FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[FoxHound]

Superbly constructed, Ben.

Which leads me to the obvious, why not just run the fricking thang? If it come down to "interpretation", by using your very post, the FIA would be legless.
And if a protest occurs, the instigators of this debacle would be outed.

[bhall II]

And I thank you.

You'd think a logical argument would win the day, but I think the very fact that this has been made an issue in the first place strongly suggests logic isn't a factor.

EDIT:

Having now seen and studied nearly every current design of front to rear linked suspension system we, the FIA, are formally of the view that the legality of all such systems could be called into question, particularly with respect to compliance with Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

Why the --- hasn't he seen and studied them all?

[FoxHound]

Which is precisely why any team manager worth their salt, should be scribing notes as to how this all came about.

Politics is part and parcel of f1, being as machiavelian as is possible(think Stazi) in this area can be as useful as a DDD, EBD et al.

[Cam]

We seem to be all reaching an accord It's a brave new day indeed

While his statement was about social media, I'd suggest this also runs across every decision ever made for and on behalf of, F1.

"No. We're commercial... If they find people to pay us [to do that] then I will be happy."

[FoxHound]

Well the FIA are blind mice. We all accept that, barring a few notables.

The point I'm making Cam, is that instead of throwing your FRICS away....learn from the process?
By utilising the idiocy that is the FIA, teams can run amok.
Look at the reasons Ben has given, how stupendously ridiculous they are(FIA). Yet like Mr Lebowski, the dudes of F1 abide....man.

But....what if...


Teams learn. Innovation is merely a pretext to protest?

In one fell swoop, F1 is rendered obsolete.

[Moxie]

A negotiator I know is fond of the phrase "sometimes to make things better, you have to make them worse."

One team should park a tub on the starting grid on blocks. No tires, wheels, control arms, springs, dampers, torsion bars, bell cranks, pushrods...etc, no suspension parts what so ever. Then they should protest the rest of the field under the same rules. After all, as the wings and the diffuser move forward, slicing through the air to generate downforce, are they not moveable aerodynamic devices? Any part that allows the tub to move forward would be considered in violation of the new interpretation of the rules. No?

[FoxHound]

Why Moxie,

that would certainly be one way of making a point.

The dagger twist on that would certainly have BE's attention....though I'm sure BE has daggers lined up in return.

[Moxie]

Why Moxie,

that would certainly be one way of making a point.

The dagger twist on that would certainly have BE's attention....though I'm sure BE has daggers lined up in return.

Absolutely!!! When his head stops spinning like an exorcism gone wrong.

[MOWOG]

Moxie, old son......

Surely you can't be serious?

[Moxie]

Even better than what I was thinking.

[jz11]

so, FRIC ban really changed things around, didn't it?

[iotar__]

so, FRIC ban really changed things around, didn't it?

What's your point exactly: that everyone had the same FRIC and the same gain from it? What is your reference point, theoretical race when they kept it on?

We're talking of relative differences and tenths of a second, up to 0,5 gain with the best (was it like that according to Fernley?) Red Bull&Williams might have relatively gained tenth between each other = gap pretty much the same but 0,3 (let's say, an example) over Merc, same or more for McLaren or Ferrari.

Reference points are not clear. How do you know Hamilton didn't lose a second place because of that?

[jz11]

you completely missed the irony in my post

Ham didn't lose 2nd place because of not having FRIC btw, and I'm not talking about quali either

look at the whole field, everyone finished pretty much where they did with FRIC, so the drama and effort to ban it right away was pretty much for nothing, at least noone really got an apparent gain from it

[basti313]

If taken with resolute severity, which the FIA appears to have done with its recent clarification, it means 3.15 bans suspensions period.

Well, not the clarification says that suspension has a problem with 3.15, but the rule. Now they only clarified where they are drawing the line in the scrutineering. There was a grey area of what is seen as a suspension you need to drive and a suspension that only has an aero purpose. That grey area is now smaller. So everything ok....only too late.

look at the whole field, everyone finished pretty much where they did with FRIC, so the drama and effort to ban it right away was pretty much for nothing, at least noone really got an apparent gain from it

Horner just said that...FRIC did not change anything for them but 2kg of ballast and a lot of money.

But this is only what he says. What we can see:
- Mercs still incredible fast (too fast to judge the pace actually), but harder to drive.
- Bulls hitting the ground hard on the straights.
- Ferrari killing the rear tires.
- McLaren gaining a lot, but Button in problems...car harder to drive?

With few more races we will see more on that. It me be too early to judge.

[bhall II]

Well, not the clarification says that suspension has a problem with 3.15, but the rule. Now they only clarified where they are drawing the line in the scrutineering. There was a grey area of what is seen as a suspension you need to drive and a suspension that only has an aero purpose. That grey area is now smaller. So everything ok....only too late.

To be clear, FRIC isn't banned, because the wording of the regulations can't be changed mid-season without the unanimous consent of the teams, and there's nothing written that specifically disallows an interconnected suspension. So, no team would be summarily prohibited from running the system as would be the case if a team submitted for scrutineering a car equipped with a blatantly illegal component, like this gem Ferrari tried to pass off as a "slot-gap separator" in 2011. The clarification simply gave notice that a protest against the system won't fall upon deaf ears.

And just to further muddy the waters with regard to the suspension's impact on aerodynamics, here's a video of Williams testing a car without any suspension whatsoever to see if such a setup might improve ground effect efficiency.



For the same reason, the dual-chassis Lotus 88 only had an "inner suspension," mostly for driver comfort. (It was banned.)



These instances show how a "traditional suspension" isn't exactly necessary and could logically be banned under 3.15, because anything that controls a car's position relative to the ground has a profound aerodynamic effect. I think the FIA's current clarification is a line arbitrarily drawn in the sand between one set of aerodynamic influences and another set of aerodynamic influences, and it doesn't make one lick of sense.