Lola-Audi (merged)

[zac510]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

For us Slower members here... Why would it not be in Audi's interest?

If, as the only factory teams, the R10 and new Pug diesel romp away from the rest of the LMP1 cars how can you tell if it is the favourable rules or having a better funded team that gives them the edge.

You're assuming that the Audi and Peugeot are of equivalent performance in all areas. Which is not unreasonable considering that we haven't yet seen them compete against each other! But it is perhaps more likely that one will be stronger than the other in certain areas ie top speed, economy, cornering, etc.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

Why would it not be in Audi's interest?

Let's just say that it's easier to win at cards if you can see your opponent's hand.

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

For us Slower members here... Why would it not be in Audi's interest?

If, as the only factory teams, the R10 and new Pug diesel romp away from the rest of the LMP1 cars how can you tell if it is the favourable rules or having a better funded team that gives them the edge.

If the works-supported petrol engined Lola can keep up with the oil-burners then surely Audi and Peugeot can make more of a case to not penalise them further.

Finally, a fresh conspiracy theory, having a team of people working on the petrol engine in plain view (in the guise of supporting Swiss Spirit), would allow Audi to continue development of the petrol engine, (and perhaps drop it into the R10 chassis when no-one was looking carefully) so come the 2010 coupe design they can pick between petrol and diesel engines (or use both) depending which way the rule book favours.

well... given the relative race performance of the best of the opposition in the past, and notwithstanding the fact that the Swiss Spirit car will have the best gasoline race engine in the back, its a pretty high risk stratergy to try and demonstrate, during the 24 hours, that the R10 is on the same performance level as the gasoline cars...If they'd done that last year they'd probably have finished 2nd... And if we are all wrong, and the diesel equivalency is correct, knowing as we do what a fine 24 hour engine the 8 cylinder is, and if the Lola is up to the job, and if the R10's diesel motor is less reliable than the proven gasoline engine, and so the Swiss Spirit Lola ends up winning the race.... how do you think the marketing department will like that?

Better to leave it to the opposition to try and prove a negative than risk tripping yourself up trying to defend yourself..

Anyway, here's another conspiracy theory for you.. Audi like nice tidy podiums. Perhaps a bit of insurance so that the second or third step isnt spoilt by the presence of a Peugeot driver or two, or three?

BTW you no longer need to have a coupe in 2010 in LMP1.

Peter



BTW, the 2010 rules will no longer mandate a coupe.

[Bentley03]

I've got another couple of thoughts (just thinking aloud here):

If they get that Le Mans invite, will Audi place one of their factory drivers in the car alongside Deletraz and Fassler?

Will the car be used for comparison tests at Weissach at some point in the future?

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I've got another couple of thoughts (just thinking aloud here):

If they get that Le Mans invite, will Audi place one of their factory drivers in the car alongside Deletraz and Fassler?

Will the car be used for comparison tests at Weissach at some point in the future?

ingolstadt will end up knowing more about it than they ever did in huntingdon...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

1 word, FANTASTIC!!!, it will be great to hear the audi FSI petrol engine noise again, and i must say im really looking forward to this one.

I wouldnt exactly call the FSI engine "nice" sounding !!!

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The main problem will be to mount the Audi V8 FSI in the Lola chassis and fit it on the Lola gearbox (the Audi engine was designed for the Ricardo gearbox).

Is it not the complete package then , meaning engine and tranny ?

What is the centre mounted nose intake all about ? None of the other Lola's have it .

[zac510]

The complete package for Bentley/Audi was inclusive of rear suspension too. I suppose that is a little easier to change than a gearbox

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by The Badger

What is the centre mounted nose intake all about ? None of the other Lola's have it .

None of the B06/10's, but that's a B07/10. I would assume the new intake is a development feature we'll see on the updated car.

[The Badger]

Isnt the Fernandez Lola a B07 too ?

Cant tell from any B-K pic that ive seen .

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I wouldnt exactly call the FSI engine "nice" sounding !!!

well its each to their own lol, i liked the noise of the FSI V8 turbo engine a LOT, imo it was one of the best sounding cars at silverstone in 2005, although it wasnt that loud it made a nice noise.

it would be nice though if audi decided to make a mega sounding 4.0 V10 or V12 engine though, ooooohhh imagine the noise!

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by zac510

The complete package for Bentley/Audi was inclusive of rear suspension too. I suppose that is a little easier to change than a gearbox

Nope. The Bentley had a completely different rear end from the rear face of the engine back, based around the Xtrac box. It wasnt a quick change setup, fortunately, or perhaps more accurately because of the excellence of the Xtrac package it didnt need to be.

The Audi, of course was based around a unique Ricardo in line box, not the same as the transverse unit as fitted to the Creation, Zytec and, er, Radical...

peter

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by PeterElleray

BTW, the 2010 rules will no longer mandate a coupe.

I'm not sure wether it's that clear cut is it?

The way I've read the noises coming from the ACO is that the long term aim is still to have LMP1 as Coupes and LMP2 Spyders, but initially in 2010 the LMP1 class will remain open to older Spyder type cars for a few years.

I stand to be corrected of course.

[zac510]

My apologies Peter, was I thinking of something else?

[The Badger]

Be nice to see Audi put their money behind the Swiss Spirit entry for Le Mans and have 3 of their drivers try to trounce the R10 .

Dream on !!!

[The Badger]

Mr . Elleray , a question for you .

Can you please explain why , when Bentley won Le Mans in 2003 , why did one car run with full endplates and the other didnt ?

I remember hearing that it didnt really matter , aerodynamic wise anyway ?

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I'm not sure wether it's that clear cut is it?

The way I've read the noises coming from the ACO is that the long term aim is still to have LMP1 as Coupes and LMP2 Spyders, but initially in 2010 the LMP1 class will remain open to older Spyder type cars for a few years.

I stand to be corrected of course.

Certainly lots of confused noises, however, as of late December when asked the direct question, "what rules does one use to design a coupe that will be legail in 2010" the answer that came back was, "the current rules". At the moment , as we all now know, the open cars will also be allowed to run. I'm not clear either if that means existing cars or potentially new ones. But either way, you can still say that the 2010 rules no longer mandate closed cars. Frankly, the sooner all this is clarified the better for everyone trying to make an honest bob designing the cars that will be allowed!

peter

[The Badger]

Wrong thread but !!

A question for Mr.Elleray please , if you dont mind .

Can you please explain why in 2003 , 1 Bentley ran with full length endplates and the other didnt ?

I remember hearing that the differance was minimal .

Congradulations by the way , a little late

Would it also be possible to graft a complete Audi rear end onto a B07/10 ? Meaning engine, gearbox and rear suspension ?

Thank you

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Mr . Elleray , a question for you .

Can you please explain why , when Bentley won Le Mans in 2003 , why did one car run with full endplates and the other didnt ?

I remember hearing that it didnt really matter , aerodynamic wise anyway ?

The difference wasnt as clear cut on the Bentley as on some other cars running centrally mounted wings. if you remember the 2003 car had the wing mounted as far outboard as was legal at the time. That probably did most of the job anyway. The extensions ramped up the efficiency at some parts of the aero map but not in others. The crew on car 8 didnt like the vibration that seemed to come with them either.

peter

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Wrong thread but !!



Would it also be possible to graft a complete Audi rear end onto a B07/10 ? Meaning engine, gearbox and rear suspension ?

Thank you

You mean to make a Lodi or an Aula....? Thats got to be one for Lola hasnt it...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by PeterElleray

You mean to make a Lodi or an Aula....? Thats got to be one for Lola hasnt it...

Or maybe a Lo-Audi !!!

Thanks

[chernaudi]

Somewhat off topic, but firstly, wasn't the gearbox casings for the Bentley designed by Bentley? Secondly, was it longitudinal, or transverse(I don't have the book on this particular vehicle yet). And, why didn't anyone use a Bentley type casing? XTrac's off the shelf trannies seemed to be kinda touch and go with relilabity depending on the car. But the Bentley only initially had gearshift problems-not with the gearbox itself. I think it may be either casing related, or drivers being too hard on the transmissions.

It could also be said that Bentley was also fortunate to not have had starter motor issues, or were wrecked, as such repairs(due to Bentley opting not to use a quick change feature) would take 7-10 minutes, where as on the Audi(which these were tho only common problems, as well as a rash of paddle shifter failures in '01), similar issues could be addressed in 4-7minutes.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem to matter, as Audi hasn't had gearbox issues since '01, and only bad starters and collisions lead to the transmission being replaced all but 2-3 times.

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Somewhat off topic, but firstly, wasn't the gearbox casings for the Bentley designed by Bentley? Secondly, was it longitudinal, or transverse(I don't have the book on this particular vehicle yet). And, why didn't anyone use a Bentley type casing? XTrac's off the shelf trannies seemed to be kinda touch and go with relilabity depending on the car. But the Bentley only initially had gearshift problems-not with the gearbox itself. I think it may be either casing related, or drivers being too hard on the transmissions.

It could also be said that Bentley was also fortunate to not have had starter motor issues, or were wrecked, as such repairs(due to Bentley opting not to use a quick change feature) would take 7-10 minutes, where as on the Audi(which these were tho only common problems, as well as a rash of paddle shifter failures in '01), similar issues could be addressed in 4-7minutes.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem to matter, as Audi hasn't had gearbox issues since '01, and only bad starters and collisions lead to the transmission being replaced all but 2-3 times.

Hi - The Bentley box was transverse. The box itself was closely related to the Xtrac customer box. Both derive from the box used on the BMW LMP in 1999. The 'customer' box is infact a whole series of boxes with different diffcaps etc, tailored to different manufacturers requirements, so in that respect the Bentley box was not unusual and there was no incentive for anyone to use it.

The original maincase design was done together between rtn and Xtrac in late 1999. It was very much a joint project, with some of the tooling costs being offset against the box then being made commercially avaliable by Xtrac. The 2003 maincase was lightly revised, but infact that box then ran the 'customer' oil system, so there was quite a lot of cross over.

There were no maincase structural issues with the Bentley Xtrac box.

The VW test car was the only one that ran with a gearlinkage. It didnt have any problems with that. All the Bentleys ran the megaline system. The only problem i can ever remember was when the compressor filled with water during the 2001 race.

The Bentley starter motor - which never caused a problem - was the same Bosch unit that the Audi's ran, mounted alongside the block on the left rear. I cant remember a problem - ever - so it sounds a bit more like good design by Bosch than good luck.

I think one of the most important factors in the ultimate success of the programme was being able to get out on track, and know that the engine wouldnt stop, or the gearbox. The starter would work and the altenator would charge. You could coincentrate on going faster or longer. Its a luxury half the pitlane dont have.

Peter

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by PeterElleray

Hi - The Bentley box was transverse. The box itself was closely related to the Xtrac customer box. Both derive from the box used on the BMW LMP in 1999. The 'customer' box is infact a whole series of boxes with different diffcaps etc, tailored to different manufacturers requirements, so in that respect the Bentley box was not unusual and there was no incentive for anyone to use it.

The original maincase design was done together between rtn and Xtrac in late 1999. It was very much a joint project, with some of the tooling costs being offset against the box then being made commercially avaliable by Xtrac. The 2003 maincase was lightly revised, but infact that box then ran the 'customer' oil system, so there was quite a lot of cross over.

There were no maincase structural issues with the Bentley Xtrac box.

The VW test car was the only one that ran with a gearlinkage. It didnt have any problems with that. All the Bentleys ran the megaline system. The only problem i can ever remember was when the compressor filled with water during the 2001 race.

The Bentley starter motor - which never caused a problem - was the same Bosch unit that the Audi's ran, mounted alongside the block on the left rear. I cant remember a problem - ever - so it sounds a bit more like good design by Bosch than good luck.

I think one of the most important factors in the ultimate success of the programme was being able to get out on track, and know that the engine wouldnt stop, or the gearbox. The starter would work and the altenator would charge. You could coincentrate on going faster or longer. Its a luxury half the pitlane dont have.

Peter

Since we're off topic, on a personal note Mr. Elleray, do you wish the cars would have seen more racing action, or are you satisfied with that aspect?

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Since we're off topic, on a personal note Mr. Elleray, do you wish the cars would have seen more racing action, or are you satisfied with that aspect?

difficult one... i was always concerned about the earlier series of cars potential at tracks away from LeMans, because they had been specially designed for the one race. If we had been allowed to do a sprint spec car, then yes of course.

When the 2003 car was designed, that was also very much a LeMans special, and we were quite surprised at how fast it was at Sebring. I think it would have been quite interesting to run the 2003 car at Spa, Monza and Road America. Having said that, there was no better feeling than standing there at the end of the race in 2003 knowing that the programme was finishing on such a high note.

peter