[Tech Issue] Ferrari question Lotus braking system

[Teretonga]

What is even worse is the back and forth sahllyinmg around. irst it is legal and then people start spendimng money on it and then it is not legal so it gets banned a few months later.

If you are running a series the regualtions should be clear and concise, and the ruling body if it has an opinion on something should have the integrity to stick by its decisions.

[Mekola]

But, is an official statement by the FIA declaring if reactive system of Lotus is legal or not? Because discussions are made in several communities about this matter.

[Marbot]

I strongly suspect that word came from on high, that any 'argy-bargy' regarding anything of dubious value to the entertainment value of F1, was to be avoided at all costs. I also strongly suspect that all other such occurrences will be looked upon with the same degree of scrutiny, before anything gets rubber stamped.

[Born Racer]

Is F1 the most corrupt sport?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Is F1 the most corrupt sport?

?

Some sources seem to suggest that Lotus were being very economical with the truth when asked by the FIA what the 'main' purpose of the device was for. The FIA, having realised that the main purpose of the device was not to increase stability under braking, banned it, after other teams pointed out that its main purpose could also be that of keeping the aerodynamics optimal during the race.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Some sources seem to suggest that Lotus were being very economical with the truth when asked by the FIA what the 'main' purpose of the device was for.

That's right. As we've now discovered, the real purpose of this device is as a very expensive 'arse scratcher'.

[Marbot]

Well, it's not like anyone hasn't ever invented an anti-dive brake/suspension system before. I've even made one of my own! No great loss.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Marbot

?

I ask because there are some highly questionable decisions.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Some sources seem to suggest that Lotus were being very economical with the truth when asked by the FIA what the 'main' purpose of the device was for. The FIA, having realised that the main purpose of the device was not to increase stability under braking, banned it, after other teams pointed out that its main purpose could also be that of keeping the aerodynamics optimal during the race.

But even if it's primary purpose is to affect the aerodynamics, it is not in itself a movable aerodynamic device, so what is the problem? The F.I.A. needs to learn how to write rules more precisely if it's not happy with such systems.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

But even if it's primary purpose is to affect the aerodynamics, it is not in itself a movable aerodynamic device, so what is the problem?

It still has an effect on the aerodynamic attitude of the car. It's basically an anti-dive system, which means that it has a moveable component that affects the ride height of the car in relation to its sprung mass. Only the springs and tyres should be doing that.

Originally Posted by Born Racer

The F.I.A. needs to learn how to write rules more precisely if it's not happy with such systems.

The rules are written correctly. It's difficult to see how anyone could have interpreted them to mean anything other than what they do. But if you're going to be dishonest about what your device is going to actually do (control ride height, rather than stabilise braking), then you might find that you've gone down a blind alley for no reason.

Article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations requires that any aerodynamic effect created by the suspension should be incidental to its primary function.

It further states that any device that influences the car's aerodynamics "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".

So it's no real surprise that Lotus's brake system came a cropper.

If you discuss a brake system with the FIA, then perhaps you will be told what you can do to the brake system without them ever having to point out that it might also break another regulation?

It does seem, just like the blown diffuser, that it was originally a device that has now been taken to extreme lengths. No one probably said that Lotus couldn't fit a device that stabilised its braking, but when you then go beyond that point of stabilizing your brakes.........

[Born Racer]

How do they demonstrate what its primary purpose is? That is easily open to manipulation and you can't blame the teams for pushing etymological boundaries.

As a side-note, I would add that it's a pity to see innovation quashed. Even if it's obviously intended to help the aerodynamics, at least it in itself is not another new wing design. F1 is all about aero and this is boring and pretty alien to most of us. Mechanical development should be (and used to be) where it was at.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

How do they demonstrate what its primary purpose is? That is easily open to manipulation and you can't blame the teams for pushing etymological boundaries.

If they say it's a brake system, then they have stated what its primary purpose is. If they say its a ride height leveller, then they may have originally got a different response from the FIA.

It's just like the blown diffuser. It's effects were incidental to the aerodynamics of the car when the teams weren't running engine mapping that started taking the p**s.

[JeremySmith]

Why though do the FIA *appear* to make the same mistakes constantly when it comes to approving and then after the fact banning new ideas, this must drive teams bonkers..

If they were unsure about what Renault were developing then they should ask to see in detail the idea until they are satisfied it's within the rules, or not as the case maybe..

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If they say it's a brake system, then they have stated what its primary purpose is. If they say its a ride height leveller, then they may have originally got a different response from the FIA.

It's just like the blown diffuser. It's effects were incidental to the aerodynamics of the car when the teams weren't running engine mapping that started taking the p**s.

Then they did not explain what it was and have themselves to blame..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Then they did not explain what it was and have themselves to blame..

Which is probably why Lotus and Ferrari haven't disagreed with the decision that has been made by the FIA. Even Ferrari only referred to it as a braking device.

[JeremySmith]

I am somewhat perplexed because these issues continue year after year to be a problem?

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by davyboy

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.

Complete agree.

They ban everything then wonder why the cars look the same and cant overtake.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

They ban everything then wonder why the cars look the same and cant overtake.

Given any set of regulations, sooner or later the cars will all look the same, unless you keep changing the regulations. And the teams (FOTA in particular) keep banging on about stable regulations. They don't actually want to take part in a series where the regulations are always changing, because it costs too much to keep doing that.

Just because the regulations could allow six wheeled cars to take part, doesn't mean to say that anyone would bother to go in that direction. Particularly in an age where any concept can be proved to fail or succeed just by creating models of each concept on a lap top or in a wind tunnel. Sooner or later (probably sooner) the cars would all look the same, because certain concepts can be dismissed without any further investigation. A set of regulations will always have a point of perfection (as someone else keeps pointing out), so it's just a matter of time before that's reached.

FIA give reasons for banning suspension/brake device:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97151

Hard to believe why anyone would have thought that they were legal in the first place!

"At the time of that initial approval to the then Renault team, it was understood that the devices were purely suspension related and aimed at maintaining ride-height - so effectively nothing more than a sophisticated version of rising-rate springs."

I guess that's what happens when you try to say that something is doing one thing, when, in fact, it's doing something entirely different altogether.

"Although the FIA directive states that the governing body views the devices to be illegal, there is nothing stopping teams from continuing to test them and fitting them to the cars for the season-opening Australian Grand Prix – because the final decision on whether they comply with the regulations always rests with the race stewards. But such a scenario is thought to be highly unlikely."

Anyone think that they will?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Given any set of regulations, sooner or later the cars will all look the same, unless you keep changing the regulations. And the teams (FOTA in particular) keep banging on about stable regulations. They don't actually want to take part in a series where the regulations are always changing, because it costs too much to keep doing that.....
...."At the time of that initial approval to the then Renault team, it was understood that the devices were purely suspension related and aimed at maintaining ride-height - so effectively nothing more than a sophisticated version of rising-rate springs."

I guess that's what happens when you try to say that something is doing one thing, when, in fact, it's doing something entirely different altogether.....

Anyone think that they will?

No they won't, because its now a blind alley and it costs money.
I do disagree with your statement:

when you try to say that something is doing one thing, when, in fact, it's doing something entirely different altogether.....

This system does exactly what they said it did. It wasn't doing something different. Its just that aerodynamic benefit was the main advantage of it so it was banned.

The FIA seems to be hypersensitive to any criticism over aero. It knows the feelings of fans and observers but will not take affirmative action because essentially its technically weak and dominated by the teams desire for aero advantage, the only real place to make a difference these days.

At the same time it knows that it can't stop boffins like Newey gaining an understanding that effectively gives them a huge advantage over anyone else through aero.

A sort of catch 22 situation. If they had the strength to be different some thing may change but until they regulate aero grip and make mechanical grip the pivotal point nothing will change.

The cars will get uglier, the regulations more pedantic in trying to restrict things, and the issues of overtaking and racing more and more subject to 'toys' like DRS and KERS

[Sodemo]

They mention ride height, and that the device was to maintain or alter the ride height in some fashion. Who then in their right mind would consider that not to have an aerodynamic effect? I mean, are they on Pluto or something?! Surely its basic knowledge that ride height has a massive effect on aero, ground effect etc? What were they thinking?!!

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Hard to believe why anyone would have thought that they were legal in the first place!

"At the time of that initial approval to the then Renault team, it was understood that the devices were purely suspension related and aimed at maintaining ride-height - so effectively nothing more than a sophisticated version of rising-rate springs."

I guess that's what happens when you try to say that something is doing one thing, when, in fact, it's doing something entirely different altogether.

"Although the FIA directive states that the governing body views the devices to be illegal, there is nothing stopping teams from continuing to test them and fitting them to the cars for the season-opening Australian Grand Prix – because the final decision on whether they comply with the regulations always rests with the race stewards. But such a scenario is thought to be highly unlikely."

Anyone think that they will?

It's not hard to believe that it was originally legal though. From what I have seen, the front pushrods are hydraulically actuated by the brake fluid. This is through a connection from the front brake calipers (thus the argument that it is passive; directly connected to brake torque). Therefore, this device is primarily a suspension component - in much the same way as the mass damper was.

The Lotus device acts upon the damper/torsion bar, disabling any dive effect under braking. Primarily this helps braking stability by controlling the forward weight shift). The same effect could be replicated by using stupidly stiff springs (10000lb for example). This would stop the car diving and enable better braking. This solution would also be legal as it would be deemed a suspension component.

As Sodemo (and I have said), anything that controls the suspension of the car (and thus the poise) will primarily affect mechanical grip. However, on a car that also relies on aerodynamics, keeping the car level will also produce better efficiency from the front wing (and any other aero device). This is actually a secondary benefit of the Lotus system, however the FIA believe that it is the primary; it is all down to interpretation (rules should be clear, not ambiguous).

Any suspension change/device/component will affect the aerodynamics - rake, spring rate, droop, bump etc. Therefore, I cannot see how the device has been banned on these grounds without making suspension as a whole illegal. I said earlier in the thread that the only way to get rid of suspension-controlled aerodynamic gain would be to replace the suspension with a solid, non-sprung beam. However, even then, the tyres would start adding compliance (which could be changed with different pressures). Thus, solid rubber tyres would also be needed. Quickly this becomes less of a car and more a soapbox racer.

The legality of the Lotus device, I would say, is questioned by the fact that, although it is directly connected (mechanically) to the front calipers and supposedly passive, it is actually controlled by the brake pedal and, hence, the driver. Therefore this makes it 'active suspension' - although, as I've pointed out, this term is a misnomer. Therefore, it should be banned under the rule that states (and I paraphrase) moveable devices controlled by the driver (other than the traditional brake, steering, throttle) are not permitted.

I would not imagine Lotus (or Ferrari) will bring this to Melborne Park as, if history is correct, the race stewards/scrutineers always align themselves with the FIA. Though, by the FIA saying that they do not have the overruling say questions the very fact that they have produced a judgement on the system before the stewards.

[P38 in workshop]

Not exactly a new concept then,Citroen have been using hydraulic ride height compensation and the resulting brake pressure compensation on their hydropneumatic road cars since 1955.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Not exactly a new concept then,Citroen have been using hydraulic ride height compensation and the resulting brake pressure compensation on their hydropneumatic road cars since 1955.

As I said, that is what it looks like. There is a nice drawing on Craig Scarborough's blog. Citroen were very innovative in the 50s. A lot of things that happened on those DS's got forgotten and have since been picked up again as 'new' technology; follow-the-bend headlights for example.

Anyway, back on thread. It may not be new technology (and I never claimed it was), but it is fairly unusual on a racing car - especially one at the pinnacle of the sport. Although the FIA have ruled it aerodynamic, it is a system that (through your Citroen example) shows it has a lot of road relevance, something the FIA love at the moment.

By keeping a road car from dipping you would have a significant increase in rear grip, braking efficiency and passenger comfort. If racing could help develop this technology then surely it is win-win?

[Oldtony]

Anti Dive suspension control, ABS, Traction control, auto or CV transmissions etc are all not only road relevant, but part of standard technology these days.
Add to that maximised energy recovery rather than a castrated version called KERS.
Wouldn't want F1 actually contributing something to the world other tha noisy entertainment and a money making opportunity for CVC.
If it is only about the egos in helmets, bite the bullet and make it a spec series.
If F1 wants to retain any semplence of technical credibility just ban wings and restore the ability for other innovations to be used.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by barnettracing

A lot of things that happened on those DS's got forgotten and have since been picked up again as 'new' technology; follow-the-bend headlights for example.

Indeed. And Citroen managed it without any help from being involved in F1. You would also think that Citroen's own active ride suspension system would be almost universal by now. But the plain fact is that it's way too expensive and complicated to warrant its use on the majority of road cars.

Originally Posted by barnettracing

Anyway, back on thread. It may not be new technology (and I never claimed it was), but it is fairly unusual on a racing car - especially one at the pinnacle of the sport. Although the FIA have ruled it aerodynamic, it is a system that (through your Citroen example) shows it has a lot of road relevance, something the FIA love at the moment.

Anti-dive systems, as you say, are nothing new, and could be quite clearly used on road cars, which they are. Will its use on F1 cars spark a rash of manufacturers fitting systems to road cars? Probably not.

Originally Posted by barnettracing

By keeping a road car from dipping you would have a significant increase in rear grip, braking efficiency and passenger comfort. If racing could help develop this technology then surely it is win-win?

There are already a whole host of anti-dive systems ready and available to be fitted to road cars. In fact they're much the same as those that have just been banned in F1. The problem though, is one of cost, and not through lack of technology.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Anti Dive suspension control, ABS, Traction control, auto or CV transmissions etc are all not only road relevant, but part of standard technology these days.

And they're all doing fine without any help from F1.

Would you like to see all road car technology used on F1 cars? You mentioned ABS and traction control. What about anti-skid systems (ESP, ESC, etc)? Why not also 'collision warning with automatic braking' ? That would be handy, for some.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Add to that maximised energy recovery rather than a castrated version called KERS.

Would you want to see any WDC decided solely by who has the best KERS/ERS?

Well, in 2014, you may get your wish.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Wouldn't want F1 actually contributing something to the world other tha noisy entertainment and a money making opportunity for CVC.

It's not really a series that lends itself to road car technology. But it does make a lot of people a lot of money.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

If it is only about the egos in helmets, bite the bullet and make it a spec series.

Judging by the number of 'driver threads' that abound F1 forums, I can only think that's the way it will go.

Originally Posted by Oldtony

If F1 wants to retain any semplence of technical credibility just ban wings and restore the ability for other innovations to be used.

I agree. But you'll have to accept that some F1 teams aren't just going to hand power over to those teams who do not have the best aero designers.

The Virgin car, for instance, was actually a very good car from an engineering point of view (according to Pat Symonds). It just had crap aerodynamics.

Some people seem to think that the whole of road car technology will grind to a halt if it's not being used by F1 cars???????

How many car manufacturers actually feel the need to be in F1 in order to come up with innovative ideas for their road cars? Why have Peugeot quit sports cars? Did they get bored? Or is it a response to Renault's recent full blown assault onto the electric car market? Electric F1 cars anyone?

Back on topic.

It was banned because its primary benefit was that of allowing the car to run at a lower ride height in order to remain at that height when braking. Thus, it was a benefit to aerodynamics. Were it not for its benefit to aerodynamics it could possibly have been something that would have been allowed, but unfortunately aero is king in F1.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It was banned because its primary benefit was that of allowing the car to run at a lower ride height in order to remain at that height when braking. Thus, it was a benefit to aerodynamics. Were it not for its benefit to aerodynamics it could possibly have been something that would have been allowed, but unfortunately aero is king in F1.

And this is my main point of contention. Any improvement to the suspension will also improve aerodynamic efficency. Therefore the FIA have pretty much set a precedent about suspension geometry. Arguably Red Bull's pullrod rear setup is mainly for aero gain and is thus a moveable aero device!

I agree that lots of roadcar tech isn't in F1, and hasn't been developed by F1. Nor would I want to see driver aids (from a driver skill POV). However, although you say the reason this isn't more widespread in commercial use is cost forgets that refinement through motorsport can help to increase efficiency and reduce overheads in manufacturing/design costs. Paddle shift gearboxes and KERS spring to mind. This is ultimately a long term investment though.