[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

If there's more questions on this, I suspect FIA/ACO will probably do as they've done with other ideas last year: allow the teams to run them to the end of the season, but then clarify them for the following year and remove the loophole.

Thing is, there is no apparent "loophole" as such, but an explicit provision in the technical regulations that the passive DRS is, strictly speaking, in contravention to.

[TF110]

Well it doesnt matter how much anyone says its against the rules if they're continuing to run it without being told not to. If the rear flexes, it does so in a way that must be fine with the aco, or no way they can detect it. So it must have passed their tests or they are in the clear with how the car is built.

[MitchZ06]

Or there's talks going on behind closed doors we do not know about and something may come of it before the next round, stop talking like nothing will change.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Well it doesnt matter how much anyone says its against the rules if they're continuing to run it without being told not to. If the rear flexes, it does so in a way that must be fine with the aco, or no way they can detect it. So it must have passed their tests or they are in the clear with how the car is built.

There are basically two potential issues that require clarification:
1. flexing of the rear end of the floor section
2. rotation/pivoting of the rear wing main plane and additional flap

Flexing of the rear end of the floor section may be within acceptable limits, but it remains to be seen if the ACO-FIA have any deflection tests in place to test that section.

The more "critical" issue remains the movement of the rear wing that results. Looking at the scuffing on the inner face of the rear wing end plates highlighted in the picture posted by Sam and Mike (NB: this is the "second" version of the rear wing), the movement of the main plane appears to be simply "insane", much more than the amount of flexing of the rear end of the floor section:

(source: Racecar Engineering)

While all the debate on this forum may not "matter", I do however strongly believe that the ACO-FIA have an absolute obligation to urgently clarify this issue. Whether or not the system is legal does not as such matter. What matters is for the ACO-FIA to determine on which side of the border we are sitting as far as "movable bodywork parts/elements" are concerned.

Racecar Engineering are apparently planning an article on the matter in their upcoming edition. Looking forward to reading this.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Talking about the "second" version of the rear wing highlighted in Mike's recent report, one very "mysterious" feature of this rear wing pointed out by Mike is the presence of what appear to be a (dummy ?) bolt/screw (1) on the outer face of the rear wing end plates, which bolt/screw is evidently not secured to the rear wing main plane, in contrast to the "first" version of the rear wing:


What is the function of this "dummy" bolt/screw if it is not connected to the rear wing main plane ?

There is something very "strange" with this rear wing...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Or there's talks going on behind closed doors we do not know about and something may come of it before the next round, stop talking like nothing will change.

I said IF they run it without being told not to. So how is that "talking like nothing will change"? Theyve ran the wing in the biggest race of the year. The car was cleared. If it wasn't, it wouldnt have raced. Just like the alleged illegal brake system that turned out to be legal. Based on the non-events so far it looks more likely Toyota are safe.

Teams are going to ask for clarification if they havent already. Kinda silly to think no other competitor is looking at the same thing we are. It has to be on the front of their minds in figuring out how to replicate this if no decision is taken against it. Maybe thats whats going on.

[FstrthnU]

http://jalopnik.com/how-close-did-to...1593718613/all
What a real shame, Toyota knew the wiring loom on the #7 was failing and had already called Kazuki into the pits for a 2-3 minute fix. Unfortunately, the loom melted before he could make it back. The part wasn't even a Toyota part, it was a standard FIA part.

[Articus]

The loom destroying itself alone would not have ended the car's race. The scrutineering system doesn't have the power to shut down a car. I gathered that the loom that melted destroyed more than just the scrutineering system wiring. We see the camera freeze. The camera does not shut off even when the car is shut off in the pitlane so it shouldn't have shut off when Nakajim ground to a halt unless it's wiring had been compromised as well. The entire electrical system appears to have been compromised. Everything was running before the loom failed and everything was running after the loom failed but before they called him into the pits. Only after it started burning other things does it shut down the car.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by FstrthnU

http://jalopnik.com/how-close-did-to...1593718613/all
What a real shame, Toyota knew the wiring loom on the #7 was failing and had already called Kazuki into the pits for a 2-3 minute fix. Unfortunately, the loom melted before he could make it back. The part wasn't even a Toyota part, it was a standard FIA part.

I just shake my head at this. Its sad that they could have fixed the issue but were just a little too far away from the pits. Conspiracy theories are creeping in the fia set them up for failure since they had the rule skirting wing

[Articus]

Who makes that system anyway? Must have been Magneti Marelli.....

[Japanese Samurai]

Japanese Autosport magazine reports TS030/TS040 engine.
*TS030 engine specs
-Thermal efficiency: 40.3%
-Compression ratio: 17:1
-Engine power: 570hp
-Engine weight: 105kg

*TS040 engine specs
-Thermal efficiency: 40.3+α%
-Engine power: 520hp (-50hp)
(Hybrid powertrain weight: about 100kg)

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

If there's more questions on this, I suspect FIA/ACO will probably do as they've done with other ideas last year: allow the teams to run them to the end of the season, but then clarify them for the following year and remove the loophole.

This really seems like a way to encourage and allow innovation, thinking outside the box and expanding the envelope. Everyone knows that everyone else is doing it and as long as it is not 'too' flagrant, they all accept it, adopt it and try to do it better than everyone else. Then, at the end of the year, everyone compares notes, costs, benefits and the decisions are made to accept or reject for the coming year.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

Originally Posted by TF110

I just shake my head at this. Its sad that they could have fixed the issue but were just a little too far away from the pits. Conspiracy theories are creeping in the fia set them up for failure since they had the rule skirting wing

Yea it's unfortunate for Toyota,us fans, and the race itself. And looks like it caught on fire,not melted.because if you pay attention to the in car cam just as the car slows and the camera cuts out there's an orange glow that's coming from below or behind the camera,indicating flames.which irritates me because the same thing happened to the smp Ferrari but they were able to extinguish it and return to the pits to swap out the burnt fia box.this just irritates me because it's a system that shouldn't really be needed and it affected two teams and is capable of affecting the entire field.lts disappointing an outside component has the ability to take out a car and there's nothing they can do but hope they catch it in time!

[Articus]

For the record it's not a Magneti Marelli system . It's built by Cosworth.

[TF110]

Maybe onboard extinguishers should be mandated. The big teams should be able to handle these things themselves. Maybe this will be looked over in the future. But probably not.

On the engine side, any quoted weight for the ts040's?

[Maelochs]

"Maybe onboard extinguishers should be mandated."

Maybe an FIA_mandated electronic bit should not burst into flame?

"The rules specify that you use this component, which has a 1-in-27 chance of setting your car on fire. We call it the Russian-Roulette monitor box."

I wouldn't put such a dangerously flawed component in my car ... or house ... or back yard.

On the other hand ... what a great conspiracy-theory fuel ... if the SMP's hadn't also failed.

unless ... the SMP failure was planned to cover up the anti-Toyota conspiracy ...

[carbon_titanium]

Is quite disappointing to realize that modern lmp1 have a power output comparable to GT3 cars; anyway 10 years ago GT1 cars had more power than modern F1 (speaking only about thermal engine). World is changing

[Maelochs]

Yeah, the 1000-bhp Toyota is only as powerful as a GT3 car. ????

Counting half the power output is like not counting half the GT3 lap time and saying the GT3 is quicker.

The world is changing--one of those changes is that P1 cars do not use one engine.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Yeah, the 1000-bhp Toyota is only as powerful as a GT3 car. ????

Counting half the power output is like not counting half the GT3 lap time and saying the GT3 is quicker.

The world is changing--one of those changes is that P1 cars do not use one engine.

read better, I was talking about the thermal engine.

[Maelochs]

Yes sir ... and only counting the thermal engine (by which I assume you mean the internal combustion engine) is only counting half the power of the car.

Saying it is disappointing that Toyota's IC engine is less powerful than a GT3 engine ... well it's your choice to be disappointed, but considering the two power plants (P1 and GT3) do two different things, how can a valid comparison be made?

I don't suppose the Porsche V4 makes even as much as the Toyota V8---yet the car led Le Mans.

You are not comparing like items. The IC power plant in the Toyota doesn't serve the same function as the GT3 motor---or as the motors of the various more powerful (but not always faster) prototypes through history.

A more reasonable comparison might be lap time vs. fuel consumed---considering that is the real measure by this season's LMP1 regs.

Okay, the HP figure is not a big, impressive number---but neither is the fuel consumption number; nor is the lap time.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"Maybe onboard extinguishers should be mandated."

Maybe an FIA_mandated electronic bit should not burst into flame?

"The rules specify that you use this component, which has a 1-in-27 chance of setting your car on fire. We call it the Russian-Roulette monitor box."

I wouldn't put such a dangerously flawed component in my car ... or house ... or back yard.

On the other hand ... what a great conspiracy-theory fuel ... if the SMP's hadn't also failed.

unless ... the SMP failure was planned to cover up the anti-Toyota conspiracy ...

The fia admitting fault? Doubtfully. Thats the joke, teams should ask to carry extinguishers since the fia's component has a spontaneous combustion problem.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

I agree or atleast let them be towed to the paddock if there's any access to the stalled car.

[Articus]

Let's not make this bigger than it is? Their were 56 cars, practice, qualy, test day, silverstone, spa, all of last year. It was a fluke incident. It's very unfortunate that it affected your favorite team but their is no conspiracy.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

Toyota is not my favorite team and neither is Smp.if it was the super capacitor that exploded or an engine (á la Peugeot) then I would of been ok with it.this is not what endurance racing is about, why bother spending big bucks as a manufacturer to prove brand identity,reliablity,and relevance if a cheap mandated FIA part is going to set your car on fire! This isn't what endurance racing is about,but racing is racing I guess,

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Lagunaseca_4life

Toyota is not my favorite team and neither is Smp.if it was the super capacitor that exploded or an engine (á la Peugeot) then I would of been ok with it.this is not what endurance racing is about, why bother spending big bucks as a manufacturer to prove brand identity,reliablity,and relevance if a cheap mandated FIA part is going to set your car on fire! This isn't what endurance racing is about,but racing is racing I guess,

that comment of mine was misdirected.