Lotus E21 Renault

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Post Reply
langwadt
35
Joined: 25 Mar 2012, 14:54

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Blackout wrote:
theWPTformula wrote:I think it was a bad decision. Why penalise the team for almost exactly the same infringement that went unpunished months ago. Again the stewards lack consistency.

Having said that, Lotus must have been aware that they might not get away with it next time so you could argue that they should've done something about it. All of the other cars appear to be able to handle the abuse.

Interestingly, both events have occurred on the short wheelbase E21 with the backward sweeping splitter stay.
But few cars go wide and hit the kerbs that are situated at turn 3 exit. We 'saw' three cars hit those Kerbs: Hamilton at the beginning of his first fast lap in Q3. He goes wide, the car bottoms and even jumps and, short time after that, one of his wishbones breaks. Brawn says one of the kerbs could be responsible for that. Brundle too.
Then Raikkonen hits the same kerbs and the telemtry says the tea tray endured a 25g shock. Boullier said the sensors stopped working after that because everything broke inside that tea tray.
Then Alonso did the same, endured 25g too and went to the Hospital.

Grosjean's floor endured 11g 'only' in Hungary...
Like Ral says it was a very bad decisions... and aero parts are not supposed to witstand that kind of shocks.
allowing parts to be repeatedly illegal as long as it cause by "damage" would open a huge hole in regulations

so first time is assumed to be an error, next time is assumed to be exploiting it

Ral
Ral
6
Joined: 13 Mar 2012, 23:34

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Which is fine in and of itself.

But the impact experienced by the part was 25G. At 640KG (with fuel in addition to that), that's an instantaneous 16,000kg load at least. The test the car failed is a 200kg flex test.

So my question remains: the test is set up to keep teams from designing parts flexing under a load of up to 200kg, but is there a load specified in the regulations up to which parts are not allowed to break? Did the stewards in Hungary tell Lotus by how much they were expecting Lotus to strengthen up the part that failed, to avoid being penalized if it happened again? And, given that the load in the previous incident was a "mere" 19G, would it not have been possible to withhold any judgement until after the race at which point a test could have been carried out to see what load it could experience and judge if that was sufficiently stronger than what had gone before or something?

What I'm saying is, how did they come to a decision that Lotus hadn't done enough to fix the issue when
a) the impact was much larger this time than the previous time at near enough a third more and
b) they (as far as reported) never knew how strong the strut had been and how strong it was this time

Now, it's possible they just asked Lotus point blank if the part was the exact same spec as before and if the answer to that was yes, than I can partly see their point. But I still don't see how a part breaking at over 80 times the load defined in the regulations, can seriously be considered "designed to break" which in itself would be refuted by the number of races in between the last time this happened.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

You can't compare the instant impact of 25G with a constant pressure of 200kg. Actually you can't compare a part breaking off with a test meant to check if a part isn't too flexible.

I also see a comparison between the t- tray and alonso's neck. Seriously? Comparing flesh and bone with a laminated plank, carbon fibre and titanium? Next time when my food is too salty I'll make the remark that it tastes exactly like battery acid, which is no more rediculous then above comparisons. Sorry blackout to put it this way, but you do have to understand that it is basicilly a chewbakka defense you are putting up there. Also you mentioned that of the 3 cars going wide, Lotus was the only one who broke the supports of the t- tray. I think that is the better conclusion out of it.

Either Lotus chooses a very low ride height set up which brings the t-tray at risks, or the supports are below average weak, or a combination of both. The only none-lotus related t-tray failure I recall goes back to Australia 2011, where Hamilton missed during the race the first corner (somewhere midrace) had to go to the very, very bumpy grass section and to continue the race with the tray hanging loose. Inbetween that event, which is much more forgiveable because it putted the tray under much more stress, and Hungary 2013 we never heard again from a t-tray or floor support failure, while ample events were there when it was put under similar stress.
#AeroFrodo

Mikey_s
8
Joined: 21 Dec 2005, 11:06

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

allowing parts to be repeatedly illegal as long as it cause by "damage" would open a huge hole in regulations

so first time is assumed to be an error, next time is assumed to be exploiting it
I think you are correct, although one way to deal with this would be to take a view on whether 'damage' was likely to improve the performance of the car or not. In this instance the, so called, damage had a good chance of improving the performance of the car IF the tea tray was not flapping around randomly, but flexing in a well defined and beneficial way.

Normally damage is highly undesirable and detracts from the performance of the car. As such, if Lotus 'damaged' the car and did not see the need to repair it before the next run I believe the scrutineers could conceive that such damage was indeed beneficial.
Just my view...
Mike

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

The FIA doesn't take into account if it is performance-enhancing or not. Back in 2011 both sauber cars got disqualified from the race because by manufacturing mistake the rear wing upper element was a bit too big, a few milimetres. They didn't gained performance from it, but they got punished anyhow.

They do take a very hard line in this, but I don't think they have a choice because else it can be abused. The way it looks, Lotus also didn't made any effort to improve the strength of the support. Perhaps things would have played out differently if they could show that they increases its strength considerably, but still failed due higher G forces.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Blackout
1562
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 04:12

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Where did I compare the Lotus's T-tray with Alonso's neck :?: :lol: All I said is a response to the ones who did ask this question: ''why Lotus ?'' ''why it did'nt happen to others'' And all I said was: 3 drivers hit those Kerbs and the three got big problems...

I dont think Lotus had the duty to strengthen the tea tray or the support. Aero parts are not meant to witstand big shocks AFAIK. when they break in an incident/accident, you have the right to change them before the race AFAIK.
And as I said, the first time, In Hungary, it was 11g. This time it's more than the double. So it's a different case.
And just listen to the stewards, their statements are ridiculous.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Blackout wrote:Where did I compare the Lotus's T-tray with Alonso's neck :?: :lol: All I said is a response to the ones who did ask this question: ''why Lotus ?'' ''why it did'nt happen to others'' And all I said was: 3 drivers hit those Kerbs and the three got big problems...

I dont think Lotus had the duty to strengthen the tea tray or the support. Aero parts are not meant to witstand big shocks AFAIK. when they break in an incident/accident, you have the right to change them before the race AFAIK.
And as I said, the first time, In Hungary, it was 11g. This time it's more than the double. So it's a different case.
And just listen to the stewards, their statements are ridiculous.
They have to draft up something official. I don't always agree with the reasoning, official or non-official, of the stewards, but I find that in this case they made a fair point: Lotus designed the support too lightweight. The support itself isn't any use to the aero, but is specifically there to keep the floor legal, to keep it from bending too much.

It is Lotus their duty to keep the car legal. Agreed that circumstances can sometimes be totally against you and that in such cases the stewards have to be reasonable, which they were in Hungary. Lotus however should have taken measures to avoid making it break again. Apperently they didn't. Else they could have reasoned with the stewards, I am sure of that, pointing at the reinforcements they made to the structure but with the G force being over double as high it still snapped. But they didn't have that hand, simply because they kept it the same it was.

It is like you said: 3 cars went through the same place, all 3 had problems, but only 1 came out technically illegal. It's very much possible for a decently designed support to widstand 25G. Lotus took the risk of designing one which can't handle that. Their choice, and I am sure it pays off in raw performance, but they should also pay the price when it snaps and through that making the car not complying with the rules.
The FIA had to take a stand: if they allowed it, teams could use this a precedence, design very weak supports and run them over the curbs to break them, gaining a performance advantage.
#AeroFrodo

fenix4life
0
Joined: 15 Mar 2008, 10:32

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Kimi will not race the last 2 races. He will get surgery for his back.

source: eurosport.fr

http://www.eurosport.fr/formule-1/saiso ... tory.shtml

User avatar
zoro_f1
-2
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 08:24

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

@fenix4life this thread is for Lotus Renault E21 car, but not for their drivers or team news... there is other board for this -->> [http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=360]
Image “The force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded”: [Obi Wan Kenobi]

tony77g
36
Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 12:47
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

GP USA Austin
Long wheelbase also Kovalainen
Image

wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Different, fatter bulge under the nose
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

So with Raikkonen out, will they be driving both long wheelbase cars?
#AeroFrodo

emmepi27
141
Joined: 14 Jul 2013, 12:33
Contact:

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

wesley123 wrote:Different, fatter bulge under the nose
Nope, it's the same of LWB (with second bulge near cockpit)
Image

wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

Oh yes, my mistake. The lighting gave the bulge a bit of a flatter look
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

stefan_
696
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 12:43
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Lotus E21 Renault

Post

turbof1 wrote:So with Raikkonen out, will they be driving both long wheelbase cars?
Yep.
"...and there, very much in flames, is Jacques Laffite's Ligier. That's obviously a turbo blaze, and of course, Laffite will be able to see that conflagration in his mirrors... he is coolly parking the car somewhere safe." Murray Walker, San Marino 1985

Post Reply