FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

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.

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:35 pm

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114881

This is some BS if you ask me, especially since teams have been openly running them for a few years in one fashion or another. If I was to guess, I'd say Ferrari is not running one, and is the reason for this to spring up all of a sudden.
Honda!
dren
 
Joined: 3 Mar 2010

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:38 pm

Have you guys seen this? - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114881

Can't see a separate place to discuss it, what are your thoughts on the impact it might have?
markn93
 
Joined: 29 Jul 2013

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:41 pm

markn93 wrote:Have you guys seen this? - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114881

Can't see a separate place to discuss it, what are your thoughts on the impact it might have?


I posted in the general section. It's utter BS, but at the same time, several teams run a FRIC system in some shape or form. Somebody is putting pressure on Charlie to ban the system, and the only place I can look is Ferrari. I don't know any other team that has that much influence, plus Ferrari is one team I haven't heard of that runs it. Or maybe Mclaren?
Honda!
dren
 
Joined: 3 Mar 2010

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:43 pm

List of teams that run FRIC systems (fill in as you see fit):

Mercedes
Lotus
Red Bull
Marussia (I think?)
Caterham (I think?)
Honda!
dren
 
Joined: 3 Mar 2010

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:45 pm

pathetic attempt by FIA to decrease merc domination
siskue2005
 
Joined: 11 May 2007

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:47 pm

Agree. The same BS which banned the mass damper.

Using the FIA's logic (which deem interconnected suspensions as an aerodynamic aid) then 3rd springs would also be illegal since they only exist to control the pitch angle and ride height coming from aerodynamic downforce. This is why you don't see them on non aero cars.

Half of the job of the suspension is to control the body attitude. If you want to ban a suspension system whos primary function is to control the body attitude then you might as well ban suspension.

The other part of the story is then, how do they expect to differentiate between an interconnected suspension which is aiming to minimises contact patch load variations (could become important again if we move to 18" tyres) and one which is aiming to control the aero platform.
Not an engineer at Caterham F1
Tim.Wright
 
Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:07 pm

dren wrote:List of teams that run FRIC systems (fill in as you see fit):

Mercedes
Lotus
Red Bull
Marussia (I think?)
Caterham (I think?)

Ferrari have run an interconnected suspension since 2011 so ad them on here. I think virtually every team runs some form of "fric".
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
Pierce89
 
Joined: 21 Oct 2009

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:14 pm

dren wrote:
markn93 wrote:Have you guys seen this? - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114881

Can't see a separate place to discuss it, what are your thoughts on the impact it might have?


I posted in the general section. It's utter BS, but at the same time, several teams run a FRIC system in some shape or form. Somebody is putting pressure on Charlie to ban the system, and the only place I can look is Ferrari. I don't know any other team that has that much influence, plus Ferrari is one team I haven't heard of that runs it. Or maybe Mclaren?


yep I suspect its just some stupid Bernie thing to cause drama.
dans79
 
Joined: 3 Mar 2013
Location: USA

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:18 pm

Not against the ban in general, it's just a weird thing to do mid-season after it first has been allowed. This knowledge of teams using the system has possibly caused other teams too to spend money developing one, and now everyone has to spend money again to go back to a "regular" suspension. And that while everyone is screaming cost reduction.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender
wesley123
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2008

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:20 pm

wesley123 wrote:Not against the ban in general, it's just a weird thing to do mid-season after it first has been allowed. This knowledge of teams using the system has possibly caused other teams too to spend money developing one, and now everyone has to spend money again to go back to a "regular" suspension. And that while everyone is screaming cost reduction.

Reading the Autosport article, Pat whiting asked everyone for technical drawings and saw some things he didn't like.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
Pierce89
 
Joined: 21 Oct 2009

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:25 pm

dren wrote:
markn93 wrote:Have you guys seen this? - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114881

Can't see a separate place to discuss it, what are your thoughts on the impact it might have?


I posted in the general section. It's utter BS, but at the same time, several teams run a FRIC system in some shape or form. Somebody is putting pressure on Charlie to ban the system, and the only place I can look is Ferrari. I don't know any other team that has that much influence, plus Ferrari is one team I haven't heard of that runs it. Or maybe Mclaren?

What is this crapola about trying to blame Ferrari? I told you in the other thread Ferrari has run interconnected suspension since 2011.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
Pierce89
 
Joined: 21 Oct 2009

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:32 pm

Another lousy attempt by the FIA to enforce rules in terms of what a team's "intent" is rather than whether cars comply with basic objective standards.

If your suspension happens to hold the car in an advantageous aerodynamic trim then you're OK. However, if you intended the suspension to do this then you violate 3.15.
bill shoe
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:34 pm

siskue2005 wrote:pathetic attempt by FIA to decrease merc domination

Of course. It was stupid not to ban it when they came up with it, they just did not want to harm anyone who could gain an advantage on RedBull. No matter that it opened a new, very expensive field of development...one only concentrated on the blown diffusor.
This was very stupid with the fact, that the good interconnected suspension later helped RedBull a lot to get their aero working with superior mechanical traction, especially in the second half of the last season. For me the development of the interconnected suspension was at least as crucial as the development of the coanda exhaust for the domination of the RedBull last year.

Pierce89 wrote:Ferrari have run an interconnected suspension since 2011 so ad them on here. I think virtually every team runs some form of "fric".

You are right. But maybe one has to differentiate how good these systems are working.
For me McLaren clearly has the worst system among the "big" teams as they so not get their aero working at all since they went for the soft rear suspension. So they will gain the most.
Merc and RedBull have the best system, so they will loose the most.

Tim.Wright wrote:Using the FIA's logic (which deem interconnected suspensions as an aerodynamic aid) then 3rd springs would also be illegal since they only exist to control the pitch angle and ride height coming from aerodynamic downforce. This is why you don't see them on non aero cars.

Yes, but this is complicated. Just saying "you are not allowed to connect your suspension with fluids, gases or mechanics except a torsion bar" would be easy and clear. And it would save a lot of money.
basti313
 
Joined: 22 Feb 2014

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:45 pm

Here is the closest thing to a clear FIA statement about what is illegal:

"a system which appears to allow the response of the suspension at either or both of the rear corners to drive the response of the suspension at either or both of the front corners (or vice versa).”

So when does a response at one corner drive a response at another corner? By this standard it would appear an ordinary anti-roll bar would violate 3.15, except for the fact that the FIA statement arbitrarily applies to front-rear coupling, but not side-to-side coupling.

Of course 3.15 doesn't say anything about side-to-side coupling vs front-to-rear coupling. The FIA created this new distinction today.
bill shoe
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Post Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:49 pm

basti313[quote="Tim.Wright wrote:Using the FIA's logic (which deem interconnected suspensions as an aerodynamic aid) then 3rd springs would also be illegal since they only exist to control the pitch angle and ride height coming from aerodynamic downforce. This is why you don't see them on non aero cars.

Yes, but this is complicated. Just saying "you are not allowed to connect your suspension with fluids, gases or mechanics except a torsion bar" would be easy and clear. And it would save a lot of money.[/quote]

Yes correct that will indeed work but that isn't the current argument. The critical discussion now is whether or not interconnected suspensions are illegal with respect to the CURRENT rules.
Not an engineer at Caterham F1
Tim.Wright
 
Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Next

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], hollus, Tweetmeme [Bot] and 15 guests