Quote:
Originally Posted by VIVA GT
I've seen the suggestion of a ride-height rise suggested suggested as a performance disadvantage a few times now in this thread. One simple problem that this would cause would be in the quick post-race scrutineering where a basic roller is run underneath the car, if it fits, it's OK, if it jams, the car is too low, so they're out.
If ride heights are going to be played with then the scrutineers are going to need a range of different rollers to carry out these checks, plus will have to which is the correct one to use on each car (which could also lead to problems). I would have also thought that a ride-height change would also necessitate a complete geometry re-set all adding to the extra work the team is frced to carry out in time for the next race in that meeting.
I suppose that to sum up what I'm trying to say is that although it does seem a nice & simple thing to introduce, in practical terms it's not so straightforward to carry out.  |
I agree - it is not a simple measure to introduce. But, I think it could be implemented with careful consideration (and a bit of work from the scrutineers). The geometry and associated extra work for the team is exactly what I see happening - teams would have to find the right set up for each height they switched to (they already do this between wet and dry set ups) leading to an engineering challenge.
I wouldn't apply it as a linear scale - but stepped increments.
e.g. after race 1:
1st through 5th - raised by the maximum adjustment.
6th through 10th - raised by 50% of the maximum.
11th down - standard ride height.
3x rollers required, and maybe a scrutineering sticker applied before the start of the race (denoting which of the three heights they are subject to)?