[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion

[TF110]

Toyota wont change to red. "Electric blue" is the color that signifies their hybrid. It would be nice to see a red car but doubt it. Maybe an alternate white/blue to blue/white will happen. Im thinking who would run in the third car. Maybe an all Japanese team? Id like to see Kazuki Nakajima lead that car.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Lagunaseca_4life

Three cars will be great for next year,wonder if Audi would respond with four?

Now that Toyota isn't picking up the slack from Peugeot pulling out anymore can they please go back to the classic toyota red like they had planed.with Porsche here now and Nissan coming there's no need to be blue like the peugeots.with Nissan coming shire would be embarrassing if another manufacture comes in and takes their classic Japanese colors.....but I guess blue=hybrid......


PLEASE!

I also liked my red and white decoration of Toyota

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by manthey

I hope it's not a repost
http://m.motoring.com.au/news/small-...-in-2014-44402

[/I]

Lots of good news in that one, not just about the third car but also the mentioned likeliness of the programme being extended into 2016 and 2017.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

These have already been posted on mulsannescorner, but just a reminder that there appear to be 2 versions of the wing - one which rotates as a rigid unit, allowed by the movement of the cheese wedges through flexibility of the floor and lower bodywork:



and a second version which works with the same cheese-wedge movement, but in this case the ends of the wing are rigidly attached to the endplates. In this version the wing itself is built to be flexible in a specific way, so that there is a change in shape:

Some nice work there Chris. Some time shortly I'm intending on consolidating all my Winggate info onto one page and naturally your animations will fit in nicely.

Just a follow up on this whole saga. Hearing today that it DOES NOT appear Toyota ever did a full rig flex test for the FIA. This would be the test done at their own facility, in the presence of the FIA, that shows their rear wing system passes ALL of the relevant flexion tests, not the "spot" test that's essentially done (or can be done) at a race meeting in scrutineering.

Furthermore; the FIA had a meeting sometime this past week regarding this issue (or, this issue was discussed there indepth). THe results of the meeting will presumable be forthcoming. Vasselon's rather confident public comments seem at odds with what's going on in the background. This ISN'T a done deal by ANY stretch.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Very interesting Mike. Thanks.

Is that rig test customary practice and normally required as part of some homologation process ?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Very interesting Mike. Thanks.

Is that rig test customary practice and normally required as part of some homologation process ?

Yes.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Yes.

Hmmm...

[Articus]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Furthermore; the FIA had a meeting sometime this past week regarding this issue (or, this issue was discussed there indepth). THe results of the meeting will presumable be forthcoming. Vasselon's rather confident public comments seem at odds with what's going on in the background. This ISN'T a done deal by ANY stretch.

[TF110]

So Vasselon says they followed up with the fia, youre saying that was not an fia test? So checking twice with them is not enough. Because those were his comments.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Guess we will have to wait for an answer from the ACO-FIA, but this issue is definitely not over...

[nkoske]

If Toyota has a rotating wing at CotA then I guess that will tell us all something.

My problem is the words in the rule book says no movable aerodynamic devices. Toyota clearly has a movable aerodynamic device. What's the point of the rule book if you have evidence of something and you don't act.

If the FIA decided to fall back on scrutineering test to determine legality. Then throw the rule book away, publish tests and tell competitor that's the standard.

I like innovation, but please tell your competitors how you're going to interpret the rule book so they all have the chance to innovate as well.

[truebeliever]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

As promised, Sam Collins has produced a great article about flexible bodywork in the August issue of RCE. Again worth reading

As regards Toyota's "drag-beat pivot wing" (as Sam calls it), Sam mentions that the rear wing (though not flexing) "has been observed to move by up to 100mm in relation to the surrounding bodywork" (!), which is consistent with the visual observations that can be made on the basis of the pictures taken in high-speed sections of the LM track.

It would indeed seem that the ACO-FIA consider this rear wing system to be "legal" because the wing (though moving) does not "flex" as such. So I guess I will have to revise my judgment as to what the term "movable" is supposed to mean

This whole issue is short of becoming probably one of the most curious positions taken by the ACO-FIA in recent years. The rear wing moves at speed, but it is not deemed to be "movable" ???... Hmmmm...

This must be a joke...

Am I the only one to believe that the ACO-FIA are losing credibility in the present instance ?

YES, it on the face of it, IS A JOKE!!

Moveable is not too difficult to define in any language.

To answer the credibility question, under JT I am of the belief the FIA lost its credibility a long time ago, and replaced it with a big helping of self interest.

However, if you want to say the Toyota passed the tech inspection which makes it legal.........WRONG!!.....It still must conform to the regulations and the clause about moveable aero in my understanding of both the English and French written word, makes the car illegal.

End of story.

[chernaudi]

That seems to maybe be the crux of the ACO/FIA investigating this now, considering that their own records show a probable issue with homoloagion of the LM wing assembly (no record of it having a full test by an ACO/FIA WEC official at the race shop, a test it seems goes beyond the simple pre-race tech inspection tests).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That seems to maybe be the crux of the ACO/FIA investigating this now, considering that their own records show a probable issue with homoloagion of the LM wing assembly (no record of it having a full test by an ACO/FIA WEC official at the race shop, a test it seems goes beyond the simple pre-race tech inspection tests).

I wonder if all of this is some level of "face saving" for everyone involved so that the blame is spread around. Toyota can say they had approval from FIA. The FIA can say the approval process was incorrect. This leaves enough doubt and confusion that each party can point the finger at the other and both can claim innocence.

Richard

[TF110]

No one knows what the fia said. Just more rumors. The trick is the wing isnt moving... the body is moving which the wing is attached to. Testing flex in the body was done and passed. They must have some really good tech to make the body flex in some instances but not fail tests. Like Red Bull's front wing. Have they ever figured that out?

[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 ?

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

No one knows what the fia said. Just more rumors. The trick is the wing isnt moving... the body is moving which the wing is attached to. Testing flex in the body was done and passed. They must have some really good tech to make the body flex in some instances but not fail tests. Like Red Bull's front wing. Have they ever figured that out?

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.

[Skemer]

I hope some of you realize we do not have the authority to dictate they way the A.C.O or F.I.A should enforce the rules,whether we disagree with the interpretation of these or not.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Skemer

I hope some of you realize we do not have the authority to dictate they way the A.C.O or F.I.A should enforce the rules,whether we disagree with the interpretation of these or not.

Nobody has any authority to dictate anything to the ACO-FIA.

Now, why are there apparently still ongoing discussions taking place between the ACO-FIA and the relevant parties ?

[Articus]

Yeah naturally. I just find it interesting that rules are being "interpreted" these days. Is that the new lingo? Can I interpret my electricity bill? Can I interpret the lock at Santander?

ok back to seriousness

[Skemer]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Nobody has any authority to dictate anything to the ACO-FIA.

Now, why are there apparently still ongoing discussions taking place between the ACO-FIA and the relevant parties ?

We really don't know do we.I have heard a lot of rumours lately,especially from confirmed sources and it wouldn't surprise me if these ongoing discussions are about something completely different then we are all assuming.

[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.

[Articus]

I'm very doubtful of that.

[chernaudi]

If this happened because Toyota tried to circumvent a rule, I'm sorry, but Toyota saving the 2012 LMP1 WEC season isn't an excuse to give them a bye or a slap on the wrist. If they broke the rules, and did so willingly, rules are rules and the punishment has to be the same for Toyota as it would be for any other team.

If the ACO or FIA dropped the ball on this, it's their fault and it's up to them to fix it, be declaring the Toyota wing legal and letting teams make their own versions, or declaring it illegal post LM and let Toyota keep their wins and points, which would be fair if the ACO or FIA screwed this up.

Or this could be the ACO or FIA (and maybe Toyota) trying to save face since this ended up getting a lot of media attention, especially in Europe and Japan. Eurosport and DSC and RCE mentioned the Toyota wing's movement several times, and Japanese commentators and motorsports writers mentioned it, and that couldn't have pleased the management of TMC happy to hear Japanese motorsports print and TV commentary speculating on the legality of a Toyota branded car.

Either way, I can't see how anyone's head isn't going to end up on someone's chopping block, unless the ACO and FIA let it slide, which won't make a lot of people happy either.

Almost any way you slice it, someone's feelings at best are gonna get hurt, that's almost certain. Unless the ACO and FIA write this all away with a rules clarification banning the use of the Toyota rear end assembly on a race weekend after June 16, 2014, or they make it legal in LMP1.

[Articus]

The ACO isn't really into to making manufacturers upset. If they were serious about the rule, things wouldn't have gotten this far. I just expect things to quietly go away. I don't see how anyone would gain from being harsh at this point. Teams have skirted rules in the past. Audi was basically running a front wing on the R15 for a while and it was silently phased out. The number aero elements on the nose of any HPD prototype was always up for discussion...RS Spyder launch control...the list goes on.