Audi LMP1 Discussion

[TzeiTzei]

FYI that pic is from the LMP1 technical regulations.

http://www.fia.com/regulations/regul...ampionship-118

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by joeb

It is nice to see the rules being enforced. But just so I understand, the issue with the Audi was that it had a skid plate that was worn to thin, correct? So they must have been scraping on the ground too much which caused the excessive wear? Or is there another reason for this? I'm asking because I am curious if they attempted to gain an advantage or if wear and tear just took its toll.

Well, I would like to know the same thing too but it's unlikely we'll find out me thinks

This weekend was like old FIA GT event, with multiple post disqualifyings and cases being forwarded to council meetings.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by joeb

It is nice to see the rules being enforced. But just so I understand, the issue with the Audi was that it had a skid plate that was worn to thin, correct? So they must have been scraping on the ground too much which caused the excessive wear? Or is there another reason for this? I'm asking because I am curious if they attempted to gain an advantage or if wear and tear just took its toll.

That is my understanding as well, I haven't seen this type of disqualification for any other reason. And a skid plate that is worn too thin can be a mark of a car that runs lower than allowed by the regulations, enabling an aerodynamic advantage as the underbody aero works better with lower ground clearance.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Two interesting pieces of information.

Audi Sport have apparently scheduled a longer than previously planned test at Motorland Aragon starting today until April 23rd.

The failure on the #8 car appears to be related to some defective sensor, not to a failure of the hybrid system as such. It was still terminal, but at least the cause is now known and will be rectified for sure.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

FYI that pic is from the LMP1 technical regulations.

http://www.fia.com/regulations/regul...ampionship-118

Thank you for the link. I looked at that post this morning and without context I was puzzled as to why we should care. Given the info at the footer, it clearly was from an FIA technical document, was a number of months old and likely public info anyhow.

If it is not obvious to everyone, it is the diagram that defines the shape and dimensions of the slid block. It also specifies the two areas used to measure wear. One is directly behind the front axle (bottom of the diagram) and one at, or in front of the rear axle (top of the diagram). They are shaded in the diagram. As mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another related thread, there is plenty of wiggle room in areas (interpretation of regulations), but this is one of those things that is generally pretty cut and dry. It is very much a regulation that is easy to say if it was violated or not.

What is missing for us is the procedure scrutineers use to measure the wear. For example would a deep gouge (such as a rough trip over a curb, or hitting an object on track) that is deeper than 5mm count as "wear" or is there some wiggle room and that they are looking for evidence of a clear pattern of persistent wear caused by excessively low ride height. I suspect that there is wiggle room and that they look for persistent wear.

We are lacking details, but I suspect the wear is more than just due to "running the curbs". I like the idea of FRIC issues, but it is just as likely that they screwed up and accidently ran the car too low, or had too much rake (low front end). Again, we are lacking details, but I find it hard to expect that the appeal will work. Do we know when the appeal will be heard? Or rather when we can expect to hear the results of the appeal?

Richard

[MyNameIsNigel]

I would at least love to have access to this "Stewards Decision No. 27" that is constantly being referred to. These are normally published here, but none from the 2016 Silverstone event have been uploaded yet.

All we know at this stage is that an "excessive wear" of more than 5mm was measured on the relevant measurement area at the front of the skid block. It's unclear how this "excessive wear" was actually measured, by how much it exceeded the permitted 5mm limit, if this "excessive wear" is present over the whole measurement area (which could be indicative of uniform wear resulting from contact with the ground) or if the "wear" is only present in a limited area (which could be indicative of a contact with debris of some sort), etc.

Some many unanswered questions...

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I honestly believe that this is not the motivation behind Audi's appeal. They should already have a sensible explanation to put forward and develop in the context of the appeal proceedings (they already presented their initial explanation to the stewards BTW). And it remains to be seen if the issue is the result of excessive "wear" or actual damage caused by a debris of some sort. In the first case, there would be no point in appealing. In the second case, it's debatable and worth being argued on appeal.

BTW, "Stewards Decision No. 27" is still not accessible to the public ?

What's motivation have to do with it? They got excluded from the race for reasons we know. If they aren't sure how, they would still appeal. If they are sure how, they would still appeal. You don't just let a race win go even if you're in the wrong (unless maybe you purposely cheated). My post was only saying that if they do not know the cause of excessive wear, an appeal can at least give them time to do their own investigation and explain themselves.

[chernaudi]

Looking at the ACO/FIA tech document posted earlier, I'm surprised that Porsche never got pinged for it given how much they used to drag the rear of their cars on the ground.

As far as the Audi appeal, either they feel that their explanation has merit or the race officials weren't capable of rendering an informed decision, ie, they can only make a ruling based on the info the tech inspector gave them, but not the how/why it happened.

At least this is early in the season and Audi are already being "helped" by having a car with huge development potential and the fact that both Toyota and Porsche scored far from max points.

I've also been told arguments that the Toyota rotating wing and Porsche refueling work over were rules interpretations vs something that's more or less black and white in the tech regs. But I don't think that it takes much interpretation to see that movable aero is illegal, and that you shouldn't mess with the fuel/related elements of the car as far as they're presented in the tech regs. That's what gets me, as the Toyota wing deal should've been def. ruled illegal from the start. That's what strikes me as weird here. As well as the Audi engine seal deal was referred to a hearing to seemingly legislate intent. That could be what Audi are trying to do here, and hoping that the hearing will take that into consideration.

[Adam43]

Not really sure what any of that has to do with this? These are different situations. You may well be aggrieved at previous rules and how they are treated, but those are all irrelevant here. What is the point in that other than to throw some mud around and to lose some credibility.

They either had a problem that caused it, or ran too close to the limit. if it's the former they may be let off, or may not. If it's the later well they'll have to compensate for it next time. Probably with a higher ride height, which is the point of the plank.

[MyNameIsNigel]

French magazine AutoHebdo suggest that tire pressure on the #7 car decreased below a critical limit during the FCY period, which may have caused the front part of the skid block to rub more extensively on the ground and be the reason for the excessive wear.

BTW, didn't the #7 car take an earlier than expected pit stop at some point during the race to change tires due to some tire pressure loss ? I recall hearing a radio conversation between Leena Gade and the driver at that time (was it André or Ben ?) regarding a loss in tire pressure, but my memory may play tricks with me.

If that's the - apparently sensible - explanation put forward by Audi to the stewards, I find the disqualification a bit harsh, but that just my personal - and probably biased - opinion.

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

BTW, didn't the #7 car take an earlier than expected pit stop at some point during the race to change tires due to some tire pressure loss ? I recall hearing a radio conversation between Leena Gade and the driver at that time (was it André or Ben ?) regarding a loss in tire pressure, but my memory may play tricks with me.

The last stop lap 174, was a bit earlier than expected for fuel but it must have been earlier

[ederss7]

I think there is no excuse in a case like this, unless under extraordinary events. How many times cars have punctures and crawl slowly to the pits, or when they hit very hard kerbs, for example? I just wonder how this can affect when they race at Le Mans, which has public roads, though Audi test at Sebring where is bumpy as hell.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Not really sure what any of that has to do with this? These are different situations. You may well be aggrieved at previous rules and how they are treated, but those are all irrelevant here. What is the point in that other than to throw some mud around and to lose some credibility.

They either had a problem that caused it, or ran too close to the limit. if it's the former they may be let off, or may not. If it's the later well they'll have to compensate for it next time. Probably with a higher ride height, which is the point of the plank.

I think that there should at least be a sliding scale for penalty severity between a mistake vs intentionally pushing the rules. IMO, if the rules are black and white, then Toyota should've been DQ'd from LM and Spa '14, and Porsche DQ'd from LM-Nur-COTA '15. If the ACO are going to treat movable aero devices and fuel filler tomfoolery as grey areas and not why a skid could be damaged unintentionally, IMO, something's wrong with the rules or those who interpret them.

IMO, the Audi engine seal deal was more worthy of a big penalty than this, but Audi got let off ultimately relatively scot free.

IMO, either have a sliding scale of severity of penalties for violations, or take the rules at B&W face value and DQ everyone who breaks a rule. Just like the track limits crap, I just want some consistency.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, either have a sliding scale of severity of penalties for violations, or take the rules at B&W face value and DQ everyone who breaks a rule. Just like the track limits crap, I just want some consistency.

There are rules and there are rules. Some rules allow creative interpretations because teams can find loopholes in them. Rules about measurements of components during scrutineering ARE B&W face value, and let me remind you, the penalty in this case is entirely consistent with every single other time this violation has occurred in motorsport since 1994, including, let's not forget, an identical disqualification in last year's Silverstone WEC race for ESM (which everyone in here seems to be overlooking).

[GasperG]

If it was one front tire problem, then skid pad would be worn only on one side, it would had to be both tires to wore it out even.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by GasperG

If it was one front tire problem, then skid pad would be worn only on one side, it would had to be both tires to wore it out even.

Just to be more precise, AutoHebdo contend that the excessive wear on the front part of the skid block was due to the tire pressure decreasing below a critical limit during the FCY period on all four tires, which led the skid block to come into contact with and rub onto the ground for a long period. AutoHebdo further suggest that, with the car being brand new and the limited running during free practice, Audi Sport did not have the opportunity to properly evaluate or simulate the impact of such a loss of tire pressure on ground clearance.

That seems to be a sensible explanation, but - assuming that this was the explanation given by Audi Sport to the stewards after the race - this explanation was not considered to be sufficient to excuse the excessive wear. It remains to be seen if that line of defense will be presented or further developed in the context of the appeal. I do trust that if the rules allow for an appeal to be lodged in such circumstances, it should be possible to overturn the stewards decision provided a sensible, reasonable and acceptable explanation is given. Otherwise, you may wonder why appeal proceedings are offered in the first place.

The above tire-pressure-related explanation at least has the merit of demonstrating that there was not necessarily any "intent" behind the excessive wear issue, but probably a too optimistic choice of tire pressure at some point in the race. It is well possible that Audi Sport were a bit too aggressive in that respect and that they were ultimately caught up by unexpected circumstances, i.e. the rather lengthy FCY period that followed Brendon's crash and the failure of the #8 car.

Ironically, it was probably Brendon's crash that indirectly destroyed Audi's race...

In any event, tire pressure is clearly a parameter under Audi Sport's control, so it's becoming increasingly evident that the appeal has very little chance to succeed.

[wdave0]

This tire pressure explanation is a little strange to me - given the relatively small change in pressures involved and the tiny profile of the tires and the fact that under FCY there would be very low downforce it is hard for me to imagine such a large change of ride height ride height from what would work at high speed/high downforce.

[turboguy]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

There are rules and there are rules. Some rules allow creative interpretations because teams can find loopholes in them. Rules about measurements of components during scrutineering ARE B&W face value, and let me remind you, the penalty in this case is entirely consistent with every single other time this violation has occurred in motorsport since 1994, including, let's not forget, an identical disqualification in last year's Silverstone WEC race for ESM (which everyone in here seems to be overlooking).

Exactly - could not agree more.

The rules are clear - everyone running at that level knows there is no room for negotiation. The performance improvement gained by running a few mm lower is significant - so the rules must be adhered to, and the penalty severe. There is far too much performance to be gained by finding a grey area to get your car to run lower, so the rules in this instance will be crystal clear. I doubt AUDI will continue with their appeal. They are an honorable team, and despite some disagreement at the original decision, I am sure they have accepted the ruling and will move on. If it happens a second time there will be a lot more questions - but for now, its classic motorsport - "**** happens"

Trying to claim you did not have enough time to evaluate the effect of tyre pressures is ridiculous. All the teams have the same amount of time to do what they need to do. Time - it is the only thing you do not have enough of at this level. If they did not test what they needed to it is really AUDI's problem.

[Deleted]

Whatever the reasoning for the skid issue may be, at least it wasn't an embarrassing cause for DSQ, like Larbre had few years ago with expired date on fire extinguisher! But that wasn't even the worst thing, as the following race they also got disqualified for having incorrect ride height...

[chernaudi]

The ride height/tire pressure issue seems reasonable yet confusing. I think that this is why possibly the race officials couldn't conclusively rule on that and hence may've referred Audi Sport to the appeals process. Yet, if the appeal has so little chance of changing anything, why would Audi Sport appeal unless they think that the officials at the hearing are more tech inclined than the race officials?

And of course, there's the counter argument on why did this happen at low speeds with low tire pressures as opposed to at high speeds with aero loads on the car? That is up to Audi Sport to explain in clearer detail and at least present why it's more plausible than the car simply being overall too low.

Either Audi think that they can get the penalty reduced (DQ replaced with a fine or other sanction) or overturned if they can convince the WMSC tribunal that's a plausible explanation. But if they rule that it's inconclusive, nothing will probably change.

At least this is early in the season, and in a sense Porsche and Toyota shot themselves in the foot at Silverstone, too.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GasperG

If it was one front tire problem, then skid pad would be worn only on one side, it would had to be both tires to wore it out even.

This speaks to my point earlier about how they go about judging the wear on the plank. We don't know the procedure. I expect there is some wiggle room and if they saw wear on one side, and the car has a flat on that side, I can imagine they may let it slide? But if there is equal wear left to right? Hard to make a case for your innocence. Note I (and everyone else) is speculating to the wear pattern. We just don't know (and may never know).

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Just to be more precise, AutoHebdo contend that the excessive wear on the front part of the skid block was due to the tire pressure decreasing below a critical limit during the FCY period on all four tires, which led the skid block to come into contact with and rub onto the ground for a long period. AutoHebdo further suggest that, with the car being brand new and the limited running during free practice, Audi Sport did not have the opportunity to properly evaluate or simulate the impact of such a loss of tire pressure on ground clearance.

That seems to be a sensible explanation, but - assuming that this was the explanation given by Audi Sport to the stewards after the race - this explanation was not considered to be sufficient to excuse the excessive wear. It remains to be seen if that line of defense will be presented or further developed in the context of the appeal. I do trust that if the rules allow for an appeal to be lodged in such circumstances, it should be possible to overturn the stewards decision provided a sensible, reasonable and acceptable explanation is given. Otherwise, you may wonder why appeal proceedings are offered in the first place.

The above tire-pressure-related explanation at least has the merit of demonstrating that there was not necessarily any "intent" behind the excessive wear issue, but probably a too optimistic choice of tire pressure at some point in the race. It is well possible that Audi Sport were a bit too aggressive in that respect and that they were ultimately caught up by unexpected circumstances, i.e. the rather lengthy FCY period that followed Brendon's crash and the failure of the #8 car.

Ironically, it was probably Brendon's crash that indirectly destroyed Audi's race...

In any event, tire pressure is clearly a parameter under Audi Sport's control, so it's becoming increasingly evident that the appeal has very little chance to succeed.

A believable scenario (overall low pressure due to FCY). But who's fault is that? It effectively would be Audi saying... "We just didn't know what ride height to set." Not understanding how to set your ride height during all race conditions is no excuse. Tire pressure going down and the impact on ride height during a FCY is not an unexpected scenario.

Originally Posted by wdave0

This tire pressure explanation is a little strange to me - given the relatively small change in pressures involved and the tiny profile of the tires and the fact that under FCY there would be very low downforce it is hard for me to imagine such a large change of ride height ride height from what would work at high speed/high downforce.

All good points. But I could imagine the tire pressure going down during FCY, but the plank not rubbing during the FCY. But it may have taken awhile for the pressure (and ride height) to get back to normal once they were back to racing. Also, this is entire scenario is plausible if they were already running the ride height on the ragged edge of too low anyhow. I would expect teams would run them as low as they dare, and then raise them a tiny bit as insurance. For all we know it was wearing a bit regardless of the FCY, but (if true) the FCY/low tire pressure scenario sealed their fate?

Richard

[Deleted]

For all we know they could still be messing around it in FIA Motor Sport Council in July or whatever. I still remember FIA GT Zolder 2009 when Pekaracing appealed for it's DSQ due to incorrect cylinders, and it was only resolved 3 months later in courts.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The ride height/tire pressure issue seems reasonable yet confusing. I think that this is why possibly the race officials couldn't conclusively rule on that and hence may've referred Audi Sport to the appeals process. Yet, if the appeal has so little chance of changing anything, why would Audi Sport appeal unless they think that the officials at the hearing are more tech inclined than the race officials?

All motorsport penalties are subject to appeal if the team so wishes.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The ride height/tire pressure issue seems reasonable yet confusing. I think that this is why possibly the race officials couldn't conclusively rule on that and hence may've referred Audi Sport to the appeals process. Yet, if the appeal has so little chance of changing anything, why would Audi Sport appeal unless they think that the officials at the hearing are more tech inclined than the race officials?

I am not sure about the comment of "referred Audi Sport to the appeals process". That implies the race officials sort of passed the buck? Can you link to a report of that? Without knowing the source of that info, I can imagine the race officials making their ruling and per the regulations saying... "you can appeal this". Standard procedure??

To the topic of why would Audi appeal if this might be cut and dry? Why not appeal? I have no reason to think it wasn't a mistake or just lack of setup knowledge, but by accepting the ruling without appeal somewhat implies acceptance of guilt (i.e. they were cheating and got caught in the eyes of some). While appealing and having the appeal fail (race official decision stands), it allows Audi to at least put a positive spin on the entire thing (it was a mistake, but they didn't see it our way).

I don't follow the appeal process much across many series, but the little bit of anecdotal information I have, it seems that professional teams will appeal most everything unless it was an outright blatant offense and they just would rather put it behind them.

Richard

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

All motorsport penalties are subject to appeal if the team so wishes.

Just like in real life, all official decisions can be disputed. Even if you are sent to prison for 10 years...