[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[Spyderman]

I wonder if instead of a protest, they have not asked for clarification. Most teams are currently building 2015 cars, and I'm sure they would like to have some clarification from the ACO on this topic.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

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.

Have the ACO/FIA ever taken true action without a protest? Toyota's endplates, the turning vanes, aspects of flexible bodywork etc. I think Audi just prefer to see how far other teams are willing to push the boundaries and then use it to their own advantage.

Everyone these days is just seeking clarification so they can move their own car forwards. Toyota's brakes are a sign of this. I think it's safe to say that we'll probably see all 4 manufacturers running a similar system in '15.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

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.

I am giving further thoughts about what we are seeing in this picture:


Contrary to what I have mentioned in my previous post, it could well be that the load/deflection curve is indeed linear. The non-linear deformation that we are seeing is - I assume - due to the fact that the load from the rear wing is transferred directly to the floor section via the long vertical supports that connect to the rear wing end plates. In that respect, the current solutions used by Audi and Porsche would not lead to any similar deformation as the load from the rear wing is distributed more evenly onto the bodywork.

In other words, Toyota's rear end may potentially comply with the rules as far as the elastic deformation is concerned.

This still leaves a question open: Is the movable/pivotable rear wing main plane and flap legal or not ?

[TS030]

2.4.2 in the rules states:
Should a Competitor want to introduce a new design or
system or feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the Endurance
Committee.
If clarification relates to any new design or system,
correspondence must include:

- a full description of the design or system ;

- a complete functional description of the design or system ;

- drawings or schematics where appropriate ;
- the Competitor's opinion concerning the immediate
implications on other parts of the car of any proposed new
design ;
- the Competitor's opinion concerning any possible long
term consequences or new developments which may
come from using any such new designs or systems ;


- the precise way or ways in which the Competitor feels the
new design or system will enhance the performance of the
car (including a complete performance report).

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TS030

2.4.2 in the rules states:
Should a Competitor want to introduce a new design or
system or feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the Endurance
Committee.
If clarification relates to any new design or system,
correspondence must include:

- a full description of the design or system ;

- a complete functional description of the design or system ;

- drawings or schematics where appropriate ;
- the Competitor's opinion concerning the immediate
implications on other parts of the car of any proposed new
design ;
- the Competitor's opinion concerning any possible long
term consequences or new developments which may
come from using any such new designs or systems ;


- the precise way or ways in which the Competitor feels the
new design or system will enhance the performance of the
car (including a complete performance report).

Are you suggesting that this was what Toyota did and that they obtained clarifications/confirmation from the Endurance Committee that they could use such a system ?

PS: Noting that your location is somewhere in Cologne, Germany. Some TMG insider maybe ?

[TS030]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Are you suggesting that this was what Toyota did and that they obtained clarifications/confirmation from the Endurance Committee that they could use such a system ?

Yes

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TS030

Yes

Should we take this as "semiofficial" confirmation or speculation ?

[Bandicoot17]

Well there we go then.

[templer]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Are you suggesting that this was what Toyota did and that they obtained clarifications/confirmation from the Endurance Committee that they could use such a system ?

PS: Noting that your location is somewhere in Cologne, Germany. Some TMG insider maybe ?

That's nothing uncommon in motorsports.

I remember an interview with Andre de Cortanze on the TS020 or better known as GT-One. This car extended the GT1 rules even more to a maximum limit as did the TS040 now, beside it was also built by TTE which is now TMG.

Andre mentioned that the ACO was informed over all aspects of the car's design and visited the factory several times to get a look on the drawings and the car, so that TTE could be sure that the design was fully legal.

I don't know it it TMG did now the same, but it could be and it would explain why he officials are so quit


For me the LMP1 class is now the top of motorsports engineering and on the one hand i would call this a very interesting engineering topic and solution, on the other hand the costs would explode even more if all will try to use flexibe parts or what else we see in F1. The top teams all have the money, but the private can't follow.

The maybe most simple variant would be to allow a official DRS System like in F1 for all teams and ban all flexibe body parts.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Well there we go then.

Really ?

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the Endurance Committee did indeed greenlight that particular rear wing system following Toyota's (assumed) request for clarifications, does this ultimately make the system legal ?

Was the Endurance Committee fully aware of all the relevant details of that particular rear wing system, including the resulting pivoting movement of the rear wing main plane and flap, which movement is clearly noticeable ?

There is still a legitimate question that remains unanswered at this point. How can you reconcile the evident movement at speed of the rear wing main plane and flap with the explicit ban on "movable bodywork elements/parts" ?

Interestingly, in their recent Decision pertaining to "movable bodywork parts/elements", the Endurance Committee makes no reference at all to the introduction of any load/deflection tests regarding the rear end of the car (except for the rear wing itself), which one would reasonably have expected if the ACO-FIA were fully aware of the fact that Toyota's system involved a "clever" exploitation of the deformation of the floor section.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Really ?

If TS030, who appears to have a relationship with TMG based on his earlier posts and location, is telling us the truth that TMG went to the FIA to clarify whether this system was usable, and then TMG used the system, I feel it is safe to say that the FIA decided they could use. If the FIA decided they could use it, it is not illegal, and therefore any protest will be unsuccessful.

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

TMG went to the FIA to clarify whether this system was usable, and then TMG used the system, I feel it is safe to say that the FIA decided they could use. If the FIA decided they could use it, it is not illegal, and therefore any protest will be unsuccessful.

Did that happen? Maybe that is why we haven't seen a protest from Audi or Porsche. It seems like a more obvious catch than the deflecting rear bodywork of the Porsche.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

If the FIA decided they could use it, it is not illegal, and therefore any protest will be unsuccessful.

I would however hope that the legality of any particular system that would have been "greenlighted" by the Endurance Committee would still be looked at thoroughly in the event of a formal protest. But I guess we won't know unless there is indeed a protest...

[dbagtbag]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I would however hope that the legality of any particular system that would have been "greenlighted" by the Endurance Committee would still be looked at thoroughly in the event of a formal protest. But I guess we won't know unless there is indeed a protest...

I suppose this is similar to the GT3 waivers if you want to look at it thay way. But either way the lack of resistance from Audi and Porsche is curious

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by dbagtbag

But either way the lack of resistance from Audi and Porsche is curious

Shall we expect possible interpretations of the "passive DRS" from Audi and/or Porsche as early as at COTA ?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

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

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

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?

This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but just because a car passes scrutineering and is cleared to race, does not mean it is deemed “legal”. I am sure there is a better term for this, but is really just means that it “appears to be legal”. If scrutineering was the final say there would be no need to have provisions for protests. There are plenty of prior examples and hypothetical scenarios to prove this point. A quick and dirty example is a hidden gas tank. Just because it wasn’t found during scrutineering doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And I know there is the entire issue of if this was approved previously or not.

IMHO, the legality of this (or similar) concepts is still a valid topic and should not result in a single person trying to shout everyone down.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think is the grey area is the space between "absolute" adherence to the rules (that are physically impossible to achieve) and a reasonable application of the same rule (in which some movement is allowed/ignored). My comment above about "I can't define excessive flex, but I know it when I see it!" is clearly how this works. When it becomes (or is perceived as) a problem, then the governing body jumps in and uses their catch all rule to define testing procedures and excludes or approves a design.

I try to not quote myself, but the above is from about two weeks ago in the Porsche LMP thread. At the time we were talking the particulars of how to adhere to the no movable bodywork rules. I just wanted to point out that I also support creative thinking, but in a way that still fits within the rules. If the Toyota wing works as speculated, I have a hard time finding a way to consider it legal. But that opinion doesn't come from a place of upset, anger, jealousy or some other negative emotion.

Oddly enough people can have strong opinions on this while still having a (hopefully) neutral and (again hopefully) "relatively" unbiased point of view.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

There is still a legitimate question that remains unanswered at this point. How can you reconcile the evident movement at speed of the rear wing main plane and flap with the explicit ban on "movable bodywork elements/parts" ?

That is the question isn't it?

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

Haters gonna hate.

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

Karma is a *****, much like most of these critics

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

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.

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

…people here who acted all butt-hurt are mad because…

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

…then all of these butt-hurt minions…

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

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

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

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.

So everyone has their own personal style. That is part of what makes this forum interesting. But I will be frank and say yours is not serving you well. Melodrama, aggression, painting with a wide brush and the excessive use of the phrase “butt hurt” is a tough way to influence people. I also think you are walking a thin line between attacking posts vs. the poster. I am even hesitant to make this point for being accused of this myself, but I really think I am talking to your style of posting and posts and not you personally.

Cheers!

Richard

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by templer

The maybe most simple variant would be to allow a official DRS System like in F1 for all teams and ban all flexibe body parts.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Regardless of the legality of this system, adaptive aerodynamics should be in endurance racing in all classes (more downforce for corners, less drag for straights - efficiency at it's core!). Unrestricted DRS would be the easiest place to start, and it would save a few people this potential headache.

I would be cautious about why Audi/Porsche are publicly quiet about this. You could easily get into a chicken-egg argument, where you either think they aren't saying anything because they are already developing their own systems or that they were forced into copying Toyota's setup because the FIA took too long with their clarifications. The VAG teams rocking up at a race with similar wings neither proves nor disproves either of the above. However, Mike Fuller has said that the other teams have "had contact" with the FIA over this, so they have at least voiced their displeasure in private.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Shall we expect possible interpretations of the "passive DRS" from Audi and/or Porsche as early as at COTA ?

I think I read this somewhere a long time ago (I hope I am not making this up), but I thought there was interest in including movable aero as part of this generation of rules. Given the push for efficiency, etc. it seems to be a natural fit. Also given that F1 has dipped it's toe into active aero (DRS) systems it wouldn't seem to be odd that ACO/FIA might do the same for prototype racing. But there is also negative history with movable aero and prototype racing. Anyhow, clearly the rules as written today do not allow it.

If the governing body turns a blind eye to the fact that this is contrary to their own rules, then I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this showing up. The problem is that if they are allowing teams to play outside of the rules it will get messy and there will be tears at some point. What are the boundaries? I am a fan of open rules, but... I am also a fan of rules. So good or bad, they should be followed. If they want to allow movable aero, then just remove the exclusion?

Richard

[TF110]

Im sure if guys on the net have noticed the wing and floor bending, Porsche and Audi have. If they have ran it since the prologue, its a definite. I doubt theyd let Toyota slide without having words to the officials about it. If thats the case, which surely it is, and nothing has been done about it, they have found a way that the rulemakers have no argument against. Red Bulls flexing front wing passed test after test, but it still happened. Theres really some things that just go beyond what words can dismiss! If Audi and Porsche try this, good luck to them.

[Articus]

Sam and Mike discovered two different versions of the wing. Apparently both were used on the #8 Toyota during the race. One where the wing is fixed to the endplate and the middle section deforms (upper image) and one where the whole wing separates from the endplate and should provide much more drag reduction than the first. It occured to me that we had been looking at the wing in this thread as if there was only one version of it. It turns out the images we were seeing where actually from two different DRS wings which may have added to the confusion of it's operation in the thread.







http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay14.html

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Sam and Mike discovered two different versions of the wing. Apparently both were used on the #8 Toyota during the race. One where the wing is fixed to the endplate and the middle section deforms (upper image) and one where the whole wing separates from the endplate and should provide much more drag reduction than the first. It occured to me that we had been looking at the wing in this thread as if there was only one version of it. It turns out the images we were seeing where actually from two different DRS wings which may have added to the confusion of it's operation in the thread.







http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay14.html

Now, this raises a further question. Both the #7 and #8 cars were seen at scrutineering on Sunday before the race with the first version of the rear wing, not with the second version. Has the car been scrutineered with the second version of the rear wing ?

It seems strange to me that a car can pass scrutineering with only one version of a rear wing, but is raced with both versions.

But maybe this is another "loophole" that is being exploited, if "loophole" is the correct term to use in the present instance...

Could be that the second version of the rear wing was seen by the scrutineers, but I do wonder when.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Interesting.

While the #7 car could be spotted on the pre-grid with the first version of the rear wing...


... it subsequently started the race with the second version of the rear wing...


... like the #8 car


Thanks to Julien for the screen captures.

This makes me wonder if the first version of the rear wing was actually used during the 24h race.

[Articus]

Oh?!

[cokata]

The electrical failure on the #7 onboard

[TF110]

Scrutineering covers spares too, doesn't it?