[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by TF110

The trick is the wing isnt moving... the body is moving which the wing is attached to.

Come on...really?? The wing is moving with respect to both any reference plane and more importantly the airflow.

The video clearly shows this...come on...really??

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The issue that Mike brings up on Twitter is that the Toyota LM rear wing at least never seemed to have had a full ACO/FIA sanctioned flex test done at TMG's facility. This is a test that all teams must pass before the parts should be homologated.

The question is did the ACO or FIA screw up, or did Toyota try and pull a fast one. If the former, expect a rules clarification, if the latter, Toyota could be in some serious trouble with the ACO and FIA.

At Article 3, it says:

The FIA reserves the right to introduce load/deflection tests
on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is
suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

Among other criteria, the FIA will consider the linearity of the
load/deflection curve over the elastic deformation area.
Any non-linearity must be only on the plastic deformation
area.

It doesn't say that is standard procedure, only that FIA can call for this test. Is there another test, (other than the one at 3.6.2)?

At the beginning of Article 3, they've written it all very squishy, so FIA can set the criteria for deflection AT the test, unlike the clearly defined standard test at 3.6.2 c.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Parts/elements of the rear wing ARE moving. There is no point denying this. Maybe the "trick" was leading the ACO-FIA to believe that there was no movement. Have the ACO-FIA been fooled ? I believe that is where the question resides now.

If passing the deflection tests is sufficient demonstration of the "legality" of the system, then why are there still ongoing discussions with the ACO-FIA ? That matter should have been settled by now, shouldn't it ?

Not "denying" it. Thats the trick to their solution. You yourself said the same thing. What you see in the race is not what the tests see.

Originally Posted by Articus

You should try saying that one out loud next time...

The wing isn't moving, *cough* the electric motor is moving which the wing is attached to *cough*. Surely you can see through your own logic now?

I'm not sure just how many times but I suppose it must be repeated. When the wing is tested, it's not connected to the cheese wedges. Thus the wing is locked back in low drag trim. and it behaves just like any other wing. The ACO or whomever isn't testing the wing in the downforce configuration. Otherwise they would see the movement with the allowed weights.

Originally Posted by nkoske

Come on...really?? The wing is moving with respect to both any reference plane and more importantly the airflow.

The video clearly shows this...come on...really??

You must not have gotten what I was saying. The test for deflection is what I was talking about. Thats why I said THE TRICK. Please read my post again. No reason for you to jump to making fun of people.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The trick is the wing isnt moving...

[TF110]

The wing 'isn't moving' according to the tests. But it is in the race. Thats "the trick". That is unless they did NOT test for the wing. Is it more clear what I said? You said the same thing-

Maybe the "trick" was leading the ACO-FIA to believe that there was no movement.

How can they do that if they test for movement in the wing? Thats the question. The two wing elements are attached. So how is it they separate?

[Mal]

I can see Toyota stepping up their budget substantially - being beaten by Audi or Porsche is one thing, but being beaten by Nissan is another story that the Toyota top brass will not want to happen.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The wing 'isn't moving' according to the tests. But it is in the race. Thats "the trick". That is unless they did NOT test for the wing. Is it more clear what I said? You said the same thing-

Hmmm... I am afraid not...

Originally Posted by TF110

How can they do that if they test for movement in the wing? Thats the question.

There is no test in place to actually check if the rear wing moves at speed. The only tests in place are load/deflection tests that are carried out (i) when the car is static and (ii) in a configuration (namely with the rear wing end-plates being disconnected from the bodywork) where the rear wing does not conform to the configuration in which it is actually being raced.

Originally Posted by TF110

The two wing elements are attached. So how is it they separate?

"Separate" ? Could you elaborate ?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Hmmm... I am afraid not...

oh well, I explained the best I could

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

There is no test in place to actually check if the rear wing moves at speed. The only tests in place are load/deflection tests that are carried out (i) when the car is static and (ii) in a configuration (namely with the rear wing end-plates being disconnected from the bodywork) where the rear wing does not conform to the configuration in which it is actually being raced.

Thats my point Looks like they need new testing procedures, or just tell the teams they got put over by Toyota.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

"Separate" ? Could you elaborate ?

The dropping effect of the first wing element.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The dropping effect of the first wing element.

You mean this effect ?


In the affirmative, there is no "separation" as such between the rear wing mainplane and additional flap. Both pivot as one unit as they are rigidly attached one to the other by conventional slot gap members.

[TF110]

No. Talking about the dip in the wing as a whole. But its actually two different solutions so its hard to get to the bottom of it.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Interesting interview of Nicolas Lapierre thanks to DSC, including additional comments from Lapierre about this year's LM race.

[TF110]

Maybe next year, Nico.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Here is a rather good shoot at the TS040's movable rear wing in action during the first lap of this year's 24h of Le Mans race. Movement of the rear wing back from the low-drag position to the high-drag position upon braking before the second chicane on the Hunaudières straight is rather clearly noticeable (unless my eyes are playing tricks on me…):
http://youtu.be/odAtNSuY44o?t=12m18s

[TF110]

Looks like Porsche's rear wing moves the same way. Maybe not as noticeable with the Blue Michelin logoing on the Toyota. On the run to Indianapolis it looks more like the camera angle is what blocks those Michelin stickers out of view.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Looks like Porsche's rear wing moves the same way. Maybe not as noticeable with the Blue Michelin logoing on the Toyota. On the run to Indianapolis it looks more like the camera angle is what blocks those Michelin stickers out of view.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Whats so confusing? Watched the race and looked like Porsches wing did the same thing but not as extreme.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Whats so confusing? Watched the race and looked like Porsches wing did the same thing but not as extreme.

I would love to see evidence about this and get some sound technical explanation as to how Porsche's rear wing could ever move in a manner similar to what can be seen on the Toyota.

[TF110]

You said you used your eyes, I used mine . The rear element of the wings looked like they both dipped at speed. Nothing "technical" about it.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

You said you used your eyes, I used mine . The rear element of the wings looked like they both dipped at speed. Nothing "technical" about it.

Then I guess you should have a closer look

[TF110]

Nope. I dont have vision problems. I also dont have a one-sided view on this subject.

[Articus]

It's clear there is a misunderstanding here. Yes TF110 there is a degree of apparent deflection introduced by the gradient of the track, changes in vehicle pitch, and camera angle on all 3 LMP1's. Despite this, Nigel's video points out the indisputable moving Toyota wing.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

It's clear there is a misunderstanding here. Yes TF110 there is a degree of apparent deflection introduced by the gradient of the track, changes in vehicle pitch, and camera angle on all 3 LMP1's. Despite this, Nigel's video points out the indisputable moving Toyota wing.

Yes, there must be a misunderstanding. 'His' video is nothing new or groundbreaking. We all saw the beginning of the race. Its silly to think Im disputing the wing movement. I said it looks like Porsche's does some moving too, how is that disputing? You cant say the camera angle doesnt play a part in how low the wing looks. Theres nothing else that needs to be said. Instead of trying to find fault in what I post, you could see what Im saying.

[Articus]

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

[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".

[Articus]

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