[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[Richard C]

First, after posting above, and drafting the post below, I am all talked out. I will "try" to make this my last post on the topic. Or last until some new developments arise. I think everyone here has gravitated to a particular position and are unwilling to move. From my perspective, it is academic at this point that the Toyota rear wing is illegal by the letter of the rule book, but has passed scrutineering and has been allowed to race. I am more curious as to why it may be allowed to remain in use in the future.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think all of your points are fair, but this is the area our disagreement revolves around. Your point is any bodywork which moves violates the rules. I contend all bodywork moves on all the cars. It has to. Any structure depends on deflection to stress the material to pick up the load. No material known to man is infinitely stiff. So, the rules specify tests that limit the deflection under the scenario described in the the test. 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.

Actually I believe we agree on all of the above. What we don't agree upon is the final conclusion. Is the Toyota rear wing legal? I say that even if it passed the proscribed tests, it is not. The problem (as you note) is that Toyota found something that the tests don't expose.

Originally Posted by miatanut

The fault is with the rules, not Toyota.

I don't blame the rules, but rather the FIA for not enforcing them. I think the rules are quite simple and clear. Even if the wing had passed the test, I believe the FIA is able to say "this is not right". It might ruffle feathers, but it is the right thing to do. The FIA could have said...

"Ok, good one, nice job, very creative. You can race it this weekend, but not at the next race"

If I was running things, I would be working right now on revised testing procedures as well as a statement to the teams as to what these testing procedures are trying to expose. If I wanted to be nice, I might say "ok for 2014, but not for 2015" so as to let the other teams know they don't need to spend a lot of time/money in this area.

A good example of this is the semi recent clarification from the FIA regarding (hope I remember this correct) the flexibility of the front wing/undertray area. Clearly illegal, apparently (nominally) being done to allow the cars to safely ride the curbs (I am sure there are unspoken performance reasons as well). The FIA said "we will allow X amount of movement" in this area. I think that type of thing is very fair. It is these types of clarifications as to "Where and how much movement is OK" is what makes that rule work.

As to blaming Toyota... I blame them a little, but not much. I think it comes down to what is "fair play". Maybe I am naive to expect "fair". I am likely a bit too idealistic when it comes to application of the rules. To extend the common quote... "All is fair in love, war and motorsports". I don't blame Toyota for trying to make this work. What I am not happy about is the murkiness of the FIA allowing it to continue.

I want to see teams win and then I can say "Good job!" But if they win and there is a cloud hanging over them, then I am less excited. If I was running a factory team, I would push the envelope as far as the rules allow, but not the point that if we won, it might be a hollow victory. I would want it to be clean. Imagine if Toyota had won the 2014 Le Mans race. The victory would forever be tainted in the eyes of more than a few.

I am a huge Porsche fan and if Porsche was doing this, I would be saying the same exact things. I pretty much did in the Porsche thread when photos of the flexible engine cover showed up. Thankfully that didn't get ugly! Maybe before long I will have to call them out again!

Originally Posted by J Jay

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.

I am sure the other teams are looking into something like this. My concern is that it likely will be a waste of resources. I expect (hope?) that the entire thing will be clarified before the start of next season and this is likely to include a ban on the concept. Or if they don't ban it, then revise the rules to explicitly allow some movable aero. I am not against the concept of movable aero. I actually think it fits VERY well with the "efficiency" concepts of the 2014 LMP1-H rules.

But until there is some level of clarification money is going to be spent by various teams to play in the grey area that the FIA has allowed to exist. I would much rather they spend money coloring inside the lines (or at least very close to the line) than outside of them.

Richard

[Articus]

It's really just a waste of time and resources for everyone involved to have to copy Toyota. Especially when if the ACO just let teams run active/passive rear wings, it would make Toyota's solution look convoluted...No one called DRS in formula one "innovative." Which is why I'm convinced many people are more interested in the idea of breaking rules as opposed to the actual invention.

To argue that the current rule set restricts innovation is silly...

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Articus

To argue that the current rule set restricts innovation is silly...

One can argue that rules and regulations motivates innovation.
It forces the designers to think outside the box and find new ways to improve their designs, instead of "just" doing improvements and work arounds.

Flexibel/movable wings, aren't something new, so calling Toyota's LM wing innovative is wrong.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Articus

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!

The test specifies disconnecting the endplates. The team's job is to design it to pass the specified tests, not some other hypothetical test.

If the sanctioning body doesn't want movable aerodynamic devices, they can require every car to run a little bug attached to the under side of the wing, tracking changes of angle. If it experienced a change of angle more than the rules allowed, it's illegal. Every iPhone has something in it that keeps track of orientation. I have a level that does fractions of a degree and fractions of a percent. Something getting beat up on a racing car has to be pretty robust, but the technology exists.

If the desire is to prevent movable aerodynamic devices, then monitor the movement of the aerodynamic devices.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Articus

To argue that the current rule set restricts innovation is silly...

Can the DeltaWing or ZEOD run in P1?

If efficiency counts for anything, you want a car that is teardrop shaped and develops its downforce entirely under the car. The future direction of passenger cars is along the lines of the VW XL1, but you can't run anything remotely like that in WEC.

Yes, the current rules force everybody into pretty much the same box. Big ideas need not apply.

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Can the DeltaWing or ZEOD run in P1?

If efficiency counts for anything, you want a car that is teardrop shaped and develops its downforce entirely under the car. The future direction of passenger cars is along the lines of the VW XL1, but you can't run anything remotely like that in WEC.

Yes, the current rules force everybody into pretty much the same box. Big ideas need not apply.

At least someone is seeing the right question to be made right now, IMOH.

Is the future of motorsport arrested by the rectangular shape of the cars?

I love rectangular shaped cars but if things need to change, bring it on :-)

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am sure the other teams are looking into something like this. My concern is that it likely will be a waste of resources. I expect (hope?) that the entire thing will be clarified before the start of next season and this is likely to include a ban on the concept. Or if they don't ban it, then revise the rules to explicitly allow some movable aero. I am not against the concept of movable aero. I actually think it fits VERY well with the "efficiency" concepts of the 2014 LMP1-H rules.

But until there is some level of clarification money is going to be spent by various teams to play in the grey area that the FIA has allowed to exist. I would much rather they spend money coloring inside the lines (or at least very close to the line) than outside of them.

That will probably depend on how hard the other manufacturers are willing to press the issue, both publicly (nothing yet) and privately (from what Mike Fuller has reported). Otherwise we only have the FIA's previous form to go on, which is not hopeful for anyone looking for a quick clarification*.

I can only agree with just mandating some form of movable aero; it ticks the efficiency and relevance boxes.

*Mass dampers notwithstanding, of course.

[TF110]

Heres more from Vasselon http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14070103.html and others on the wing and brakes. Looks like the brakes will be allowed, as they have been. The wing is still being protested, but Vasselon states they have presented it to the rule makers over again. On top of it he says its not far from what others are doing.

If its 'flexing', every team is guilty as no car is completely stiff. In the slow motion videos, Audi's front fender flexes, Porsche flexes, Rebellion flexes. All the cars have 'give' to them.

[Maelochs]

Ah, but only the Toyota flexes so as to make the car faster ... just by chance , of course ...

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

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.

I think it was the trend toward over-regulation that drove Jim Hall out of the sport.

When it was no longer possible to show up with stuff that blew other people's minds (and made them laugh at the audacity of it), it was no longer fun.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Heres more from Vasselon http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...-14070103.html and others on the wing and brakes. Looks like the brakes will be allowed, as they have been. The wing is still being protested, but Vasselon states they have presented it to the rule makers over again. On top of it he says its not far from what others are doing.

If its 'flexing', every team is guilty as no car is completely stiff. In the slow motion videos, Audi's front fender flexes, Porsche flexes, Rebellion flexes. All the cars have 'give' to them.

I have a feeling of déjÃ*-vu

Hasn't it been made sufficiently clear, after all these endless discussions, that the issue is not "flexing" as such, but actual movement (namely rotation) of the entire rear wing main plane and additional flap

[CTD]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think it was the trend toward over-regulation that drove Jim Hall out of the sport.

When it was no longer possible to show up with stuff that blew other people's minds (and made them laugh at the audacity of it), it was no longer fun.

It's always possible to show up with stuff that blows other people's minds.
That's exactly what Jim Hall was doing. He invented an aerodynamic system that was completely outside the rulebook, and therefor legal.
No rules can stop you from being innovative, but they do stop you developing certain systems.

Shouldn't some of these post be moved to the Regulations thread? (Mine, and the ones I respond to, doesn't have much relevance to the TS040 any longer)

[Articus]

On another random note: Was this the old "neverending" thread? Or was that the TS030?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I have a feeling of déjÃ*-vu

Hasn't it been made sufficiently clear, after all these endless discussions, that the issue is not "flexing" as such, but actual movement (namely rotation) of the entire rear wing main plane and additional flap

I know you linked to it. But apparently people still have questions, like yours when the best answer is there. Thats all were going to get on it, so I dont understand why the details about it are coming up. They have tests for flex, that was passed. Theres not much else youre going to get unless Toyota want to give up their secrets. All the talk about the wing moving and which part moves, none of that is going to be answered.

[MyNameIsNigel]

As promised, Sam Collins has produced a great article about flexible bodywork in the August issue of RCE. Again worth reading

As regards Toyota's "drag-beat pivot wing" (as Sam calls it), Sam mentions that the rear wing (though not flexing) "has been observed to move by up to 100mm in relation to the surrounding bodywork" (!), which is consistent with the visual observations that can be made on the basis of the pictures taken in high-speed sections of the LM track.

It would indeed seem that the ACO-FIA consider this rear wing system to be "legal" because the wing (though moving) does not "flex" as such. So I guess I will have to revise my judgment as to what the term "movable" is supposed to mean

This whole issue is short of becoming probably one of the most curious positions taken by the ACO-FIA in recent years. The rear wing moves at speed, but it is not deemed to be "movable" ???... Hmmmm...

This must be a joke...

Am I the only one to believe that the ACO-FIA are losing credibility in the present instance ?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Am I the only one to believe that the ACO-FIA are losing credibility in the present instance ?

They really should come out with a statement that 'It passed all the specified tests, but we don't condone this sort of thing and will make amendments to the rules to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again blah, blah, blah...'

But, in my opinion they would lose credibility if they made rules which gave specific tests, a car passed them, and they said 'well, it's illegal anyway.' With the rules written as they are, they have made their bed and they have to lie in it.

[chernaudi]

As far as flexing bodywork, anything that's unstressed (not rigidly attached to the tub) can flex in reaction to running over a bump or curb. All LMPs are guilty of that, and even GTs do it, especially the rear wings.

The issue with Toyota is that the rear wing heavily deflects/rotates at high speed, and according to Sam, can raise or lower by nearly 4 inches (100mm), in addition to "normal" deflection in reaction due to running over curbs or bumps (Newton's Third Law of Motion--every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and his First Law of Motion--inertia/unless acted upon, an object will tend to stay in its original motion).

The Toyota wing is a case in point of Newton's First Law described above. The issue is that under normal conditions, aside from some natural flexing due to reactions to the vehicle going over a bump or curb, the rear wing it supposed to be totally inert with regards to its mounting.

FIA and ACO rules specifically spell out that movable aerodynamic devices that excessively move in reaction to aero forces and are built to do as such are illegal. Again, one could argue that the Toyota wing being is illegal on the grounds that its a "movable aerodynamic device", which it clearly is.

Now we have to wait to see if the ACO bans it before COTA, or they let Audi and Porsche, as well as Rebellion and Lotus, develop their own solutions. Again, there hasn't been a protest publicly by Audi or Porsche, just like the front flow modifiers/strakes because everyone is running one and they don't want to get something banned that they can make use of. But there does seem to be some grumbling behind the scenes with the ACO and FIA with teams and the media asking "how is this legal given what the device does?"

And if the ACO and FIA take action against Toyota, they could simply write a rules clarification banning/restricting the wing solution, or they could even go as far as this being WRC turbocharger restrictor-gate all over again if they wanted to I'd imagine. I'd think that at worst the ACO would ask Toyota to stash away the device, because I don't think that the ACO would risk brassing off a manufacturer who stepped in when Peugeot pulled out and have increased their advertizing for the WEC for this year--not to Audi or Porsche levels, but more than what it was.

A huge penalty over this, if the ACO and FIA end up going that direction, would be the perfect excuse for Toyota to can the whole program, which I don't think that the ACO and FIA want.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Theres not much else youre going to get unless Toyota want to give up their secrets. All the talk about the wing moving and which part moves, none of that is going to be answered.

We have a pretty good understanding of which parts of the rear wing are moving thanks to Mike's and Sam's detailed analyses, haven't we ?

If there is any "secret" left that is the rationale followed by the ACO-FIA to allow this "movable bodywork part/element" to be raced

[manthey]

I hope it's not a repost
http://m.motoring.com.au/news/small-...-in-2014-44402

at the end of 2014 toyota will decide for wrc assault
there is also a declaration that they can run both wrc and le mans program

the most interesting part is:
TMG business development director Rob Leupen
He said the Le Mans loss, which came after the team won the opening two six-hour rounds of the 2014 WEC, would probably mean extra budget from Toyota to allow the team to run a third TS040 at Le Mans.

Among the outright contending LMP1 manufacturer teams only Audi ran a third car at Le Mans, which proved crucial as Toyota's two cars were knocked out of contention by a crash and an electrical failure, the latter while leading in the 14th hour.

Leupen listed three reasons why a third car was an advantage in the 24-hour.

"First of all you might have had a third car finishing the race with no problems or with fewer problems than what we had. You increase your chances, you have more possibilities and potential to finish the race with a quick car than what we had.

"The second one is in case of accidents. We have one car more than what we had on race day this year.

"Thirdly, you can play more strategies, so you can support the other cars, you can back off. You can have two different strategies."

[Articus]

Could we see 12 factory cars? 3 from each manufacturer? Mind blown.


It makes me slightly more nervous about the big accidents though. Twice as many LMP1's...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Could we see 12 factory cars? 3 from each manufacturer? Mind blown.


It makes me slightly more nervous about the big accidents though. Twice as many LMP1's...

The LMP1 driver market is going to explode. I am available for a test BTW

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

We have a pretty good understanding of which parts of the rear wing are moving thanks to Mike's and Sam's detailed analyses, haven't we ?

If there is any "secret" left that is the rationale followed by the ACO-FIA to allow this "movable bodywork part/element" to be raced

Youll have to ask that question to the people asking questions! Their analyses, while intricate, do not solve the entire mystery as to how and why. Im sure no answer will be given that explains how it functions. And we probably wont get an answer as to how its allowed to run. Once again, the rules are only put in words. Words can not cover every solution. I am happy teams are pushing the envelope and finding gaps in the wording.

Someone might call it cheating, I say the rules are only words, and those words can only guide you and limit you in areas. But finding out what you can do with those words is only logical. The worst that can happen is you're told no. If you dont try, you dont know.

But at least we can hopefully look forward to 3 TS040's next year. That would be a first in 16 years.

[cdsvg]

These have already been posted on mulsannescorner, but just a reminder that there appear to be 2 versions of the wing - one which rotates as a rigid unit, allowed by the movement of the cheese wedges through flexibility of the floor and lower bodywork:



and a second version which works with the same cheese-wedge movement, but in this case the ends of the wing are rigidly attached to the endplates. In this version the wing itself is built to be flexible in a specific way, so that there is a change in shape:

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

These have already been posted on mulsannescorner, but just a reminder that there appear to be 2 versions of the wing - one which rotates as a rigid unit, allowed by the movement of the cheese wedges through flexibility of the floor and lower bodywork:



and a second version which works with the same cheese-wedge movement, but in this case the ends of the wing are rigidly attached to the endplates. In this version the wing itself is built to be flexible in a specific way, so that there is a change in shape:

And one may wonder which version was actually green-lighted or if both were.

Key to the entire system are the two vertical supports connecting the rear wing end-plates which are used to transfer the load at high-speed from the rear wing directly to the outer portion of the cheese wedges. If Porsche and/or Audi are desirous of running the same system (which may not necessarily happen this season), we can expect substantial changes at the rear end of the cars.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

Three cars will be great for next year,wonder if Audi would respond with four?

Now that Toyota isn't picking up the slack from Peugeot pulling out anymore can they please go back to the classic toyota red like they had planed.with Porsche here now and Nissan coming there's no need to be blue like the peugeots.with Nissan coming shire would be embarrassing if another manufacture comes in and takes their classic Japanese colors.....but I guess blue=hybrid......


PLEASE!