Audi F1 Team

w1z4rd said:
"audi`s are cars for German cement salesmen" ;)
Click to expand...

hehehe, i see i finally got you to start watching Top Gear :D

Man season 10 is funny. Episode 4 they're going on an african safari
 
JK8 explained it quite well

Torque is angular force ... iow it's ability to turn a shaft. So yes, diesel engines have more torque which is why they are used as work horses (and also since it makes use of spontaneous combustion instead of electric sparks it performs better under heavier load) , but in simple turns ... torque is what gets you up a hill. or lets you pull away in 6th gear better than the oke in his sooped up citi golf infront of you.
 
sox63 said:
And the whole Le Mans winning can be put down to the Diesel engine, more torque and FAR more economical.
Click to expand...

They won it 4 years in a row with petrol engines, took a year "off" and then came back and won it with diesel engines ?
 
sox63 said:
The Bugatti achieves that top speed, thanks mostly to the HUGE amount of power developed. I think it is 1001BHP! Achieving massive speed has more to do with the propulsion than design. Look at a 747 or even the A380.

As for Audi's "domination" of motor sports, since their old Auto Union days they have not done anything spectacular when the playing fields are level. I say that because, when they came with Quatro they were banned as all other teams were using 2 wheel drive. And the whole Le Mans winning can be put down to the Diesel engine, more torque and FAR more economical.

I would also not want to see diesel cars around the Monaco! So I think if they come into F1, where engines, drivetrains have to meet certain regulations, they would take time to be competitive.
Click to expand...

You didn't click on the link now did you? it explains speed and how it's achieved very clearly, no it's not all about power, in fact an aerodynamically superior car could most likely out accelerate and beat a more powerful counterpart. in fact a 1400 golf can beat a Volvo VNL670 (that's a truck btw) even though the VNL670's power to weight ratio far exceeds that of the golf, why? because the golf even with it's poor aerodynamic qualities has a far superior aerodynamic profile than that of the truck, power is nothing.

btw you do realize that aircraft have Good aerodynamic profiles right? that's how they achieve flight.

and since when does a diesel engine give you a competitive edge in a race? the average speed during the le-mans for Audi was 215.409 kph they don't go puttering around the track you know, it's a Race.

btw, what exactly is a level playing field in any competitive sport, should rugby teams be limited to a certain weight and muscle volume per player position to ensure a level playing field? should they measure the length of marathon runners legs and measure their lung capacity in order to handicap those that might have an edge on the rest of the field, motor sport is about technology as much as it is about skill, if the technology happens to be better than all your competitors than you place yourself in a good position to win, If the playing field is not even you should be asking the other manufacturers why they can't compete, not Audi why they can.
 
sox63 said:
Dude, nobody has been able to explain what torque is to me clearly. All I know is that diesel cars typically have higher torque than petrol cars. And generally the peak torque in diesel cars is far lower in the rev range, thus allowing the car to deliver it's peak power earlier than petrol cars.

I'm afraid thats where my limits in knowladge of physics goes.:D

anyone else with a better explanation?
Click to expand...

Heheheh... this is a standing joke on top gear, which is why I asked it. I see JK and voicy have has given it their best shot which is balsy, but as usual with any torque explanation, lands up confusing even more :)
 
sox63 said:
The Bugatti achieves that top speed, thanks mostly to the HUGE amount of power developed. I think it is 1001BHP! Achieving massive speed has more to do with the propulsion than design. Look at a 747 or even the A380.

As for Audi's "domination" of motor sports, since their old Auto Union days they have not done anything spectacular when the playing fields are level. I say that becuase, when they came with Quatro they were banned as all other teams were using 2 wheel drive. And the whole Le Mans winning can be put down to the Diesel engine, more torque and FAR more economical.

I would also not want to see diesel cars around the Monaco! So I think if they come into F1, where engines, drivetrains have to meet certain regulations, they would take time to be competitive.
Click to expand...

Wow where do we start. The Bugatti weighs close to two tons if I recall correctly. Design plays a huge part, they didn't spend all that cash on R&D on aerodynamics in the wind tunnels just to push out a car that is poorly designed. The big power is needed to overcome the excess weight (after all you don't want to purchase the world's fastest car and not be able to travel in luxury). That's what makes the Veyron special, you travel in luxury with the ability to demolish anything else on the road.

Secondly Audi didn't win Le Mans because of diesel engines, they won it despite diesel engines. They won with petrol engines for four years, and then came back and won it with a diesel engine. Diesel engines are known for poor reliability, high oil consumption, frequent service intervals etc., they were just looking to make a point and rub salt into the wounds of their competitors. As mentioned before, Le Mans is not just a stamina contest to see who can last 24 hours - it's a proper race over a 24 hour period. Whoever finishes in 1st place with the highest average speed wins.

If Quattro was such a bad thing, then why do almost every rally team use some form of AWD. That's what made the S2 Quattro so legendary - it gave rise to technology that is now standard on the rally circuit. It's not their fault that the other teams were too slow to develop race-winning technology. They were banned because nobody else stood a chance, not because they were anti-competitive but because they were too competitive. Should Lotus have been banned in F1 for introducing the concept of downforce that allowed them to dominate every race due to it?

Yes there are rules and regulations in F1, but I don't see any reason how Audi would not do well while complying with these. They've managed to do so in everything else they've competed in.
 
high then why are audi not in f1 if they would do so well

i cannot get over it, if they would do so well why dont they compete considering the amount of money in f1

does not make sense to me
 
It's their choice where they want to compete, and which technological aspects they want to develop. As an example (just an example), competing in F1 would currently not allow them to develop high performance diesel engines that may be adapted for road use. Sure there's money to be made, but also money to be spent on R&D. Perhaps they feel that their money is better spent on something that may have practical real world use in addition to winning them races, instead of just winning them races.

And who knows, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes in F1. Maybe Max and co. don't want them competing in F1.
 
formula is not about developing engines for everyday use, its a business

audi could still do everything they are doing now and more, see i think you think audi would do well but to do well you need to spend tons of cash. if you fail in f1 u backwards really quickly

so basically audi dont back themselves to do well in f1 so they dont compete

so again i doubt audi would do well in f1 :), u say they would do well but i guess we will never know because audi is developing deisel engines when they could be making millions in f1 while developing whatever else they wont :)

well if you look at winning a race in f1, your looking at kuk load of money, if you can finish in the top your looking at a kuk load of money

so i still think audi know they wont cut it in f1 and thus dont try
 
what would be nice is to have a porchse powered F1 team
 
sar said:
what would be nice is to have a porchse powered F1 team
Click to expand...

Its Porsche!

Its not only about engines, they need aerodynamics packages as well, do you know a F1 car can outrun a 2005 M3 in a 1/4 mile if both cars were to just roll down a slight incline?
 
killadoob said:
so i still think audi know they wont cut it in f1 and thus dont try
Click to expand...
Ermm yeah ok dude, if that's what you believe.

I think I've tried my best to explain it, repeatedly. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Let's just agree to disagree ;)
 
killadoob said:
formula is not about developing engines for everyday use, its a business

audi could still do everything they are doing now and more, see i think you think audi would do well but to do well you need to spend tons of cash. if you fail in f1 u backwards really quickly

so basically audi dont back themselves to do well in f1 so they dont compete

so again i doubt audi would do well in f1 :), u say they would do well but i guess we will never know because audi is developing deisel engines when they could be making millions in f1 while developing whatever else they wont :)

well if you look at winning a race in f1, your looking at kuk load of money, if you can finish in the top your looking at a kuk load of money

so i still think audi know they wont cut it in f1 and thus dont try
Click to expand...

Just because they not in the competition doesnt mean they not good enough to win. F1 has a bad history in the past 5 years, maybe Audi decided not to join and build their brand. F1 is good now promising sport no real dominators and the sport is growing but then again there was that whole spy saga. I think Audi will rather not get involved in something that damaging to their brand.... Remember BM pulled out?

I still believe they would join especially now...
 
ummmmost ppl dont associate f1 with any cars we drive from day to day

i mean who drives a sauber or a red bull hahaha

f1 is a sport just any other sport, ppl dont buy ferrari's or mclaren because they dominate f1

i've never anybody say i want a renault because they won the construtors 2 years in a row

yea lets agree to disagree and unless audi join f1 we will never know

yes i do get what you have been explaining, but f1 is so different to any other motorsport due the technical nature of the motorsport
 
killadoob said:
ummmmost ppl dont associate f1 with any cars we drive from day to day

i mean who drives a sauber or a red bull hahaha

f1 is a sport just any other sport, ppl dont buy ferrari's or mclaren because they dominate f1

i've never anybody say i want a renault because they won the construtors 2 years in a row

yea lets agree to disagree and unless audi join f1 we will never know

yes i do get what you have been explaining, but f1 is so different to any other motorsport due the technical nature of the motorsport
Click to expand...

Of course they do!
Renault driver wear those blue jackets... they use that we won 2 F1 world championships, Renault even uses it in the advertising.

BMW drivers wear the williams gear to show off, I think BM gave away a Pair of Pumas with BMW branding to new car buyers couple years ago, it was those navy blue ones.

It does play a part in the road cars...
 
not sure why anyone would buy a bmw considering their car is never on the podium or once in a bluemoon they get lucky and top 4 crash or have failures

highflyer hit on something when he said f1 and day to day cars have nothing in common

so you are correct they use it for advertising, but i dont think ppl buy the car because of f1

although maybe im wrong and when ferrari win the constructors or Renault, their sales go through the roof hahah

although this time im not sure if ppl think this, i know none of my friends or family do, so thats what im using for this discussion :)

maybe a renault with an f1 engine would sell hahaha, i know i would love one :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X