Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > ACO Regulated Series

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2 Jul 2014, 23:01 (Ref:3429680)   #1251
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Articus View Post
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
I'm aware of that. It's a nicely presented theory. I don't see where it is saying any action of the driver is changing the wing angle. It is all based on deflection. A very clever use of deflection, but still deflection. In scruitineering, the specified loads get applied to the specified places and it passes the deflection test.
miatanut is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:16 (Ref:3429701)   #1252
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
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.
I agree completely! Open up the rules, let them bring creative solutions. I love innovation. However, it is unfortunate that people do label things that are clearly outside of the rules as innovation. It really hurts the cause.

Richard
Richard C is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:28 (Ref:3429705)   #1253
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,374
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
If it was outside the rules you think it would be deemed so. But it looks like it wont be as its been all year. So its not really illegal if it cant be found to be illegal. So, does that make it legal?
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:33 (Ref:3429707)   #1254
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
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 don't quite get the "move" vs. "deflect" point. To "deflect" you have to "move". That is just semantics. I also don't agree that it has to have some type of mechanical linkage, but otherwise I agree. There is no perfectly rigid structure. That is why the rules as written, if applied to the letter, are violated by every car.

Enforcement is "attempted" via specific objective test procedures (that teams can also perform on their own). There are a million things that can "move" on the body. It is crazy to try to define testing procedures for every conceivable scenario in advance. If they did, it would take days to get a single car through scrutineering! New testing procedures arrive "as needed" to solve problems as they arise.

Also, as I mentioned somewhere else, passing scrutineering doesn't mean the car is "legal", it just means it "appears to be legal" and is cleared to race.

Richard
Richard C is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:40 (Ref:3429709)   #1255
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
I agree completely! Open up the rules, let them bring creative solutions. I love innovation. However, it is unfortunate that people do label things that are clearly outside of the rules as innovation. It really hurts the cause.

Richard
But it's not clearly outside of the rules. "Movement" in the context of movable aerodynamic devices, and deflection of those devices are different things. Movement because of an action of the driver or some sort of control system on the car are not allowed. Defection, within the limits specified by the rules and the tests they define, is not.

The unfortunate thing is that the rules have gotten so restrictive that it's necessary to excessively lawyer this sort of stuff to find any sort of edge on the competition. In the current situation, the design types like me and others here get great pleasure when a team has successfully played on the very edge of the rules on something like this. Still, I think any designer would much rather see more open rules that can let the teams' designers really do their thing.

People would be amazed at the creative stuff they would come up with!
miatanut is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:46 (Ref:3429711)   #1256
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
If it was outside the rules you think it would be deemed so.
You would think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
But it looks like it wont be as its been all year. So its not really illegal if it cant be found to be illegal. So, does that make it legal?
No, it doesn't make it "legal". But so far it has continued to pass scrutineering for whatever reason. As mentioned above, "why" remains a mystery. Even some explanation would be helpful even if it would not satisfy everyone.

I know this has been argued to death. Yes, the solution is ingenious. I know many crave that type of creativity. Myself included. However, I have yet to see any successful argument as to how it is legal from a purely "logic" perspective. Most seem to focus more on the "rebel" nature of the act. We all like underdogs, and rebels, but... the solution is not legal by any reading of the rules. However, if you blend logic and the reality of how the world works, I can see why it remains unchallenged.

My personal option (which is speculation given we have little facts) is that Toyota received some type of implicit or explicit approval. And that likely at the time the approval was given that the ACO/FIA likely didn't quite "get" the implications of what they had approved. As smart as the other teams are, I think much of the analysis is hindsight. We all think "Porsche and Audi must have understood what was going on for a long time". Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe they felt that if Toyota was able to get away with it, they could do the same, but better. Who knows. Either way, I highly doubt the solution will survive into next year as the ACO/FIA likely doesn't want to come down on this at the moment for risk of making Toyota mad (and potentially exposing/reversing prior approval). Again, 100% speculation on my part.

Richard
Richard C is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 01:59 (Ref:3429718)   #1257
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
But it's not clearly outside of the rules. "Movement" in the context of movable aerodynamic devices, and deflection of those devices are different things. Movement because of an action of the driver or some sort of control system on the car are not allowed. Defection, within the limits specified by the rules and the tests they define, is not.
No offense intended (really), but either you are purposefully being obtuse, or you just don't understand the rules. You are adding things to the rules that do not exist. You mention control system, etc. None of that exists in the rules.

Section 3.4 (actually just a fragment that is pertinent)...

"Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion."

Simply stated. It doesn't go into the items you mention. And as I mention above, it is such an absolute rule that "by definition" all cars are unable to meet this rule. However, there is "moveable" and there is "MOVEABLE". When does it become a problem? I assume when someone shouts loud enough. Then....

Section 3. (at the very top)...

"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"

A key part of this is the "reserves the right" part. I guess that it really is up to the FIA to decide if/when/or by how much they will enforce the rule. They may choose to turn a blind eye.

If you haven't read them, they are interesting...

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...004%202014.pdf

Cheers!

Richard

Last edited by Richard C; 3 Jul 2014 at 02:10. Reason: fix typo
Richard C is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 02:20 (Ref:3429724)   #1258
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
No offense intended (really), but either you are purposefully being obtuse, or you just don't understand the rules. You are adding things to the rules that do no exist. You mention control system, etc. None of that exists in the rules.

Section 3.4 (actually just a fragment that is pertinent)...

"Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion."

Simply stated. It doesn't go into the items you mention. And as I mention above, it is such an absolute rule that "by definition" all cars are unable to meet this rule. However, there is "moveable" and there is "MOVEABLE". When does it become a problem? I assume when someone shouts loud enough. Then....

Section 3. (at the very top)...

"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"

A key part of this is the "reserves the right" part. I guess that it really is up to the FIA to decide if/when/or by how much they will enforce the rule. They may choose to turn a blind eye.

If you haven't read them, they are interesting...

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...004%202014.pdf

Cheers!

Richard
It's been a while since I read those, but that part seems to say the same as it used to.

Why do you selectively edit things out? I mentioned control system because it IS stated in the rules. In the sentence following, which you chose to ignore.

Quote:
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.
What "system" is being operated automatically or controlled by the driver? Looking at Mulsanne Mike's video, the whole thing looks like it has a mind of its own going over a curb, with stuff flapping every which way. It's not being controlled by any conventional sense of the meaning of the word control. It's deflecting, and it passed the tests and was cleared to race. Porsche was told to get their deflecting bodywork under control. That wasn't a wing and there wasn't a test, so maybe that was done by fiat.

Hmmmm, maybe FIA is playing favorites.

Or, maybe it simply passed the required test, which Toyota engineers probably implemented numerous times, probably also with the bodywork heated up a few degrees hotter than any temperatures they expected at Le Mans to make sure they could pass the test under all circumstances.
miatanut is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 02:57 (Ref:3429730)   #1259
Richard C
Veteran
 
Richard C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!Richard C is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
Why do you selectively edit things out? I mentioned control system because it IS stated in the rules. In the sentence following, which you chose to ignore.
My apologies. I was focused on that one sentence. You are right, they do call out systems designed to either automatically, or by driver input to modify airflow as being illegal, but don't get into specifics as to how it might be done.



However my point stands. There first is the very general rule that stands alone. The part you mention is not an exception to the first rule. You can't read it as "moveable bodywork is allowed as long as it is NOT controlled by some type of system". There is a series of additional rules (including banning of blown diffuser that follows that primary sentence about moveable bodywork.

One item of note is that the rule I mention talks of moveable "bodywork", while the rule you point out isn't limited to bodywork (it is in the bodywork section however). It talks about any system (potentially even hidden under the bodywork or deep in the chassis?) that modifies the airflow. Maybe that is why it exists as a separate rule? Who knows

Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
What "system" is being operated automatically or controlled by the driver? Looking at Mulsanne Mike's video, the whole thing looks like it has a mind of its own going over a curb, with stuff flapping every which way. It's not being controlled by any conventional sense of the meaning of the word control.
I don't think any type of "control system" has to be absolute. There are plenty of parts on the car that are affected by vibration, or other inputs. It has been many years, but in my control system class in college one focus was on having a stable system. While it might do some crazy things on curbs, it seems to be stable and acts upon it's inputs. As the car goes faster, the angle of attack of the wing is reduced and as it slows, it increases. It is a highly creative mechanical DRS system (which relies upon moveable bodywork).

Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
It's deflecting, and it passed the tests and was cleared to race. Porsche was told to get their deflecting bodywork under control. That wasn't a wing and there wasn't a test, so maybe that was done by fiat.
Not disagreeing with you here at all. To Toyota's advantage, there already was a prescribed test for the rear wing. It passes the existing tests and is allowed to race. The question is when or if new tests will be put into place. For all we know the FIA is trying to formulate proper tests that can't be easily worked around with some tweaks to the system. As to Porsche, see my speculation above. I suspect Porsche just showed up with the flexible rear bodywork and everyone said "What the Hell?" (including the FIA) so they said "no".

Richard

Last edited by Richard C; 3 Jul 2014 at 03:02. Reason: clarify a point.
Richard C is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 03:03 (Ref:3429735)   #1260
Articus
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
Articus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
Or, maybe it simply passed the required test, which Toyota engineers probably implemented numerous times, probably also with the bodywork heated up a few degrees hotter than any temperatures they expected at Le Mans to make sure they could pass the test under all circumstances.
This suggest to me that you still don't understand how the wing works.
When the wing is tested, it's resting against it's bump stop. It will never move!! Don't you see? I really can't add to whats been explained in Mulsannes Mike's post. All I can suggest is to read it again.

Wow I'm so tired of this subject.
Articus is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 03:25 (Ref:3429740)   #1261
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Articus View Post
This suggest to me that you still don't understand how the wing works.
When the wing is tested, it's resting against it's bump stop. It will never move!! Don't you see? I really can't add to whats been explained in Mulsannes Mike's post. All I can suggest is to read it again.

Wow I'm so tired of this subject.
Looking at 3.6.2, I don't see anything the car violates, from what we know. The wing, the vertical support, the endplates, the attachments. All the tests are specified right in the regs.

What we have is a team that spent a great deal of effort analyzing all that stuff, designed something that complied with all that stuff, nobody can point to any detail of that stuff which it violates and the argument against is just "But it moves!"

So, supposing Mike's analysis is 100% correct (he admits to being 80% of the way there on the most recent addition), it still meets all the stuff in 3.4 and 3.6.2.

Which probably has a lot to do with why it was allowed to run.
miatanut is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 03:37 (Ref:3429741)   #1262
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto View Post
However my point stands. There first is the very general rule that stands alone. The part you mention is not an exception to the first rule. You can't read it as "moveable bodywork is allowed as long as it is NOT controlled by some type of system". There is a series of additional rules (including banning of blown diffuser that follows that primary sentence about moveable bodywork.
I think all of your points are fair, but this is the area our disagreement revolves around. Your point is any bodywork which moves violates the rules. I contend all bodywork moves on all the cars. It has to. Any structure depends on deflection to stress the material to pick up the load. No material known to man is infinitely stiff. So, the rules specify tests that limit the deflection under the scenario described in the the test. The Toyota team did an extraordinary job of designing something that passed the tests, then when on the track, did exactly what the rules were trying to prevent. The fault is with the rules, not Toyota.

But, all of this is really symptomatic of the illness infecting the sport the last couple decades where the rules try to over-restrict everything to the point it takes extraordinary effort to find an advantage.

Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.
miatanut is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 05:17 (Ref:3429757)   #1263
Articus
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
Articus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
I think all of your points are fair, but this is the area our disagreement revolves around. Your point is any bodywork which moves violates the rules. I contend all bodywork moves on all the cars. It has to. Any structure depends on deflection to stress the material to pick up the load. No material known to man is infinitely stiff.


Ok. Lets put it this way. You design a chassis to be stiff. But obviously it can't be infinitely stiff. Toyota designed the rear end to be floppy, not stiff. So that argument isn't directly related.

If they did not disconnect the endplates from the wing. The car would fail scrutineering!

Last edited by Articus; 3 Jul 2014 at 05:31.
Articus is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 05:38 (Ref:3429760)   #1264
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
I guess it's about time the Endurance Committee issues clarifications on the matter, isn't it ?

While discussing this issue may appear to be "horribly tiresome" () it is still apparently being discussed by the relevant parties and will need to be clarified at some point, I hope before the next race at Austin.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 05:51 (Ref:3429767)   #1265
Spyderman
Veteran
 
Spyderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Mozambique
Mozambique
Posts: 4,642
Spyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
But, all of this is really symptomatic of the illness infecting the sport the last couple decades where the rules try to over-restrict everything to the point it takes extraordinary effort (and cost) to find an advantage.

Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.
This is the very crux of the biscuit!

P.S. Added my 2c to your comment above.
Spyderman is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 06:56 (Ref:3429788)   #1266
dave_l
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6
dave_l should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
scrutineering

Hi all, my first post so let me start by saying thank you for all the interesting reading!

Maybe you can all help me understand something.

There seems to be a general feeling that if a car passes scrutineering it must be OK/legal.

But did the Porsche not pass scrutineering at the Le Mans test day? Was it not then deemed illegal and made to be changed?

Sorry if I am wrong but that seems to suggest to me that scrutineering isn't the end of the argument?

Dave
dave_l is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 07:22 (Ref:3429800)   #1267
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_l View Post
Hi all, my first post so let me start by saying thank you for all the interesting reading!

Maybe you can all help me understand something.

There seems to be a general feeling that if a car passes scrutineering it must be OK/legal.

But did the Porsche not pass scrutineering at the Le Mans test day? Was it not then deemed illegal and made to be changed?

Sorry if I am wrong but that seems to suggest to me that scrutineering isn't the end of the argument?

Dave
Welcome on the forum Dave.

The rear bodywork of the Porsche 919 was actually revised between the LM test day and scrutineering and there is no indication that further revisions were necessary after scrutineering (see racecar-engineering report). It is unclear though if such revisions were made at the specific request of the ACO-FIA.

In any event, you are right, passing the scrutineering tests is not the end of the story. Subsequent revisions may be required if ultimately it turns out that a system or solution that passed scrutineering is nevertheless found to be in contravention with the rules, whether as a result of a formal protest or of clarification request.

That's why I believe that Vasselon's argument according to which the rear wing system is deemed to be legal because it passed the deflection tests is a somewhat weak, short-sighted argument. Evidently, the current deflection tests are not adapted to highlight the fact that the rear wing's main plane and additional flap are movable (namely pivotable) at speed.

BTW, the series of deflection tests that are defined in the rules are not meant to be exhaustive. The ACO-FIA have explicitly reserved the right to introduce further deflection tests in the event that a bodywork part/element is suspected to be moving at speed.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 08:35 (Ref:3429832)   #1268
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,374
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
Of course fans of the competition will call Vasselon's reasoning weak. But whats actually weak is the same repetitive arguments over it.

The race was nearly 3 weeks ago, the test day a month ago. All the rulings, scrutineerings, protests did nothing to stop Toyota running the wing. Seems his reasoning is quite sound if they ran it during the race. You can yell all you want but unless the aco/fia do something, it probably wont change.

I look at it like his explanation. If a gap is closed or opened between the two wing elements as a consequence of flex, whatre you going to do? Test the flex. That test was passed. Thats a nice sweet and short answer by Pascal Vasselon. No way hes going to delve into details of it. So his answer is satisfactory. "We may have some flex" "But like in F1, we passed the deflection test".
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 09:14 (Ref:3429843)   #1269
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
The current situation is far from being "satisfactory" from my point of view, but I guess that's a point of disagreement.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 11:28 (Ref:3429881)   #1270
Maelochs
Veteran
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
Maelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
"The Toyota team did an extraordinary job of designing something that passed the tests, then when on the track, did exactly what the rules were trying to prevent."

Pretty humorous that that was used as a Defense of the wing.

Anyway ... I am not sure this issue is closed. I am not sure why Toyota has gotten breaks two seasons running (their "fender extension" wing extenders last year.) I am sure that Porsche and Audi have their engineers preparing similar systems.

On the whole, is it bad for the sport that some engineers try to find ways to circumvent the rules? I bet Jim Hall would have had an opinion.
Maelochs is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 11:38 (Ref:3429886)   #1271
J Jay
Veteran
 
J Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
United Kingdom
Manchester
Posts: 6,105
J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!J Jay is going for a new world record!
At this point, it would be daft not to be developing your own movable whatever. It's not a closed case until all or none of the factory cars have this system, but that could be as far away as next season.

From what I remember Audi weren't too fussed about the fender extensions, and they just made their own. In theory this isn't too different, but the potential gain for the wing must be much bigger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
On the whole, is it bad for the sport that some engineers try to find ways to circumvent the rules?
Herein lies the contention ... we do know that Porsche at least have chanced it and failed. Would it be better/fairer if all engineers were actively looking for ways to get round the regulations?

Last edited by J Jay; 3 Jul 2014 at 11:47.
J Jay is offline  
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing.
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 12:38 (Ref:3429907)   #1272
Articus
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
Articus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
It seems their is some popular opinion here that the only way to be "interesting" or "creative" and innovative is to be a rebel and skirt the regulations. There is some irony in this but I ask why choose to be so narrow-minded.

Last edited by Articus; 3 Jul 2014 at 12:47.
Articus is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 14:43 (Ref:3429935)   #1273
Maelochs
Veteran
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
Maelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
My opinions are rarely popular ... I think almost every aspect of the P1-H class is innovative and creative—probably the highest expression of automotive racing technology on the planet.

This is however a competitive environment, and for the sake of competition finding a little something your opponent doesn't have can be a boon. It is far from the only place where innovation and creativity can show up, but it is one place where it always has in auto racing.

I am not sure why Porsche got pipped and Toyota didn't, but that would be the only question I would ask. Otherwise, all three teams had bits that weren't compliant or stretched the rules (like turning vanes extending below the reference plane.)

Every team has engineers looking for ways to maneuver within the rules to gain an edge, and always will. The issue comes down to fair enforcement.

For instance we have all heard of blown diffusers. Braun basically won Jjenson Button and the team the F1 titles that year because they were the first to think it up. Apparently though, some other team approached Charlie Whiting about a blown diffuser before the season started and was told it would be illegal.

Humans being human—sometimes enlightening, sometimes encouraging, sometimes exasperating, sometimes disheartening, sometimes downright ugly.
Maelochs is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 14:53 (Ref:3429938)   #1274
Gingers4Justice
Veteran
 
Gingers4Justice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
United Kingdom
Highbury, London
Posts: 3,872
Gingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameGingers4Justice will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Humans being human—sometimes enlightening, sometimes encouraging, sometimes exasperating, sometimes disheartening, sometimes downright ugly.
It's that microcosm of life which keeps us addicted to this sport.

Great summary of the situation. Still not sure exactly what to make of what Toyota are doing, but at least they've given us something interesting to talk about.
Gingers4Justice is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Jul 2014, 15:38 (Ref:3429959)   #1275
deltawing
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
deltawing should be qualifying in the top 5 on the griddeltawing should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice View Post
.....but at least they've given us something interesting to talk about.
That is really a great way to fuel up the internet for the entire no-racing summer. When the summer is over, there will be an answer and a solution, but till then it keeps the candle alive.
deltawing is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Audi LMP1 Discussion gwyllion ACO Regulated Series 11685 16 Feb 2017 10:42
Nissan LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice Sportscar & GT Racing 5568 17 Feb 2016 23:22
Strakka LMP1 discussion Pontlieue Sportscar & GT Racing 56 12 Jul 2015 19:12
The never ending Toyota return to Le Mans (LMP1) Saga The Badger ACO Regulated Series 6844 8 Jan 2014 02:19
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class Holt Sportscar & GT Racing 35 6 Jun 2012 13:44


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.