[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[Lagunaseca_4life]

[Maelochs]

Articus ... there is never a conspiracy .... which, to the foil-hat crowd, is proof that there always is. Like TF110's joke about onboard fire extinguishers, my remark about conspiracy was meant to be a joke. Sorry.

As fot Toyota ... I don't have a favorite team, that way my rteam always wins. And Like Mr. Laguna4 said, that's racing. I'd rather the car not go down because of a mandated part over which it has no control, but stuff happens.

By the way, Laguna and I are part of the conspiracy ... want to join?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Hasn't Vasselon admitted that the wiring loom "melt" was basically their responsibility ? Was the cause of the "melt" an FIA-mandated device or the integration thereof in the car ?

I find it strange that a defect affecting one single "secondary" device can put an end to the race of a car. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each manufacturer to ensure that the integration of such devices in the car is such that any defect thereof will not have dramatic consequences.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Hasn't Vasselon admitted that the wiring loom "melt" was basically their responsibility ? Was the cause of the "melt" an FIA-mandated device or the integration thereof in the car ?

A quote for this would be nice. Regardless, it does seem to be a recurring problem as Toyota weren't the only ones to suffer from it. It could be the case that the device has to be located in a sensitive area for monitoring purposes, which means everyone has to run the roulette.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by J Jay

A quote for this would be nice. Regardless, it does seem to be a recurring problem as Toyota weren't the only ones to suffer from it. It could be the case that the device has to be located in a sensitive area for monitoring purposes, which means everyone has to run the roulette.

In the french AutoHebdo magazine of June 18th, the following declarations of Vasselon are being reported:

Qu'est-ce qui a mis hors-jeu l'autre voiture ?
La no. 7 a été victime d'un problème de câblage électrique qui est entièrement de notre faute. Nous ne pouvons pas invoquer la malchance. Nous sommes néanmoins frustrés, car nous avions diagnostiqué le problème Ã* distance et avions demandé Ã* Kazuki (Nakajima Ndlr) de rentrer au stand pour changer ce câble électrique. Hélas, il a fondu durant le tour de rentrée. Depuis un bon moment, nous nous étions rendu compte de la perte d'informations sur le circuit électrique et avions réussi Ã* en trouver la cause sans que le temps au tour en soit impacté.

Quelle est l'origine de cette panne ?
C'est un problème de qualité sur le faisceau électrique que nous n'avions jamais rencontré auparavant. C'est quelque chose qui, directement ou indirectement, est sous notre responsabilité.

In short, Vasselon indicates that the wiring loom "melt" is the result of quality issues that they did not face previously and that this is directly or indirectly under their responsibility.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Snippy:

Well that's not the way Vasselon was presenting it to English speaking press! No mention of what started the fire/melting there.

It does have the echoes of Peugeot in the 2010 race, in as much as they came across a batch failure they had never seen before. Perhaps it's time for TMG to produce their wiring looms in-house

[MulsanneMike]

A question to TS030, when Toyota submitted their concept to the FIA, how was it described? Was it described as a drag reduction system with a rotating wing element or as something much more mundane such as simply a means of wing quick release or changing the static assembly angle? Color me curious.

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).

[ederss7]

Audi had turbo issues but their cars kept on going, Toyota had this wiring loom issue and the TS040 stopped on track. I guess this shows what car is more prepared for a 24h race.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by ederss7

Audi had turbo issues but their cars kept on going, Toyota had this wiring loom issue and the TS040 stopped on track. I guess this shows what car is more prepared for a 24h race.

No just shows what's a more critical part on the car.

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by Articus

Let's not make this bigger than it is? Their were 56 cars, practice, qualy, test day, silverstone, spa, all of last year. It was a fluke incident. It's very unfortunate that it affected your favorite team but their is no conspiracy.

Cost the team the race!

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Rennen

Cost the team the race!

Yes it's unforgiveable that an FIA mandated component ground the car to a halt but you can also say the mistake in the #8 car cost them the race. Toyota should have expected atleast 1 of the cars to have a mechanical/electrical fault. How many multi-car efforts in the 56 car grid didn't have a mechanical fault with one car?

The reality is their are contingencies they should have had in place such as a 3rd car which they did not for the biggest and most important race of the year as they themselves admit.

[J Jay]

Edit: Articus beat me to it, and put it better than me too.

[TF110]

Porsche had two cars. Rebellion had two cars. Corvette had two cars etc. What was their contingency plan? Its so easy to say "they should have had three cars" but do you really know what it takes to run 3 cars? More staff, more crew, more drivers everything.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Coming back to the passive DRS used by Toyota and the two versions identified by Mike, I note that Toyota have seemingly used the first version at the Spa race and subsequently tested the second version during their last test at Spa at the end of May before the LM race:



(source: autonewsinfo.com)

We won't get a definite answer on this issue I guess, but one may again wonder which version was allegedly presented to the ACO-FIA for possible green-lighting by the sanctioning body.

And for those that still doubt that the bolt on the outer face of the rear wing end plates (which is supposedly connected to the rear wing main plane) has no apparent holding function, this particular shot of the stricken Toyota #8 may be quite interesting:

[Lagunaseca_4life]

That's funny I was just rewatching the race on my dvr and noticed that end plate swinging back and forth while the 8 was limping back to the pits,and the wing element almost flat and twisting.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

[MyNameIsNigel]

And strangely, no communication/clarification from the ACO-FIA... yet... no reports in the media (except for Mike's and Sam's reports)...

Nobody seems to be "interested" in this issue it would seem.

Shall we except further variations on the theme of "movable bodywork parts/elements that should be banned but are nevertheless tolerated/authorized to be raced" when we get to Austin in September ?

[J Jay]

I'd be surprised if Porsche don't bring back their flexi-cover at the very least. Perhaps in a more subtle manner though

There are certainly grievances being heard in private, but think it serves all parties well to keep this quiet for now; FIA don't want their new hotness tainted, ACO don't want to upset the FIA, Toyota want to keep running this bodywork and Audi/Porsche want more time to figure out exactly how it works.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

And strangely, no communication/clarification from the ACO-FIA... yet... no reports in the media (except for Mike's and Sam's reports)...

Nobody seems to be "interested" in this issue it would seem.

Storm in a teacup.

Toyota has found a clever way to edge out the rules, that's what good car designers do. Audi & Porsche will probably follow suit and copy them so there's no issue here.

[Aysedasi]

Until we find another one to debate!

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Storm in a teacup.

Toyota has found a clever way to edge out the rules, that's what good car designers do. Audi & Porsche will probably follow suit and copy them so there's no issue here.

Yeah!

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

And strangely, no communication/clarification from the ACO-FIA... yet... no reports in the media (except for Mike's and Sam's reports)...

If they've clarified it with the manufacturers at this point I don't think we will getting anything from them. Not like this is of any great importance to us is it.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Storm in a teacup.

Toyota has found a clever way to edge out the rules, that's what good car designers do. Audi & Porsche will probably follow suit and copy them so there's no issue here.

Some of the words you choose I strongly disagree with.
Bending the rules is acceptable, but bending one rule, and clearly disobey another, just because you know the testing procedures are vague, is not clever and good car design.
Toyota has once again broken the rules, but is going to be allowed to do it, because there is no protests.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

If they've clarified it with the manufacturers at this point I don't think we will getting anything from them. Not like this is of any great importance to us is it.

The Endurance Committee at least felt obliged to issue a first set of clarifications back in May in respect of that particular Article 3.4 provision. I would tend to believe that it is not unreasonable to expect further clarifications of that same provision in view of this rear wing "controversy".

[TF110]

Originally Posted by CTD

Some of the words you choose I strongly disagree with.
Bending the rules is acceptable, but bending one rule, and clearly disobey another, just because you know the testing procedures are vague, is not clever and good car design.
Toyota has once again broken the rules, but is going to be allowed to do it, because there is no protests.

Thats not what Mr. Fuller said, and he is one of the guys seemingly at the front of this "wing gate". Itd be foolish for Audi and Porsche not to challenge this. In fact its probably very unlikely. I say that considerring it was said that Audi challenged Toyota on the legality of their braking system.

So if nothing has been done even after teams cry foul, not looking like anything will be done. Bending rules is bending rules. There is no right or wrong, just interpretations