|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Apr 2016, 14:30 (Ref:3635147) | #10251 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
The only reason I can see the race officials "passing the buck" by having Audi appeal is if they didn't understand what Audi Sport were trying to get at. I don't understand their reported explanation of low tire pressure at low speed vs it rubbing at high speeds under considerable downloads. I know that it's plausible, but how can you separate the Audi Sport scenario vs the possibly more common sense one?
Only reason I can see Audi Sport wasting their time with an appeal is if they figure that they can get the original penalty overturned or replaced by a sanction (such as a fine) to replace the DQ. IMO, this now seems fairly cut and dry considering that appeals of this nature have rarely worked out favorably for the teams involved. But even when the ACO seriously started to enforce this rule post LM 2011, it was still subject to interpretation on appeal or inquiry by ACO officials. Just remember Sebring 2013 when Audi had an obvious skid problem. IMSA (who were running to ACO LMP1 tech regs) nor the ACO penalized Audi because the excessive skid wear was due to obvious car damage. But yet, I do wonder why Audi, unless they think that they can get the penalty overturned or reduced, would waste their time appealing, especially considering that this is looking more like a mistake on their part vs something strange. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 15:19 (Ref:3635153) | #10252 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
If tire pressure loss during the FCY period was so extreme and was indeed the main reason for the excessive wear, I trust that Audi Sport have sufficient evidence of this. Whether this evidence will be sufficient to succeed on appeal is a different story. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
20 Apr 2016, 15:40 (Ref:3635161) | #10253 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
As I mentioned, Audi have info to support their claim, but how can ACO/FIA officials at the hearing separate that from the car simply being too low, which they'll probably use as their defense to their claim. IMO, it's the more common sense route. But when was the last time that common sense governed anything on race car design (that blunt fenders are supposed to be draggy, not low drag?), or even how the ACO and the FIA work (cost reductions that don't do a damned thing to actually reduce cost and for sure don't help out private teams, or if they really wanted to go "green", instead of just using the race cars to promote such principals, the sanctioning body should find ways to cut CO2/NOx emissions too)?
|
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 16:08 (Ref:3635172) | #10254 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 152
|
Does the rule provide an exception for safety car periods? Or low tire pressures? If not I would think you must still maintain the min plank thickness under all conditions? Does the telemetry measure the thickness real-time? How do they prove the wear happened during the safety car and not another time during the race?
|
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 16:34 (Ref:3635177) | #10255 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
That's up to Audi Sport and if the ACO accept that as a plausible mitigating circumstance. Problem is that only a couple such appeals between F1 and the WEC have been accepted as compelling enough for the authorities to withdraw a penalty based on it. The fact also seems that Audi Sport are admitting at least some fault in the article that was referred to, so that might not help them, either.
Either that, or since this seems to be a strange case, Audi Sport think that it's worth explaining it to the ACO/FIA at a WMSC hearing, since this is the first time I've heard of such a deal where a car behaved differently at prolonged low speeds vs normal race conditions. Also kinda goes back to my point, should every rule be black and white, or can circumstances be taken into consideration? IMO, that's an inconsistency and either all rules are open to interpretation or they're not. No sanctioning body, be it the FIA, ACO, Indy Car, IMSA, NASCAR, who be it, can't flip flop back and forth on which rules have grey area and which one's don't. The only grey area with the skid rule is that the ACO themselves admitted that they won't penalize a team who give a reasonable explanation to the excessive skid wear and have something to back up their claims. Even though that rule seems black and white, the ACO themselves inserted a bit of grey area into it with those provisions. This, of course, is because these are 6 hour or 24 hour races, not 2 hour F1 races. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 16:52 (Ref:3635182) | #10256 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 596
|
IMO every rule is Black and White, it might just depend on your point of view. And that's why I love Math. :-)
|
|
__________________
"Every Le Mans, the car which wins Le Mans is the best car." - Tom Kristensen |
20 Apr 2016, 16:57 (Ref:3635183) | #10257 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
And of course if the ACO get into trying to rule/legislate intent (which IMO they sort of did with the Audi engine seal deal last season), that can open up a can of worms on it's own, too.
|
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 17:27 (Ref:3635189) | #10258 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Excessive wear on the skid plank is more questionable, because there could be many different reasons for it. But in the end, rules are rules. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 17:48 (Ref:3635193) | #10259 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Just wondering, how would the performance improvement of running a few mm lower compare to the advantage of a flexible wing that reduces drag? I'm no expert, and I don't have the necessary data, but just a few observations - look at the effect of DRS in F1. Cars in the last few years of the V8 era (right before 2014) had arguably the most sophisticated aerodynamics ever seen in F1, and aerodynamic downforce had never been as important as then. Yet, the cars were (and still are) running significantly higher compared to the late 80s/early 90s, when they used to constantly scrape on the tarmac. One thing that running low definitely helps for is reducing drag - the 1992 Williams FW-14 had a "low drag" button that just lowered the car all the way down. But again, how does it compare to getting rid of so much of the drag from the rear wing, as in the Toyota flex wing and DRS? The only F1 concept that can possibly beat the late V8 F1 formula in terms of sophistication is the ground effects cars banned in 1983. I have also always wondered how the use of ground effects compares between WEC/LM and F1 after 1983. I would say that the low cars of the early 90s probably had almost no ground effects, while modern F1 cars create airflow seals through the vortex generators, and hence using a lot more ground effects. But neither those cars, nor the pure ground effects cars prior to 1983 were running very low. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 17:53 (Ref:3635195) | #10260 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Knowing what we know now, the only serious chance that Audi has of winning their appeal is either if the ACO/WMSC is very generous, or they say something along the lines of "we never though of this before in our rules" or "this is strange". For all we know, the ACO/WMSC might agree with Audi Sport but still say that "rules are rules".
As mentioned, the decision document isn't online as far as I know (might be taken off line as this is under discussion/appeal). In a sense, Audi Sport are wasting their time because the odds aren't great at all for getting the penalty reduced or overturned. Again, IMO, the ACO have made some weird judgment calls with rules in the fairly recent past. Like Toyota wing-gate. As above, I'd think that "no movable aero devices" that clearly do something that they normally shouldn't be doing on video trumps a static load test. Of course, the ACO did change the way that they measure wing loads because of this. I do think that there should be room for a judgment call on this if the team can explain why it happened, even if the race officials don't get the explanation or it needs to be explained in greater detail in other channels. But just as rules are rules, judgment calls are judgment calls, too. In the end, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. And if the ACO/WMSC agree that this is in deed extraordinary, it might change their way of thinking and doing such test just as Toyota did. But outside of that, the chances of this coming out favorable to Audi is about as slim as finding a black barn owl, which is very rare indeed. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 18:01 (Ref:3635196) | #10261 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I doubt they are really expecting anything out of it, it's just formality that would otherwise make them look bad/suspicious. And even if they think they're 100% right, they cannot expect anything more than causing a small back-to-back nuisance to the ACO/FIA as the history of race winners getting disqualified only to get later announced as winners isn't that great. This isn't even Brazilian GP 2003 level of winner switcheroo.
|
|
|
20 Apr 2016, 18:53 (Ref:3635207) | #10262 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,426
|
chernaudi talks how consistency can be applied to different teams
Quote:
All these things are different and that needs to be reflected. I think they have been quite consistent. When an interpretation of a rule is up for debate (demonstrated perfectly here where some see a problem and others don't) then you clarify the rule one way or another. If a rule isn't up for interpretation then you can apply a simple penalty. This penalty may be appropriate to the offence and even intent if you like. As was the mistake with the seal and the plank (subject to appeal). |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
20 Apr 2016, 18:58 (Ref:3635212) | #10263 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
I consider the engine seal thing to be more severe than the skid infraction, though Audi got a lesser penalty for the engine seal than they'll probably get with the skid violation.
That being said, unless the ACO/FIA subscribe to the idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Audi Sport's appeal is just useless posturing and an exercise in futility. However, I do feel that any and every rules violation needs to be looked at on a case by case basis to determine the how and why it happened, and to judge penalties appropriately. That said, as I mentioned, that'll come with it's own set of problems and issues. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 19:26 (Ref:3635219) | #10264 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,105
|
Quote:
As for this issue, I'd have to add my name to the "not sure where the ambiguity lies" list. Unlike Porsche's quick refuelling, this rule has a hard and fast measurement attached to it. Unlike Toyota's rotati-wing, the allowed parameters here have clearly been breached. To put it simply: As for why this happened, the explanation given does seem a bit strange - I just assumed the endurance tests factories did included periods of simulated FCY running so this issue would have been spotted then. However, it sounds like something that can be fixed relatively easily even if the two-way FRIC complicates matters. Last edited by J Jay; 20 Apr 2016 at 19:44. |
|||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
20 Apr 2016, 20:16 (Ref:3635237) | #10265 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
While we are talking about the "fairness" of rules and impacts of current/prior infractions, I will share my opinion as well.
Regarding the Toyota movable aero. I personally think that was a more serious offense (frankly a blatant cheat), but for various reason (IMHO a bit of ACO not wanting to **** off Toyota too much) they let that slide. So Toyota got away with that one (freeby for that season, but not next year). Regarding the the Porsche refueling system. Full disclosure, I am a Porsche fan, but am trying to not be biased. While there is plenty of speculation, I don't think we still know all of the details of how that one worked. I tend to believe that whatever they were doing was likely "to the letter" of the rule, but outside of the intent or spirit. And as we know "intent" and "spirit" mean nothing. Which is why there was a mid-season "clarification" of those rules. If they had been outside of the rules there would be no need to adjust them mid-season. So I tend to think good for Porsche on that one. Same goes for some of their creative fenders on the late season high downforce package (which was addressed in the 2016 rules). I have already shared my opinion on the current Audi situation. It sucks for them, but it also sucks that Porsche crashed out while in the lead. Mistakes were made (sometimes on track and sometimes in the garage) and there are repercussions. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
20 Apr 2016, 20:19 (Ref:3635238) | #10266 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Audi I don't think have done a full on 30 hour test yet, or maybe just one. I think that's at least part of the purpose of the now 4 day test at Aragon.
And now a tech question, based on the inverse of "if something goes in, it should come out", we know that the R18 has air extractors on the doors. But if air comes out, where does it go in? Air getting into the cockpit probably won't be coming in though the small entrance on the nose for the hybrid system/HPS system. There's also no obvious intakes in the windshield base. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 23:25 (Ref:3635268) | #10267 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
I think comparing this to Toyota's wing is a reach. They (Toyota) passed the tests to determine flex and passed scrutineering. Audi failed with a plank too worn. The ACO/FIA aren't going to change the rules because Audi couldn't keep the car off the ground. They changed the wording and tests for flexing bodywork because Toyota found a workaround the rules while staying 'within' the rules. Pretty much the same with Porsche's refueling advantage.
|
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 00:09 (Ref:3635275) | #10268 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
By that logic, VW and Audi diesels never violated the EPA's NOx emissions standards, since they were never caught during static testing (scruteneering). They were caught only when a real-life test was done, much like the way the Toyota was caught by photographers once in racing action. A movable wing is a movable wing - it is forbidden by the rules. The static test during scruteneering shows only the weakness in the ACO/FIA's method of testing for a movable wing. It is much easier to measure plank wear. Theoretically, the ACO/FIA could have used tape as "seals" to measure wing flex, and the Toyota would have failed that. But it's just not practical to test everything that way. |
||
|
21 Apr 2016, 01:37 (Ref:3635280) | #10269 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
That dieselgate comparison is weak. Road cars are not the subject, lmp1 is. They didn't catch Toyota by their written rules. The Audi plank is another story. This isn't an Audi vs Toyota thing, either. A car was stripped of their results for this last year. It's been mentioned numerous times but seemingly ignored.
|
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 02:24 (Ref:3635292) | #10270 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Yes, it's not about road cars, but the distinction between a rule/regulation and its limited/insufficient enforcement is about the same in both cases. Just because Toyota managed to fool the scrutineers and passed (like the TDI cars at the emissions inspections) doesn't mean they did not violate the following: "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" Again, it's just that the plank is so much more efficient at detecting any breaching of the rules, you can expect a car that is too low and outside of the regulations to always be found out by showing excessive wear on the plank. There is no such enforcement of the "no movable surfaces/parts" rule, but that does not make it legal if undetected. And once more, excessive wear on the plank can happen for other reasons, either within or beyond the team's control, but still unintentional. Porsche's issue, I have to admit, I haven't researched enough, but I feel in that case the rules were technically not breached. They were rewritten as a response, I guess in a similar fashion to the 2003 F1 Michelin tires saga. I'm certainly not trying to make this seem like a Toyota vs Audi issue. I have read most of the comments here and I can see almost all of us expect Audi's DSQ to stay. The similar DSQ of an LMP2 was also discussed, though we don't know what was the reason for that LMP2's excessive plank wear. We are not even sure about the reason for Audi #7's, or what the Audi appeal is claiming. So it's not an Audi vs Toyota issue, but more like a rule vs rule issue - why are some rules and breaching of those rules heavily penalized by default (and maybe rightfully so), while others, where the ACO/FIA's enforcement system is a bit lacking, are not penalized at all, even though the breach in question could not have happened by accident. |
||
|
21 Apr 2016, 02:56 (Ref:3635299) | #10271 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
Toyota didn't fail a test through the wording of the rules, Audi did. It seems like people are trying to justify Audi should get a break because Toyota's wing didn't get them excluded. It doesn't work that way. If Toyota wore their plank beyond the limits of the rules, they'd be excluded too.
|
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 03:36 (Ref:3635303) | #10272 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
No one is trying to justify anything, and no one is saying Audi should get a break because of other things that have happened. Whether Audi should get a break or not depends only on the details in their appeal, which we don't know yet.
Toyota didn't fail the test because the test is not good enough at enforcing the rule. Not because they found a loophole in the rules. I don't think there is any way to find a loophole when the rules clearly state "no movable parts or elements". Yes, you can try and do it and not get caught, but not everything you can get away with is legal. I would say that is cheating, and not unintentional. |
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 05:56 (Ref:3635316) | #10273 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
The tests were good enough until Toyota beat them with something that met the rules but broke them at the same time. This situation with Audi is not alike. They either were or weren't trying to gain an advantage, but the skid plate isn't up for interpretation like Toyota's wing. That is a body part that passed load tests. The skid plate failed scrutineering. I don't see the likeness at all except the rules being broken.
Amid all this talk, theres word Audi are working on next year's and 2018's car. No f1. Last edited by TF110; 21 Apr 2016 at 06:06. |
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 06:31 (Ref:3635327) | #10274 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
Let me remind everyone that in the real world there are certain tolerances that defines what is stiff and flexible, because in reality no wing will be 100% stiff. There are numerous small wings and ducts on the cars, I's hard to believe that every small detail is checked for stiffness or changing angle under wind load. For instance the whole car sits on a suspension and the whole car may represent one giant movable wing, you just need some form of smart suspension. I wonder why FRIC and Audi are so often used together, something you don't hear much about from other two.
No one gives a damn about the rules themselves it was always about how certain things are checked. No matter how you put it Audi simply miscalculated ride height or had last minute suspension idea, that wasn't thoroughly tested in all conditions. As for the diesel gate scandal, problem is only in US, where EPA strictly states no defeat devices and the defeat device was really not that hard to prove - it's a black and white thing. EURO test standard is not that strict and I wonder if VW is doing a recall just to keep their good name or would it actually mean a lawsuit if they didn't do anything. Just found some article to support my thinking: "By varying the size of the cylinders and the valving, it's possible not just to control dive and squat, but also to drop the rear ride height at speed. This effectively reduces the rear-wing angle for less drag on the straights." http://wap.hupu.com/bbs/9399788.html Last edited by GasperG; 21 Apr 2016 at 06:52. |
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 07:22 (Ref:3635337) | #10275 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,913
|
I 100% agree Audi should be penalised. But let's not sit here and pretend that what Toyota did was just fine. It was illegal by the wording of the rules, the same as Audis. Toyota only got away with it because by the time it was discovered, Toyota had already lost Le Mans and nobody protests a car which retired (and didn't run through post-race scrutineering), and the ACO had already told them not to bring the device back.
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. The only thing Toyota did differently was they engineered a car that was illegal, but circumnavigated the test to check its legality. Toyota took the attitude that because they couldn't test it properly, it'd be fine. Audi appear to have just screwed up and ran the car illegally. Toyota went out of their way to engineer a car that was illegal but could pass a test. |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion | Simmi | North American Racing | 9260 | 5 Mar 2024 20:32 |
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | ACO Regulated Series | 6771 | 18 Aug 2020 09:37 |
Nissan LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | Sportscar & GT Racing | 5568 | 17 Feb 2016 23:22 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
[LM24 Race] Audi LMP1 Poster all art deco'd. | blackohio | ACO Regulated Series | 2 | 27 Oct 2011 06:30 |