Audi LMP1 Discussion

[chernaudi]

Radio Le Mans has confirmed that Audi will adopt a Toyota-like rear wing endplate solution for their 2013 car--only thing that has been confirmed as for Audi Sport's 2013 plans, and the confirmation of the modifcation came from Audi Sport second in command Dieter Gass.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Radio Le Mans has confirmed that Audi will adopt a Toyota-like rear wing endplate solution for their 2013 car--only thing that has been confirmed as for Audi Sport's 2013 plans, and the confirmation of the modifcation came from Audi Sport second in command Dieter Gass.

Huh?.
Wasn't it going to be banned for next year?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by CTD

Huh?.
Wasn't it going to be banned for next year?

No, the opposite. It's been favored and there will probably be more than just Audi copying it.

[Creep89]

Copying? Audi already has the solution for the rear wing, they just didn't use it because they thought its illegal.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Creep89

Copying? Audi already has the solution for the rear wing, they just didn't use it because they thought its illegal.

It is illegal.
ACO/FIA has just chosen to ignore it.

[The Badger]

Then they dont have a solution . If they think its illegal , then it most probably is . Or they could have cleared it with the stewards fiest , or the ACO .

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by CTD

Huh?.
Wasn't it going to be banned for next year?

See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...stcount3150830 and subsequent discussion.

I still find this a stupid decision of the ACO. Banning it would only affect Toyota. Now all the teams have to develop a solution, which clearly was never intended by the rule book, for only 1 year. A large amount of money will be wasted for nothing.

Maybe the other teams should have filled a complaint like Peugeot did when the R15 showed up at Le Mans.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...stcount3150830 and subsequent discussion.

I still find this a stupid decision of the ACO. Banning it would only affect Toyota. Now all the teams have to develop a solution, which clearly was never intended by the rule book, for only 1 year. A large amount of money will be wasted for nothing.

Maybe the other teams should have filled a complaint like Peugeot did when the R15 showed up at Le Mans.

ACO should simply live up to their own wording of the rules.
It says it clearly that such devises to gain downforce is illegal, wether you call it wheel arch, cooling or whatever, it's illegal unless it's stated otherwise in the regulations.

But yes, we now see the result of accepting rules breech.

[chernaudi]

Kinda stupid with the ACO's selective enforcement of their own rules, but then again, near full width wings will be back for the '14 cars...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...stcount3150830 and subsequent discussion.

I still find this a stupid decision of the ACO. Banning it would only affect Toyota. Now all the teams have to develop a solution, which clearly was never intended by the rule book, for only 1 year. A large amount of money will be wasted for nothing.

I think its a vast improvement over the currant style wing . I gives full width back and we all want that .

file a complaint , why , Its aero development , much like Hybrid and that weird wing Oak introduced last year with the bubbles on the upper trailing edge , shows people are thinking .

That Toyota has the best looking wing for the last couple of years .

Emmm ..... remember when the R8R overcame that issue with the rear wing side extensions , and a week later Martrin Short had them on his Dallara . Remember when the 2003 Bentley came up with full length side extensions , Oreca had them 3 weeks later for Le mans .

So , no , I wouldnt think they would involve that much cost to be honest , especially when a team like Short , operating to a budget can have virtually the same mod as the works teams , and not moan about the cost .

[gwyllion]

No, it is not an aero development. It is loophole! The technical regulations state that the rear wing can only be 1.6 m wide and that 2 dive planes and a gurney are the only other aerodynamic devices that are allowed on the car.

3.6.2 Aerodynamic element added on the bodywork
No aerodynamic element can be added on the bodywork, being an integral part or not of it, apart from :

• Two aerodynamic elements maximum at the front and within the frontal plan of the front fenders provided that :
  • They do not obstruct the driver's view
  • They do not mask the headlights ;
  • They are not situated more than 600 mm above the reference surface ;
  • They are approved by the Manufacturer and that they feature on the Homologation Form of the car.
• Vertical fins that may be added underneath the bodywork in front of the front wheel axle and must be positioned symmetrically about the longitudinal centreline of the car
• One "Gurney" at the rear of the bodywork.
• The rear wing described below

Are considered as aerodynamic elements added on the bodywork:

• Angle brackets not permitted by the regulation being an integral part or not of the bodywork.
• Air outlet chimney. The bodywork element mandatory to cover the exhaust pipe when it is visible from above is not considered as an air outlet chimney.
• Bodywork elements that have more than one possible position.
• Any aerodynamic element the function of which is only to generate down force and is not permitted by the regulations.

Toyota argues that the wing between the two end plates is part of the bodywork, whereas in reality its sole purpose is to generate downforce.

BTW Your comparison with hybrids does not make any sense. Hybrids are allowed and strictly regulated by rule book.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

No, it is not an aero development. It is loophole! The technical regulations state that the rear wing can only be 1.6 m wide and that 2 dive planes and a gurney are the only other aerodynamic devices that are allowed on the car.

Toyota argues that the wing between the two end plates is part of the bodywork, whereas in reality its sole purpose is to generate downforce.

BTW Your comparison with hybrids does not make any sense. Hybrids are allowed and strictly regulated by rule book.

But bodywork or not, if it's solely generating downforce, it should be illegal according to the rule.

[Mike_Wooshy]

No its solely there for design aspects, it creating down-force is a by product. That's how Toyota Argued it.

[gwyllion]

Indeed. Toyota argues that the winglet between the two end plates is part of the wheel arch, just raised ridiculously high. The fact that this winglet happened to add 25-30% additional downforce compared to the Le Mans spec rear wing is a mere coincidence

Certainly, this was a surprising answer.
“It’s just, I would say, a clever understanding of the regulations. We must have openings on the wheels, so we have designed a wheel arch that means, when the hole is open, it looks like that. Simple. It is just doing things differently. When you open the wheelarch, it has the shape you see. The ‘winglets’ you see are the rearward part of the wheelarch. Nothing prevents you from adding a second endplate.”

Does the winglet touch the main rear wing’s endplate?
“Yes, they touch. The wheelarch is connected to the endplate. You have the rear wing, with its endplates, then the wheelarch, then a second endplate. It is one structure, all across the rear end of the car. We have just been playing with how wide the trailing gauge of the wheelarch is. It is unusual, but legal. A clever reading of the rule, doing things which are possible.”

source: http://lendurance.co.uk/2012/08/on-a...scal-vasselon/

Of course that explanation from Vasselon is just clever wording to say that they have found a loophole to make a full width rear wing.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

No, it is not an aero development. .

It is an aero development , that the regs didnt forsee . A loophole , yes .

It is aero , and it is a development of the previous version ..... so its an aero development . Weather its legal or not , its there and its allowed by the regulating authority .

Development is the ongoing research and modification of an item .

If its not aero , what is it ?

[TF110]

Who cares what it is? It looks good and works. It's allowed. If teams want to benefit from it, then copy it. And yes Audi has had this before with the R8, so there should be no complaints. If they 'missed' something, that's on them. If Oak Racing came up with it this season and it didn't get banned I don't think we'd see the same guys saying it's illegal Just because teams didn't do what Toyota did doesn't mean it should be banned. That's how F1 works, and many here criticize that series for it's clamp down on innovation.

[chernaudi]

The difference between this and the R8's 04 endplates is that the R8's was a hallow box that the air blew directly through. The Toyota solution is very similar to the Pescarolo solution where the outer endplate connected to the inner one by a diveplane shaped winglet, basically a single element wing section. It was allowed on the Pescarolo because there was no rule at the time banning or discouraging it.

With the Toyota deal, it's clearly a loophole due to the shoddy wording of the ACO's rules and the ACO's selective enforcement of said rules. And as I've said, it won't hurt Audi long term, because they have a solution ready to go for '13. But it does pressure the private teams, who don't have such huge R&D budgets.

And as for thoughts on the AWD vs RWD hybrid stuff mentioned in the LM regs thread, I'm not sure if I'm in favor of doing away, at least entirely, with the 120kmh limit. I'm in favor or lowering it, or slapping RWD hybrids with a limit to help out not only Audi, but also the private teams who can't run hybrids. Based on Bahrain and Shanghai, Rebellion wouldn't be a ton slower than the TS030 if it was without the hybrid system.

The big problem with the Audi R18 hybrid system is that it favors faster tracks, like Le Mans, Spa, and most ALMS-type tracks that are faster and have more flow to them than the F1 Tilkedromes like Shanghai and Bahrain. Even Interlogos, which isn't a stereotypical (not counting Sepang, COTA or India) Tilke design, has so many 1st and 2nd gear corners that it favors the Toyota hybrid system.

Besides, there are rules being developed to give breaks to private teams, and I think that TMG might have the most to lose, especially if Audi can convince the ACO that they're at an unfair disadvantage with the hybrid or even diesel engine rules. This is a political game now, and Peugeot (who seemed to get the ACO to bend over backwards on the hybrid stuff) no longer have the ACO's or the FIA's ear, since they bailed out.

[TF110]

The point is Toyota found a clever solution and used it. Instead of stifling something that was a a good concept and trying to change the rules, teams will just have to get on with it and make their own solution. It's a two way street. Just because someone's 'favorite team' (not being rude, just generalizing) didn't do their own interpretation I don't think it should be done away with. Like I said before, that's like F1 and it's stale.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by TF110

Who cares what it is? It looks good and works. It's allowed. If teams want to benefit from it, then copy it. And yes Audi has had this before with the R8, so there should be no complaints. If they 'missed' something, that's on them. If Oak Racing came up with it this season and it didn't get banned I don't think we'd see the same guys saying it's illegal Just because teams didn't do what Toyota did doesn't mean it should be banned. That's how F1 works, and many here criticize that series for it's clamp down on innovation.

The R8 solution is irrelevant as the wording, "Any aerodynamic element the function of which is only to generate down force and is not permitted by the regulations," wasn't in the regulations at that time. It was added in 2009 and immediately banned the R10's Spa wings (http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AudiR10PLM2008-MF4.jpg), and we've never seen them, or any other add-on downforce devices (Audi R15 proposed but ACO banned winglets, there's already precedent at the ACO's hesitation to these types of devices: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir15-3.html), since. Until now that is.

Why now? Are Toyota that "clever?" Of course not; it's not as though Toyota's execution isn't the most obvious one. Hence my cynicism about this. The Toyota execution isn't clever and the winglets have only one function and clearly fall under the provisions described in Art 3.6.2. That the ACO has decided to loosen that up just at the time they need to solidify at least one additional manufacturer to race against Audi is the one and only fact that needs observing. And if you're Toyota, you did the ACO a HUGE solid by racing earlier than you planned and the ACO owes you one. This is but one of many favors we'll see I'm sure...it's politics as usual. Ask teams up and down pitlane, I don't come to my conclusions in isolation...

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

And if you're Toyota, you did the ACO a HUGE solid by racing earlier than you planned and the ACO owes you one. This is but one of many favors we'll see I'm sure...it's politics as usual. Ask teams up and down pitlane, I don't come to my conclusions in isolation...

And here I though there would be less politics with the FIA involved.... (sarcasm for those with broken sarcasm detectors)

So, now that it's ruled legal for '13, how many more teams are we going to see adopt this?

[The Badger]

All of them .

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

And here I though there would be less politics with the FIA involved.... (sarcasm for those with broken sarcasm detectors)

So, now that it's ruled legal for '13, how many more teams are we going to see adopt this?

It's probably going to be more significant to see who doesn't have it on the grid at Silverstone.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The R8 solution is irrelevant as the wording, "Any aerodynamic element the function of which is only to generate down force and is not permitted by the regulations," wasn't in the regulations at that time. It was added in 2009 and immediately banned the R10's Spa wings (http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AudiR10PLM2008-MF4.jpg), and we've never seen them, or any other add-on downforce devices (Audi R15 proposed but ACO banned winglets, there's already precedent at the ACO's hesitation to these types of devices: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir15-3.html), since. Until now that is.

Why now? Are Toyota that "clever?" Of course not; it's not as though Toyota's execution isn't the most obvious one. Hence my cynicism about this. The Toyota execution isn't clever and the winglets have only one function and clearly fall under the provisions described in Art 3.6.2. That the ACO has decided to loosen that up just at the time they need to solidify at least one additional manufacturer to race against Audi is the one and only fact that needs observing. And if you're Toyota, you did the ACO a HUGE solid by racing earlier than you planned and the ACO owes you one. This is but one of many favors we'll see I'm sure...it's politics as usual. Ask teams up and down pitlane, I don't come to my conclusions in isolation...

I think you mistook me. I was replying to an earlier comment which said Audi exploited the (not exact) rules before. Not that their wing was the same 'loophole' or whatever you want to call it. Toyota never said that this was some big secret they came up with, so I agree with you. Pascal Vasselon has said differently in fact.

[gwyllion]

I think that you misunderstood that comment from Creep89. He was referring to the rumor that Audi already tested the Toyota loophole in CFD and/or the windtunnel.

[TF110]

Audi already has the solution for the rear wing, they just didn't use it because they thought its illegal

Is what he said. That's fine. I'm referring to Audi exploiting rules before. And if they already had the wing design like Toyota's why didn't they run it? They certainly have the budget for it and could have implemented it in a test session after they saw Toyota's wasn't frowned upon. Lots of 'what-ifs', but my point isn't agreeing with his exact comment. My point was that Audi has done something like this before. Not saying it's the exact thing. Kind of confusing!