[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by miatanut

"Look, it MOVES!"

Very simple yes, but if that is the "test", then the ACO-FIA should have declared the system "not acceptable" for past races as well...

Reading between the lines, are the ACO-FIA basically admitting that they are "at fault" for having allowed this system to be raced at past WEC events ? There is a "subtle" difference between declaring the system "illegal" (which puts all the blame on the "infringer") and declaring it "not acceptable", anymore, which implies that it was "acceptable" prior to that time. I do suspect (as this was suggested before) that the ACO-FIA did formally green-light the system at some point and now realize that they were actually wrong...

[TF110]

Just more bs rulings to cover their mistakes. If they get caught out there, they just change a word or two in the rules and slap a team on the wrist. Never admit fault just fall back on change and words. I doubt this will cost Toyota much around the rest of the tracks.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by TF110

Just more bs rulings to cover their mistakes. If they get caught out there, they just change a word or two in the rules and slap a team on the wrist. Never admit fault just fall back on change and words. I doubt this will cost Toyota much around the rest of the tracks.

Yeah now we're into pure HDF it'll be less of a loss for them, granted there's some big straights but the majority of lap time will be not coming from there.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Yeah now we're into pure HDF it'll be less of a loss for them, granted there's some big straights but the majority of lap time will be not coming from there.

Which makes the "ruling" even more "surprising". The ACO-FIA declare a system "not acceptable" for future races where the benefit thereof is likely to be more limited, but fail to reconsider the situation in respect of past races (especially Spa and LM) where the system very likely had more substantial aero benefits.

This situation is far from being "fair" to the other competitors that opted to stick to the spirit of the rules.

So, is this end of the story ?

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Which makes the "ruling" even more "surprising". The ACO-FIA declare a system "not acceptable" for future races where the benefit thereof is likely to be more limited, but fail to reconsider the situation in respect of past races (especially Spa and LM) where the system very likely had more substantial aero benefits.

This situation is far from being "fair" to the other competitors that opted to stick to the spirit of the rules.

So, is this end of the story ?

Jesus not more spirit of the rules BS...

It's really simple, the system was originally deemed acceptable, now due to whatever has been agreed the system is no longer acceptable. There is no need to reconsider what has happened in the past if the system has been declared acceptable. If the system is now unacceptable going forwards, then it must have been at least somewhat acceptable to start with no??

In this case the situation is fair, Toyota now can't run the package (unless they change the mount or something), and everyone is happy.

[Maelochs]

Seems simple to me. The mechanism was clearly in violation of the intent of the rule (moveable aero device) but still snuck through scrutineering due to the cleverness of Toyota's engineers, but they knew it was illegal all along, and everyone who sees it in action knows it is illegal.

Toyota's Intent was to sneak around testing with a plainly illegal device.

However, the wing did get through scrutineering, so Toyota has a legal claim that it had every right to race with it at Le Mans. (We all know lawyers aren't much bothered by truth.)

The simplest solution for all concerned was to let Toyota have its Le Mans results but to ban the obviously illegal piece. Trying to rejigger the final roder at Le Mans would have been a nightmare and only confused the more casual fans (if they even noticed) and trying to disqualify Toyota this far after the race would have been a legal nightmare and just a ton of bad publicity.

What we see here is engineering applied to law: the legal engineers came up with a solution in the field which might not be part of the original design but allows the whole thing to continue to operate.

Audi still won, Porsche wouldn't have anyway, and Toyota gets to keep its achievements while not being allowed to cheat (that way) in the future. Engineers are still allowed to probe the rules for loopholes without fearing draconian penalties, no one goes to court, and all the teams are basically satisfied with the outcome. Racing will go on as scheduled.

Sounds like a pretty decent real-world solution. Would we rather see a string of court challenges and appeals which wouldn't be settled until Le Mans next year?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Is this a pragmatic, decent solution to the whole issue ? Possible, but it is far from being satisfactory from the point of view of legal certainty.

Thing is, we are still left with no particular clarification as to why the system is now deemed to be "not acceptable" and why it was previously deemed to be "acceptable". The rules have not been changed and there is no indication that the scrutineering tests will be revised to test if the system (and any future iteration thereof) is "acceptable" or not.

Declaring the system "illegal" and explaining in which respect the system contravenes the rules would provide the necessary clarity and legal certainty. This is apparently not the route followed by the ACO-FIA, at this stage at least. I trust however that the Endurance Committee will issue a decision in that respect at some point.

I am basically fine with the apparent decision not to "sanction" Toyota for having used this illegal-previously-acceptable-but-now-deemed-to-be-not-acceptable system at past races. It is up to the ACO-FIA to decide if any "sanction" is required beyond forbidding further use of the system at future races, but there is definitely a need for some sort of clarification setting forth the relevant test or rationale to determine whether the solution at issue is "acceptable" or "not acceptable".

Without such a clarification and a clear "test" of what is supposed to be "acceptable" and "not acceptable", there is no guarantee that Toyota or any other competitor will come up with similar "interpretations" in the future.

[Maelochs]

"Legal certainty" would open up a huge worm-can.

If ACO calls the system "illegal" it leaves itself open to demands from other teams to penalize Toyota. Bad for business.

It is deemed unacceptable because it is a moveable aerodynamic device. It was never deemed "acceptable" because until the race, no one really noticed what the whole system, as opposed to the portion tested in scrutineering, was doing.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

If ACO calls the system "illegal" it leaves itself open to demands from other teams to penalize Toyota. Bad for business.

The ACO-FIA have the last word, haven't they ? What would prevent them from declaring the system "illegal" based on "new evidence" and take no action in respect of past races ? That would not be worse than the current situation.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

It was never deemed "acceptable" because until the race, no one really noticed what the whole system, as opposed to the portion tested in scrutineering, was doing.

I guess the ACO-FIA need to hire "cleverer" people then

Honestly, when a sanctioning body like the ACO-FIA comes up with a clever and arguably complex set of rules, one would or should at least expect that sanctioning body to be as clever when it comes to enforcing this very same set of rules

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Honestly, when a sanctioning body like the ACO-FIA comes up with a clever and arguably complex set of rules, one would or should at least expect that sanctioning body to be as clever when it comes to enforcing this very same set of rules

It's a well-known FACT that the brainpower of one governing body in making up the rules, no matter how large, is never sufficient to counter multiple teams of highly-skilled engineers, with a larger and more distributed amount of brainpower, who are working around the clock to find new, clever and ever more extreme ways to gain performance through... and AROUND the rules. End of story. To an engineer seeking performance, there's no such thing as "spirit of the rules".

[MyNameIsNigel]

If only Toyota could stick to the literal wording of the rules, that would be a start

Putting jokes aside, we should expect a decision from the Endurance Committee, shouldn't we ?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Audi still won, Porsche wouldn't have anyway, and Toyota gets to keep its achievements while not being allowed to cheat (that way) in the future. Engineers are still allowed to probe the rules for loopholes without fearing draconian penalties, no one goes to court, and all the teams are basically satisfied with the outcome. Racing will go on as scheduled.

Sounds like a pretty decent real-world solution.

Agreed!

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Thing is, we are still left with no particular clarification as to why the system is now deemed to be "not acceptable" and why it was previously deemed to be "acceptable". The rules have not been changed and there is no indication that the scrutineering tests will be revised to test if the system (and any future iteration thereof) is "acceptable" or not.

My take was that the car didn't fail scruitineerings static load test for flexibility, and therefore was fair game?

The silly party here is the FIA/ACO for writing rules which they then don't enforce through scruitineering, because they set the precedent. Scruitineering is there to enforce the regulations, so if there's something on a car against regs which you don't test for, tough.

It's fair to 'ban' such a system onwards but a retrospective penalty because they were to stupid to actually back up the paperwork with process would plain lunancy

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

My take was that the car didn't fail scruitineerings static load test for flexibility, and therefore was fair game?

It looks like they need one more 'thingy' in their toolbox for scrutineering. It would be an interesting jig to see in action delivering the amount of force needed, I would think. If I saw something like this attempting to flex wings, I think I would stand back and get behind something.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Considering that both versions of the Toyota rear wing adopt a single mounting point at the central support where the swan-neck attaches to the rear wing mainplane, which single mounting point allows rotation of the rear wing mainplane (in contrast to the solutions used by the competition), is it that "difficult" to test if that particular mounting point exhibits any freedom of movement ?

That is very simple to test and implement...

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

The silly party here is the FIA/ACO for writing rules which they then don't enforce through scruitineering, because they set the precedent.

I think that's slightly unfair. Far be it from me to accuse the FIA of competence, but they will always be playing catch-up with regards to loopholes because the talented engineers they "need" to spot them are working for the factory teams.

It's a similar situation to top-level public sector jobs - the most ideal candidates for those roles are inevitably drawn to the private sector where there's more prestige/influence/money to be had.

[TF110]

From twitter http://twitter.com/Toyota_Hybrid/sta...27468420571136
Comments on 3 cars for next years Le Mans race. To be decided on later this year. My guess is the response they get at Fuji will help

[Articus]

Can new livery be on the wishlist?

[chernaudi]

Toyota related (non-rear wing) note from Le Mans. XTrac's news section confirms that TMG use Xtrac-built gearbox internals for their new 7 speed gearbox for the TS040, just as they did with the 6 speed out of the TS030.

[MyNameIsNigel]

This is not related to the Toyota TS040 as such, but what exactly is happening between TMC and TMG ?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

This is not related to the Toyota TS040 as such, but what exactly is happening between TMC and TMG ?

Optimistically it lets TMG focus on the TSO40? But strange for sure.

[Articus]

TMG made a statement that they had the resources to run both programme's.

I find this strange. I wonder who's paying whose bills...

On the bright side. If Tomi Makinen is put in charge of the Toyota WRC car, then it surely means that Toyota are interested in WEC long term...unless their thinking about Formula 1 again...

[carbon_titanium]

Toyota can think about F1 only as engine supplier, but is very unlikely in short period. Anyway I hope that the WRC program won't change TS040 long term plan (hoping that in 2015, TMG finally will bring 3 cars at le mans)

[TF110]

The article is a reach imo. TMG just released a wrc GT86 CS-R3 and will run at Rally Germany all this week. The GT86 is due for replacement in 2 years- 2016, just around the time WRC changes its regulations. In fact, just 2 days ago, autosport reported this- http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115198 the Yaris wrc to test on asphalt. so TMC is falling out with TMG, yet they just released a new rally car, and are set to further test the WRC Yaris? Sensationalist journalism imo.

[Articus]

What exactly is Tomi Makkinen Racing doing getting the blessing to build a WRC Spec GT86?

I think it's a reach as well. In the WRC, it is 4wd hot hatch or bust. Subaru literally redesigned the production Impreza from a 4 door into a hatchback just so they could race it in the WRC because Citroen and Ford were dominating with their little hatchbacks. When Subaru quit, they want back to the 4 door Impreza. VW is running the Polo. It makes sense that Toyota go to WRC with the Yaris.