F1technical.net

AUDI R18 e-Tron Quattro score the fastest lap of the race, so not simply just lucky, consistency and pace won them the race. Being 1-2 also means the still would have won had they field 2 cars. I guess the argument should be, Toyota and Porsche were unlucky? I am expecting a very different 919 next year, Porsche is just feeling how competitive it is now and Toyota even more reliability.

Lycoming wrote:As for toyota... the way the race played out between them and Audi is almost a carbon copy of how races went in the Peugeot era.

And then half the Toyota drivers are ex Peugeot drivers as well. Quite amazing that Audi have only really had the fastest car in 2011 and 2012 since 2007, and have won all but 2010. Was the #20 Porsche suffering a problem all throughout the race? Its pace never seemed to be that great, and was really slow when Webber was driving it.

The pace of the Toyotas was not a big surprise considering the WEC runs at Silverstone and Spa. The surprise for me was how reliable Porsche was already. They have the best prospects of exploiting more performance and reliability potential from all the cars.

Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

It is a shame for Toyota that they apparently do not have the full support of Japan for their assault on Le Mans. With more 24h testing and three cars they could have easily won this one. They had the superior concept for once but I'm afraid their competitors will have seen the deficits and will fill the gap very quickly. Next year Porsche will be unbeatable if they simply continue to throw almost unlimited resources at WEC and Le Mans.

The race was thrilling all the way, much better than F1 nowadays. The technology battle is fascinating and LMP1 is THE SHOW and the best motor racing series we have on this planet.

First, something a little different

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvn71JUliTk

Now then,

Cold Fussion wrote: Quite amazing that Audi have only really had the fastest car in 2011 and 2012 since 2007, and have won all but 2010.

2009 was the one they lost. 2010 was a podium lockout for Audi after all 4 Peugeots failed to finish. Also the year they set the current distance record.

WhiteBlue wrote:Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

What do you suggest they do about it? That's a difficult thing to balance.

Powerslide wrote:AUDI R18 e-Tron Quattro score the fastest lap of the race, so not simply just lucky, consistency and pace won them the race.

That's partly because the fast Toyota didn't make it to Happy Hour.

Pierce89 wrote:The Porsche disappointed me, as Peugot and Toyota both had a more competitive pace their respective first years(hell, the Peugot was the quickest car out there in its first year).

As Peugeot demonstrated multiple times, speed isn't everything at Le Mans.

Lycoming wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

What do you suggest they do about it? That's a difficult thing to balance.

Let say their power plant is 5% of the minimum weight heavier than their competitors they ought to have 5% more engine power from the fuel allowance to get equal acceleration.
Alternatively the minimum weight could be adjusted and the petrol cars made to carry ballast at the engine position. That would be the worse alternative IMO.
The important message from the race is the conclusion that petrol can be as competitive as diesel which people have denied all the time. The problem was simply that nobody seriously tried until 2014.

With all this talk about Audi being lucky, remind me when was the last time Audi retired in Lemans due to mechanical problems?

WhiteBlue wrote:

Lycoming wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

What do you suggest they do about it? That's a difficult thing to balance.

Let say their power plant is 5% of the minimum weight heavier than their competitors they ought to have 5% more engine power from the fuel allowance to get equal acceleration.
Alternatively the minimum weight could be adjusted and the petrol cars made to carry ballast at the engine position. That would be the worse alternative IMO.
The important message from the race is the conclusion that petrol can be as competitive as diesel which people have denied all the time. The problem was simply that nobody seriously tried until 2014.

The 2012 Toyota was allready in content for victory untill it crashed. (The 2013 spec wasn't fast enough)

Bob Brown wrote:Audi was lucky, that's all.... and 1 extra car.

Weren't the fastest, weren't the best.

lucky?

This race is about competence, not a lottery.

If #7 couldn't finish the race it is because of bad engineering/work/care from the their crew.

Also, Lotterer was easily the fastest there. Did 1.22.8 and then 1.22.5 against Toyotas's best of 1.23.1

You can say Toyota didn't do better because #7 retired but the #8 was still there and was nowhere near as fast as #2

Audi won it again due to better reliability(as in the Peugeot era) and showing confortably the fastest pace in Lotterer final's stint.

WhiteBlue wrote: Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think diesel engine's bigger weight is included in EoT.

TzeiTzei wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think diesel engine's bigger weight is included in EoT.

Unless I'm very mistaken it isn't. I honestly do not see how it could be done with the current regulations. Theysimply get the same mechanical energy irrespective of the engine weight.

WhiteBlue wrote:

Lycoming wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

What do you suggest they do about it? That's a difficult thing to balance.

Let say their power plant is 5% of the minimum weight heavier than their competitors they ought to have 5% more engine power from the fuel allowance to get equal acceleration.
Alternatively the minimum weight could be adjusted and the petrol cars made to carry ballast at the engine position. That would be the worse alternative IMO.
The important message from the race is the conclusion that petrol can be as competitive as diesel which people have denied all the time. The problem was simply that nobody seriously tried until 2014.

How can you say that about the petrol-diesel equivalance. Toyota spent 2 seasons with a power disadvantage, so, to get Porsche in, they had to redress it. The equivalancy is totally different this year and doesn't reflect on the past at all. The diesels definietely had an advantage previously. They had to, to get Au i to take the "race disel risk".

WhiteBlue wrote:

TzeiTzei wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think diesel engine's bigger weight is included in EoT.

Unless I'm very mistaken it isn't. I honestly do not see how it could be done with the current regulations. Theysimply get the same mechanical energy irrespective of the engine weight.

There is the K-factor in the calculations. This was discussed a while ago in this thread.

Lycoming wrote:First, something a little different

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvn71JUliTk

Now then,

Cold Fussion wrote: Quite amazing that Audi have only really had the fastest car in 2011 and 2012 since 2007, and have won all but 2010.

2009 was the one they lost. 2010 was a podium lockout for Audi after all 4 Peugeots failed to finish. Also the year they set the current distance record.

Sorry i got the year wrong, but if my memory serves me correct, the Peugeots were quite a bit faster in 2010 as well.

TzeiTzei wrote:There is the K-factor in the calculations. This was discussed a while ago in this thread.

The K-factor was for fuel differences IMO. Do you have a quote saying it was for engine weight?

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 22#p509222

Actually I found a table saying the k-factor was just to compensate for the hybrid system. Diesels without hybrid have a k-factor of 1 if I read this right.

TzeiTzei wrote:

TzeiTzei wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: Audi did a very good job considering they were disadvantaged by the technical equivalence rules. The diesel engine is considerably heavier by design and they were not allowed any compensation for that, so they had to run with a minimum recovery system and consequently much less peak power. This in my view requires addressing by the ACO and the FiA.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think diesel engine's bigger weight is included in EoT.

There is the K-factor in the calculations. This was discussed a while ago in this thread.

Yes the k and t factors are meant to make up for a diesel's extra weight or any field of difference between different engines.. WB, you're normally well informed, but I think you should probably look through the WEC regs again before making a y more assertions