Audi Blames Lack of Outright ALMS Victories on Restricting Rules

Ok, with the same reasoning, lets keep boxing competitive, lets tie one of Ali's hands behind his back so he does not dominate, or lets put weight on Michael Jordans Sneakers so he can't jump as high.

This is what is wrong with auto racing in the US. The BEST teams are not allowed to win even if it means domination. The good and natural consequence of having a dominating team is that it forces other teams to improve. The way it is now, competitiveness is thrown out the window because the better teams will be "regulated" to allow lesser teams to compete.

If there are not other real competitors why restrict the leader (Audi)? this does not make any sense.

As far as using another fuel... this in no way is an UNFAIR advantage. Audi designed a car around the basic rules which allows teams to use certain fuels. Audi was a technological leader and developed a unique engine with a special fuel that fall under the guidelines when no one else did. So should Audi be penalized for doing what is expected of everyone, that is present a technologically competitive and creative machine while meeting rules and guidelines? Audi is simply outclassing the field using the same basic rules and because of the whine of many crybabies Audi has suffered unfair restrictions.

How does it make sense to have an LMP2 car be a faster car than an Audi LMP1??? Someone (Concerned with profits) decided that letting Acura or Porsche win would bring more advertising dollars to their pockets since Audi winning every ALMS race was a given.

Audi just can't seem to dominate anything in North America can they?

It just might have something to do with the following:

The R10 has to carry 65kg (143lb) additional ballast

The R10 has a 9 liter smaller fuel tank 81 liters vs 90 for LMP2 or 95 Liter for other LMP1 cars. This is to penalize the extra fuel efficiency.

The R10 has an additional fuel filler restrictions to make the pit stop with less fuel take the same amount of time as the LMP1 & 2 cars.

All three of these factors affect shorter and tighter track performance. On the longer track they are simply over powered by the torque of the diesel.

I think they should not restrict them with an additional fuel filler restriction. They already are restricted in the use of a smaller tank. They should be able to fill up their tank faster than someone with a bigger tank. That just seems too unfair to me.

I still don't understand why they are restricting Audi so much, rather then letting them run over the field and forcing the other manufactures to catch up. Shouldn't that be what it is about? Showcasing the best technology, not how many restrictions you can get placed on you?

That would be fine with the exception to the fact that no one has shown they could even be a contender other than Peugeot with a diesel.

Sometimes evolution leaps forward so far in one step the others are totally outclassed, which is the case here. The only solution was to cripple the R10 to the point that a subordinate class could actually be quicker on some tracks.

Audi designed an engine around a fuel that was not readily used and not completely standard. This gave them a competitive advantage.

The new design and engineering was only done after dominating using a very widely used fuel. They wanted a new challenge and it so happens that it really wasn't that challenging and therefore they dominated again. Now they face insane restrictions. Some things are logical but making their fueling rig fuel slower than the rest of the field is just going overboard.

d1sinfo "udi designed an engine around a fuel that was not readily used and not completely standard."?

and racing gasoline is readily available at what gas stations?

Sad thing is that they can't use quattro either...That was outlawed quite sometime ago.

That diesel is not a standard diesel, and was developed specific for the application. The rest of the competitors use a fuel that is standard.

Josh

I also find it funny that you didn't say that AWD/4wd was outlawed but rather chose to use the word Quattro. As if Quattro hasn't always been audi's clever use of readily available AWD technology coupled with marketing. Even thier early awd cars were vw military drivetrain components. Sure later they developed the hollow tube thing which I think is the only technically original thought in the history of quattro. After that they went torsion/transaxle not unlike others.

When Audi captured everyones attention with quattro it was the days of group B. If anyone knows anything about group b they will know that you had a tube frame wrapped in audi like bodywork.

I have always felt a little sour about audi's awd marketing campaign due to thier overall superiority complex which is founded in very few advancements and mostly widely used technology. Granted better marketed, and well used, but still nothing new.

Quattro rant off.

Audi does not want you to find out that TDi does not mean Turbocharged Direct Injection but actually 'Total Domination from Ingolstadt'. And since the new R10 hasn't been living up to that mantra, Audi is very displeased. Just joking about the TDi acronym.

I just read a true statement from one of my favorite sports car analyzing sites: "The 2006 season saw the diesel endurance racing engine concept prove its worth, with the Audi R10 TDI winning every race it entered, including the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Audi Sport had numerous engineering issues to overcome in the initial days and months of the R10 program, but by the end of the season it was clear that like its predecessor, the R10 was a dominant package that could beat any and all competition. There was only one difference between the R8 and the R10 dominance: when the R8 won, everyone lamented the fact that Audi were just too good; when the R10 won, there were cries of unfair rules bias. Up and down the paddock at Le Mans and in the American Le Mans Series (ALMS), the R10’s LMP1 competitors voiced their displeasure with the advantage the diesel engine had over its petrol-powered counterparts. It was clear that the R10 had a substantial advantage in acceleration due to the torque produced by the diesel engine, and fuel economy for the diesel engine also gave the R10 a leg-up on its competition. Fuel economy was an obviously important component to an endurance race, but the R10 could also utilize its fuel economy in ALMS sprint races through changing its engine mapping for power or economy as the race situations required. In short, the R10 could beat its petrol-powered competition no matter what."

There are several factors to consider. The Audi R10 was developed to compete in the ALMS series but to win 24 Hours of Le Mans. Circuit de la Sarthe is all top speed with little emphasis on generating highspeed downforce, although it is still crucial. Most of the circuits in the ALMS are extremely narrow and tight circuits, as opposed to many European tracks. Look at the last round at the Nürbugring, Peugeot won 1-2 with Pescarolo 4 and 3 laps behind, respectively, in third and fourth positions at the flag. The top placing LMP2 car was 7 laps behind.

This is a contrast to Porsche and Acura results as they are will in the mix. Sure Acura has not won a race but they are always right up there on the same lap as the front running Porsches and Audis. It really is hard to mae a set of rules for two series that have different types of tracks.

Not only that, if it weren't for factory LMP2 cars Audi would not be complaining as the results would probably be much different. Porsche and Acura really show how far the LMP2 car can go with a large budget and the extent of their resources. Something from the same site, "... the Dyson team is still coming to grips with two new cars, but their lack of performance in comparison to the factory-supported Penske team running the same cars is notable. Even when com

What the flip? Here is more to what should have been on first post.

"Even compared to their less-experienced LMP2 Acura rivals Highcroft Racing and Lowes-Fernandez Racing, it is pretty clear just what an effect factory-support has on a team’s performance."

I heard a European team has purchased an RS Spyder and will run it in LMS. I think it will give the LMP1 cars a run for their money but will not share the same success as the Penske cars. Speaking about the RS Spyder, the car has 75 kilos of additional weight as opposed to last year's car. And add the smaller restrictor plate, the RS Spyder is still fast. Yet asking for a smaller restrictor plate, the RS Spyder might have the same output of the Ferrari F430 GTC.

The ACO really needs to stand up on some issues they are not enforcing. One, LMP1 is purely for factory teams while LMP2 is for private constructors. With Intersport moving away from LMP2 to LMP1 because of the strong presense of Acura and Porsche, which the whole situation contradicts the purpose of the classes.

Many of the manufacturers think the diesels are too strong, which is why Porsche and Acura race in LMP2; so they can atleast win. If manufacturers are to race in LMP1, then the rules must allow all fuel types to be competitive. Get diesel / petroleum / ethanol equivalency right so that manufacturers like Porsche and Acura will challenge Audi in LMP1.

Here is something to consider, are the races in the ALMS too short? The RS Spyder is notorious for being fragile in the longer races, Sebring anyone? Could the RS Spyder run strong in the LMS, where the races are all 1000km events (approximately six hours long)? I noticed this site has focused on the LMP1 and LMP2 situation, how about talking about the troubled GT1 and GT2? Maybe I'll submit an article of my own.

I just wanted to mention something. Teams who win overall do not get additional points. Cars race against each other by class, although it seems that Audi has made it a big deal that they are not winning outright. For Penske it may be an awesome feeling winning with such pace over the Audi's with a 'lesser' package while it hurts the Audi Sports morale with playing second or third fiddle despite winning in their classes.

Porsche knows that the RS Spyder is not made for Le Mans. Even with these overallvictories, Weissach still sticks by their guns by saying the RS Spyder will not race at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, which includes private teams. Audi does not need to dominate a race because atleast if they get first in class the car(s) are automatically invited for the big event, which they will likely do well (given the weather). Most of the LMP2 cars had reliabity issues as the GT1 cars placed better than the LMP2s in the overall standings.

Again, I think this is more of an egotistical thing because it does not matter in he grand scheme of things.

...

Audi is just whining 'cuz their advantage has been clipped.

hey guys, diesel has MORE ENERGY CONTENT per gallon than gas. so IT IS perfectly reasonable to level the field by putting restrictions on fuel capacity and refueling time.

WTF?

More energy content... now you are applying logic this will be highly misunderstood here at autospies.