Interview with Audi Sport's Ullrich Baretzky

[RacingManiac]

For those who don't know, he is the head of Audi Sport's engine program...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TAhWdVU3M4

~25 min long, touching on all subject from the 2012 R18, regulation making, alternative fuel vehicle, parity between gas and diesel cars, and the prospect of racing Toyota and Peugeot's pull out....

[WhiteBlue]

Thanks for posting that. It confirms what I've have long thought about the balancing of Diesel and Petrol by ACO. It isn't about just balancing the efficiency potential but also politically against the Diesels. If a manufacturer came along and seriously developed the Petrol direct injection engine potential the Diesels had no better chance than a snowball in hell.

To some degree F1 is going to do this now. I wish more sanctioning bodies would follow Audi's philosophy of integrating the efficiency objectives into the racing rules. We could really use more super high efficient petrol combustion technology for our road vehicles.

[Holm86]

He is a very facinating man. Really enjoyed this interview. There wasnt a milisecond where i was bored

FIA and ACO could really use some more (or at least one) guy like this.

I like it when he is talking about the regulation that prohibit variable cams. It is NOT expensive and i WILL make a petrol engine more efficient. But its illegal.

Theres not much logic in ACO and FIA's regulations.

[WhiteBlue]

I like it when he is talking about the regulation that prohibit variable cams. It is NOT expensive and i WILL make a petrol engine more efficient. But its illegal. Theres not much logic in ACO and FIA's regulations.

This was one of my biggest disappointments when they came out with the 2014 F1 technical regulations and the engine details.

It is not only variable cams but also variable geometry turbochargers that are prohibited for the new F1 engines. At least in LeMans the variable turbos are allowed. All this is done in the name of cost restrictions that will never work. The FiA should really know better. You cannot restrict cost by tighter regulations unless you issue a complete development freeze as they did with the V8s.

The only logical way out is a budget cap on the total design of the cars and the engine. The sooner they get to it the better.

On the other hand the hands of the FiA a bound by the Concord Agreement which gives most of the rule power in the hands of the teams and the F1 commission which they dominate. So we can only hope that eventually the teams see the light and find cost control that leaves the technology less restricted.

[spacer]

Thanks a lot for sharing that video! The sooner we can get this man to replace the FIA the better

[Pandamasque]

Thanks for posting that. It confirms what I've have long thought about the balancing of Diesel and Petrol by ACO. It isn't about just balancing the efficiency potential but also politically against the Diesels.

don't forget it's the man behind the programme that has been conning the rule makers (in the words of Graham Goodwin) since 2005. What did you expect him to say but to defend their cause?! Audi Sport had numerous possibilities to put their action where their mouth is and build that petrol engine and beat Peugeot on pace.
It's not the first time when Baretzky says something that blatantly false to defend the party line or badmouth the opponents. That however doesn't take away his insight, there has been some good points raised.

[WhiteBlue]

It's not the first time when Baretzky says something that blatantly false to defend the party line or badmouth the opponents.

Do you care to give any examples?

[Pandamasque]

It's not the first time when Baretzky says something that blatantly false to defend the party line or badmouth the opponents.

Do you care to give any examples?

Off the top of my head:
- The 'fact' that TDI engines are so quiet because sound is lost energy. With more development (or just by bending the rules more) both Audi and Peugeot engines were only getting louder (and smokier!).
- The 'fact' that straight 6 turbo is a pointless concept that can never work (hear, hear BMW).

That should be sufficient.

[WhiteBlue]

It's not the first time when Baretzky says something that blatantly false to defend the party line or badmouth the opponents.

Do you care to give any examples?

Off the top of my head:
- The 'fact' that TDI engines are so quiet because sound is lost energy. With more development (or just by bending the rules more) both Audi and Peugeot engines were only getting louder (and smokier!).
- The 'fact' that straight 6 turbo is a pointless concept that can never work (hear, hear BMW).

That should be sufficient.

Perhaps for you. I would like to see the original quotes and not paraphrasing from you on the first point.

On the second point I must assume that the comment was aimed at Aston's L6 engine which was a total disaster by anyone's measures. So why should Baretzky not say so? I'm yet to see an L6 to win LeMans at current regulations. The fact that BMW used that engines historically in other racing formulae with some success means nothing.

[Pandamasque]

I'm not going to argue with you (your post count is high enough as it is ). The quotes aren't hard to find. But I'm sure you'll find a way to justify them.

To everyone else: my point was that it is a very good and interesting interview, but requires more than a pinch of salt.

The only logical way out is a budget cap on the total design of the cars and the engine. The sooner they get to it the better.

Budget capping only works for businesses like Lola, Zytek, Oreca, Judd etc... who sell cars and engines for profit. Car manufacturers have limitless possibilities to get around any resource restrictions, even 'private' F1 teams (can) do that.

[WhiteBlue]

The only logical way out is a budget cap on the total design of the cars and the engine. The sooner they get to it the better.

Budget capping only works for businesses like Lola, Zytek, Oreca, Judd etc... who sell cars and engines for profit. Car manufacturers have limitless possibilities to get around any resource restrictions, even 'private' F1 teams (can) do that.

There are some very substantial voices who think that it can be done. I just refer to Sauber's CEO Monisha Kaltenborn speaking on Formula1.com last week. Even old Bernie thinks it can be done if the top teams allow a cap that is low enough - which they will not unfortunately. The obstacles are not such as audits and verification but the missing political will to compete on a reasonable and comparable resource level. At least that is my opinion for F1.

LeMans cost restrictions may be another field of applicability. It appears that we will have practically no real competition for Audi in LMP1 there. So other constructors may have to be attracted by levelling the playing field somehow. Why not try budget restrictions? If something has not worked in the past it is technical restrictions to lower the cost. Resource restrictions in F1 have dropped the cost by 40% compared to 2009 although some loop holes still existed. So logic calls for at least trying it with a budget cap.

[Cold Fussion]

Thanks for posting that. It confirms what I've have long thought about the balancing of Diesel and Petrol by ACO. It isn't about just balancing the efficiency potential but also politically against the Diesels. If a manufacturer came along and seriously developed the Petrol direct injection engine potential the Diesels had no better chance than a snowball in hell.

To some degree F1 is going to do this now. I wish more sanctioning bodies would follow Audi's philosophy of integrating the efficiency objectives into the racing rules. We could really use more super high efficient petrol combustion technology for our road vehicles.

I've always said this. The reason why the Diesel's have blown the competition out of the water is because Audi has been racing against privateers at the beginning of the diesel era and then against Peugeot then on afterwards. We have to remember that Audi dominated against the same privateers with petrol cars before switching to the diesels. The R18 and 908 of last year were roughly 500-550/600 hp and in 2007/8 they were at 700 or beyond and they were still faster over one lap then they were back then. We only have to look at Formula 1 to see that the differences between engines is not as large as the differences made up between the rest of the car.

If we take a turbo petrol engine as 35% efficient and a diesel as 40%, will that extra 5% really offset the power advantage the petrol engine has over the course of 24 hours? I don't know but I think they would be very close. A petrol engine with the power advantage and what was it, 50L extra fuel in the tank should dominate of a diesel all other factors being equal.