[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

On the contrary what I'm trying to point out is that there is no dispute. Instead a simple misunderstanding. apparently yet again...

I understood you. Apparently you didnt get the joke! Which is why I put the laughy face(?) after I said that. The irony!

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

We have photographic and video evidence confirming the very noticeable movement of the TS040's rear wing, as well as a sound technical explanation as to what "mechanism" leads to this movement, thanks to Mike, Sam and Chris.

I don't see any similarly noticeable movement of the rear wing on the Porsche and it seems my eyes are not playing tricks on me, based on Articus' own assessment of the video. And I am not talking about a mere deflection. I am talking about a substantial and readily noticeable movement of the rear wing. There isn't any evidence that would comfort the view that the Porsche rear wing would move in any way similar to what the Toyota's does. Neither is there the slightest hint of a technical explanation that would comfort this view.

So, arguing or suggesting that the Porsche rear wing also moves seems to be a rather lame attempt to try to mitigate the fact that Toyota are clearly using "movable bodywork parts/elements".

Thats where youre wrong. And thats exactly what I just pointed out in my last post. But here you go assuming Im trying to move blame from Toyota. But in reality, I said looks like Porsches rear wing deflects too. Which happens when the cars travel at high speed.

You took that as me trying to say Porsche has some device to push the wing flat? No. So again,

Instead of trying to find fault in what I post, you could see what Im saying.

Originally Posted by Articus

Some people here just like to make arguments out of nothing in order to defend their favorite team...

So what argument did I make? I tried explaining myself and even tried making light of the comments, but still catch your flak?... Maybe its best you ignore me then since my posts appear so incoherrent.

[MyNameIsNigel]

This is just getting ridiculous...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

This is just getting ridiculous...

I only ask you to stop assuming what Im trying to point out. Can you understand that request?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

I only ask you to stop assuming what Im trying to point out. Can you understand that request?

You are probably asking me too much.

[TF110]

Seems like the context is out of order, Nigel. I even get a negative rating from moderators when Im trying to make a joke. I guess Ill explain myself.

You linked to a video and I was trying to make an observation that from the onlooker, there is movement from Porsches wing too. I wasnt trying to take away attention from Toyota. I even said "not as extreme". I was not comparing the two. When I said misunderstanding, I meant that I agree there IS a clear difference between the two. Maybe it was that which wasnt clear in my post. Im not defending anyone, just pointing things out. It can be used as an 'excuse', and probably has!

Porsche dont have a device to move the wing. But the movement is 'natural' while the Toyota exaggerates it. I said "how is that disputing" in relation to the discussion of the rear wing/bodywork of Porsche. That argument seems to have blown over, which is why I put the-

Isnt the internet a lovely place?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Seems like the context is out of order, Nigel. I even get a negative rating from moderators when Im trying to make a joke. I guess Ill explain myself.

You linked to a video and I was trying to make an observation that from the onlooker, there is movement from Porsches wing too. I wasnt trying to take away attention from Toyota. I even said "not as extreme". I was not comparing the two. When I said misunderstanding, I meant that I agree there IS a clear difference between the two. Maybe it was that which wasnt clear in my post. Im not defending anyone, just pointing things out. It can be used as an 'excuse', and probably has!

Porsche dont have a device to move the wing. But the movement is 'natural' while the Toyota exaggerates it. I said "how is that disputing" in relation to the discussion of the rear wing/bodywork of Porsche. That argument seems to have blown over, which is why I put the-

Isnt the internet a lovely place?

Thanks for the clarifications.

So can we come to an agreement that only Toyota are (so far) understood to be using a rear wing system that does not merely deflect at speed but involves a certain amount of "non-flexing/rigid" movement of bodywork parts/elements, namely pivoting of the rear wing main plane and flap ?

Nobody is disputing the fact that a certain amount of deflection at speed has to be tolerated, and that is the whole purpose of the load/deflection tests.

What is being disputed and is at the center of the Toyota rear wing "controversy" is this obvious, readily noticeable movement/rotation at speed of parts of the rear wing, which evidently goes beyond just flexing and appears to literally contravene the rules. Neither Porsche nor Audi are pleased with this situation, which is a fully legitimate reaction.

As of today, the ACO-FIA have yet to clarify the situation in respect of the explicit ban on movable bodywork parts/elements. Interestingly, the recent revisions in the LMP1 regulations and which are supposed to come into force on January 1st, 2015 do not at all affect this particular provision. That suggests that the ACO-FIA are considering this provision to be clear enough.

How can the current situation be in any way satisfactory ?

[truebeliever]

All us armchair pundits can put forward as many different l egality scenarios we like about the Toyota wing.

The bottom line truth of the matter is, it is a very clever system which under the written regulations, French & English, is completely illegal. It was illegal when it was devised, it was illegal if it was used at previous races and it is illegal today still. Until such times as the regulations are re-written removing the moveable aerodynamic clause, it will continue to be illegal.

One can applaud the Toyota engineers for coming up with this system, but I feel this is nothing more than blatant cheating, which they knew it was from the beginning. It is no different if say Team B turned up with an engine completely over sized. As my dad said......."If you are pregnant, you are pregnant. There is no such thing as maybe only a little pregnant, you are or you are not."

The problem is now, what is the ACO/FIA going to do about it? It would seem they are dithering because they don't want to p*ss off Toyota, who could threaten to pull out perhaps if it was declared illegal. If they allow it, then in my opinion it opens up a massive can of worms which ultimately will not be good for anyone involved in the WEC. If they take no action, it sends the word to all asunder that they have no real authority over the racing and everyone can cheat as they like. This would be an entirely unsatisfactory result. I for one cannot believe it got as far as Le Mans with no action being taken about it, or no other team raising questions over its legality? But we the public of course, do not know that this didn't happen, do we? Yet it was allowed to race based on passing tech, which I always thought was purely a safety check, the legality always came after the race.

Anyway, time for the ACO/FIA to stand up and be counted.

[ger80]

Just the trouble the ACO asked for allowing the wing extensions last year...

[TF110]

Illegal by the written rules, then 'legal' through scrutineering. That discrepancy is what the issue is. I hope they let the teams run it. A passive device that can change at speed. Not a drs driver activated aid like F1. Its just a shame the rules are written, but the tests can allow you to have something which goes against the rules. The consistency isnt there imo.

[joeb]

Isn't this legality argument dead yet? There hadn't been any new info on the topic just rehashing the same old thing. Can we please let sleeping dogs lie at this point?

[Skemer]

Just my thought

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by joeb

Isn't this legality argument dead yet? There hadn't been any new info on the topic just rehashing the same old thing. Can we please let sleeping dogs lie at this point?

It would be a done deal, but the ACO/FIA are dragging their feet on this one. Why is it so hard for them to come out and say "it's legal", "it's illegal", or even "we're looking at it"?

And this after not only other teams asked for clarification on the subject, but the motorsports press and media, as well as fans, have inquired both parties on this issue.

The ACO and FIA have tried to press the transparency button with with the fans and media and not try and be closed like NASCAR has often been criticized as being, and even they've lightened up on isolating their processes to the media and spectators.

Either the ACO or FIA are really dumbfounded by this, be it what Toyota is accused of or media/fan response, or they're being pressured to do something about the Toyota wing deal, yet don't wanna PO anyone, at least too much.

Still, a definitive answer would be appreciated, sooner rather than later, and by a lot of people.

[Skemer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It would be a done deal, but the ACO/FIA are dragging their feet on this one. Why is it so hard for them to come out and say "it's legal", "it's illegal", or even "we're looking at it"?

And this after not only other teams asked for clarification on the subject, but the motorsports press and media, as well as fans, have inquired both parties on this issue.

The ACO and FIA have tried to press the transparency button with with the fans and media and not try and be closed like NASCAR has often been criticized as being, and even they've lightened up on isolating their processes to the media and spectators.

Either the ACO or FIA are really dumbfounded by this, be it what Toyota is accused of or media/fan response, or they're being pressured to do something about the Toyota wing deal, yet don't wanna PO anyone, at least too much.

Still, a definitive answer would be appreciated, sooner rather than later, and by a lot of people.

Other then DSC and Mulsanne's Corner i can't remember to come accros any other media coverage nor any official press releases from any of the parties involved concerning this matter.This is merely a discussion about sportscar regulations and the rules defining these as well as how these should be interpreted.So let us keep things in perspective here and continue this discussion without blowing things out of proportion.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Skemer

Other then DSC and Mulsanne's Corner i can't remember to come accros any other media coverage nor any official press releases from any of the parties involved concerning this matter.This is merely a discussion about sportscar regulations and the rules defining these as well as how these should be interpreted.So let us keep things in perspective here and continue this discussion without blowing things out of proportion.

Yeah I agree. I dont see any huge or widespread backlash from the media or fans about this issue.

On to another topic, this article http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...upercapacitors goes into some good detail on supercapacitors, and talks about the gains being made. Also talks about the potential usage in a car between bmw/toyota.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Skemer

Other then DSC and Mulsanne's Corner i can't remember to come accros any other media coverage nor any official press releases from any of the parties involved concerning this matter.This is merely a discussion about sportscar regulations and the rules defining these as well as how these should be interpreted.So let us keep things in perspective here and continue this discussion without blowing things out of proportion.

Motorsport-total.com did cover that subject, but there is indeed very little media coverage about this particular issue, which I find a bit surprising BTW.

This being said, very little has been reported in the media about the flexible engine cover seen on the Porsche 919 during the LM Test Day or the recent clarifications issued by the Endurance Committee in respect of the flexibility in the front part of the skid block. It seems that "movable bodywork parts/elements" is not a sufficiently sexy subject to make it to the headlines.

This shouldn't however stop the Endurance Committee from issuing the necessary clarifications in the present instance.

[chernaudi]

The FIA/ACO final word on the Toyota rear wing and it's mounting system: It's been declared illegal for races post Le Mans:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly14.html

[Lagunaseca_4life]

Finallyyy!

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The FIA/ACO final word on the Toyota rear wing and it's mounting system: It's been declared illegal for races post Le Mans:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly14.html

"Not acceptable" is pretty open to definition...

To me it means, "we can't check for it, but don't bring it."

[TF110]

The mounting is in question. There may be a chance they still run it since they have two versions. Maybe a third?

[J Jay]

So the FIA have deemed the mounting (and only the mount) crucial to the mechanism and declared it illegal for future races; up to TMG to find a way around that I suppose. Granted, from what we know of how the wing moved that should be enough to stop it, but I doubt we've had a complete explanation of the mechanism yet.

[MyNameIsNigel]

"Not acceptable at future WEC races" ? What is that supposed to mean ? Have the ACO-FIA invented a new concept to avoid more definite wording like "illegal" that would have had more dramatic consequences for Toyota ?

Okay, we have some "answer", but a clearer answer would have been welcomed IMHO.

Now, I am looking forwarding to seeing which changes Toyota will need to make to its rear wing "mounting".

[dave_l]

Would anybody like to hazard a guess as to how much time this was worth on a lap of Le Mans?

Or Spa? Toyota won Spa by 74 seconds over 171 laps. 1 second a lap slower could have made things interesting!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

"Not acceptable at future WEC races" ? What is that supposed to mean ? Have the ACO-FIA invented a new concept to avoid more definite wording like "illegal" that would have had more dramatic consequences for Toyota ?

It means it passed the specified tests, but violated the intent, so Toyota was being naughty "And don't do that again!"

That works for me. I love to see the engineers stick it to the rules-makers who draw up overly restrictive rules, but leave a little hole which somebody finds and makes good use of. That's about the only entertainment left in modern professional auto racing.

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

"Not acceptable" is pretty open to definition...

To me it means, "we can't check for it, but don't bring it."

Sorry, I didn't notice this. Agreed!

[MyNameIsNigel]

Great, but what makes this rear wing system "not acceptable for future WEC races" if there is still no test in place to check this ? What is the guarantee that Toyota will come up with a new solution that is "acceptable" this time ?

This is a very curious "ruling" and I would love to see the relevant decision from the Endurance Committee.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Great, but what makes this rear wing system "not acceptable for future WEC races"...

"Look, it MOVES!"

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

...if there is still no test in place to check this ?

FIA can call for that optional full system stiffness check, which it would fail, so it's kind of checkmate.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

What is the guarantee that Toyota will come up with a new solution that is "acceptable" this time ?

I hope the Toyota engineers are exploring that angle at this very moment, but there may not be a solution which could pass the full system stiffness check, so this is probably the end of the line for that concept.