2010 24 Hours of Le Mans (June 12-13)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Guys, this is really embarrassing but I didn't even know Le Mans happened already.

That's what Peugeot said.

Bourdais is still in the pits, waiting to drive.

[henk4]

The Audi R15 was designed mostly for the ALMS, and it retains a lot of those features-great for a twisty, shorter track(and Peugeot has admitted as much), but of little use or importance at Le Mans.

Really? Last year and this year neither the R15 or the R15 plus made an appearence in the ALMS (apart from the big races). The R15 could have been designed for it, but when Audi curtailed its budget at the end of 2008 the car never came there, and with the redesigned R15 plus, it was already known that they would not do ALMS, so why would they purposely retain features that are of little use or importance at Le Mans? Le Mans is the raison d'etre for these cars, (also for the Pugs, no Le Mans, no factory teams), so I suspect Audi would concentrate on having a car suited for LM and suitability for the twisty tracks could be seen as a bonus, but not as a design feature.

[RacingManiac]

When R15 was designed it was an ALMS car(Tub geometry and whatnot, including ability to be fueled from both side), and even the R15 + still uses the same tub with the same structural points for suspension. Audi pretty much "did an Acura" on their own car to make the R15+ from R15 like Wirth did with the Courage to make the ARX-01a/b/c.....

From Audi's stand point at least the success of the R15+ at least points them in the right direction of where they have strayed off with the R15, and even if the car is still slower(significantly so) they at least made gain from it.

Some interesting rumors I heard from a Wirth guy(FSAE Alumni from my school working for Wirth on Virgin) is that Michelin is now developing the 2011 tires for both Audi and Peugeot, with the goal to make the "rear tire" for the front, a la ARX-02a, just now actually designed to be use as front....more stuff to look out for I guess in the new cars...

[Chernaudi]

Any chance this rumor has legs, that Peugeot is considering withdrawing from the LMIC? It seems that Peugeot's participation hinged on a good result at Le Mans, and 4 out of 4 DNFs and Audi obtaining a podium sweep hasn't helped those chances.

And like in the post above me, Audi essentially pulled an Acura and designed an car more suited for the ALMS/LMS than Le Mans. Just consider that the R15 is judged as "pointy" or "loose", meaning that it has under the right conditions more grip up front than at the rear due to the near 50/50 weight distribution. Add in the VTG turbochargers(which elliminate turbo lag) and Audi has an effective weapon for the ALMS/LMS. Is Peugeot going to get VTG turbos for the 908? I doubt it at this stage, since even if Peugeot lets Oreca continue in the LMS, why develop a car that may be retired later this year and may or may not be raced next year(the ACO has introduced a one year grandfather clause for current LMP1s due to late announcement of the 2011 rules). Ironically, Garrett/Honeywell make the turbos for both Audi and Peugeot.

So if that rumor is true that Peugeot may be backing down and concentrating for 2011, where will that leave Oreca in the LMS(and possibly opening the door for Audi to "steal" the LMS?), and may Audi take advantage for the LMIC, as it seems that nothing short of a Peugeot win at LM would've assured Peugeot's participation?

[henk4]

When R15 was designed it was an ALMS car(Tub geometry and whatnot, including ability to be fueled from both side), and even the R15 + still uses the same tub with the same structural points for suspension. Audi pretty much "did an Acura" on their own car to make the R15+ from R15 like Wirth did with the Courage to make the ARX-01a/b/c.....

From Audi's stand point at least the success of the R15+ at least points them in the right direction of where they have strayed off with the R15, and even if the car is still slower(significantly so) they at least made gain from it.

Some interesting rumors I heard from a Wirth guy(FSAE Alumni from my school working for Wirth on Virgin) is that Michelin is now developing the 2011 tires for both Audi and Peugeot, with the goal to make the "rear tire" for the front, a la ARX-02a, just now actually designed to be use as front....more stuff to look out for I guess in the new cars...

Can you explain what the tub geometry differences would be between an ALMS designed car and one for Le Mans and the reason for those differences? I am still puzzled as to why Audi should design a car (the original R15) for a series in which they were not going to participate. (this was annnounced by the Ulrich at the pressconference at the Essen Motor show in November 2008).

[henk4]

Any chance this rumor has legs, that Peugeot is considering withdrawing from the LMIC? It seems that Peugeot's participation hinged on a good result at Le Mans, and 4 out of 4 DNFs and Audi obtaining a podium sweep hasn't helped those chances.

And like in the post above me, Audi essentially pulled an Acura and designed an car more suited for the ALMS/LMS than Le Mans. Just consider that the R15 is judged as "pointy" or "loose", meaning that it has under the right conditions more grip up front than at the rear due to the near 50/50 weight distribution. Add in the VTG turbochargers(which elliminate turbo lag) and Audi has an effective weapon for the ALMS/LMS. Is Peugeot going to get VTG turbos for the 908? I doubt it at this stage, since even if Peugeot lets Oreca continue in the LMS, why develop a car that may be retired later this year and may or may not be raced next year(the ACO has introduced a one year grandfather clause for current LMP1s due to late announcement of the 2011 rules). Ironically, Garrett/Honeywell make the turbos for both Audi and Peugeot.

So if that rumor is true that Peugeot may be backing down and concentrating for 2011, where will that leave Oreca in the LMS(and possibly opening the door for Audi to "steal" the LMS?), and may Audi take advantage for the LMIC, as it seems that nothing short of a Peugeot win at LM would've assured Peugeot's participation?

Peugeot as yet has stated no official cause for the engine failure at Le Mans. If it is something structural, they may not want to participate (weren't they planning to do the Silverstone 1000 km as well?). However if it is a cheap 30 cents part that failed on all three cars, there is no reason why they should not, in particular as they may want to seek some sort of revenge. I also heard about this grandfather clause, which may result in a can of worms. And if the Audis and the Pugs will do a 2011 with the R15 and 908 there should be a thorough check on their emissions as underneath the Dunlop bridge it was very clear to see for everybody that they were smoking like hell, the Audis straight up in the air, the Pugs more sideways.

Audi winning this year's LMS is almost a certainty, as the win in Paul Ricard gave double points. They will do Silverstone as well, so Oreca has to win all three remaining races, and they may not be helped should Peugeot decide also to do Silverstone.

[Chernaudi]

Peugeot stated an intent to do the LMIC a couple of months ago, but didn't say much else. They said that they would've liked to have done at least Silverstone and Shanghi(England and China a big markets for Peugeot), but with the event's of Le Mans, even that may be in doubt.

The owner of the Audi site Fourtitude says that he was approaced by a Peugeot "insider" who on the condition of anoniminty admitted that Peugeot was considering scraping any post-Le Mans plans to concentrate on 2011. Publically, Peugeot from the beginning has only committed to Sebring, Spa, and Le Mans, and stated an intent to do Silverstone, Shanghi, and maybe PLM. Of course, I agree with Kevin Harvick and his "anominous sources are crap" comment. However, this will stir the pot for sure about Peugeot's immediate future.

Audi will most likey win the LMS, but under the current rules, they have to run either Algarve or Hungaroring to be offically classified in the championship(4 out of 5 races). Hence the rumors that they'll do at least one more LMS race before Silverstone.

I believe that the Pug engine failures were due in large part to Audi pushing Peugeot like they've rarely if ever been pushed before. Peugeot had to run those 3:19-3:21 lap times to make up for earlier problems, and with under normal circumstances the Pugs at best being 1-3 seconds a lap faster than the Audis(with during the middle stages the gap being much narrower as the Audis and Peugeots running the same lap times until the Pugs hit their problems), they had to give everything, and it was just a bridge too far.

Also, the diesel smoke may've been due to Audi and Peugeot running their cars at full rich much of the race to maximize power. I know that a lean air-fuel mixture can destroy a gasoline engine in short order, but how about loading up a diesel to the point where it may almost basically choke on it's own fuel? And from what I've heard, the puffs of smoke that occured under loading and initial throttle up were nothing compared to the Pugs at PLM last year in qualifying, where they didn't run the particle fiters.

Some are saying that the Peugeot engine failures may be a miscalcuation of the A/F mix(possible, but not the most likey scinerio), or Mahle may've built a bad batch of pistons(unlikely), or the Peugeot's couldn't gap the Audis enough to hold their edge when they had problems.

Whatever the cause, it seems that Peugeot is quite shaken by the results of this year's 24 Hours of Le Mans to consider mothballing the 908s for the rest of the year and end the car's competitive life when it seemed that it did have some life left in it.

[henk4]

At least the Oreca Peugeot will hopefully not be withdrawn..
If Peugeot decides to concentrate on 2011, then this was the last race of th 908. Going out with a bang is an understatement.
The smoke was not a puff of smoke but a constant flow. If you can find footage of the early morning parts of the race, showing the cars passing underneath the Dunlop bridge, the smoke trails clearly stand out against the white sky.

[RacingManiac]

As said the R15 has symmetrical fueling layout, since in US/Canada ALMS tracks, the split between left side fill and right side fill tracks are about the same. They made the decision to do that since R8 and R10 both did not, and they feel they could be losing time they could potentially be saving if the car was designed for the tracks(remember this is after a couple seasons of tough races against the P2s and they were limited by fuel flow and tank size after repeated rule adjustment, so any gain is good thing). Since tank bladder is a big volume item the tub structure was probably made to accomodate that. As soon as the Tub was made for that to redesign it is much more substantial since everything else waterfalls from the tub geometry.

Remember that although they decided not to race in ALMS 2009 in Nov of 2008, the car had most likely been in the work for more than a year knowing their practice(ie, the R10's V12 was prototyped in 2003, and raced in 2006), and knowing their need to have a new car to combat the 908. So the decision to abandon 2009 was for all intents and purpose a last minute decision.

[henk4]

if it is only the fuel bladder location, I cannot really see that having an opening at two sides will make a big difference regarding the tub layout. The size of the bladder does not change, and I assume that they want to locate as low and as central as possible. Why would that be different if there were two fuel openings in stead of one?
And yes, the decision to cancel the ALMS programme came at a very late stage, so probably the main design parameters were already fixed long before.

[RacingManiac]

Remember though for composite, any holes(fueling ports) and void are to be laid up differently to recover the loss of rigidity. So with or without a passage built to behind driver's back for a fueler will have affected how the tub was designed, consider in an LMP those area would've been close to engine's attachment point as well. And I'd imagine at that point the tub had been crash tested and homologated that it would've been prohibitive to do anymore redesign after. Also knowing how cramp original R15 was with all the plumbing and cooling to accommodate for the unusual internal channel flow, there was probably very little room to move stuff around late in the design stage....

[faksta]

I was there for a first time in my life, and it was an unforgettable experience. Have around 10000 pictures, some of them are from the museum though. I'll see if there are some good ones.

Have a couple of questions, though. First, what was the purpose of a classic Le Mans style start, if they have anyway started behind a safety car? Also, what was the reason of #39 KSM Lola spin in the morning in the Dunlop chicane after the safety car period? I was in the chicane and even caught it on camera, but missed the beginning. I get it was pushed by the BMS Porsche or not?

[henk4]

Remember though for composite, any holes(fueling ports) and void are to be laid up differently to recover the loss of rigidity. So with or without a passage built to behind driver's back for a fueler will have affected how the tub was designed, consider in an LMP those area would've been close to engine's attachment point as well. And I'd imagine at that point the tub had been crash tested and homologated that it would've been prohibitive to do anymore redesign after. Also knowing how cramp original R15 was with all the plumbing and cooling to accommodate for the unusual internal channel flow, there was probably very little room to move stuff around late in the design stage....

I can see all those differences, but I fail to understand how that would affect the final performance of the car. I got the impression that being designed as an ALMS car was used to explain why it was slower on a track like LeMans. If the fuel cell is the only difference in tub geometry, than I think such an argument does not hold. Bodywork and aerodynamics do but hardly what is underneath the body.
I know that the LMP1 Acura was designed to have similar sized wheels front and rear, so I can imagine that this will affect tub design at least at the front side as well, however, were equally sized wheels then also the intention for the R15?

[henk4]

I was there for a first time in my life, and it was an unforgettable experience. Have around 10000 pictures, some of them are from the museum though. I'll see if there are some good ones.

Have a couple of questions, though. First, what was the purpose of a classic Le Mans style start, if they have anyway started behind a safety car? Also, what was the reason of #39 KSM Lola spin in the morning in the Dunlop chicane after the safety car period? I was in the chicane and even caught it on camera, but missed the beginning. I get it was pushed by the BMS Porsche or not?

KSM, driver error.
Le Mans style start...tradition. They will probably do the same at the Le Mans Classic in a couple of weeks, the first plateau will go out with the classic start, just for fun to see who will get it done quickest, and all cars will subsequently be collected by the safety car on the Mulsanne straight and then taken to the start grid for a rolling start.

Looking forward to your shots.

[RacingManiac]

I can see all those differences, but I fail to understand how that would affect the final performance of the car. I got the impression that being designed as an ALMS car was used to explain why it was slower on a track like LeMans. If the fuel cell is the only difference in tub geometry, than I think such an argument does not hold. Bodywork and aerodynamics do but hardly what is underneath the body.
I know that the LMP1 Acura was designed to have similar sized wheels front and rear, so I can imagine that this will affect tub design at least at the front side as well, however, were equally sized wheels then also the intention for the R15?

I was kinda lost in the original line of the questioning so I am not answering that properly I guess. The fueling and the tub was the fix parameter for the practical purpose of ALMS racing. Aero-wise the car was made to build a lot of downforce for the tighter North American tracks. As Mulsanne's corner's conjecture explained, the car was designed with certain kind of lift to drag ratio in mind, with a set amount of downforce as a goal. I guess that was a conscious decision on Audi's part when they started the R15 project. However when it was decided that R15 will not race in ALMS, some of those design direction no longer made sense. At Le Mans when you trim the downforce off, they weren't able to proportionally shed off drag so as a result they suffered for it....

Thats one part of it, and another I think was just the car was simply not used enough so they don't have enough understanding of it.....