- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
They do not aim to enhance economy. They want the drivers to run flat out and not conserve fuel to have better racing. That is what is meant by economy running.matt21 wrote:For me, the mass flow is only a method to limit power levels, not to enhance economy.
Can you give us a source?matt21 wrote:According to a german website Toyota will stick with the V8 in 2014.
I guess hope is everyone's last resort, but I'm very happy that Toyota didn't take that route and neither will Porsche I'm sure.WhiteBlue wrote: ...
Will he go for a diesel 4-cylinder?
Toyota seem to be also one step behind on how to 'use' the rules. I guess, quite like F1 really, there's a lot performance gains in how you interpret rules and the apply them. Toyota failed in F1 in that respect too I'd say. Let's hope Porsche understand this and factor this into genuine contention.WhiteBlue wrote:It will all be revealed in time. In the meantime we can speculate all we want. In the case of Porsche I still believe they will not use a V8. A six or four cylinder will make more sense for them IMO.
Toyota has never won Le Mans. Audi and Porsche have. They have won on the strength of their engines. Toyota's strength is the superior super cap hybrid system they have.
Source: AutosportToyota argues that Audi has used the freedom it enjoys with diesel to simply pump more fuel into the cylinders to gain more horsepower. This is something that Audi even admits, saying that the three per cent reduction in air-restrictor size for 2013 has forced it down a new route and resulted in a dramatic change in the way it maps the engine that forsakes economy.
Vasselon's argument is that the Automobile Club de l'Ouest and the FIA, which jointly write the LMP1 regulations, missed a trick in their continuing drive to balance turbodiesel and petrol-engine technologies over the winter.
"What was wrong last year was to concentrate only on the power side and leave the fuel," he says. "If we leave one of the two open, then diesel technology can exploit this."
IMO they should look for a way to enhance economy AND give the drivers the possibility to race flat out.WhiteBlue wrote:They do not aim to enhance economy. They want the drivers to run flat out and not conserve fuel to have better racing. That is what is meant by economy running.matt21 wrote:For me, the mass flow is only a method to limit power levels, not to enhance economy.
That is exactly what they are doing when you look at the published regulation changes, aren't they?matt21 wrote:IMO they should look for a way to enhance economy AND give the drivers the possibility to race flat out.
I see this as a perfectly legal change of strategy by Audi. Last year they were suffering from a lack of downforce and decided to tweak everything for fuel economy to make fewer pit stops to compensate. This year they have developed their chassis and the engine for more downforce and performance. They also are at the end of the life cycle of the current engine. So it makes no sense to hold back any possible performance for next year. I think it is perfectly legitimate to do. Toyota already got further air restrictions for Audi this year. Only that Audi did not stop developing. I think you cannot complain that your competitor does development if you make no effort. It is a bit blue eyed to rely only on the ACO performance levelling all the time. Audi will argue that Toyota were at liberty to also generate more power from their engine but they did not do this. I think you cannot claim that the petrol engine has no development potential. So IMO Toyota did not fail in the politicking department. They were simply out developed by Audi's strategy which is legitimate. I don't think that Toyota are really serious with their motor sport activities. They simply do not enough to win Le Mans and the WEC. Audi has a 2014 development program, a 2013 Le Mans program, a 2013 WEC program and a tyre development program with Michelin for 2014. They design a brand new engine every two or three years and do agressive engine development during the short life cycle. IMO that's some serious effort to win, not a half baked amateur attempt to win just Le Mans with two cars.Cam wrote:Toyota seem to be also one step behind on how to 'use' the rules. I guess, quite like F1 really, there's a lot performance gains in how you interpret rules and the apply them. Toyota failed in F1 in that respect too I'd say. Let's hope Porsche understand this and factor this into genuine contention.Source: AutosportToyota argues that Audi has used the freedom it enjoys with diesel to simply pump more fuel into the cylinders to gain more horsepower. This is something that Audi even admits, saying that the three per cent reduction in air-restrictor size for 2013 has forced it down a new route and resulted in a dramatic change in the way it maps the engine that forsakes economy.
Vasselon's argument is that the Automobile Club de l'Ouest and the FIA, which jointly write the LMP1 regulations, missed a trick in their continuing drive to balance turbodiesel and petrol-engine technologies over the winter.
"What was wrong last year was to concentrate only on the power side and leave the fuel," he says. "If we leave one of the two open, then diesel technology can exploit this."
There is a good reason to have an increasing penalty for more powerful hybrid systems. Those systems are very expensive to develop and only factories can afford to do that. So the ACO wants to tweak it a little more for the privateers who cannot afford such expensive systems. That is ok in my book. The factory teams deserve a little handicap for all the money they can spend. It isn't going to stop them building powerful all wheel drive electric systems.Blanchimont wrote:So if the rule makers really want to promote hybrid technology, IMO they should - for the LMP1 class - not regulate the amount of energy that can be harvested per lap. Let the competitors decide, how much weight and power an optimum hybrid system should have for Le Mans. They should only limit the maximum fuel consumption allowed.
Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.WhiteBlue wrote:I see this as a perfectly legal change of strategy by Audi. Last year they were suffering from a lack of downforce and decided to tweak everything for fuel economy to make fewer pit stops to compensate. This year they have developed their chassis and the engine for more downforce and performance. They also are at the end of the life cycle of the current engine. So it makes no sense to hold back any possible performance for next year. I think it is perfectly legitimate to do. Toyota already got further air restrictions for Audi this year. Only that Audi did not stop developing. I think you cannot complain that your competitor does development if you make no effort. It is a bit blue eyed to rely only on the ACO performance levelling all the time. Audi will argue that Toyota were at liberty to also generate more power from their engine but they did not do this. I think you cannot claim that the petrol engine has no development potential. So IMO Toyota did not fail in the politicking department. They were simply out developed by Audi's strategy which is legitimate. I don't think that Toyota are really serious with their motor sport activities. They simply do not enough to win Le Mans and the WEC. Audi has a 2014 development program, a 2013 Le Mans program, a 2013 WEC program and a tyre development program with Michelin for 2014. They design a brand new engine every two or three years and do agressive engine development during the short life cycle. IMO that's some serious effort to win, not a half baked amateur attempt to win just Le Mans with two cars.Cam wrote:Toyota seem to be also one step behind on how to 'use' the rules. I guess, quite like F1 really, there's a lot performance gains in how you interpret rules and the apply them. Toyota failed in F1 in that respect too I'd say. Let's hope Porsche understand this and factor this into genuine contention.Source: AutosportToyota argues that Audi has used the freedom it enjoys with diesel to simply pump more fuel into the cylinders to gain more horsepower. This is something that Audi even admits, saying that the three per cent reduction in air-restrictor size for 2013 has forced it down a new route and resulted in a dramatic change in the way it maps the engine that forsakes economy.
Vasselon's argument is that the Automobile Club de l'Ouest and the FIA, which jointly write the LMP1 regulations, missed a trick in their continuing drive to balance turbodiesel and petrol-engine technologies over the winter.
"What was wrong last year was to concentrate only on the power side and leave the fuel," he says. "If we leave one of the two open, then diesel technology can exploit this."
Which is 10%, plus the superior efficiency of the diesel-process itself, why I truly love Toyota for sticking to their guns.Pierce89 wrote: ...
This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.