MPruett's avatar
Author:
Marshall Pruett
Login For More
Rate this article:
  • 0/5 Stars
  • Related Photos
SPEEDtv.com Store
Grand National:America's Golden Age of Motorcycle Racing, by Joe Scalzo
Joe Scalzo’s book captures the spirit of the Golden Age of motorcycle racing.
Our Price: $39.95
Visit Button
Buy Button
Man-Made Thunder
The book examines the sport of stock car racing through the eyes and ears of the men behind the wheel and the wrenches.
Our Price: $49.00
Visit Button
Buy Button
Unisex Sandwich Cap
Unisex Velcro back hat with SPEED logo on front. PINKS logo embroidered on left and PAO logo on right. One size fits all.
Our Price: $24.95
Visit Button
Buy Button
Speedway T-shirt
Men's 6 oz. 100% Cotton Jersey Short Sleeve Tee. SPEED logo imprinted on the front center chest.
Our Price: $24.99
Visit Button
Buy Button
Ferrari Red Classic Hat
100% cotton twill. Ferrari shield embroidered on front, piping on the peak and Ferrari logo embroidered on back strap adjuster.
Our Price: $30.00 ($27.00 Member)
Visit Button
Buy Button
Footer Bg
  • Zoom More Photos Button
  • Camera Icon
PRUETT: Smokestack Lightning
Written by: Marshall Pruett   
06/13/2009
Le Mans, (FRA)
 
Audi isn’t talking about it. Peugeot isn’t talking about it. And the ACO isn’t talking about it.

Peugeot’s last minute decision to protest the legality of the aerodynamics on Audi’s inspired R15 chassis has cast a shadow over the 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans, and depending on one’s nationality, the opinions on which party is right and wrong has varied.
The Audi R15's "chimney" was the first item that set Peugeot off at Sebring last March. (Racecar engineering) » More Photos

Audi’s ‘chimney’ is the root of Peugeot’s roar after the French manufacturer filed a protest three days before Le Mans over the R15’s legality. “The Lion” has also questioned the validity of the

The Heart of the Complaint

From Peugeot's protest:

It would indeed seem that two features of the Audi R15 – in the configuration in which it was shown at technical scrutineering for the 2009 Le Mans 24 Hours on June 8 – do not comply with Article 3.6.2 of the current technical regulations:

•The flap which links the two front wings.
•The appendages fixed to the inner surface of the front wings.

These appendages and this flap effectively form part of the bodywork and their sole purpose is to generate downforce. These bodywork parts are considered to be aerodynamic elements. Since they do not appear on the list of aerodynamic elements authorized by Article 3.6.2, they are consequently not permitted.

What it Means

Peugeot’s initial (and very vocal) complaint about the R15 came at Sebring where they berated the ACO and the ALMS for allowing the R15 to race with a car they deemed illegal in two main areas: the front wing, and the open section atop the nose, nicknamed “The chimney.” They’ve apparently given up on arguing the chimney and have zeroed in on the two items mentioned in Wednesday’s protest.

Let’s look at the chimney issue first. The rules state that the chassis cannot be constructed in a manner which an aerodynamic device is built into its structure.

The practical application of this says that building a wing into the chassis is prohibited; every surface on a sportscar is used for some aerodynamic purpose, so making a distinction between the blatant use of a wing versus a sculpted chassis section is necessary to understand what’s legal.

With the R15, Audi made the brilliant leap to modify the front bulkhead of the car to allow a channel of air to pass through a section built into the removable nose section (not a part of the chassis). The chimney section built into the chassis, on its own, is completely inert. Think of this as the second
half of the chimney.

The first half of the chimney is built into the nose structure, and only when it’s installed and mated to the chassis does it accelerate the air through the nose and out from the scalloped portion in the chassis to produce downforce. It’s like a bullet and a gun; the gun is harmless on its own but when a bullet is installed, the effectiveness of the weapon is transformed.

Smart stuff.

Next, the wing section that spans the inside of the nose is the basis of Peugeot’s protest on Wednesday. The wording of their protest is odd and almost indecipherable. “The flap which links the two front wings” is hard to understand, and if this is the exact wording they used when filing their official protest, it could be the reason the protest was denied.

“The flap which links the two front wings” implies the R15 has two separate wings within the nose structure that is linked in some way. It also implies Audi uses a wide-span wing element.

If we disregard the words Peugeot used to describe the item in question, we see they are referring to the element that sits beneath the chimney and runs the width of the nose between the fenders, located just above the splitter.
The next item of contention was was Peugeot claims to be a front wing on the R15. They are very deliberate in using the term "wing" in the protest. (Marshall Pruett) » More Photos

To be a wing, the element would need to be asymmetrical – to have a curved surface on the bottom that was longer than the top surface. In fact, the “front wings” Peugeot is protesting is a symmetrical piece of curved carbon fiber. It does not have a wing profile, and thus, is not illegal. That’s the piece itself.

Where the grey area comes into play – what’s caused Peugeot to get upset – is that this symmetrical flap acts to extend the splitter’s surface area on the bottom of the nose, helping to generate more downforce. The flap is also adjustable (a long and painstaking task, as I’ve learned.)

So like the nose/chassis interaction with the chimney, the splitter and flap interaction is also one of happy coincidence. There’s no doubt Audi has pushed the rules to the limit here, but the flap does comply with the regulations the ACO has written.

On its own, the flap complies – it does not have a wing profile and therefore isn’t outside the rules. Used in concert with the splitter, it provides downforce, but as it’s a separate unit, it’s legal. Again, smart stuff.

The final item of protest are “the appendages fixed to the inner surface of the front wings.” Those are the only items, in my estimation, that Peugeot could have a legitimate beef over.

Page 1 of 2
Next Page »
1 2 >
View All Comments