Audi R15 TDI Legality questioned....

[AndyRAC]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74361

[wedge]

The timing seems strange. It got through scrutineering with no problems, those front wing splitters were analysed to death in the run up to Sebring, and it wasn't as if the Audis destroyed the opposition at Sebring

[harvick#1]

Peugeot wants it to be disqualified so they can try and get a lemans win handed to them.

wut seriously, WTF its happening in F1, now here, teams really need to quit crying over the other care and worry about making there own better

[wedge]

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the F1 diffusers because its a grey area open to interpretation whereas whereas the Audi is much closer to being illegal.


http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch09.html

Here's a look underneath the R15's front diffuser. What I've cropped and focused on here is the trailing edge of the flap. We can see that it comes to a point.

The rhetorical question, ultimately, is how has this been deemed legal? Let's refresh our memory of Art 3.6.1, this is the full text:

3.6.1 - With the exception of the rear wing defined in article 3.6.3, no bodywork or underbody element having a wing profile (*) is permitted :

(*) "Wing profile" : section generated by two arcs with different curves and/or centres joining a leading edge at the front to a trailing edge at the rear, the purpose being to exert an aerodynamic effect, lift or down force.

Are not considered as a wing profiles, the bodywork elements that:

•have a constant thickness,
• have an absolutely symmetrical profile,
• are vertical.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AudiR15Sebring2009-MC1.jpg

[F1boat]

OMG, the F1 illness of whining and complain is contagious...

[Jag_Warrior]

OMG, the F1 illness of whining and complain is contagious...

Yep. B!tch and moan long enough and maybe a lawyer can get a win gifted to you.

My suggestion: shut up and race!!!

[KyKiske]

Yep. B!tch and moan long enough and maybe a lawyer can get a win gifted to you.

My suggestion: shut up and race!!!

Or teams could conform to the rules? After all the point of regulations is to promote fair racing. If the R15 isn't legal then how can expect a fair race at Le Mans?

[F1boat]

IMO when the stewards allow it to race, it is OK. BTW, cool nickname, KyKiske ;)

[wedge]

IMO when the stewards allow it to race, it is OK. BTW, cool nickname, KyKiske ;)

Stewards aren't always right. Take the example of Honda in 2005 who ran ballast illegally and yet it was OK by the stewards.

I don't the know the correct protocols but the ACO needs to take a firm look at it with Le Mans around the corner.

[AndyRAC]

Stewards aren't always right. Take the example of Honda in 2005 who ran ballast illegally and yet it was OK by the stewards.

I don't the know the correct protocols but the ACO needs to take a firm look at it with Le Mans around the corner.

Which kind of defeats the object of Stewards - they're not meant to get things wrong - yet, time after time, they do.

[F1boat]

Stewards aren't always right. Take the example of Honda in 2005 who ran ballast illegally and yet it was OK by the stewards.

I don't the know the correct protocols but the ACO needs to take a firm look at it with Le Mans around the corner.

Yes, but it's a tragedy when the results are changed months after the final result. And I still think that Honda's penalty was draconian...
IMO Audi was clever and I hope that they will kick Pug' a$$.
AGAIN.

[wedge]

IMO Audi was clever and I hope that they will kick Pug' a$$.

So why do you think its legal? The front splitter is shaped as an aerofoil and therefore illegal under the rules.

[KyKiske]

I don't the know the correct protocols but the ACO needs to take a firm look at it with Le Mans around the corner.

Especially as the front end of the R15 seems to have been designed with the Porsche Curves in mind...

I don't advocate retrospective action unless flagrant rule breaking is found on a car, so I dont think Audi should be stripped of Sebring, but I agree the ACO needs to sort things out before teams get to LeMans. I don't want to watch a 24hour race only to find the result changed after a Peugeot/Aston Martin protest, however legitimate their concerns seem to be...

[BoilerIMS]

So why do you think its legal? The front splitter is shaped as an aerofoil and therefore illegal under the rules.

The big "IF" is whether the aerofoil section conforms to the rules. Mulsanne's Corner has an excellent analysis (noted above): http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch09.html According to the rules, a symmetric aerofoil is acceptable, so if the flap on the R15 front diffuser is symmetric, then it is legal. (This is not even a loophole - the rules state it explicitly.) Presumably, symmetric aerofoils are acceptable because they do not themselves generate downforce. It appears that Audi are using the aerofoil section to clean up airflow downstream of the front diffuser.

[wedge]

The big "IF" is whether the aerofoil section conforms to the rules. Mulsanne's Corner has an excellent analysis (noted above): http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch09.html According to the rules, a symmetric aerofoil is acceptable, so if the flap on the R15 front diffuser is symmetric, then it is legal. (This is not even a loophole - the rules state it explicitly.) Presumably, symmetric aerofoils are acceptable because they do not themselves generate downforce. It appears that Audi are using the aerofoil section to clean up airflow downstream of the front diffuser.

Interesting analysis/POV. The plot thickens....

[jslone]

Interesting analysis/POV. The plot thickens....

Wedge,please show us were it says its illegal.When Audi made the R15,dont you think that the FIA would have found something wrong,they did not.

[wedge]

Wedge,please show us were it says its illegal.When Audi made the R15,dont you think that the FIA would have found something wrong,they did not.

Read post #4 where the legality was questioned.

It's down to the ACO, not the FIA. The teams have a right to question whether a part is legal or not.

[Mugsey]

The big "IF" is whether the aerofoil section conforms to the rules. Mulsanne's Corner has an excellent analysis (noted above): http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch09.html According to the rules, a symmetric aerofoil is acceptable, so if the flap on the R15 front diffuser is symmetric, then it is legal. (This is not even a loophole - the rules state it explicitly.) Presumably, symmetric aerofoils are acceptable because they do not themselves generate downforce. It appears that Audi are using the aerofoil section to clean up airflow downstream of the front diffuser.

Hello gents,

You are exactly right that the Audi is 100% legal in that the airfoils involved are purely symmetrical. What Audi have done is to do away with the front diffuser as we are used to seeing in exchange for two symmetrical-sectioned airfoils arranged like a mainplane (The obvious bit out front between the fenders) and a flap (Look a bit deeper into the front).

While a symmetric airfoil will generate zero lift at zero angle of attack, they will generate lift at any angle just to either side of zero. By arranging two symmetrical sections as a mainplane and an angled flap they have created a rather highly cambered, slotted wing as on a formula car. Since neither element of this wing is cambered they conform to the rule requiring symmetrical airfoils, but the regs say nothing about angles of attack or arrangement. Quite clever...

While the center section is this wing system, I believe there are more conventional "diffuser" sections in front of the wheels.

Oh, by the way I'm new around here, so I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by just jumping right in!

Cheers,

Mike

[BoilerIMS]

Hello gents,

You are exactly right that the Audi is 100% legal in that the airfoils involved are purely symmetrical. What Audi have done is to do away with the front diffuser as we are used to seeing in exchange for two symmetrical-sectioned airfoils arranged like a mainplane (The obvious bit out front between the fenders) and a flap (Look a bit deeper into the front).

While a symmetric airfoil will generate zero lift at zero angle of attack, they will generate lift at any angle just to either side of zero. By arranging two symmetrical sections as a mainplane and an angled flap they have created a rather highly cambered, slotted wing as on a formula car. Since neither element of this wing is cambered they conform to the rule requiring symmetrical airfoils, but the regs say nothing about angles of attack or arrangement. Quite clever...

While the center section is this wing system, I believe there are more conventional "diffuser" sections in front of the wheels.

Oh, by the way I'm new around here, so I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by just jumping right in!

Cheers,

Mike

Excellent analysis, and welcome to the forums! The GT forum is kind of quiet, but we get some interesting discussions from time to time.

[wedge]

:up: