|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 Jul 2014, 23:01 (Ref:3429680) | #1251 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:16 (Ref:3429701) | #1252 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:28 (Ref:3429705) | #1253 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,592
|
If it was outside the rules you think it would be deemed so. But it looks like it wont be as its been all year. So its not really illegal if it cant be found to be illegal. So, does that make it legal?
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:33 (Ref:3429707) | #1254 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
Enforcement is "attempted" via specific objective test procedures (that teams can also perform on their own). There are a million things that can "move" on the body. It is crazy to try to define testing procedures for every conceivable scenario in advance. If they did, it would take days to get a single car through scrutineering! New testing procedures arrive "as needed" to solve problems as they arise. Also, as I mentioned somewhere else, passing scrutineering doesn't mean the car is "legal", it just means it "appears to be legal" and is cleared to race. Richard |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:40 (Ref:3429709) | #1255 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
The unfortunate thing is that the rules have gotten so restrictive that it's necessary to excessively lawyer this sort of stuff to find any sort of edge on the competition. In the current situation, the design types like me and others here get great pleasure when a team has successfully played on the very edge of the rules on something like this. Still, I think any designer would much rather see more open rules that can let the teams' designers really do their thing. People would be amazed at the creative stuff they would come up with! |
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:46 (Ref:3429711) | #1256 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,177
|
You would think so.
Quote:
I know this has been argued to death. Yes, the solution is ingenious. I know many crave that type of creativity. Myself included. However, I have yet to see any successful argument as to how it is legal from a purely "logic" perspective. Most seem to focus more on the "rebel" nature of the act. We all like underdogs, and rebels, but... the solution is not legal by any reading of the rules. However, if you blend logic and the reality of how the world works, I can see why it remains unchallenged. My personal option (which is speculation given we have little facts) is that Toyota received some type of implicit or explicit approval. And that likely at the time the approval was given that the ACO/FIA likely didn't quite "get" the implications of what they had approved. As smart as the other teams are, I think much of the analysis is hindsight. We all think "Porsche and Audi must have understood what was going on for a long time". Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe they felt that if Toyota was able to get away with it, they could do the same, but better. Who knows. Either way, I highly doubt the solution will survive into next year as the ACO/FIA likely doesn't want to come down on this at the moment for risk of making Toyota mad (and potentially exposing/reversing prior approval). Again, 100% speculation on my part. Richard |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 01:59 (Ref:3429718) | #1257 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
Section 3.4 (actually just a fragment that is pertinent)... "Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion." Simply stated. It doesn't go into the items you mention. And as I mention above, it is such an absolute rule that "by definition" all cars are unable to meet this rule. However, there is "moveable" and there is "MOVEABLE". When does it become a problem? I assume when someone shouts loud enough. Then.... Section 3. (at the very top)... "The FIA reserves the right to introduce load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion" A key part of this is the "reserves the right" part. I guess that it really is up to the FIA to decide if/when/or by how much they will enforce the rule. They may choose to turn a blind eye. If you haven't read them, they are interesting... http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...004%202014.pdf Cheers! Richard Last edited by Richard C; 3 Jul 2014 at 02:10. Reason: fix typo |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 02:20 (Ref:3429724) | #1258 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Why do you selectively edit things out? I mentioned control system because it IS stated in the rules. In the sentence following, which you chose to ignore. Quote:
Hmmmm, maybe FIA is playing favorites. Or, maybe it simply passed the required test, which Toyota engineers probably implemented numerous times, probably also with the bodywork heated up a few degrees hotter than any temperatures they expected at Le Mans to make sure they could pass the test under all circumstances. |
||||
|
3 Jul 2014, 02:57 (Ref:3429730) | #1259 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
However my point stands. There first is the very general rule that stands alone. The part you mention is not an exception to the first rule. You can't read it as "moveable bodywork is allowed as long as it is NOT controlled by some type of system". There is a series of additional rules (including banning of blown diffuser that follows that primary sentence about moveable bodywork. One item of note is that the rule I mention talks of moveable "bodywork", while the rule you point out isn't limited to bodywork (it is in the bodywork section however). It talks about any system (potentially even hidden under the bodywork or deep in the chassis?) that modifies the airflow. Maybe that is why it exists as a separate rule? Who knows Quote:
Quote:
Richard Last edited by Richard C; 3 Jul 2014 at 03:02. Reason: clarify a point. |
||||
|
3 Jul 2014, 03:03 (Ref:3429735) | #1260 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,160
|
Quote:
When the wing is tested, it's resting against it's bump stop. It will never move!! Don't you see? I really can't add to whats been explained in Mulsannes Mike's post. All I can suggest is to read it again. Wow I'm so tired of this subject. |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 03:25 (Ref:3429740) | #1261 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
What we have is a team that spent a great deal of effort analyzing all that stuff, designed something that complied with all that stuff, nobody can point to any detail of that stuff which it violates and the argument against is just "But it moves!" So, supposing Mike's analysis is 100% correct (he admits to being 80% of the way there on the most recent addition), it still meets all the stuff in 3.4 and 3.6.2. Which probably has a lot to do with why it was allowed to run. |
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 03:37 (Ref:3429741) | #1262 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
But, all of this is really symptomatic of the illness infecting the sport the last couple decades where the rules try to over-restrict everything to the point it takes extraordinary effort to find an advantage. Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 05:17 (Ref:3429757) | #1263 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,160
|
Quote:
Ok. Lets put it this way. You design a chassis to be stiff. But obviously it can't be infinitely stiff. Toyota designed the rear end to be floppy, not stiff. So that argument isn't directly related. If they did not disconnect the endplates from the wing. The car would fail scrutineering! Last edited by Articus; 3 Jul 2014 at 05:31. |
||
|
3 Jul 2014, 05:38 (Ref:3429760) | #1264 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
I guess it's about time the Endurance Committee issues clarifications on the matter, isn't it ?
While discussing this issue may appear to be "horribly tiresome" () it is still apparently being discussed by the relevant parties and will need to be clarified at some point, I hope before the next race at Austin. |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
3 Jul 2014, 05:51 (Ref:3429767) | #1265 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Quote:
P.S. Added my 2c to your comment above. |
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 06:56 (Ref:3429788) | #1266 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6
|
scrutineering
Hi all, my first post so let me start by saying thank you for all the interesting reading!
Maybe you can all help me understand something. There seems to be a general feeling that if a car passes scrutineering it must be OK/legal. But did the Porsche not pass scrutineering at the Le Mans test day? Was it not then deemed illegal and made to be changed? Sorry if I am wrong but that seems to suggest to me that scrutineering isn't the end of the argument? Dave |
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 07:22 (Ref:3429800) | #1267 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
The rear bodywork of the Porsche 919 was actually revised between the LM test day and scrutineering and there is no indication that further revisions were necessary after scrutineering (see racecar-engineering report). It is unclear though if such revisions were made at the specific request of the ACO-FIA. In any event, you are right, passing the scrutineering tests is not the end of the story. Subsequent revisions may be required if ultimately it turns out that a system or solution that passed scrutineering is nevertheless found to be in contravention with the rules, whether as a result of a formal protest or of clarification request. That's why I believe that Vasselon's argument according to which the rear wing system is deemed to be legal because it passed the deflection tests is a somewhat weak, short-sighted argument. Evidently, the current deflection tests are not adapted to highlight the fact that the rear wing's main plane and additional flap are movable (namely pivotable) at speed. BTW, the series of deflection tests that are defined in the rules are not meant to be exhaustive. The ACO-FIA have explicitly reserved the right to introduce further deflection tests in the event that a bodywork part/element is suspected to be moving at speed. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
3 Jul 2014, 08:35 (Ref:3429832) | #1268 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,592
|
Of course fans of the competition will call Vasselon's reasoning weak. But whats actually weak is the same repetitive arguments over it.
The race was nearly 3 weeks ago, the test day a month ago. All the rulings, scrutineerings, protests did nothing to stop Toyota running the wing. Seems his reasoning is quite sound if they ran it during the race. You can yell all you want but unless the aco/fia do something, it probably wont change. I look at it like his explanation. If a gap is closed or opened between the two wing elements as a consequence of flex, whatre you going to do? Test the flex. That test was passed. Thats a nice sweet and short answer by Pascal Vasselon. No way hes going to delve into details of it. So his answer is satisfactory. "We may have some flex" "But like in F1, we passed the deflection test". |
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 09:14 (Ref:3429843) | #1269 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
The current situation is far from being "satisfactory" from my point of view, but I guess that's a point of disagreement.
|
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
3 Jul 2014, 11:28 (Ref:3429881) | #1270 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
"The Toyota team did an extraordinary job of designing something that passed the tests, then when on the track, did exactly what the rules were trying to prevent."
Pretty humorous that that was used as a Defense of the wing. Anyway ... I am not sure this issue is closed. I am not sure why Toyota has gotten breaks two seasons running (their "fender extension" wing extenders last year.) I am sure that Porsche and Audi have their engineers preparing similar systems. On the whole, is it bad for the sport that some engineers try to find ways to circumvent the rules? I bet Jim Hall would have had an opinion. |
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 11:38 (Ref:3429886) | #1271 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,539
|
At this point, it would be daft not to be developing your own movable whatever. It's not a closed case until all or none of the factory cars have this system, but that could be as far away as next season.
From what I remember Audi weren't too fussed about the fender extensions, and they just made their own. In theory this isn't too different, but the potential gain for the wing must be much bigger. Herein lies the contention ... we do know that Porsche at least have chanced it and failed. Would it be better/fairer if all engineers were actively looking for ways to get round the regulations? Last edited by J Jay; 3 Jul 2014 at 11:47. |
||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
3 Jul 2014, 12:38 (Ref:3429907) | #1272 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,160
|
It seems their is some popular opinion here that the only way to be "interesting" or "creative" and innovative is to be a rebel and skirt the regulations. There is some irony in this but I ask why choose to be so narrow-minded.
Last edited by Articus; 3 Jul 2014 at 12:47. |
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 14:43 (Ref:3429935) | #1273 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
My opinions are rarely popular ... I think almost every aspect of the P1-H class is innovative and creative—probably the highest expression of automotive racing technology on the planet.
This is however a competitive environment, and for the sake of competition finding a little something your opponent doesn't have can be a boon. It is far from the only place where innovation and creativity can show up, but it is one place where it always has in auto racing. I am not sure why Porsche got pipped and Toyota didn't, but that would be the only question I would ask. Otherwise, all three teams had bits that weren't compliant or stretched the rules (like turning vanes extending below the reference plane.) Every team has engineers looking for ways to maneuver within the rules to gain an edge, and always will. The issue comes down to fair enforcement. For instance we have all heard of blown diffusers. Braun basically won Jjenson Button and the team the F1 titles that year because they were the first to think it up. Apparently though, some other team approached Charlie Whiting about a blown diffuser before the season started and was told it would be illegal. Humans being human—sometimes enlightening, sometimes encouraging, sometimes exasperating, sometimes disheartening, sometimes downright ugly. |
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 14:53 (Ref:3429938) | #1274 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,884
|
Quote:
Great summary of the situation. Still not sure exactly what to make of what Toyota are doing, but at least they've given us something interesting to talk about. |
|||
|
3 Jul 2014, 15:38 (Ref:3429959) | #1275 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
|
That is really a great way to fuel up the internet for the entire no-racing summer. When the summer is over, there will be an answer and a solution, but till then it keeps the candle alive.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audi LMP1 Discussion | gwyllion | ACO Regulated Series | 11685 | 16 Feb 2017 10:42 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
Strakka LMP1 discussion | Pontlieue | Sportscar & GT Racing | 56 | 12 Jul 2015 19:12 |
The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga | The Badger | ACO Regulated Series | 6844 | 8 Jan 2014 02:19 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |