WRC Testing

**Mirek** · 22nd December 2017, 11:45

Originally Posted by Revman

Is the chirping under braking a pop off valve or part of the braking system?

If I am not mistaken this is sound of blow-off valve, i.e. the valve which opens when the throttle valve is closed and when the turbo presses the air against the wall (and by that it would normally slow down/stop itself creating a massive lag).

**racerx1979** · 22nd December 2017, 17:58

Originally Posted by Mirek

Actually I am listed as a co-inventor in two recent patent applications in Europe so I will see myself how long will it take. Anyway thanks for the reply.

That is awesome! Congrats and best of luck. I think thr European system is a lot better than the US system.

You’re on the right end of the stick for sure. I’ve written many applications but never been listed as an inventor even when helping clients with design. I’ll hopefully file a few patents of my own in the near future.

**racerx1979** · 22nd December 2017, 18:09

Originally Posted by NickRally

racerx1979 out of curiosity, how would you word your patent application on the Toyota mirrors?
I personnaly do not see it novel at all, for example comparing it to the F1 car mirrors, i.e. using the mirror stays for air flow management.

A design patent in conjunction with a utility patent is the best IMO. For design patents it’s all about the design of the object. Drawings are key in this case. You can make several versions of the design and some very simplified drawings to cover every aspect of the design. This prevents any copies which are similar. When we used to file designs for an eye wear company we would file 6-8 different versions of their sunglass designs. This was the only way they could fight against sneaky counterfeiters who would slightly change the design hoping they could get around the patent. Didn’t work! Mainly because they had a strong design patent and a strong legal team

. That being said any monkey can file a patent. Protecting it is where money comes in. If you’re a large entity nobody will mess with you...

If you look at the Hyundai mirror from ten feet away and then look at the Toyota you see no difference. Toyota could have easily prevented Hyundai from copying their mirror design with a good design patent which includes several embodiments. The utility patent might be able to protect th function, but we all know the function is not novel unless Toyota has something others don’t. In the end it’s probably not worth it, but a good design patent would cost 5k and might force Hyundai to choose a completely different design.... but I’m sure Toyota could care less as mirrors do not win races.

I just though it was a unique design and to see Hyundai doing the same is kind of funny to me...

Anyways let’s move this to another thread since this about tests and I don’t want to ruin this great thread with boring ass patent talk.

**Mrpengski** · 23rd December 2017, 10:46

Originally Posted by racerx1979

A design patent in conjunction with a utility patent is the best IMO. For design patents it’s all about the design of the object. Drawings are key in this case. You can make several versions of the design and some very simplified drawings to cover every aspect of the design. This prevents any copies which are similar. When we used to file designs for an eye wear company we would file 6-8 different versions of their sunglass designs. This was the only way they could fight against sneaky counterfeiters who would slightly change the design hoping they could get around the patent. Didn’t work! Mainly because they had a strong design patent and a strong legal team

. That being said any monkey can file a patent. Protecting it is where money comes in. If you’re a large entity nobody will mess with you...

If you look at the Hyundai mirror from ten feet away and then look at the Toyota you see no difference. Toyota could have easily prevented Hyundai from copying their mirror design with a good design patent which includes several embodiments. The utility patent might be able to protect th function, but we all know the function is not novel unless Toyota has something others don’t. In the end it’s probably not worth it, but a good design patent would cost 5k and might force Hyundai to choose a completely different design.... but I’m sure Toyota could care less as mirrors do not win races.

I just though it was a unique design and to see Hyundai doing the same is kind of funny to me...

Anyways let’s move this to another thread since this about tests and I don’t want to ruin this great thread with boring ass patent talk.

I can appreciate your professional background and therefore you could be looking at the "Toyota" mirrors from a certain perspective. But keep in mind that this style of mirror was run on DTM cars long before WRC 2017. And by next year all GT cars would have the same. So by far it's not a unique design by anyone. We did do a CFD study of this design before 2017 but thought it was pushing the rules a bit too much; Toyota went ahead with it and was allowed to run with a small modification by removing the slot, as I understand. They did it again (pushing the rules) for the 2018 front end, and I say well done to them.

It does bring an interesting point about patents in motorsport. I think the main problem is, no matter how fast the process, by the time something is protected by the patent, it's already yesterday's news. Also, could one really justify the novelty of a winglet or some aero device because it pushes the air a bit this way rather than that way...? I hope not. I do believe Renault or McLaren patented their inerter design a while ago; Nick can you comment?

One thing to keep in mind about all these "aero developments" in WRC is that, by the time you put a hatchback shape in the wind tunnel/CFD and run a thousand iterations, you would find there are really only one or two optimum ways to deal with the air. Give it a few more updates and all the cars will look exactly the same! Convergence baby!

**racerx1979** · 23rd December 2017, 21:04

I’m definitely looking at this from a biased perspective and also agree with your thoughts. I did notice similar designs for DTM and F1 cars. It’s nice to see companies like Toyota taking the leap in aero for rally cars and seeing others follow suite.

Thank you for your response!