|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
1 Jul 2014, 17:59 (Ref:3429123) | #1226 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,226
|
Quote:
I am not saying this is right by the way, but it is the reality. I've said it before here, the best way out for the FIA is simply to allow passive movable aerodynamics/unrestricted DRS and spin it as the next step in efficiency. |
|||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
1 Jul 2014, 18:00 (Ref:3429124) | #1227 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
||
|
1 Jul 2014, 18:24 (Ref:3429131) | #1228 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
They can't outspend them, but they don't need to outspend them either. You'll find that the reason Audi and Porsche spend so much money is because the R&D culture is incredibly excessive. They'll design, manufacture and and even go on to test on a racetrack the many different concepts.
The reason Toyota is able to build a car just as good is because they make educated guesses as to which solutions will be the best before manufacturing and testing on the race track. They chose option D based on experience and calculations whereas Audi will only choose Option D after having manufactured and tested Options A,B,C,F,G on a racetrack. Audi waste a lot of money. Porsche brought 2-3 different noses and 2 different rear ends to the test day... I suppose that's the luxury of a small budget. Last edited by Articus; 1 Jul 2014 at 18:36. |
|
|
1 Jul 2014, 18:25 (Ref:3429133) | #1229 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 94
|
well... even Audi hast some things on their car, which are or were really creative in terms of "reding between the lines"... Remember the removable rear of the R8 or the double decker rearwing of the 2008 R10 or the original R15 or turning vanes on the 2014 R18 or the flexbile bodywork under the car... or the "air hybrid" for 2013...
Thats part of motorsport since 1900 and will be part of racing. And for me, as an engineer, it should be part of racing ;-) Even in cup racing or IRacing you are doing this things ;-) |
|
|
1 Jul 2014, 19:34 (Ref:3429151) | #1230 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
To me, the whole "Spirit of the rules" thing is just an avenue for racing politics, creating a squishy area where something gets outlawed or not based on how connected the team that did it is. There are specified tests and a design passes them or it doesn't. |
|||
|
2 Jul 2014, 01:11 (Ref:3429250) | #1231 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
Spirit of the rules only exist because the ACO don't have a waterproof scrutineering process. The idea of spirit of the rules is not to play in the squishy area where things are designed to pass scrutineering although banned by letter of the rules.
I'm of the opinion that if you won't police all of them, then police none of them. Yes it's interesting to see what gizmos and catapults they design to circumvent the rules but their are a whole lot of strictly LEGAL ways to innovate in LMP1. Seems some people are more drawn to the thought of breaking the rules than innovation itself. I guess if the innovation isn't skirting the rule, no one would ever look at it closely enough for it to have 20-30 pages of discussion on it. Strange world. I'm part of it Last edited by Articus; 2 Jul 2014 at 01:18. |
|
|
2 Jul 2014, 03:39 (Ref:3429289) | #1232 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
It's the designers' jobs to come up with stuff that meets the letter of the law and which gives an advantage, and which the other designers didn't think of. My problem is that we have 20 page discussions of whether a wing which deflects is OK or not, because the rules don't allow the gas turbine/electric car with eight wheels with solid rubber tires, fully active suspension, and is shaped like a torpedo sans fins. That would offer a lot more to discuss. That's where racing jumped the shark in the late '80's/early '90's. Rules that started out for safety evolved into rules to protect the status quo. I hope Nissan really does turn out to be a bad boy who has found at least some little way to shake things up. The sport definitely needs that, and what fun it would be! |
|||
|
2 Jul 2014, 03:49 (Ref:3429295) | #1233 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
Are you telling me that skirting rules is the only way to be "interesting"? I hardly agree with that.
Nissan says they will bring a powertrain that will be the talk of the town. Do you think they're somehow going to use more than 8MJ of electric power per lap? Is that the only way it can be "interesting". Because they are breaking the rules? |
|
|
2 Jul 2014, 04:03 (Ref:3429299) | #1234 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Quote:
Gurney cleaned everybody's clock in GTP in the '90's. He's been there and done that. He could be happily retired now, not taking on some taxing new effort. They have a reputation to uphold and I'm sure he wouldn't leave that to chance. I don't think he would be involved in the new car unless they are up to something really interesting. Interesting as in meeting the letter of the rules, but as some would see it, maybe well outside the "spirit" of them. But, something which would pass every currently specified scrutineering test. |
||||
|
2 Jul 2014, 04:08 (Ref:3429300) | #1235 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,442
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
2 Jul 2014, 04:17 (Ref:3429304) | #1236 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
|
If they use more than 8 MJ, it is not going to be breaking the rules. The rules were written till 8 MJ because perhaps ACO was informed that no one is going to opt for more than 6 MJ. If someone can do 10 MJ next year, the new numbers would be simply added. That would not be breaking the rules. That would mean someone created a more efficient engine and/or better ERS, so they can go as fast (or faster) with even less fuel.
|
|
|
2 Jul 2014, 05:03 (Ref:3429312) | #1237 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,442
|
Theyll need some amazing hybrid system if theyre going to have cars run 10mj. Its possible at Le Mans, but youll need super light technology. Itd probably compromise engine size and performance!
|
|
|
2 Jul 2014, 05:24 (Ref:3429316) | #1238 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Anyway, I am quite amazed by this whole issue. This has nothing to do with sticking with the "spirit of the rules". It's about complying with the literal wording thereof. No need to invoke the spirits |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
2 Jul 2014, 09:19 (Ref:3429387) | #1239 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,442
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Jul 2014, 12:16 (Ref:3429464) | #1240 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 797
|
Gotta love it. Everybody had the same rules to read, Toyota did a better job. "Spirit of the rules" is fine for club racing, this is supposedly pro. The rulesmakers could close this loophole and save the other teams the money to develop their own ... or not.
Bring back Smokey Yunick! |
||
|
2 Jul 2014, 13:03 (Ref:3429481) | #1241 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Jul 2014, 19:18 (Ref:3429583) | #1242 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
I do believe that it's a bit "worrying" that people start playing with the rules by devising solutions that are specifically designed to "fool" the deflection tests imposed by the ACO-FIA with the evident intent to literally infringe an explicit provision that effectively bans movable (yes… movable… not only flexing, but MOVABLE) bodywork parts/elements: Quote:
Luckily for Toyota, the ACO-FIA appear to be "incapable" or "unwilling" to enforce their own rules… |
||||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
2 Jul 2014, 19:56 (Ref:3429599) | #1243 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,269
|
I'm sorry, but wasn't this whole argument spun around its own tail about 5 times already? Unless we see a protest or something, the movable wing will stay for a while, and shouting "TS040 ISN'T LEGAL" on a forum is unlikely to sway the opinion of the people that make the regulations. And no offense, but it gets horribly tiresome after a while.
And even if it gets protested, since it passes the current scrutineering tests, the regulatory bodies will probably have a quiet word in Toyota's year and say "we'll allow you to run this to the end of the season, but we'll tighten the tests for next year". |
||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
2 Jul 2014, 20:03 (Ref:3429601) | #1244 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,442
|
A sales pitch? Its not a hiring ad, its explaining the technology they have to work with. You said they make educated guesses, I gave a link that shows you the technology they have at TMG. And that tech allows them to make decisions at the factory without having to track test every change. No, not every team has what TMG have. This information gives us another reason as how they spend less money.
|
|
|
2 Jul 2014, 20:22 (Ref:3429618) | #1245 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
2 Jul 2014, 21:17 (Ref:3429643) | #1246 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
Quote:
Last edited by Articus; 2 Jul 2014 at 21:31. |
||
|
2 Jul 2014, 21:42 (Ref:3429655) | #1247 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,943
|
Quote:
* While shouting "It isn't legal" is tiresome, so is the other side of the coin that I will paraphrase it as "Suck it up and deal with it". * It would be nice if we actually knew what the resolution would be. Given the lack of action by anyone at this point, I tend to agree with your hypothesis... Allowed for remainder of this season, but then banned (Or they just enforce the existing rules depending upon your viewpoint!) next year. But it remains to be seen as to what if anything will happen. For me personally, the unresolved nature of the controversy does sour a bit of my excitement around WEC. And I don't think I am being petulant. If it can't be resolved this season I hope it is next. Richard |
||
|
2 Jul 2014, 21:46 (Ref:3429656) | #1248 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
2 Jul 2014, 21:50 (Ref:3429659) | #1249 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Bring back Smokey Yunick! indeed! Different strokes for different folks, I guess. |
|||
|
2 Jul 2014, 22:06 (Ref:3429664) | #1250 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,836
|
Quote:
No one is really debating at this point. That isn't deflection in the common sense of it. The rear wing doesn't flex at all. The purpose to the ACO's test is to make sure the main plane does not flex. But Toyota redefined the script. Because the main plane does not flex at all on the LM version wing. It's attached to a clever mechanism that moves the wing into 1 of 2 positions. In neither of which does the wing flex itself. There's are nice description of it all here: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2014.html Enjoy Last edited by Articus; 2 Jul 2014 at 22:11. |
||
|
|
|
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 |