Lola-Audi (merged)

[jhansen]

Thanks for the response. I would have liked to see the '03 car at Spa and Petit LeMans that year, just to see how it ran elsewhere. But I can understand the satisfaction of finishing with a LeMans win.

Of course, seeing how successful the R8 was at LeMans, and other tracks, I think the Bentley would have done well.

[chernaudi]

Appearently the success the Audi and Bentley have had in sportscar racing is simple: "Unless it's something that works and will help us, let's stick to convention". FSI helped both programs, but direct fuel injection dates back to the Bosch mechanical systems used mainly on the Daimler Benz DB 601-605 airplane engines used in World War II, and reappeared on the 300SL/SLR racing cars.

However, Audi/VW knew that they could make it better, and partnered with Bosch to do so. Combining Bosch's experience with direct fuel injection, and VAG's experience with their TDI diesel technology resulted in FSI.

For Swiss Spirit, it's now a deal of making the car work with the engine, and making the car as reliable as the engine.

And I second for wishing to see the Speed 8 run other races than Sebring and Le Mans. But Le Mans was Bentley's goal, and VAG wanted it to be a three year program. And the '03 car had a better downforce to drag ratio, and more downforce period. Just like Audi with the R8 and R10, the balance was there. Minor tweaks(like the small gurneys that the R8 ran in the front and read fenders in front of the wheels-not the dive planes-but small gurneys that followed the contour of the wheelwell) simply would've made it faster and even more general purpose.

And what I was trying to get at earlier was why would one team use the essentially the same gearbox, and another have all sorts of problems with it, although the transmission is the same.

[chewymonster]

I think that Audi would want the following results:

Audi R10 TDI
Audi R10 TDI
Audi R10 TDI
Swiss Spirit Lola Audi FSI
Several gasoline powered P1s [this would be extra nice to show the diesel/gas equivalency but if it didn't happen Audi would still be happy as it shows that the other gasoline powered competition was not up to par not because of the rules]
Peugeot Diesel

[fernandes37]

Hello all,

It is my first post in this site, although I've been registered to Ten-Tenths since October 2004. It is a great honour and privilege to be able to write in a forum where the main responsible for such a remarkable achievement (the 2003 winning Bentley) also posts.

I just wanted to shed some light into the power figures stated for the Audi. Below is a link (unfortunately in German) to an article that speaks about the 2001 conversion of Audi's engine to FSI. An almost equal article exists in English and was published in the 2002 March edition of the magazine Auto Technology. I have it in PDF and if anyone whishes to read it, I'll make a copy available without any problems. The German article presented in the link below was written by Christian Bartsch,

MAHLE_RennmotorAudi_Junker_de.pdf

but the english version was written by Ulrich Baretzki (probably known to most of you) and revised by Dr. Ullrich (probably also a familiar name), H. Diel, W. Kotauschek and E. Weil.

Now for the interesting features: according to Baretzki, the latest spec MPI engine developed 610bhp (or 450kW as stated in page 357 of german article) at 6200 rpm. It could be revved up to 8000rpm in race trim (see same page). Torque is stated at the beginning of page 358 at 700N.m. Divided by 1.36 to convert N.m to lbs.ft we achieve 515 lbs.ft.

Now for the 2001 FSI engine. The main results for the swap from MPI to FSI, as written by Baretzki in the English version PDF are as follows:
"In the Le Mans Pretest in May 2001, all results previously achieved on the test benches in Ingolstadt and Neckarsulm were proved under real Le Mans conditions:
• an increase in performance by up to 9 % between 3000 rpm
and 8000 rpm
• a reduction in fuel consumption by up to 8 – 10 % resulting in at least one additional lap at Le Mans between two pit stops for refuelling
• excellent driveability"

Now, be careful with that 9% gain figure. I think (though I'm not sure) that Baretzki, as most engine engineers refers to performance as meaning torque, since for us Power is just an equation implying one real variable: Torque!
That does not mean that maximum torque went up by 9% of 700N.m. in all rpm. In fact, in page 358 of the german report we see that maximum torque went up to 750N.m. (or about 7% of maximum achieved in the MPI engine). This probably means that the 9% improvement came even lower in the rpm range, before the maximum torque rpm.
It is both possible and logical that, at maximum power rpm, the gain was even smaller than 7%, and therefore we can not simply say that the FSI engine had 610hp + 9% = 664hp, in fact probably even less than 610hp + 7% = 652hp. A probable value will be between 620 and 640hp, but now I'm speculating.

But what we can do, should the information provided be true, is confirm what Mr. Peter Elleray said in his post earlier on: if we take that 750N.m at 5500rpm (again see page 358) and do the math we end up with 432kW or almost 588PS (= 580bhp). So, in 2001 the Audi pilots already had almost 600hp at 5500rpm and they could still rev the engine up to, at least, 7000 rpm while in the power band. This is precisely what Mr. Elleray was talking about: power low down in the rpm band, and an almost flat maximum power curve between 5500 and 7000rpm with always more than 585hp. This equates to a phenomenal acceleration since, it is possible that the 2 last upshifts (4th to 5th, and 5th to 6th) might lay completely inside this rpm range.

Sorry for such a long post. Hope to have helped.

Nuno Fernandes
ex-VW 4-cylinder TDI department (Wolfsburg)


PS - All written above is in-line with that is available for public consultation at www.mulsannescorner.com, except for the fact that the 2001/2002 FSI engine which is correctly stated at 553lbs.ft did not achieve that torque at 7500rpm. The correct value is 5500. If that torque was produced at 7500rpm it would yield 803hp. In all cases, my greatest cheers to Mulsannes Mike as, to me, his site is still the reference.

edited to make the link shorter on the screen, thanks Nuno - p-c

[skycafe]

Welcome and that was some first post Nuno!

[PeterElleray]

Originally Posted by fernandes37

Hello all,



But what we can do, should the information provided be true, is confirm what Mr. Peter Elleray said in his post earlier on: if we take that 750N.m at 5500rpm (again see page 358) and do the math we end up with 432kW or almost 588PS (= 580bhp). So, in 2001 the Audi pilots already had almost 600hp at 5500rpm and they could still rev the engine up to, at least, 7000 rpm while in the power band. This is precisely what Mr. Elleray was talking about: power low down in the rpm band, and an almost flat maximum power curve between 5500 and 7000rpm with always more than 585hp. This equates to a phenomenal acceleration since, it is possible that the 2 last upshifts (4th to 5th, and 5th to 6th) might lay completely inside this rpm range.

Sorry for such a long post. Hope to have helped.

Nuno Fernandes
ex-VW 4-cylinder TDI department (Wolfsburg)


PS - All written above is in-line with that is available for public consultation at www.mulsannescorner.com, except for the fact that the 2001/2002 FSI engine which is correctly stated at 553lbs.ft did not achieve that torque at 7500rpm. The correct value is 5500. If that torque was produced at 7500rpm it would yield 803hp. In all cases, my greatest cheers to Mulsannes Mike as, to me, his site is still the reference.

edited to make the link shorter on the screen, thanks Nuno - p-c

i think that this is largely correct - dont forget that in 2003 the restrictors were reduced in area by around 10% from the cases outlined here.. This lost a little under that amount in peak power but very little in torque lower in the rev range below the point at which the restrictor takes effect. if you consider all these factors you can see that peak power in 2003 was well below 600bhp, but that peak torque was still around 800Nm with the useful rev range being below 7000rpm - bit like a diesel in fact...

[Gil Abobeleira]

Thanks Nuno for your insight (especially considering you're a fellow countryman).

BTW: Were you the responsible for the SportscarGT (portuguese site) article about the Audi R10 engine?

[knighty]

yes, good post Nuno - nice to see that both Peters and your appraisal of the R8 power falls in line with what is being said by other experts, so I think the conclusion is the latest spec of R8 motor has power in the low to mid 600's......ish

[QUOTE=BTW: Were you the responsible for the SportscarGT (portuguese site) article about the Audi R10 engine?[/QUOTE]

what article about the R10 engine?.......any links would be appreciated.......I'm still yet to find out the bore, stroke and compression ratio for the R10.........to this day I still cannot believe the detail of the Audi TV advert where they show an R10 engine being built........I just couldnt believe the detail they made public - I wonder what bartensky - or whatever his name is - said when he saw that advert!.........I bet the boys at Peugeot had a good old look........I know I did!

[TRuss]

Peak horsepower has nothing to do with acceleration. Horsepower is just a number. In theory, the more RPM you can spin, the more horsepower you can make. Torque is the true measurement of the work. Especially during acceleration. A car is more likely to display it's horsepower with it's top speed.

[knighty]

what you meant to say was........"quoting power figures sells engines - torque wins races"........nothing new.

Originally Posted by TRuss

Peak horsepower has nothing to do with acceleration. Horsepower is just a number. In theory, the more RPM you can spin, the more horsepower you can make. Torque is the true measurement of the work. Especially during acceleration. A car is more likely to display it's horsepower with it's top speed.

[TRuss]

Yeah. I think salesmen from the musclecar days uses to say "Horsepower gets them in the dealership, but torque sells the car." Or something like that.

[TRuss]

I swear English is my first language.

[Truckosaurus]

Wasn't it "Horsepower sells cars, but Torque wins races"?

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by knighty

what article about the R10 engine?.......any links would be appreciated.......

http://sportscar.com.sapo.pt/TDi_FSi_UK.htm (it's in English)...

(Nuno, conhecendo as tuas ligações com a VAG, retirarei o link do fórum, se assim o quiseres)

[fernandes37]

Originally Posted by Gil Abobeleira

http://sportscar.com.sapo.pt/TDi_FSi_UK.htm (it's in English)...

(Nuno, conhecendo as tuas ligações com a VAG, retirarei o link do fórum, se assim o quiseres)

Gil,

yes, I am a fellow countrymen. No problem at all in posting the link. Its a little bit bizarre to read it almost 3 years from the first draft version...and also after June 06.
The article is not on the R10 TDI, instead it focus mainly on an hipothetical diesel engine (though the R10 was already under development at that time) and on its comparison against what was at that time a "state-of-the-art" gasoline engine. I only think it would belong (in a more suited form) in a thread dedicated to "gasoline vs. diesel", if such a thread exists.
As for the confidentiality problems, all information in the article was at that time (and, for that matter, still is) public.
As promised here is the link to the V8 FSI engine development (in English):

www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audi/1_lemans.pdf

Nuno

PS - Regarding the article, I should tell you that I've been since informed that gearboxes with more than 6 speeds and more than 1 clutch are not allowed in Le Mans racing. Well, the intention was good...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by fernandes37

PS - Regarding the article, I should tell you that I've been since informed that gearboxes with more than 6 speeds and more than 1 clutch are not allowed in Le Mans racing. Well, the intention was good...

Because of the huge torque diesel cars can use less gears. Audi only uses a 5 speed gearbox. At the moment Peugeot uses a 6 speed gearbox, but they could go to 5 or even 4 gears.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Because of the huge torque diesel cars can use less gears. Audi only uses a 5 speed gearbox. At the moment Peugeot uses a 6 speed gearbox, but they could go to 5 or even 4 gears.

Last time they messed with gearboxes, it didn't end very well.

And 3 gears are enough!(Marcus Grönholm)

[JAG]

Apparently the Peugeot has 735bhp and 1540 Nm of Torque, accordtng to Auto-Hebdo.

I guess the R10 is similar, which suggests the Porsche RS Spyder has over 550bhp, considering 550bhp is the ACO's own approximate figure for P2's, as the RS Spyders hassled the R10's.

I would also suggest the Judd and AER P1 engines are producing far more more than 650bhp (ACO figure), seeing as both manufactuers admit to 650bhp+ with current restrictors.

In 2008 diesels are expected to be given smaller restrictors, maybe 5%.

[Hammerdown]

Originally Posted by JAG

Apparently the Peugeot has 735bhp and 1540 Nm of Torque, accordtng to Auto-Hebdo.

I guess the R10 is similar, which suggests the Porsche RS Spyder has over 550bhp, considering 550bhp is the ACO's own approximate figure for P2's, as the RS Spyders hassled the R10's.

I would also suggest the Judd and AER P1 engines are producing far more more than 650bhp (ACO figure), seeing as both manufactuers admit to 650bhp+ with current restrictors.

In 2008 diesels are expected to be given smaller restrictors, maybe 5%.

I saw those figures too and find them hard to believe. Maybe in sprint spec? Dunno. Especially that torque figure. Audi claimed about 1100 if my memory serves me correctly. 1540 is well over twice the figure for the Judd, and if it is true then the ACO need to do something drastic NOW! I don't think a 5% restrictor will make a blind bit of difference.

I wouldn't like to be the gearbox designer!

[JAG]

I don''t believe the petrol engne manufactuers are giving us real figures, how can Porsche claim the RS Spyder was producing under 500bhp when it was so competive with the R10.

Even the ACO claim P2's are putting out 550bhp!

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

Wasn't it "Horsepower sells cars, but Torque wins races"?

Either way its a load of rubbish.

[SALEEN S7R]

Originally Posted by JAG

I don''t believe the petrol engne manufactuers are giving us real figures, how can Porsche claim the RS Spyder was producing under 500bhp when it was so competive with the R10.

Even the ACO claim P2's are putting out 550bhp!

I agree JAG. Last year I am sure I read in various places that the RML was producing around 550bhp. I would be very suprised if Penske have less power than RML. Now bearing in mind we are in 2007 and there will be new engines and revisions to the current ones I would suggest anything up to 575bhp is realistic. At least for the top LMP2 cars.

[dj choc ice]

that may have explained why in 2005 the RML lola beat the rollcentre dallara's and much of the LMP1 field, and blew away the LMP2 competition.

if the pug is expected or said to be making 735bhp then surely the ACO will whack a smaller restrictor on it, if what you are saying is true JAG, then the petrol engines are making at most around 680bhp?

if thats the case then im surprised the cars are only doing 205 tops at lemans, it thought they would have been screaming down the mulsanne at 220mph atleast!

[gwyllion]

Torque number of Audi R10 during Le Mans weekend are available at http://www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9368

During the race the V12 TDI produced 1300 Nm.

[Hammerdown]

I think that with the chicanes there isn't isn't enough room to do much more than 200 these days, and more to be gained by sticking a bigger wing on and going faster through the bendy bits.

If you hark back to Pescarolo's assessment of the Audi advantage at Le Mans 2006, you'll notice that the time advantage was had in mostly in acceleration and not top speed.

Torque is the king here.

Interesting to note that in the technical details section on the official Le Mans site torque figs are as follows:

Audi R10, 1100Nm
Corvette, 745 Nm
AER 3.6 V8 turbo, 700 Nm
AER 2-litre turbo, 620 Nm !!!!!!! (that might explain a lot)
Judd 5-litre, 615 Nm
Zytek 4-litre, 530 Nm
Judd 3.4, 475 Nm