[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Of course this statement shows a complete absence of bias on you part.
Care to provide examples of Porsche cheating?
Exploring loopholes is not cheating. If there is no rule, then it cant be broken. The maximum that can be said is that it goes against the "spirit" or "against the intention", but that is not the same as cheating.

I never said I was unbiased, but then again I wasn't acting like both a judge and a jury like so many were here, acting all butt-hurt and petty, as if TMG murdered their mothers AND their children. It's blatantly obvious that those few who were crying wolf all along in this thread (not going to name names because they are pretty obvious) had separate agendas. It's safe to say that we wouldn't see such an outcry for witch-hunt if it were Audi (the can-do-no-wrong brand) doing such a thing.

As for Porsche's "cheating" (I'm using quotes here because they were merely loopholes they found that gave them an edge over their rivals), a few pops into mind, such as: 917 pre-long or short-tail's movable trim-tabs (not unlike Toyota's clever system on TS040); 1971 917K's magnesium chassis; boost-control on their turbo cars compared to the rivals' NA engines that cannot afford more power with a twist of a knob; 934.5's sectioned front bumper to greatly reduce front ride height for extra front downforce; 935-78's chassis within a chassis; the 1994 Dauer 962 running in the GT-category with less restrictions compared to prototype-category. These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Now please keep in mind that I'm not accusing Porsche of cheating for all of these clever tricks and loopholes. In fact, quite the opposite, I'm in awe and love seeing these ingenious solutions, and I respected and loved Porsche as the master in motorsport racing. They don't get 16 Le Mans overall wins without trying hard to find ways for an upperhand.

And same here with Toyota. The way I see it, if it passed scrutineering (which it did), and NO this wasn't news to them FIA/ACO (only to the minions here who think they can cast judgment even though they have zero say in this), then this system should be allowed. I think that Porsche's flex-engine cover is pretty clever too, and should be allowed.

The people here who acted all butt-hurt are mad because their beloved Audi or whatever non-Porsche/Toyota teams didn't think of it or couldn't implement it without failing the series of deflection tests.

I mean, thank GOD Toyota didn't win, because if they did win then all of these butt-hurt minions would be grabbing their pitchforks rushing into any Toyota dealerships by now, demanding to have their wings taken away from their Priuses.

If you want someone to blame, blame the scrutineers for not doing their jobs properly. Blame the ones who write the rules that are ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

I wonder how often the trick pieces get put on in the middle of the night?

Remember how Audi used to swap bodywork at night, and then back in the AM?

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Articus

I still think that in order to pass better judgement we should consider this fundamental question. Should legality be judged by the letter of the rulebook or by the attempts to enforce it (scrutineering)?

If we take the rule book to the letter, nevermind how the ACO plans to check the legality. The wing is illegal. It's not allowed to move in the deliberate fashion that is does period.

However, if ACO take it to be scrutineering and ignore any other material evidence of the DRS in operation, then the wing is legal.

Which one should, in your opinion, the ACO go by?

Very simple, it passed the scrutineering, and therefore should be allowed PERIOD.

This is no different than someone underage using a fake ID to get into a bar. It is up to the discretion of the bouncer to check your ID and decide whether to let you in or not, fake ID or otherwise. If the underage teen gets in with the fake ID, then it's fair game.


So now I'm asking you a question, Articus: What's your gain from this witch-hunt? Like, which team/brand are you biased for/against, and why? Do you happened to own any Audi/VAG stocks, vehicles, memorabilia, etc?

I'm genuinely curious. And it's okay to be honest and say you hate Toyota with all of your soul. Nothing wrong with that.

I on the otherhand have nothing to gain from this, and I see this witch-hunt as something very silly, showing how subjective and petty some people can be. It's actually pretty sad that someone went ahead and made some paper cutouts to accuse of such a "cheater" system but still without any hard evidence. Much like the justice system in America: Guilty until proven innocent.

Or better yet, get rid of the wings altogether. Ban all the wings. Just go back to racing like the Grand Prix cars back in the Jim Clark era. Just power, tires, skills, and balls.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

I'm 6 hours behind Le Mans time here so I saw some of the middle of the night action. Saw one of the Toyotas getting a rear wing change. It looked like the whole rear body work.

After this thread, I wondered, "Was the old one damaged? Are they putting on their new trick rear wing? Did the ACO/FIA make them take the trick wing off and put on another?"

I have no idea. But, after this thread and seeing them change the rear wing, it triggered the thought... 'Why are they doing that?'

I wonder how often the trick pieces get put on in the middle of the night?

All the "trick" pieces were also checked by scrutineers, along with all spare parts.

Almost all the teams swap bodywork pieces on their cars. Sometimes they changed the rear engine-cover and wing assembly to swap between different downforce settings. Sometimes they changed the front bodywork for brighter headlamps at night, or also different downforce setups.

You're reading too much into this. If you read too much into this and start to write your own fiction, I'll just call you Stephen King from now on.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

I dunno toyota ran the full length tail all along and then Audi shows up with a “long tail”,then toyota comes up with the "fender extension” end plates (another highly questioned rule) and not long after that Audi starts using that too.so will we see this wing on audis too? These clever designs is what's making Lmp1 interesting,I also liked audis blown defuser and the what they did this year with the rear deck to try to get the same effect.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

Very simple, it passed the scrutineering, and therefore should be allowed PERIOD.

I'm trying to strike a conversation. I think we're all adults here so please leave the name calling at the login page. This is a forum where we are free to offer our opinions. If you don't like, attacking others directly is not how to react.

Yes the car passed scrutineering. I understand that. This is why I raised the question.

When the rule book forbids moving aerodynamic elements, or anything for that matter but does not have a procedure that is rigorous enough to enforce the rule, Which should take precedence?

This is important to answer because if ACO say we will only validate a car by scrutineering, then any visual evidence of the Toyota wing moving is inadmissable and Audi and Porsche cannot do anything about this wing.

However if it is the intent of the regulation that takes precedence then evidence such as what Mulsane Mike presented is damning for Toyota even if the ACO couldn't detect it from scrutineering.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Lagunaseca_4life

These clever designs is what's making Lmp1 interesting,I also liked audis blown defuser and the what they did this year with the rear deck to try to get the same effect.

Exactly. Why must we jump the gun and condemn such ingenuity? The only exciting times of LM24 racing that I could recall in recent years were when Peugeot came back with the 908 HDI. Otherwise it was the usual Audi freight train, very mundane with no excitement and genuine innovation. The diesel switch wasn't innovative, but was well marketed as such.

And now Toyota came in to continue such excitements, which is ironic given that they're seen in public as the most "beige" automotive company in the world.

It baffles me that some people will do anything to preserve the 4-ring freight-train, for whatever reason, with propaganda such as this.

Let's keep the drama on the track, not on the politics that makes this a silly soap opera. I'm here to watch a race. If I want to watch a car-related movie with some drama in it, I'd just watch Le Mans. If I want to watch a crappy car-related drama movie, I could just watch Redline.

[Articus]

Imagine this. Suppose the Audi rear wing actually had 3 elements (the max in the regulation is 2 elements). Then Audi managed to cloak the third element with invisibility (don't ask me how). So the car passes scrutineering. But Kazuki Nakajima has cell phone video of the third element on the rear wing going invisible right before scrutineering (don't ask me how or why Kaz is involved but he is ).

If Scrutineering is the end all be all, then Nakajima could show this damning evidence to the the race stewards or whoever and they couldn't do a damn thing about it because hey, the car passed scrutineering.

In this case the ACO didn't have the equipment to detect invisible parts.

Now this is critical point. What is the point of having the regulation limit on wing elements if they will not accept Kazuki Nakajima's damning evidence which shows the ACO's counting procedure to determining the number of wing elements is outdated/insufficient?

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Articus

I'm trying to strike a conversation. I think we're all adults here so please leave the name calling at the login page. This is a forum where we are free to offer our opinions. If you don't like, attacking others directly is not how to react.

Yes the car passed scrutineering. I understand that. This is why I raised the question.

When the rule book forbids moving aerodynamic elements, or anything for that matter but does not have a procedure that is rigorous enough to enforce the rule, Which should take precedence?

This is important to answer because if ACO say we will only validate a car by scrutineering, then any visual evidence of the Toyota wing moving is inadmissable and Audi and Porsche cannot do anything about this wing.

However if it is the intent of the regulation that takes precedence then evidence such as what Mulsane Mike presented is damning for Toyota even if the ACO couldn't detect it from scrutineering.

No, Articus. Something needs to be said. A bit of sense is needed to be punched into everyone's face, because this thread had turn into nothing but an accusative whining diary of motor racing drama queens. If I crossed the line then I deserved to be banned (and that's up to the scrutineers ), but honestly the crazies-level has gone past 11.


As for "...any visual evidence of the Toyota wing moving is inadmissable and Audi and Porsche cannot do anything about this wing", yes they can. They can either be little kids and whine about it to FIA/ACO, or come up with their own solutions that can pass the tests undetected or with convincing arguments.


"However if it is the intent of the regulation that takes precedence then evidence such as what Mulsane Mike presented is damning for Toyota even if the ACO couldn't detect it from scrutineering."

It's damning because someone said so? What is his agenda? Aside from being no more than a volunteered 3rd party adjudicator?

So once again, if the scrutineers couldn't detect it, then are any rules broken? How is a rule broken if one couldn't detect whether it's broken or not?

It's a bit dishonest to be accusative if the intent was to merely strike a conversation. Like you said, we're all adults here.

[Articus]

Here's another great pic from Mike that shows how much the tail section droops when the wing is laid back.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Articus

Imagine this. Suppose the Audi rear wing actually had 3 elements (the max in the regulation is 2 elements). Then Audi managed to cloak the third element with invisibility (don't ask me how). So the car passes scrutineering. But Kazuki Nakajima has cell phone video of the third element on the rear wing going invisible right before scrutineering (don't ask me how or why Kaz is involved but he is ).

If Scrutineering is the end all be all, then Nakajima could show this damning evidence to the the race stewards or whoever and they couldn't do a damn thing about it because hey, the car passed scrutineering.

In this case the ACO didn't have the equipment to detect invisible parts.

Now this is critical point. What is the point of having the regulation limit on wing elements if they will not accept Kazuki Nakajima's damning evidence which shows the ACO's counting procedure to determining the number of wing elements is outdated/insufficient?

Then all the powers to Audi!

Seriously, you just described to me the best racing series ever! That is a level of witchcraft that even Q of MI6 would be proud!

[Articus]

The moving tail compromises the diffuser a little but I suppose the gain from the device was worth much more.

Would it be possible to obtain even more decrease in angle of attack (lift even!) if the swan neck was mounted to the flap and not the mainplane? Is that suggested even legal?

[Articus]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

As for "...any visual evidence of the Toyota wing moving is inadmissable and Audi and Porsche cannot do anything about this wing", yes they can. They can either be little kids and whine about it to FIA/ACO, or come up with their own solutions that can pass the tests undetected or with convincing arguments.

This concept is completely valid but it may have led to escalating cost in Formula 1.

We wouldn't have known about this moving wing, and it could not have piqued your "interest" had Mike not shared this information with us. We really ought to be thankful rather than insulting him...

[deltawing]

Forgiveness for the intrusion here on such a hot topic, but this picture is quite interesting in some other aspects as well.... if my eyes are not fooling me, I see some quite big fillets right under the rear lights, across the whole lower edge of what suppose to be two flat and perpendicular to the reference plane plates. There is even a drawing how those plates should look and how big they should be.... Very interesting!

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by Articus

This concept is completely valid but it may have led to escalating cost in Formula 1.

We wouldn't have known about this moving wing, and it could not have piqued your "interest" had Mike not shared this information with us. We really ought to be thankful rather than insulting him...

Definitely thankful for the visuals, not so much for the subjectivity (if you were to read the comments on his youtube videos). There's either an ulterior motive or intentionally sensationalized to click bait for views.

[TF110]

I agree. Nothing of this level of 'sensation' on Porsche's brake duct wings, flexing body cover etc. It doesn't matter who it is, no person should be playing favorites in regards to solutions like these. The TS040 has ran the wing in every race, nothing was said up until Le Mans by these 'journalists' or whatever they want to be labeled as. Imo its not "breaking news, Toyota's wing moves". The story is 3 or 4 months old at the least. But surely its good practice to save your best dirt for the big one

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by TF110

I agree. Nothing of this level of 'sensation' on Porsche's brake duct wings, flexing body cover etc. It doesn't matter who it is, no person should be playing favorites in regards to solutions like these. The TS040 has ran the wing in every race, nothing was said up until Le Mans by these 'journalists' or whatever they want to be labeled as. Imo its not "breaking news, Toyota's wing moves". The story is 3 or 4 months old at the least. But surely its good practice to save your best dirt for the big one

Porsche revised their design immediately about the flexible engine cover to make it legal. Brake duct vane under the reference plane is a status quo that all three, even Rebellion is doing, so it still keeps the play field even. But the passive DRS is illegal, and Toyota never bother to correct it, unlike Porsche. It is because of this arrogance and blatant ignorance of regulation instead of anything else that TMG is being questioned, so your defending argument are not full well grounded on the two example above I'm afraid.

What's more, the longer they run the passive DRS without being questioned, the more dubious this is.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

Definitely thankful for the visuals, not so much for the subjectivity (if you were to read the comments on his youtube videos). There's either an ulterior motive or intentionally sensationalized to click bait for views.

Please, the level of butt hurt here is outstanding. I was the first to mention anything at all about turning vanes and my thoughts on their legality. I flogged that dead horse for a month or so and no traction. That everyone is running that concept in the paddock sort of makes my argument fall on deaf ears.

This was brought to my attention the week leading into Le Mans. What was I going to do, just not say anything about it? It's a great and interesting story. Unlike some here valiantly defending their favorite I have no agenda other than making the FIA's processes more transparent (as they should be when regarding technical interpretations). And this was about as translucent as a brick wall.

******* typical, attack the messenger!

[Skemer]

Either way you look at it,i can't help to think that this is a most ingenious design.I hope the ACO won't take any action banning this approach as a whole and maybe will see Audi and Porsche implementing the same design incorperated with their vision of the concept.

[MulsanneMike]

It is VERY interesting. And as this is now an efficiency formula it seems this could be a clear direction. But if this is the direction they are going, wouldn't be in their best interest if ALL competitors were on the same page?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Here's another great pic from Mike that shows how much the tail section droops when the wing is laid back.

Originally Posted by deltawing

Forgiveness for the intrusion here on such a hot topic, but this picture is quite interesting in some other aspects as well.... if my eyes are not fooling me, I see some quite big fillets right under the rear lights, across the whole lower edge of what suppose to be two flat and perpendicular to the reference plane plates. There is even a drawing how those plates should look and how big they should be.... Very interesting!

This picture is worth a thousand words. The whole end of the floor section is bending then.

Is it bending within allowable limits ? Difficult to say.

Are the ACO-FIA even applying any deflection tests to this particular section ? Probably not.

What are the ACO-FIA doing about this ? Apparently nothing.

Irrespective of the amount of deflection of the floor part and whether or not this deflection is "acceptable", that deflection evidently leads to the pivoting of the whole rear wing from the high-drag configuration to the low-drag configuration. That IS a definitely a bodywork element/part that is movable at speed, a solution that is explicitly banned by the regulations. And the ACO-FIA do NOTHING about this ?

We can all be thankful to Mike for having pointed out and brought forward this issue.

[Spyderman]

Agreed! We have Mike to thank.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Here's another great pic from Mike that shows how much the tail section droops when the wing is laid back.

Just another thing. I expect that there are currently no load/deflection tests to test the flexibility of the rear end of the floor and rear diffuser section. Now, the LMP1 Technical Regulations explicitly provide for the ability to introduce such tests (cf. Article 3):

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.

With all the evidence available, how is it that the ACO-FIA have not introduced such tests (at least to our knowledge) ?

More importantly, Article 3 further explicitly provides that:

Among other criteria, the FIA will consider the linearity of the load/deflection curve over the elastic deformation area. Any non-linearity must be only on the plastic deformation area.

The above picture tends to demonstrate that the deformation (which is evidently in the elastic deformation area) is non-linear. In other words, the above picture already appears to be sufficient to demonstrate that the deformation of the rear end contravenes Article 3 of the Technical Regulations. There is not even a need to introduce a particular load/deflection test. The picture itself seems to be sufficient evidence.

This is a very serious issue and is potentially serious enough to force the ACO-FIA to retroactively review the results of Toyota this season.

[Bandicoot17]

So why has no one put in a protest?

I remember hearing talk of Toyota's wing way back at Spa (Nothing on this level just that it was 'strange'), if the teams knew back then, why didn't they protest, why did they not protest in test week when this all came into the public eye?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

So why has no one put in a protest?

I remember hearing talk of Toyota's wing way back at Spa (Nothing on this level just that it was 'strange'), if the teams knew back then, why didn't they protest, why did they not protest in test week when this all came into the public eye?

Do the ACO-FIA need some formal protest to take action ?

There has indeed been no protest so far we know, but this should not prevent the ACO-FIA to review the situation and at least provide some sort of clarifications in this respect.

I may be wrong, but I do not recall Audi having lodged any protest in their whole endurance history. That is maybe their policy. Let the ACO-FIA do their job, i.e. enforcing the regulations.