[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[MyNameIsNigel]

BTW, here are two illustrative shots of the "cheese wedge" section on the left-hand side which I took during scurtineering on June 8th.

Number #7 car:


Number #8 car:

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

The dispensation for flexible floors only applies to the front part of the skidblock at the front of the car. The so called tea-tray. The entire rear-end assembly also isn't attached to the "floor" that the ACO is referring to.



That gif on MulsannesCorner is over exagerated. The rotation of the wing is not 1:1 with the movement of the mainplane. But it's just easier to see everything that way.

The point is the 'floor' (just a term) is where the endplates are attached. I am not saying they can use the front floor exemption for the rear exactly, Im saying it was allowed for reliability. Whether or not other teams accept it is pointless. If Toyota says the rear flexes, we designed it to have leeway for reliability purposes, the wing moving is a consequence... they have an excuse. Not that the excuse is acceptable, or theyll use it, but Im giving an example.

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Firstly,
speaking of the turning vanes, from this pic by RCE, TS040 is running them similarly which is well below the reference plane as well, and that leads to the core difference IMO with passive DRS and flexible parts.
When a interpretation of rules is adopted by all 3 manufacturers, regardless of rules set, a special waiver can be issued if the big 3 unanimously agree to do so. This is the practice ACO has been playing with in GTE/GT2 for 5 years. And this is the case in all FIA sanctioned world championship. Double diffuser deemed legal for 2009 only because of this.
However, the passive DRS from Toyota is a single lateral operation without collective approval of all three and that's the reason why ACO can issue a special clarification for flexible bodywork instead of this one.
In a word, when a rule (written or not) is approved by all participants concordantly, it is accepted because no one is becoming better or worse. This apparently not apply to the passive DRS of Toyota.

Secondly, a interpretation of rules, is different from a breach. There is definitely no witch-hunting for Toyota either in this thread or in the forum. On the contrary, I am impressed with the innovation Toyota and Porsche brings us, regardless of its legality. Interpretation is the rewording and rephrasing of existing rules, while the breach is doing something the rule doesn't allow, which simply cannot be interpreted to be legal.

Not a witch hunt, but no calls on other teams of this scope. Thats silly. Its like their questionable solutions are overlooked and just Toyota is the big bad cheater. Even have people defending things they do. Thats the thing here. We need not pretend the other players are saints and they can do no wrong.

[Articus]

The revelation that Toyota is using DRS only just came about this week. A DRS type system is just about the most extreme skirting of the regulations we've seen in a couple years. Much bigger than some nothing turning vanes which we knew about since the beginning of the season. The performance gain from DRS is much bigger than that of turning vanes so naturally this is more popular than anything at the moment.

When the next big illegal system is discovered, *cough* Porsche suspension *cough*, we will be just as eager to dissect and discuss.

You seem to be hinting at some very dubious aspects of the Audi and Porsche. Would you mind elaborating a bit? We already talked about the flexing rear bodywork on the Porsche and called it illegal. I learned about the flexing Porsche rear end from test day. What else is there?

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by TF110

The point is the 'floor' (just a term) is where the endplates are attached. I am not saying they can use the front floor exemption for the rear exactly, Im saying it was allowed for reliability. Whether or not other teams accept it is pointless. If Toyota says the rear flexes, we designed it to have leeway for reliability purposes, the wing moving is a consequence... they have an excuse. Not that the excuse is acceptable, or theyll use it, but Im giving an example.


Not a witch hunt, but no calls on other teams of this scope. Thats silly. Its like their questionable solutions are overlooked and just Toyota is the big bad cheater. Even have people defending things they do. Thats the thing here. We need not pretend the other players are saints and they can do no wrong.

The bottom line is that the wing + wing mounts + endplates passed scrutineering inspection. There's really zero need to waste your time (unless you really want to) on defending such a brilliant solution against some of these less-than-unbiased armchair enthusiasts who were also self-appointed judge and jury on such matters.

If one wants to discuss "cheating" or "loopholes", Porsche wrote a book about that (figuratively speaking of course ).

[MyNameIsNigel]

We haven't heard the end of this story, I am pretty sure about that.

[GasperG]

Ok, may someone explain to me how is it possible for Toyota to pass the deflection test?

I was reading the description of test procedure but I don't quite understand it:

With the attachments of the end plates to the bodywork
disconnected, the rearmost point of the trailing edge of the
main plane may deflect no more than 10 mm vertically when
a vertical load of 2400 N is applied on the surface of the
main plane

The load will be applied uniformly and simultaneously at
point in x representing 50% of the chord length of the main
plane and at points which are 164 mm, 452 and 740 mm
about the centerline.
For the purpose of the test, any secondary aerofoil element
(flap) must be removed.

With the attachments of the end plates to the bodywork
disconnected, the endplates may deflect no more than 5 mm
horizontally when a horizontal load of 200 N is applied on
each leading edge of both endplates.

The load will be applied at the high of the leading edge of
the rear main plane. For the purpose of the test, any
secondary aerofoil element (flap) must be removed.

Apparently with end plate removed the wing under load of 240 kg deflects less than 1 cm and with end plates on under load of 20 kg the deflection is less than 0.5 cm.

So they made the main wing move 1 cm on purpose, the rules deflection test allows this, they just had to make sure the whole wing (with end plates) won't move under the load of 20 kg. There you have it the whole wing moving more than 1 cm.

IMHO the rules should also specify that under load the angle of the wing shouldn't change more than x°. Funny that after all this years they didn't come up with that.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

The revelation that Toyota is using DRS only just came about this week. A DRS type system is just about the most extreme skirting of the regulations we've seen in a couple years. Much bigger than some nothing turning vanes which we knew about since the beginning of the season. The performance gain from DRS is much bigger than that of turning vanes so naturally this is more popular than anything at the moment.

When the next big illegal system is discovered, *cough* Porsche suspension *cough*, we will be just as eager to dissect and discuss.

You seem to be hinting at some very dubious aspects of the Audi and Porsche. Would you mind elaborating a bit? We already talked about the flexing rear bodywork on the Porsche and called it illegal. I learned about the flexing Porsche rear end from test day. What else is there?

People have known about the wing mount since the prologue. Theres no reason to go into detail about the other teams' rule skirting. My point isnt other teams should be labelled cheaters, its the fact theyre seemingly getting a pass compared to this solution. Every team bends the rules. I think theyre ingenious clever things. Imo if you arent looking for even the slightest advantage even threading legality, you arent trying hard enough. I wish every team could have their respective 'cheat' and the rulemakers say "you got that one on us"!

[Articus]

In an effort to change the subject and dispel any rumours of a witch hunt, let's ask ourselves this:

What takes precedence? The rulebook or scrutineering? Toyota is good by scrutineering standards but they are in trouble strictly from rule book standards.

As long as the ACO don't or won't answer that question there will always be grey areas.

I was leaning towards scrutineering standards but then why not just toss the rulebook if the car only has to beat scrutineering. On the topic of wings, if you set some basic deflection test and teams can always get around it, what's the point of those test?

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Ok, may someone explain to me how is it possible for Toyota to pass the deflection test?

I was reading the description of test procedure but I don't quite understand it:

Neither do the FIA, and that's how teams embarrass them from time to time

As far as I can work out, with the end plates removed the main plane is in its "low drag" state due to the hinged mounting, so at that point it will pass the deflection tests just fine because it has already rotated. The 200N load test is for the end plates only, not the wing or entire assembly. Again, nothing in the described mechanism stops this from being passed.

What's being exploited here is the separate testing of the rear bodywork components.

[Articus]

What you said is correct as Mike explained. They don't remove the entire endplate. They just need to separate the attachment of the endplate to the cheese wedge about halfway along the strut. Either way, once this is separated the wing falls down into the low drag state. Since the hinge on the swan neck is at it's maximum travel and the wing is essentially set like any conventional wing. It never moves.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

What you said is correct as Mike explained. They don't remove the entire endplate. They just need to separate the attachment of the endplate to the cheese wedge about halfway along the strut. Either way, once this is separated the wing falls down into the low drag state. Since the hinge on the swan neck is at it's maximum travel and the wing is essentially set like any conventional wing. It never moves.

Indeed that's the trick and it is designed to "fool" the scrutineers who are actually testing a rear wing configuration that is not in its "normal" (i.e. high drag) condition. In that respect, I cannot blame the scrutineers who are simply doing their job, i.e. applying deflection tests that are unable as such to highlight the issue.

IMHO this is almost evidence of "malicious" intent. Intentionally hiding the true picture to pass scrutineering with a rear wing system that is in clear violation of the literal wording of the rules. This is not a matter of interpretation. The rules are cristal clear: bodywork elements/parts that are movable at speed are explicitly banned.

[Spyderman]

[QUOTE=908-HDI;3422412]The bottom line is that the wing + wing mounts + endplates passed scrutineering inspection. There's really zero need to waste your time (unless you really want to) on defending such a brilliant solution against some of these less-than-unbiased armchair enthusiasts who were also self-appointed judge and jury on such matters.

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

If one wants to discuss "cheating" or "loopholes", Porsche wrote a book about that (figuratively speaking of course ).

Of course this statement shows a complete absence of bias on you part.
Care to provide examples of Porsche cheating?
Exploring loopholes is not cheating. If there is no rule, then it cant be broken. The maximum that can be said is that it goes against the "spirit" or "against the intention", but that is not the same as cheating.

[cdsvg]

GIF from that video: http://makeagif.com/i/rIHG4z

Not embedded since its fairly big. Its clear that there's movement of the wing relative to the endplate. Also there seems to be quite a lot of movement of the two elements relative to each other, but that may just be normal flexibility.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

GIF from that video: http://makeagif.com/i/rIHG4z

Not embedded since its fairly big. Its clear that there's movement of the wing relative to the endplate. Also there seems to be quite a lot of movement of the two elements relative to each other, but that may just be normal flexibility.

Had to borrow that Chris!

[carbon_titanium]

typical F1 interpretation on the edge of regulamentation, and TMG comes from F1...

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Indeed that's the trick and it is designed to "fool" the scrutineers who are actually testing a rear wing configuration that is not in its "normal" (i.e. high drag) condition. In that respect, I cannot blame the scrutineers who are simply doing their job, i.e. applying deflection tests that are unable as such to highlight the issue.

How can it be that when the car is standing still that it's wing is not in the high drag state? Don't say that it's so clever that:
- when the car stands still it's in low drag position
- when the car is moving slowly it goes to high drag
- when the car moves fast it goes to low drag again

Or does it not move because of the airflow, but it moves because of bouncing at the curbs?

Mathematical definition that something must not move is different than real world definition where tolerances must be defined. Tolerance is IMHO too big, it's 1 cm for the main wing without end plate. So even if everyone see it move it technically is not moving. Just like 100 kg weight never weights exactly 100 kg

[TzeiTzei]

They should have put a backward facing camera on that Toyota.

[J Jay]

Erm, I've already said this but you're ignoring the key part of the mechanism (hint: It's not the rear wing)

Originally Posted by GasperG

How can it be that when the car is standing still that it's wing is not in the high drag state? Don't say that it's so clever that:
- when the car stands still without its end plates it's in low drag position
- when the car is moving with its end plates slowly it goes to high drag
- when the car moves fast with its end plates it goes to low drag again

Yes, it is all about those end plates, they provide the resistance/pivot point that let's the wing do it's thing. Without them, the wing simply rotates on its pivot [at the swan neck] to it's low drag configuration. The entire assembly has not been tested in the same conditions that it races in.

Originally Posted by GasperG

Or does it not move because of the airflow, but it moves because of bouncing at the curbs?

Now you're onto something. Le Mans isn't a permanent race track unlike Silverstone and Spa, so it's going to be much bumpier/rougher. That's going to make a setup like this move much more, which would explain why it wasn't as notable earlier in the season. Of course, that assumes Toyota are telling the truth about the rear aero being the same at the first two races ...

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

They should have put a backward facing camera on that Toyota.

Fat Chance!!

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

We haven't heard the end of this story, I am pretty sure about that.

Not in this thread at least.

[GasperG]

If it's not like this:

- main wing without end plate under 240 kg load just pivots and deflection is less than 1 cm
- end plate under 20 kg doesn't rotate the main wing because it's just too little weight to move the whole thing

then I just don't get it.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by GasperG

If it's not like this:

- main wing without end plate under 240 kg load just pivots and deflection is less than 1 cm
- end plate under 20 kg doesn't rotate the main wing because it's just too little weight to move the whole thing

then I just don't get it.

Thats why the guys working at tmg are top notch. People say they cheated, I say theyre super clever. Im sure Audi and Porsche have their own ideas too, Im just waiting to see whats next.

[CyberMotor]

My surprise in seeing it in the video is how flexible and (flimsy) acting it is. Looks like a batten from a sailboat's sail.

[Articus]

I still think that in order to pass better judgement we should consider this fundamental question. Should legality be judged by the letter of the rulebook or by the attempts to enforce it (scrutineering)?

If we take the rule book to the letter, nevermind how the ACO plans to check the legality. The wing is illegal. It's not allowed to move in the deliberate fashion that is does period.

However, if ACO take it to be scrutineering and ignore any other material evidence of the DRS in operation, then the wing is legal.

Which one should, in your opinion, the ACO go by?

[CyberMotor]

I'm 6 hours behind Le Mans time here so I saw some of the middle of the night action. Saw one of the Toyotas getting a rear wing change. It looked like the whole rear body work.

After this thread, I wondered, "Was the old one damaged? Are they putting on their new trick rear wing? Did the ACO/FIA make them take the trick wing off and put on another?"

I have no idea. But, after this thread and seeing them change the rear wing, it triggered the thought... 'Why are they doing that?'

I wonder how often the trick pieces get put on in the middle of the night?