TBK-Light.com

Videos earlier in this thread. The rear wing is completely 100% illegal under movable aerodynamics, and flexible bodywork rules. The only reason it passes tech is because of the way the FIA testing rig is setup and it cannot bend it under the testing producers. If Toyota had won then you'd bet Audi and Porsche would've heavily protested the car, especially with how they've been treated in the past (Porsche more recently).

It passed the scrutineerings so illegal in the same way all F1 loophole cars have been, but clearly it's against the intent of the rule in the regulations. There now seems to be some consensus that ACO has just decided ignore this.

ACO just didn't want another Audi win >.<

Well its not just the intent. It actually says in black and white in the rules that you cannot gave moveable aero or flexible bodywork, with the only exception being part of the floor to help damage reduction from kerbs. Its not interpretation, it actually says it. Toyota just built the car around the fia test rig.

_________________
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

So kudos to Toyota for exploiting the system. ACO are the bad guys in this, not Toyota.

_________________

It would be naive to think other teams, even Audi, have not developed components which take advantage of simplistic scrutineering procedures. This is motor racing after all.

what is the reason behind the idea you cannot or should not have flexible wings? Safety issue?

Movable wings was a safety issue already back in the CanAm days. Flex became a cost issue around 10 years ago?

That's like saying the completely illegal Toyota rally car is fine because it wasn't detected and therefore legal. The only reason they got away with it was because they cheated so well nobody found it, and the testing rig couldn't detect it. The only reason they got caught was because Toyotas own system failed.

The Toyota controversy is even worse given Porsche had to change the rear bodywork, and the ACO clarified you may not have movable or flexible bodywork, and said it in black and white. I love when teams find loopholes, I don't like when it actually says you may not have flexible bodywork, and one team gets fucked and another doesn't.

if the toyota really was an illegal car thats its more then fair that they didnt won/finished the race

I was the first one here to post the mulsannecorner.com take on Toyota flexible rear wing/end plate, but I don't know why ACO was so "strict" with Porsche and so lenient with Toyota because according to some people, elsewhere, ACO is actually ran by VAG and therefore it's incredibly hard for anybody to beat Audi/Porsche at LM

This is good, sportscar racing is getting so popular that we now have fanboys(crybabies) butthurted because their favourite team lost it.

It's also fun to read the "oh, Audi is so lucky. Toyota was so much faster" BS. If Audi car survives the race, it's not luck but competence within their engineering staff. Plus, why didn't the #8 bother to show their mega speed? Sure, they were 8 laps down but that was a race, afterall. If they were so fast, they could have at least posted the FL at some point. But they did not do even that, nevermind anything like the super fast stints done by Lotterer in his final run in the car. Btw, Audi's FL was "only" 0,8s from Toyota's pole, showing how fast that car is.

Apart from the #3, which retired early, every LMP1 HY had some sort of mechanical failure and needed extensive garage time. The battle was who coped with the garages the best. Played right into Audis strengths.

Probably one of the phew slogans that is actually true.

Clarification: The rule book say it's illegal. However it passes due to the way the test rig is built. It is a piss poor testing procedure. The real question is, why does it need a test when we can see it?

The rules also say you must have functioning headlights. There is no test rig. They look at it, if the lights aren't on, then they are penalised. Here, we have video evidence of the car being illegal...but nothing gets done? And that's after they force Porsche to make changes? What's that about?

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.

That is why there a 15 mm tolerance. The Toyota wing is moving by an estimated 45-50mm, as displayed http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ToyotaTS040LeMans2014-RCE1.jpg. It's also a pointed that the Toyota wing is not presented to the scrutineers in the same configuration as it ran in the race. The wings are tested without end-plates during testing, so the Toyota wing was designed to rotate around the centre of the wing to minimise drag. Toyota also have the option to add a second set of bolts to the rear wing to make it legal, something they did not do during the race.



And this is where we begin to disagree. They are outwith the law, they just designed a car to pass a test, rather than a car which obeys the actual rules. Your olympics metaphor is actually perfect given the complete corruption in cycling. The amount of riders who have now admitted doping (with the obvious one being Lance), but weren't caught is mind blowing. What they did was illegal, and titles have been stripped from people who were previously defined as legal because they passed a test.

The Toyota wing is no different to the WRC car which got them completely thrown out of the championship. The car passed tests but it was completely illegal. It was only finally deemed illegal when the system failed and exposed it. The only reason the car there is because it's designed in such a way that it broke the rules, but circumnavigated the test rig. The entire situation is even worse by the fact that all 3 manufacturers asked for clarification on flexible bodywork due to the floors taking damage and the FIA clarified the situation with all of this, AND told Porsche to fix the bodywork. Meanwhile Toyota stealthy by by circumnavigating the testing procedures and submitting different bodywork configuration to the tests than they actually ran on the race car. At the end of the day, the rule book defines what is legal, not the actual tests. The tests are just the way the rule makers have come up with to try and enforce the rule book. Thats why they always say they reserve the right to change the tests at any time - because the tests aren't rules. The rules are the rules, and this car actually breaks the rules.

Why hasn't it been protested? Because Audi won't protest given they won. Don't want to be bad winners. Porsche won't protest because they won't gain from it, therefore bad losers. Rebellion won't protest because they rely on Toyota for engines, and won't bite the hand that feeds.

Is it smart? Oh fuck yeah. It's incredibly smart. Is it legal? Well it contradicts the rule book, which makes it 100% illegal. Why is it allowed? Because the ACO is incompetent. Is that a surprise? Not even a little bit.

But I can see where we differ. Your point is the cars are subjected to tests and if it passes it's fine. I totally understand that point of view. My point is that the tests don't define the rules, the rule book does, and the tests not being good enough does not mean that the car is legal.



I can drink to that. IndyCar sucks, CART rocked, fuck F1, BTCC is the most professional motorsport. Such wow.

*sits back sipping wine sinisterly*

Goood. Goood. Keep at it my children.

*edit* oh there we go, 100 pages. I'm outta here



(Won't post that again, I promise )

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

Just when it got interesting.

Can't you guys for once let the thread of a great race rest in peace?