[Tech Issue] Ferrari question Lotus braking system

[Marbot]

Ferrari wants the FIA to make a decision on the legality of a brake system that Lotus are intending to run.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96948

Is this the new 'blown diffuser'?

[wolfhound]

Looks like lots of teams are going to be cruching numbers as Lotus system is legal.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96952

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Looks like lots of teams are going to be cruching numbers as Lotus system is legal.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96952

Excellent!
I love all of this engineering innovation but keeping it within the rules skulduggery!

[Born Racer]

Good to see such innovation in Formula 1. Is it supposed to fall foul of the moveable aerodynamic device rule? Because it's not in itself an aerodynamic device. Unless that badly-written rule (badly-written because it's very general and yet, things have been banned when the bannings have been highly questionable) has been changed, I can see the same controversy as previously.

[Marbot]

The actual rule reads:

"Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations states: "With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18 [the DRS], any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

It seems that other teams mistakenly believed that the device was controlled by a lever in the cockpit. That not being the case, it looks like some teams have a bit of catching up to do if Lotus were looking into this in 2010!

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Good to see such innovation in Formula 1.

Indeed. That is until everyone has it, and it's then seen as just another expensive device that makes life easier for the nut holding the wheel.

[Born Racer]

Ah okay, so it's not the same rule anymore which was the maker of the mass damper. Isn't 'altering the aerodynamic charactersistics' still a reasonably grey area?

That is until everyone has it, and it's then seen as just another expensive device that makes life easier for the nut holding the wheel.

Yes, but we know F1 teams will always spend what they have/ are allowed to. Even if they're all spending on this new braking system, some will be better and quicker at developing it than others and that's part of the name of the game- technological innovation; at least it used to be.

[neiltb]

would it not be an active suspension system though and are those not banned? What am I thinking, expecting consistent decisions from the FIA rule makers.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by neiltb

would it not be an active suspension system though and are those not banned? What am I thinking, expecting consistent decisions from the FIA rule makers.

It's not an active suspension system. It doesn't control the attitude of the car when the brake pedal isn't being used.

[wolfhound]

At least Lotus is living up to its orginator's ideas (Colin Chapman) with chassis innovation. Its now very difficult to find the loop hole that can make a step forward.

[TF110]

On another forum this was talked about at length. Basically the idea has been around since this time LAST YEAR! Lotus had asked about it, but I guess they felt that it would be controversy not worth going through so abandoned it. The FIA ruled it legal now and Lotus has implemented it. Another top team has asked about it as well and has probably gotten it down as well, suggestions are that it's Mercedes.

[neiltb]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's not an active suspension system. It doesn't control the attitude of the car when the brake pedal isn't being used.

but by extension it actively controls the suspension when it is?

Could you then put in a system that only controls the suspension when the throttle is used or when the steering wheel is turned?

edit, read on the beeb website that the device may be passive, that changes things.

[LC2guy]

Originally Posted by TF110

suggestions are that it's Mercedes.

Or Ferrari...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96971

[TF110]

Probably both, but Ferrari is just a bit late, if December is when they started tinkering with it.

[PabloTeK]

Originally Posted by Jon Noble (@NobleF1)

Reactive ride height systems have been banned for the 2012 season, sources have confirmed. Writing story now.

[Sodemo]

This is why I love the FIA.

"Can we just check this is legal?"

FIA; "Yes it looks ok".

(Team spends loads of money developing it and sticking it onto a car)

Team B; "Are you sure this is legal?"

FIA; "Yes its legal"

(triggers an expensive race to develop the technology)

(Some time then passes)

FIA; "Oh, sorry, we have decided its now illegal" (trollface on).

[Oldtony]

The FIA is about to introduce a significant cost cutting measure for F1 teams.
Only rock apes can be employed in the teams F1 design departments.
Not only do they have a lower wage structure, but they are unlikely to come up with anything innovative.
It is understood that a number of law firms and lobbying organisation will be issuing redundancies to staff if this eventuates.

Really, how dumb can this Formula get?

[barnettracing]

This really is ridiculous. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of innovation yet the FIA manage to ban anything faintly interesting.

As much as I don't like the management at Lotus, this team really has been shafted in the last 7 years by the governing body - their mass damper was dubiously made illegal on the grounds of 'moveable aerodynamic device'.

The rule needs to be rewritten as it is far too vague. According to recent applications of the rule, suspension should be considered as a moveable aerodynamic device as it actively adjusts the cars stance in relation to the track surface. A car as an entire entity is a moveable aerodynamic device!

On the flipside, although this Lotus system was touted as 'reactive' ride height, and only passively applied to the brakes, the original 'active' ride height was arguably 'reactive' as it reacted to the characteristics of the circuit and calculations made about car physics. No suspension system is truly 'active' unless the car's computers know what is going to happen, before it has happened.

Personally, this is yet another poor decision to stifle innovation. The cars have been far too similar in appearance for a number of years (at least since 1998, if not before). If it weren't for the looming crisis in the WEC (that looks set to see a mass exodus of manufacturers), sportscar racing has always had more technical interest for me - although I was only born in 1990 so have no immediate connection with Formula One in my favourite era; 60s and 70s.

Sorry, long post. Obviously needing to vent today!

[Marbot]

Bernie must have had a word with the FIA. Something along the lines of: "We don't want any arguments about suspension systems or any other systems on the run up to the first race. We don't want anyone thinking that so-and-so only won the championship because some s**t on his car gave him an advantage". Or words to that effect.

I'm fine with lots of technology as long as we can either have monkeys or robots driving the cars (preferably robots), but when you add actual human beings into the equation, then you'll get the: 'He only won the race/WDC because he had the better car' type threads, which get to be tedious in the extreme. And I'd rather have things banned than have to suffer those, week in, week out.

The other thing, of course, is that the real 'Elephant in the room' as gone unnoticed, again.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

...then you'll get the: 'He only won the race/WDC because he had the better car' type threads, which get to be tedious in the extreme. And I'd rather have things banned than have to suffer those, week in, week out.

Unfortunately, even without major innovations by certain teams, you still get people saying that; Vettel this year for example.

For it to be a true 'drivers'' championship they'd all have to be in the same car. Part of being in a racing driver (especially as a pro) is to be in the right team, at the right time and to help develop the best car though. Hence why you often see the best drivers in the best cars...

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

This really is ridiculous. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of innovation yet the FIA manage to ban anything faintly interesting.

They've been doing it for years. From what I understand, this doesn't even have a safety implication... it's been banned before it's been raced for no reason at all. If ever there was a justification [outside of cost] for making F1 a spec. series, here you have it. Bonkers.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by davyboy

They've been doing it for years. From what I understand, this doesn't even have a safety implication... it's been banned before it's been raced for no reason at all. If ever there was a justification [outside of cost] for making F1 a spec. series, here you have it. Bonkers.

I know it's been going on for years. I suppose this age of banning innovation started with the BT46B 'Fan Car' and, slightly later, the Lotus 88 'Twin Chassis Car'. Both of those were arguably on the grounds of safety but this is decision is motivated more by the moaning of certain teams (or so it seems).

F1 has always been, and always be, an expensive sport/business. The cost cap plan was £30m/year, that is still vastly more than every other form of motorsport. Why ban innovative ideas on the grounds of cost? Using that reasoning the FIA should stop introducing new technical rules every 3-4 years, as this is by far a bigger cost to the teams than season-by-season technological updates.

I still can't see how you can ban suspension control components on the grounds of 'moveable aerodynamic device' without banning dampers/torsion bars and push rods? These parts all move and affect the aerodynamic stance of the car. Technically the cars should be forced to run with solid beam axles under the letter of the law, but then they would cease to be cars and would evolve into karts. The FIA seem to gradually forcing themselves between a rock and a hard place - all their own doing.

Todt is certainly doing much better than Mosley; a greater focus on motosport as a whole, but some of the decisions still baffle me.

Garry Anderson's view a few years ago was that the teams should be given a box with dimensions of x,y,z. Within this box the teams could do anything they like. At the end of the day, if a team creates a car that produces so much g-force, they would be forced to redesign anyway as the driver wouldn't be able to cope.

Although developing innovation can cost a lot (thus favouring the rich teams), developing innovative ideas does not; intelligence is part of the game.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

Gary Anderson's view a few years ago was that the teams should be given a box with dimensions of x,y,z. Within this box the teams could do anything they like. At the end of the day, if a team creates a car that produces so much g-force, they would be forced to redesign anyway as the driver wouldn't be able to cope.

Yep I completely agree with you [and Gary !]. If its to be an open formula, then innovation should not only be allowed by the FIA, it should be positively encouraged. If not, then fess up to the fact that spec. formulae are taking over motor racing and make F1 spec. too. Permitting the concept of innovation then banning each example of it when it happens is both futile and costly.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

Although developing innovation can cost a lot (thus favouring the rich teams), developing innovative ideas does not; intelligence is part of the game.

Intelligence yes, but you won't see Adrian Newey being in too much of a hurry to join HRT. Money helps a lot, too.

Keith Duckworth quote: “…a genius can make for a penny what a good engineer can only make for 10p…” ...

That used to be the case, but the game then changed to deliberately using very expensive technologies (wind tunnels, etc) to get ahead of the 'innovators'.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Intelligence yes, but you won't see Adrian Newey being in too much of a hurry to join HRT. Money helps a lot, too.

Keith Duckworth quote: “…a genius can make for a penny what a good engineer can only make for 10p…” ...

That used to be the case, but the game then changed to deliberately using very expensive technologies (wind tunnels, etc) to get ahead of the 'innovators'.

I think that final bit was what I meant by 'developing innovation can cost a lot'. I know that obviously Newey costs a lot to get hold off, and that he is probably the best all round racing car designer (aerodynamicist) around at the moment, but that doesn't mean that other designers cannot come up with moments of genius. This is the case here, someone (or a group more likely) at Lotus have come up with a clever interpretation and it has been stifled.

At the end of the day, even if this has been on the grounds of costs to other teams, it now means that Lotus have spent millions in R&D/Testing without getting any return on their investment - whereas if the other teams had to spend to catch up, at least there would be a sort of performance gain for them too.

As I've said, part of me can't see how this system was legal in the first place (or ever can be legal when active ride height isn't allowed; as I've explained, ride height can never be active unless it preempts.) It is more the precedent that the FIA are setting, once again, that I dislike.

[Born Racer]

It's not like it's going to cost the other teams a lot more to develop their own version, because teams can (and will) spend what they have. Why are they stifling innovation? If it's going to be a spec series, they should come out and admit it.