[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So seeing/noticing the rear wing ACTUALLY moving at speed on video footage and picture evidence clearly highlighting that the rear wing pivots between two READILY identifiable positions is not sufficient ?

What's the point of having regulations if ultimately the only thing that matters is passing scrutineering tests ?

Again, this is exactly what happened with the RB6, but the FIA could do nothing about it, bound by the inconsistencies between the written regulations and practical testing regimes. Where there is a gap/flaw/loophole, there is a designer waiting to exploit it for as much as they can get away with.

I am not saying this is right by the way, but it is the reality. I've said it before here, the best way out for the FIA is simply to allow passive movable aerodynamics/unrestricted DRS and spin it as the next step in efficiency.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by Articus

Toyota chose to be that team.

They have the smallest budget of the three, they have to be the ones to outsmart the others, they can't outspend them. That's the only way.

[Articus]

They can't outspend them, but they don't need to outspend them either. You'll find that the reason Audi and Porsche spend so much money is because the R&D culture is incredibly excessive. They'll design, manufacture and and even go on to test on a racetrack the many different concepts.

The reason Toyota is able to build a car just as good is because they make educated guesses as to which solutions will be the best before manufacturing and testing on the race track. They chose option D based on experience and calculations whereas Audi will only choose Option D after having manufactured and tested Options A,B,C,F,G on a racetrack. Audi waste a lot of money. Porsche brought 2-3 different noses and 2 different rear ends to the test day...

I suppose that's the luxury of a small budget.

[Flo aus N]

well... even Audi hast some things on their car, which are or were really creative in terms of "reding between the lines"... Remember the removable rear of the R8 or the double decker rearwing of the 2008 R10 or the original R15 or turning vanes on the 2014 R18 or the flexbile bodywork under the car... or the "air hybrid" for 2013...

Thats part of motorsport since 1900 and will be part of racing. And for me, as an engineer, it should be part of racing ;-) Even in cup racing or IRacing you are doing this things ;-)

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Flo aus N

Thats part of motorsport since 1900 and will be part of racing. And for me, as an engineer, it should be part of racing ;-) Even in cup racing or IRacing you are doing this things ;-)

Agreed!

To me, the whole "Spirit of the rules" thing is just an avenue for racing politics, creating a squishy area where something gets outlawed or not based on how connected the team that did it is.

There are specified tests and a design passes them or it doesn't.

[Articus]

Spirit of the rules only exist because the ACO don't have a waterproof scrutineering process. The idea of spirit of the rules is not to play in the squishy area where things are designed to pass scrutineering although banned by letter of the rules.

I'm of the opinion that if you won't police all of them, then police none of them.

Yes it's interesting to see what gizmos and catapults they design to circumvent the rules but their are a whole lot of strictly LEGAL ways to innovate in LMP1. Seems some people are more drawn to the thought of breaking the rules than innovation itself.

I guess if the innovation isn't skirting the rule, no one would ever look at it closely enough for it to have 20-30 pages of discussion on it. Strange world. I'm part of it

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Articus

Spirit of the rules only exist because the ACO don't have a waterproof scrutineering process. The idea of spirit of the rules is not to play in the squishy area where things are designed to pass scrutineering although banned by letter of the rules.

I'm of the opinion that if you won't police all of them, then police none of them.

Yes it's interesting to see what gizmos and catapults they design to circumvent the rules but their are a whole lot of strictly LEGAL ways to innovate in LMP1. Seems some people are more drawn to the thought of breaking the rules than innovation itself.

I guess if the innovation isn't skirting the rule, no one would ever look at it closely enough for it to have 20-30 pages of discussion on it. Strange world. I'm part of it

"Spirit of the rules" has been around as long as there have been rules, and it's really a creation of those who didn't do a good enough job drafting their rules. "Spirit of the rules" is how a tuned mass damper in the nose of an F1 car, which had zero interaction with the air flow, somehow became a moveable aerodynamic device, because the wrong team thought of it first.

It's the designers' jobs to come up with stuff that meets the letter of the law and which gives an advantage, and which the other designers didn't think of.

My problem is that we have 20 page discussions of whether a wing which deflects is OK or not, because the rules don't allow the gas turbine/electric car with eight wheels with solid rubber tires, fully active suspension, and is shaped like a torpedo sans fins. That would offer a lot more to discuss.

That's where racing jumped the shark in the late '80's/early '90's. Rules that started out for safety evolved into rules to protect the status quo.

I hope Nissan really does turn out to be a bad boy who has found at least some little way to shake things up. The sport definitely needs that, and what fun it would be!

[Articus]

Are you telling me that skirting rules is the only way to be "interesting"? I hardly agree with that.

Nissan says they will bring a powertrain that will be the talk of the town. Do you think they're somehow going to use more than 8MJ of electric power per lap? Is that the only way it can be "interesting". Because they are breaking the rules?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Articus

Are you telling me that skirting rules is the only way to be "interesting"? I hardly agree with that.

I don't think it's "skirting" at all. It passed the specified test. Done. I'm sure the other designers really enjoyed the innovation of it. Now they have to figure out how to do it too.

Originally Posted by Articus

Nissan says they will bring a powertrain that will be the talk of the town. Do you think they're somehow going to use more than 8MJ of electric power per lap? Is that the only way it can be "interesting". Because they are breaking the rules?

With Bowlby and AAR involved, I'm expecting something more along the chassis side.

Gurney cleaned everybody's clock in GTP in the '90's. He's been there and done that. He could be happily retired now, not taking on some taxing new effort. They have a reputation to uphold and I'm sure he wouldn't leave that to chance. I don't think he would be involved in the new car unless they are up to something really interesting. Interesting as in meeting the letter of the rules, but as some would see it, maybe well outside the "spirit" of them. But, something which would pass every currently specified scrutineering test.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

At last some further news about the "Winggate" courtesy of motorsport-total.com.

So, based on Vasselon's comments, passing the deflection tests is sufficient demonstration of the "legality" of the movable rear wing...

This was talked about two weeks ago- June 14th. He was asked a question about the wing and said its legal as it passed scrutineering. So... next...

Originally Posted by Articus

They can't outspend them, but they don't need to outspend them either. You'll find that the reason Audi and Porsche spend so much money is because the R&D culture is incredibly excessive. They'll design, manufacture and and even go on to test on a racetrack the many different concepts.

The reason Toyota is able to build a car just as good is because they make educated guesses as to which solutions will be the best before manufacturing and testing on the race track. They chose option D based on experience and calculations whereas Audi will only choose Option D after having manufactured and tested Options A,B,C,F,G on a racetrack. Audi waste a lot of money. Porsche brought 2-3 different noses and 2 different rear ends to the test day...

I suppose that's the luxury of a small budget.

Its the luxury of investing into state of the art facilities called TMG. This statement here gives you an idea of what theyre working with

Extensive development in TMG’s state-of-the-art wind tunnels has resulted in an aerodynamically-efficient design which is also incredibly lightweight thanks to advanced composite design and production processes.

Intensive simulation and calculation work at TMG has refined the TS040 HYBRID, utilising hardware-in-the-loop technology to test individual components based on real track data and powerful calculation computers to optimise designs.

Such cutting-edge techniques are significantly more efficient than track testing, allowing TMG engineers to continue optimising all aspects of the TS040 HYBRID chassis and lay-out for longer than rivals relying on traditional methods.

http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/ne...-ts040-hybrid/

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by Articus

.... Do you think they're somehow going to use more than 8MJ of electric power per lap? Is that the only way it can be "interesting". Because they are breaking the rules?

If they use more than 8 MJ, it is not going to be breaking the rules. The rules were written till 8 MJ because perhaps ACO was informed that no one is going to opt for more than 6 MJ. If someone can do 10 MJ next year, the new numbers would be simply added. That would not be breaking the rules. That would mean someone created a more efficient engine and/or better ERS, so they can go as fast (or faster) with even less fuel.

[TF110]

Theyll need some amazing hybrid system if theyre going to have cars run 10mj. Its possible at Le Mans, but youll need super light technology. Itd probably compromise engine size and performance!

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

This was talked about two weeks ago- June 14th. He was asked a question about the wing and said its legal as it passed scrutineering. So... next...

Any source ? I don't recall having heard Vasselon explicitly refer to the rear wing legality, but I may have missed something.

Anyway, I am quite amazed by this whole issue. This has nothing to do with sticking with the "spirit of the rules". It's about complying with the literal wording thereof. No need to invoke the spirits

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Any source ? I don't recall having heard Vasselon explicitly refer to the rear wing legality, but I may have missed something.

Anyway, I am quite amazed by this whole issue. This has nothing to do with sticking with the "spirit of the rules". It's about complying with the literal wording thereof. No need to invoke the spirits

Asked here http://sportauto.de/motorsport/inter...1-8415287.html he explains theres always bending, and its impossible to be 100% stiff. But says the stand still tests are met.

[wdave0]

Gotta love it. Everybody had the same rules to read, Toyota did a better job. "Spirit of the rules" is fine for club racing, this is supposedly pro. The rulesmakers could close this loophole and save the other teams the money to develop their own ... or not.

Bring back Smokey Yunick!

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/ne...-ts040-hybrid/

Is this some kind of sales pitch Sure they have all their stuff under 1 roof but you shouldn't think that everyone else isn't just as competent...The equipment is nothing without the engineers.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Asked here http://sportauto.de/motorsport/inter...1-8415287.html he explains theres always bending, and its impossible to be 100% stiff. But says the stand still tests are met.

It's quite possible that the rear wing does not bend under load and is sufficiently rigid to pass the deflection tests, as pointed out by Vasselon, but the rear wing is movable nonetheless, which is explicitly prohibited by the rules

I do believe that it's a bit "worrying" that people start playing with the rules by devising solutions that are specifically designed to "fool" the deflection tests imposed by the ACO-FIA with the evident intent to literally infringe an explicit provision that effectively bans movable (yes… movable… not only flexing, but MOVABLE) bodywork parts/elements:

Article 3.4
(…)
Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion.
Any system operated automatically and/or controlled by the driver to modify any airflow when the car is in motion is forbidden
(…)

In the present instance, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the rear wing has passed the deflection tests imposed by the ACO-FIA. The rear wing does move at speed, which is in clear contravention with the rules.

Luckily for Toyota, the ACO-FIA appear to be "incapable" or "unwilling" to enforce their own rules…

[Victor_RO]

I'm sorry, but wasn't this whole argument spun around its own tail about 5 times already? Unless we see a protest or something, the movable wing will stay for a while, and shouting "TS040 ISN'T LEGAL" on a forum is unlikely to sway the opinion of the people that make the regulations. And no offense, but it gets horribly tiresome after a while.

And even if it gets protested, since it passes the current scrutineering tests, the regulatory bodies will probably have a quiet word in Toyota's year and say "we'll allow you to run this to the end of the season, but we'll tighten the tests for next year".

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

Is this some kind of sales pitch Sure they have all their stuff under 1 roof but you shouldn't think that everyone else isn't just as competent...The equipment is nothing without the engineers.

A sales pitch? Its not a hiring ad, its explaining the technology they have to work with. You said they make educated guesses, I gave a link that shows you the technology they have at TMG. And that tech allows them to make decisions at the factory without having to track test every change. No, not every team has what TMG have. This information gives us another reason as how they spend less money.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

I'm sorry, but wasn't this whole argument spun around its own tail about 5 times already? Unless we see a protest or something, the movable wing will stay for a while, and shouting "TS040 ISN'T LEGAL" on a forum is unlikely to sway the opinion of the people that make the regulations. And no offense, but it gets horribly tiresome after a while.

And even if it gets protested, since it passes the current scrutineering tests, the regulatory bodies will probably have a quiet word in Toyota's year and say "we'll allow you to run this to the end of the season, but we'll tighten the tests for next year".

Well noted

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

A sales pitch? Its not a hiring ad, its explaining the technology they have to work with. You said they make educated guesses, I gave a link that shows you the technology they have at TMG. And that tech allows them to make decisions at the factory without having to track test every change. No, not every team has what TMG have. This information gives us another reason as how they spend less money.

That's what I meant by educated guess. . All of these modern racing teams can get access to any tools they desire whether they have the in-house capability (TMG) or not. Audi and Porsche just have so much more money to spend. If you can spend it, why not? If you don't spend it, youll get a smaller budget the next year.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

I'm sorry, but wasn't this whole argument spun around its own tail about 5 times already? Unless we see a protest or something, the movable wing will stay for a while, and shouting "TS040 ISN'T LEGAL" on a forum is unlikely to sway the opinion of the people that make the regulations. And no offense, but it gets horribly tiresome after a while.

And even if it gets protested, since it passes the current scrutineering tests, the regulatory bodies will probably have a quiet word in Toyota's year and say "we'll allow you to run this to the end of the season, but we'll tighten the tests for next year".

I think that is generally a fair statement, but...

* While shouting "It isn't legal" is tiresome, so is the other side of the coin that I will paraphrase it as "Suck it up and deal with it".

* It would be nice if we actually knew what the resolution would be. Given the lack of action by anyone at this point, I tend to agree with your hypothesis... Allowed for remainder of this season, but then banned (Or they just enforce the existing rules depending upon your viewpoint!) next year. But it remains to be seen as to what if anything will happen.

For me personally, the unresolved nature of the controversy does sour a bit of my excitement around WEC. And I don't think I am being petulant. If it can't be resolved this season I hope it is next.

Richard

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

It's quite possible that the rear wing does not bend under load and is sufficiently rigid to pass the deflection tests, as pointed out by Vasselon, but the rear wing is movable nonetheless, which is explicitly prohibited by the rules

In the present instance, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the rear wing has passed the deflection tests imposed by the ACO-FIA. The rear wing does move at speed, which is in clear contravention with the rules.

Does it move, or does it deflect? The rules say it can't move. "Move" is like the old Chaparrals, with a mechanical linkage to go into high downforce when the driver applied the brake. If you look at those two paragraphs together, clearly that's what they are trying to prevent. The rules don't say it can't deflect, and they all deflect. There is no perfectly rigid structure. It's all a matter of degree. The tests specify how much deflection is allowable under how much load. It passed the tests.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

For me personally, the unresolved nature of the controversy does sour a bit of my excitement around WEC. And I don't think I am being petulant. If it can't be resolved this season I hope it is next.

Richard

And for me, auto racing has become so sterile, with any sort of innovation banned, that something like this makes it a lot more fun.

Bring back Smokey Yunick! indeed!

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Does it move, or does it deflect? The rules say it can't move. "Move" is like the old Chaparrals, with a mechanical linkage to go into high downforce when the driver applied the brake. If you look at those two paragraphs together, clearly that's what they are trying to prevent. The rules don't say it can't deflect, and they all deflect. There is no perfectly rigid structure. It's all a matter of degree. The tests specify how much deflection is allowable under how much load. It passed the tests.

I'm not sure whether you've been up to date on all of it. At the same time I definitely don't want to rehash anything. Just want to make sure your aware of how the wing works.

No one is really debating at this point. That isn't deflection in the common sense of it. The rear wing doesn't flex at all. The purpose to the ACO's test is to make sure the main plane does not flex. But Toyota redefined the script. Because the main plane does not flex at all on the LM version wing. It's attached to a clever mechanism that moves the wing into 1 of 2 positions. In neither of which does the wing flex itself.

There's are nice description of it all here: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2014.html

Enjoy