just wondering aloud here, but does anyone think that Audi's Nurburgring performance is a sign that Audi have got themselves in a bit of a muddle? The idea of having a HD package like the one at Silverstone, and a LD one we saw at Le Mans, and the something-in-between (MD...?) package we saw testing at Monza and then sort of mix-and-matching for various circuits sounds great on paper. But maybe they've made things a little to complex for themselves.

The difference between the R18 at Silverstone and LM is huge. I'm not really sure how you can take a "best of both" approach when the two packages are treating the airflow in such different manners.

Audi and Porsche are quite different in their approach to the season, and I wonder if Porsche's might be a bit more sensible. They start off with a fairly slippery 919, perhaps running more rear wing and larger diveplanes than Toyota or Audi and what they may run at LM, but the car they take to Silverstone and Spa in '14 and '15 is essentially the car they take to Le Mans - still competitive, but shy on downforce.

Once Le Mans is done and dusted, it's a pretty simple case of just finding more downforce on the 919, rather than a complete change in aero philosophy. Porsche may give us high percentages of how much new bodywork is on the HD configuration, but even to eyes trained as well as ours, it still very much looks like a 919, just with more wingy bits on it. Audi on the other hand, looking at the two pictures posted by Chernaudi above, you could forgive Audi for classing the cars as two separate chassis designs...

So the question is, have Audi over-complicated things and given themselves so many options that they don't really know which package has the most potential or the best set-up for the remaining races? And do Porsche have a slight advantage in having a car with more obvious weaknesses (tire wear, lack of fundamental down force) which they can focus on exclusively for the rest of the season?

The Magny Cours test should clear a few things up for Audi at least.

Actually, if you look at the front end of both R18 variants, you do see similar themes being achieved differently. Even the LM nose does have aggressive channels to feed air to the outer sections of the front diffuser and to the front tuning vanes. Biggest difference is that the LM nose lacks the "nostrils" of the sprint variant. Which if Audi are doing work on the sprint package, they probably got rid of the original nostril arrangement and now would probably be using a variant of the winglet/channel arrangement to funnel air to those areas.

Actually, I'm actually thinking that the Audi issue is part mechanical, part aero. They should've opened up the area above the front diffuser behind the front wheel centerline to more efficiently vent air out of the front diffuser. And it seems that the LM FRIC set up is picky about temperature ranges outside of optimal, even if it seems to have fixed to an extent the front end pitch sensitivity issue that the sprint version seemed to have at higher speeds (ex, #9 Audi at Spa).

But, IMO, the fact that Ralf Juttner says that Audi has at least two options or variants of bodywork means that possibly they got wind of what Porsche were testing at Barcelona, and Audi might not have had enough time to fully homologate either or both packages in time for the Nurburgring round (I believe that the 15 day minimum homologation period is still a rule in LMP1). And they decided that they'd run the tuned LM package in hopes that they wouldn't be at a huge disadvantage, which if they tire grip/handling issues weren't a problem, they probably would've been a lot more competitive.

But if Audi have new bodywork at hand for the test this weekend, will the changes be small, large, or moderate in nature (the latter applies to Porsche's new sprint package)?

That's why I'm hoping that video, photos or reports come out of this weekend.

Or, another thought, is that Audi are using the 2015 already to test aero ideas for the 2016 car, which reportedly will have a significantly modified chassis design and upgraded aero among other changes. And they're hoping that these things will enable them to get some added advantages for the remainder of this season as well as getting a leap/early start on 2016.

[chernaudi]

To get back to what I was saying about similar aero concepts, especially at the front of the car, I think that these photos will illustrate it, namely with how air is managed around the inboard section of the front fenders, namely below the winglets of the LM spec car and the nostrils on the original sprint spec car:

Nurburgring:



Silverstone:



Postscript: Mulsanne Mike has confirmed on his FB page for Audi to be moving to 6MJ next season with a battery-powered hybrid system.