moRON speaks out again...

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Funny,

how such a "clarification" wasn't sought - and promptly resolved - with the TMD. Makes all the hassle about "internal aerodynamical devices" seem all the more unnecessary. Someone could've just asked the FIA: "Can we please attach spring suspended masses inside the chassis, as there seem to be people doing so already? We'd especially like these masses to move the center of gravity so that the external aerodynamics are kept in or near their optimum working conditions at all times", and the FIA could've answered: "Nope, it's moveable ballast, ain't it? So, with immediate effect, we'll make the necessary adjustments and shall inform the scrutineers to act accordingly."

User avatar
jddh1
0
Joined: 29 Jan 2007, 05:30
Location: New York City

Post

I think the FIA should give teams some room for innovation.

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

This is an interesting topic for sure. The teams obviously spend a bit of time closely studying video and photos of the others. Ron has a point and has taken a strategy to either force the banning or acceptance of it. No doubt the wind tunnels of most teams are testing similar devices back home as we speak.

The technical regulations in F1 are deliberately written to encourage innovative thinking.. It does seem that the rulings often fall in territory which creates a reason for people to suspect some bias. Renault's mass-damper for example - which any reasonable person would tell you is not in any way an aerodynamic device - no more than a steering wheel is. Ferrari themselves developed one, yet couldn't make it work as well - so they then queried it's legality. By virtue of their own development of one they should not be allowed to complain.. although it would be nearly impossible to make a fair call on this too.. I don't envy the scrutineers in their task.

I was at the Australian GP and was told there by a friend (who is a technical staff-member of a team) that Ferrari was suspected by more than a few teams of having parts which didn't follow the rules - sour grapes perhaps.. who knows? He was pretty dark on the whole thing actually... and I can understand why. Unfortunately the race gets run and you can only complain later on.

Time will tell. If nothing happens expect to see teams close the performance gap by the time they're in Bahrain.

Rob W

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Rob W wrote:... Renault's mass-damper for example - which any reasonable person would tell you is not in any way an aerodynamic device - no more than a steering wheel is....
Rob, I think the reason why they were ruled an aerodynamic device has to be its influence on pitch sensitivity, that is, ".. the magnitude of aerodynamic downforce can markedly alter with changes to front ground clearance as a result of pitch movements. This can affect the vehicle's performance and 'feel'."

This is a big issue nowadays in aerodynamic design. It can be critical when you ride kerbs, brake or accelerate. Check the last two paragraphs in this page, provided by Tomba:

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/1271

You have to hear the experts on aerodynamic design in this forum to be sure, don't take my word on it (of course, I try hard to never make mistakes, that's the reason I put a warning like that when I'm not sure about something... :))
Ciro

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

I will never agree the mass damper is an aero device - it is a mechanical device that improves aero - but then so do springs, shock absorbers, suspension wishbones and tyre sidewall flexure. Let's take all those off - won't have much of a race - will we? :wink:

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:Rob, I think the reason why they were ruled an aerodynamic device has to be its influence on pitch sensitivity, that is, ".. the magnitude of aerodynamic downforce can markedly alter..
For sure, I read and understood the explanation. In my opinion it defies belief and, like Carlos, I wont accept the explanation.

I mean, you could make a valid argument that the engine had influence on the pitch, and therefore the aero of the car. And, like I said earlier, the steering wheel, hello! :lol: It was definitely one of the least credible calls by the FIA in all the years I've watched F1 - and reaked of mid-season desperation/sour-grapes by Ferrari since their own efforts at producing a similar device failed.

This case here is somewhat different. I don't fully understand how they (the FIA) test the floor-pan mounting nor how much leeway you're given for natural flexing. At least this has happened now and not mid-season. Whichever way the ruling goes everyone will be on an even terms again within a race or two.

Rob W

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Well, if its not credible, I would like Carlos and you to provide the complains by Renault on the subject (or any other team, BTW). Any quote by an engineer employed by any team would suffice for me. I looked for them after the ruling, perhaps somebody came out of the closet after that.

FIA had much more "credible" alternatives, starting with the movable ballast rule and decades of forbidding "independent second chassises", tried for the first time in the 80's if I'm not mistaken. Renault could integrate the concept into normal dampers: I don't see unsurmountable problems on that.

I also had the same stance as you until I read a little about pitch sensitivity. An engine, a suspension or any other of the things you mention is not specifically designed to contrarrest that aerodynamic issue, they have different functions. A lot of articles I've read agree on the pitch sensitivity issue, so I think is not "less credible", it's just hard to understand. FIA can be politically motivated, but they can use the best engineers in the world: they have no need of being stupid.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Ferrari has achieved the same results using "conventional" suspensions, as I already mentioned extensively on this thread, using MR dampers. They started to use this kind of dampers in 2003 and they have been unbeatable since, EXCEPT for the period Renault used the mass damper.

Anyway, sorry guys, the mass damper is dead, we had a "post overdose" discussing it. Perhaps you could reopen that extinct thread, in case you can put forward new arguments: heaven knows I gave many, in favor of Renault, if I'm not wrong. I was finally converted, you might too.

Rob, if you want to learn how the test is made, it was also mentioned in this thread the specific rule (3.15, 3.17?? Can't remember, don't have time, sorry for the lack of links, Carlos knows this is not my "usual kind" of post) that describes how the test is made.
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

The movable floor: McLaren sleight of hand?

The result of the Sepang race and relative race pace of the team highlights some interesting aspects with regard to the clarification issue. Massa was seemingly racing a perfectly trouble-free Ferrari against two trouble-free McLarens. After the initial charges on Hamilton he could barely match their pace. Either we are to believe that Felipe was so upset that he lost his racecraft for the remainder of the race, he developed a problem which went completely unmentioned after the race or McLaren has found a second (give or take) of race speed on Ferrari since Melbourne. That was hardly the projection Whitmarsh offered in Australia:
"We are going to improve our car one tenth to two tenths every single race weekend, and that is now the race that is on."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650
The perception that the “movable floor” was of any great value as a concept is by now pretty much universally dismissed. Partly because “everybody-dunit”, partly because it just wasn’t that stellar an idea to begin with. But it did get the teams double-checking their constructions and, significantly, provided the scrutineers a lot of yanking and prodding to do around the pits, administering the new test. All that time and attention was of course, in a limited time frame, deducted from other points of interest and activities. At least some voiced their bewilderment as to the necessity and rationale of the whole exercise.
"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4. Therefore, with immediate effect, we will be testing bodywork in the relevant area with any such devices removed." (from CharlieWhiting’s response to the inquiry)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

Although the focus for the floor controversy has revolved around Ferrari and the BMW Sauber teams, and many expected these two outfits to lose the most because of the changes, autosport.com understands that more than half the grid have had to make subsequent modifications to their cars.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57748

"The clarification was done from McLaren to the FIA and the FIA answered clarifying it for all teams in Formula One," said Costa about what happened. "Some teams had springs, others had a bucking stay. The document clarified all the systems and put everybody at the same level for a general stiffness of the bodywork to pass the FIA test. But it's difficult to answer why they did it because the system we used is generally used in Formula One by all the cars. It seems they were looking at other cars more than focusing on their own."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57860
Even half a second’s gain between races, with homologated engines, would be a giant leap. Now, McLaren also sported the much-discussed “four eyes” mirror array at the Sepang tests. But could it be that they’ve indeed come up with something, perhaps once realized, pretty obvious to any observer, something that needs to be hidden in plain sight, so to say? For as long as possible? Was the floor the smoke and the mirrors ... well, the mirrors? If so, it apparently is something they also have felt didn’t need clarification from the technical delegates (as I’ve noticed, anyway). Let’s be clear about it: Involving Whiting and the scrutineers about the floor issue does in no way imply that any such potential McLaren innovation as I’m speculating here about in itself would contravene the rules in any way. It’s just all in the game. Seeking the clarification to the floor rule was a perfectly valid operation in itself, albeit apparently, in the end, pretty much inconsequential. If half a dozen engineers from different teams saying so means anything.

Now, of course I’m speculating pretty wildly here. But don’t dismiss this out of hand. Ron Dennis, with his new crew and impending retirement, will be driving the team hard for a couple more years of glory. At least I know if I was the boss of any other team, I’d have those couple of engineers that loiter around the water cooler to take a second look at the data sheets and visual documentation from Sepang ... 8)

nudge
nudge
0
Joined: 07 Dec 2006, 20:44

Post

wild speculation just about sums that up in a nutshell.
sepang was more a case of ferrari losing pace than mclaren gaining it

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

2 cents more:

Your pace is more spectacular if you run unimpeded. It's not the same to have a 3 or 4 tenths advantage that accumulates over laps than having to use that advantage to overtake a car that is creating dirty air for you.

Probably those 4 tenths are lost in the process. You need at least 1 tenth (that is, 5 meters or so at 200 kph, average on the straight, which is less than 1/4th of the total length of a lap) to overtake. That is, if you make no mistakes.

Another factor not commented yet is that Malaysia is a really hot race. Endurance and preparation counts and your body does not respond equally well all weekends: these are people, not robots.
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Well, here's something:

http://www.formula1.com/race/technical_ ... 1/403.html

Not worth a whole second as such, I'm sure, but a novel development still. Perhaps we can attribute Whitmarsh's two tenths, rather optimistically, to it. The construction would seem to be on the "easy side" (out of things that are more or less hard to do) to copy to any car, the main aspect of consideration being the advantageous point of boundary layer detachment, not the dynamics of achieving the separation as such once you have a template how to do so.

The past ten years, at least, have indeed shown the advantages of running unimpeded. The official F1 website summed up how this effect worked in the latest race in one of it's headlines:
"Hamilton provides champion protection

GP2 champ continues dream start to Formula One career

World champion Fernando Alonso may have won the Malaysian Grand Prix for McLaren, but it was arguably team mate Lewis Hamilton who provided the key to his victory as the young star spent his afternoon keeping Ferrari’s challenge at bay." etc.
It would be easier to make comparisons had Massa not had his minor moments, because minor they were ... but because they weren't catastrophic in themselves, I'm still left wondering whether that margin truly was enough to explain what ensued in the race after those first laps. At times, he had a clear enough track to drive on to show actual speed. Still, he doesn't feature prominently on the time sheets. (3rd, 4th, 3rd fastest on sector times, 3rd fastest lap of the race but only fractionally above Kimi and, significantly, well below the Maccas) But people are not robots; perhaps he indeed experienced some endurance related limitations.

Well, Raikkonen did gain on Hamilton in the closing stages of the race and matched Alonso, but ostensibly (if Lewis's explanation is to be taken at face value) it was partly because at some point he had misinterpreted gap information in the pit board. And Fernando could lift a bit after the last pit stops. But still, this was done with a car which by Todt's (surprising) admission was compromised to the tune of a tenth per lap.

Kimi fully expected to end up third, but he also expected that in that case his team mate would precede him in the standings. In the first laps there were at least a half a dozen times when Felipe was battling Lewis that instead of temporarily taking his team mate, only to let him past again at the end of a couple of straights down the race, Raikkonen lifted, knowing the entirety of the team's strategic position and his car's relative potential. Massa also knew that challenging for 1st or 2nd was his responsibility alone and thus felt pressured to go for it. Maybe the seconds that counted were lost there, maybe it was a done deal anyway.

I'm still far from sure whether all this can account for what we've seen. Perhaps the teams and the strategists can learn something about dealing with compromises in tactics, the magnification of events and chaos theory in race planning. But I'm thinking, beyond all mentioned above, there could still be something more to McLaren's speed than a butterfly fluttering it's wings two months ago in Kansas. I'm intersted to see whether there's a perceptible trend in overall competitiviness in the coming races.