eRacing Magazine Vol. 1 Issue. 6 | Page 17

The legality of the Porsche 919 was brought up during the Le Mans Test day last week. While both 919 prototypes completed 103 and 90 laps respectively, they did however suffer minor fires while stationary in their garage. It’s believed the fires were caused by overheating issues – which served to fuel more discontent in the paddock concerning Porsche 919 ‘flexible’ bodywork.

Sam Collins from Racecar Engineering magazine broke the body story on Saturday, with a series of photos featuring Audi engineers focusing their attentions on the 919′s rear bodywork. At the time the photos were taken, there was missing a piece of bodywork at the rear of the 919, which on the face of it would force the car outside the bodywork rules.

The images show a vertical member to the right of the breather pipe, potentially limiting the downward movement of the top cover. In another image the vertical member has disappeared allowing the top cover to move much lower. The diffuser centre has changed significantly when viewed cross-wise.

However during the Sunday test, the missing component was present, which appeared to satisfy the regulations. But, as other teams had intimated on Saturday evening, photos were found that apparently showed the new panel deflecting at speed and thus straight-line drag.

Article 3.4 of the technical regulations state: ‘Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion.’ In 2013 the Toyota TS030 was fitted with a flexible engine cover which gave considerable aerodynamic gains, but the Japanese manufacturer subsequently agreed not to use it during the 2014 season.

While it’s unclear whether any protests have been (or will be lodged), it’s understood both Toyota and Audi are seeking clarification over the legality of the Porsche design. The fact that Porsche were able to rectify the issue overnight could indicate a diversion from something more compelling..

Porsche legality in question?

image FIA WEC