F1 Aero FRIC

[PlatinumZealot]

Regarding Mercedes, does anyone think that a FRIC system between front and rear aero downforce is being used?

There was movable front wings for two years in F1. (2010 and 2011 I think)... not really an interconnected system though.

Then again suspension FRIC was used to keep rideheight stable to help aerodynamics. So suspension FRIC was also an Aero FRIC in some way.

[DaveW]

Then again suspension FRIC was used to keep rideheight stable to help aerodynamics. So suspension FRIC was also an Aero FRIC in some way.

It is my view that keeping a stable front ride height is a given.

FRIC allowed a stable front ride height to be maintained with reduced the front spring stiffness. This caused the front suspension to work better mechanically, which also helped the performance of the rear suspension.

It follows, I think, that FRIC allowed the mechanical performance of the vehicle to be improved, but some did it better than others....

[PhillipM]

To be honest, if you're banning FRIC based on it controlling the aero platform, then you should logically follow that through and ban all suspension and the pnuematic tyres.

[Nickel]

Not logical at all. Primary versus secondary function. FRIC allegedly had evolved to the point it's primary function was aero, at least for some teams, or even perhaps just one team. To say all suspension exists only for aero purposes is disingenuous.

[Tim.Wright]

The 3rd spring (heave spring) seen on every open wheel, winged car in the last 20 year exists purely to react the aerodynamic loads and as such should be banned under the same interpretation which banned mass dampers and interconnected suspensions.

[DaveW]

To say all suspension exists only for aero purposes is disingenuous.

Good word.

FRIC has been banned for a while now, with minimal changes to the pecking order. Arguably, complaints about tyre performance have been more widespread, however.....

Will FRIC be "unbanned" - probably not.

[PhillipM]

Not logical at all. Primary versus secondary function. FRIC allegedly had evolved to the point it's primary function was aero, at least for some teams, or even perhaps just one team. To say all suspension exists only for aero purposes is disingenuous.

In your opinion, that was it's primary function. But the fact that it let softer springs and damping be used to improve mechanical performance whilst keeping the same aero platform means you could quite easily say that suspension improvement was it's primary purpose.
Especially given there was an immediate, noticable change in how well cars could take kerbs, etc, when it was banned.
It was there for the exact reason the 3rd spring and dampers are - because suspension is dominated by aero demands at the moment and hence the cars are all running much stiffer than mechanically ideal.

And given the suspension was the only thing it physically controlled or interacted with, I'd say that the interpretation of it being for suspension improvement is much more likely.
Frankly, it's no more disingenuous than saying FRIC exists only for aero.

[Cold Fussion]

The 3rd spring (heave spring) seen on every open wheel, winged car in the last 20 year exists purely to react the aerodynamic loads and as such should be banned under the same interpretation which banned mass dampers and interconnected suspensions.

http://speedhillclimb.com/wp-content/up ... ail-42.jpg

Have interconnected suspensions actually been banned though? I thought currently there was an 'agreement' in place amongst the teams to not run it. If the were banned last year it surely wouldn't have survived a challenge to it under the 2014 rules.

[Tim.Wright]

If I remember the story correct the teams were told last year that the systems could be run but if any protests were made the stewards of the race would be left to decide on its legality. So out of fear of a protest everyone withdrew it.

Now (from 2015) there is a rule in place to forbid front and rear interconnections.

[Nickel]

In your opinion, that was it's primary function. But the fact that it let softer springs and damping be used to improve mechanical performance whilst keeping the same aero platform means you could quite easily say that suspension improvement was it's primary purpose.
Especially given there was an immediate, noticable change in how well cars could take kerbs, etc, when it was banned.
It was there for the exact reason the 3rd spring and dampers are - because suspension is dominated by aero demands at the moment and hence the cars are all running much stiffer than mechanically ideal.

And given the suspension was the only thing it physically controlled or interacted with, I'd say that the interpretation of it being for suspension improvement is much more likely.
Frankly, it's no more disingenuous than saying FRIC exists only for aero.

It's actually not my opinion, further, my opinion doesn't matter. Charlie Whiting stated that after reviewing each team's design, he felt they contravened the rules regarding movable aero. Also, an article on this very site stated an un named engineer allegedly told Charlie the sole purpose was aero, in that it kept the chassis stable to allow lower ride heights.
I agree the third spring is arguably a similar situation, so I've no idea why it's not treated the same.

[JesperA]

When Redbull first introduced the S-duct i did not really see the aero advantages of that duct (mostly because i have no knownledge about aerodynamics what so ever ) so i thought about other use causes for it, one of which was a front suspension aided by the aerodynamic flow/pressure in that S-duct.

Take this post with a grain of salt. this is just a thought, please take it lightly or even laugh at the ridiculousness (is that even a word) of the ideá Maybe i cant even show my face around here after this post

I am horrible at painting or any graphic design so don't laught at the ugliness of my design, i just made it so it would be easier to visualize what i mean.



More:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0409270k0Y1P093C3R ... ic%202.jpg

http://f.cl.ly/items/1O422M1f3G0X0B2h1y ... ic%203.jpg

So yeah, i dont know why i called it FRIC and posted it in this Aero FRIC tread because it is not a FRIC system at all since it is completely independent from front-rear. But it is a system/design to controll ride hight with the help of aero, much like a true Areo FRIC would.

I dont know if my concept would work at all (maybe the physics behind the idea is totally wrong) but just for the sake of it:

On the wishbones there is a paddle-like structure on the rear "arm" on the wishbone, the paddles extends beyond the pivot points (the holes in the wishbone, the pivot points on F1 wishbones lookes different but you get the idea) and into the airstream inside the S-duct. The paddle size could be adjusted, smaller or bigger depending on the car setup.

The idea would be that you could run a fairly high downforce at the same time as a fairly soft suspension setup without the plank or frontwing would be bottoming out and touching the ground in high speed straights or high speed corners. The soft suspension and high downforce would then give better traction in slow corners.

I made the paddles kinda small in my example but they should maybe be alot bigger, if they blocked alot of the airstream inside the S-duct, in high speeds the airpressure on the underside of the paddles would be quite large (almost acting like an air-spring) and neutral or negative airpressure on the top side of the paddles "holding" the wishbones in a downward angle (downward from the wishbone pivotpoint and down to the upright), thus holding the wishbone in the correct position agains the downforce from the frontwing.

There is a rule that states that the wishbones should be aero-neutral in the cars airflow IIRC and with my design, technicly, if you remove the wishbones with the paddles still attached and put the wishbones inside a wind tunnel with 0 degrees of AOA, the wishbones would be aero-neutral. Attached to the car, technically they are still aero-neutral compared to the cars general external airflow, but i am not sure the judges would agree.

[DaveW]

Charlie Whiting stated that after reviewing each team's design, he felt they contravened the rules regarding movable aero. Also, an article on this very site stated an un named engineer allegedly told Charlie the sole purpose was aero, in that it kept the chassis stable to allow lower ride heights. I agree the third spring is arguably a similar situation, so I've no idea why it's not treated the same.

Mmm... It wouldn't be the first time that the FIA listened only to what it wanted to hear (see, for example, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/53971).

And the comment by the anonymous engineer is not correct, as quoted, although an F1 engineer might say something like that if it suited his argument...

[PhillipM]

Exactly, the FIA bans things like this simply because the common viewer can't see the difference, don't take their opinion as law, it's just because they don't want to have to explain which system is better than which and why every week - the reason they've fallen in love and allowed aero to dominate performance for so long is because the layman can see the differences.
As I said before, if you take that arguement to it's conclusion, then every suspension piece and the tyres themselves are an aero device, spring/damper rates are setup with aero platform in mind, not the mechanical ideal - as are tyre pressure and ride height.

[McMrocks]

Exactly, the FIA bans things like this simply because the common viewer can't see the difference, don't take their opinion as law, it's just because they don't want to have to explain which system is better than which and why every week - the reason they've fallen in love and allowed aero to dominate performance for so long is because the layman can see the differences.
As I said before, if you take that arguement to it's conclusion, then every suspension piece and the tyres themselves are an aero device, spring/damper rates are setup with aero platform in mind, not the mechanical ideal - as are tyre pressure and ride height.

I agree on that but i would remove tyre pressure from that list. The teams surely aren't going to change tyre pressure for aero benefits (different tyre shape whatsoever).

[trinidefender]

Exactly, the FIA bans things like this simply because the common viewer can't see the difference, don't take their opinion as law, it's just because they don't want to have to explain which system is better than which and why every week - the reason they've fallen in love and allowed aero to dominate performance for so long is because the layman can see the differences.
As I said before, if you take that arguement to it's conclusion, then every suspension piece and the tyres themselves are an aero device, spring/damper rates are setup with aero platform in mind, not the mechanical ideal - as are tyre pressure and ride height.

I agree on that but i would remove tyre pressure from that list. The teams surely aren't going to change tyre pressure for aero benefits (different tyre shape whatsoever).

Changing a tyres pressure affects its spring and damping rates. This means it will affect how a car as a whole moves about and hence affects aerodynamics to quite a large extent. So yes, teams will look at tyre pressures and how it affects aerodynamics.