F1technical.net

KingHamilton01 wrote:

Kiril Varbanov wrote:Scarbs' take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvonclHUpk

Beat me to it, think this proves people wrong who think it isn't legal!

No, actually he does not say that it is legal, he's says that it is on the car and will be through the testing. What he also said is that this is a fairing attached to the wishbone. If this were really the case, then they would not have a structural purpose, and I would imagin that they would have been forbidden.

Scarbs' discussion proves it fits within the rules, but that doesn't mean it's out of scope for rule 3.15 to apply as Mclaren's suspension arms do move and are aerodynamic devices designed in that way specifically to be aerodynamic devices. Traditional suspension components do not go out of their way to be an aerodynamic component. Mclaren could have done this dozens of other ways but they specifically went this route for aero reasons. On top of this, it's an aero component that moves, this is an obvious one to kill IMO.


Remember, the Lotus device was declared legal per the rules and then it was immediately banned when multiple teams made an inquiry with their arguments. Red Bull's inquiry as I understand it to date has just been that, a protest inquiry for clarification of the rules, I'm not certain protests with counter arguments similar to in the Lotus situation have been presented.

Let's see how this is dealt with and I'll go along with whatever the ruling. We're going to see some really odd looking suspension and pickup points going forward if this is legal.

For everyone saying "movable aero" what about winglets on wheels or; all car is actually "movable aero" cause it have suspension.

Ferraripilot wrote: Let's see how this is dealt with and I'll go along with whatever the ruling. We're going to see some really odd looking suspension and pickup points going forward if this is legal.

We already do.
And as for movable aero, again, every wishbone on every car would come under the same ruling, as do every teams brake ducts.
As they are part of the suspension system, they are excluded from the 'movable aero' ruling anyway. The reason Renault's brake system was excluded under that rule was because it was controlling the sprung element of aero, not the unsprung ones.

Ferraripilot wrote:Scarbs' discussion proves it fits within the rules, but that doesn't mean it's out of scope for rule 3.15 to apply as Mclaren's suspension arms do move and are aerodynamic devices designed in that way specifically to be aerodynamic devices. Traditional suspension components do not go out of their way to be an aerodynamic component. Mclaren could have done this dozens of other ways but they specifically went this route for aero reasons. On top of this, it's an aero component that moves, this is an obvious one to kill IMO.

Well, we discussed that before, though those early posts didn't get moved to this thread.

Essentially, the FIA knows well that the suspension bits (and other bits, too) have an aerodynamic effect regardless of how they're shaped. So, they had three choices with the rules: they could just leave it at 3.15 and call it a day; they could prescribe a specific suspension that all teams had to use, or they could give a broader set of parameters and allow the teams to design their own.

Option 1 might sound like a good idea, until you realize that every suspension on every car each and every season would then be open to protests and endless clarifications, and generally just a big waste of everyone's time. Option two is out because the one-size-fits-all approach really doesn't work.

So that leads us to having a set of parameters. And so, if you think of it from the standpoint of logics, what the rules say are: A, the suspension members can't have an aerodynamic effect (3.15); and B, here is how we are going to define a suspension that doesn't have an aerodynamic effect (10.3). So, if you design a suspension that is within the parameters defined in 10.3, it will meet 3.15.

Unfortunately, there is no way in F1 to measure intent. So they don't. They set up rules, and if you meet those rules you're good, regardless of the intent. And each year, they look at the designs and if they're headed in a direction they don't like, then they alter the rules a bit, like they did when they changed 3.15 in order to prohibit the F-ducts.

-----

As for the Renault mass damper thing, we all know that was political and it was a real stretch to define those as moveable aero devices. The odd thing, though, is that their mass damper was obviously moveable ballast, and why they didn't ban it on those grounds is beyond me. It just goes to show how flaky F1 is at times.

zonk wrote:For everyone saying "movable aero" what about winglets on wheels or; all car is actually "movable aero" cause it have suspension.

I'm not "saying" that, that's not the issue here and this generalisation is IMO not correct. Already mentioned primary - secondary function and interpretation of physical objects - it's not "regular" suspension, is it? Is it even questionable that McLaren's additional parts are solely there to affect aero? Examples show they can work backwards from purpose.

Ride height cylinder was also part of suspension, additional and not necessary (like McLaren's) but together doing regular job and approved initially by FIA, It wasn't alien device like mass damper, I think. [CW: What is is? L: Regular suspension part, doing usual stuff, up and down you know CW: Hmm OK, no trickery? L: Noooo, why would there be?] Only later connection was officially made [CW: ...but if you brake, the wing is closer in repeatable manner thus the whole system affect aerodynamics.. and we have these nice rules for that - gotcha!]

Initial legality is not the end of story, it can change, I'm not saying it will here but they don't apply every possible interpretation to declare sth legal.

3.15 was essentially invented to give Charlie carte Blanche in his review and ruling of questionable components. I agree that questioning intent of a regulation is open to interpretation, but digging further I believe yields that there is no interpretation for this situation as the Lotus device showed us last year that a component can clearly be within the rules but 3.15 can be utilized, which it was as it was clearly a device that moved for the benefit of aero. So Yes the butterfly components are correct per the letter of the law (unless they deem the multiple components as unnecessary redundant members thus are structural and illegal) but 3.15 could still easily apply as it did for Lotus and their 'legal' component.


I will wait and see how the arguments stack up to Charlie.

I hate to be dismissive of any arguments, but this "primary/secondary purpose" tack is really silly. There's nothing in the rules about that, no way to define it, no way to measure it, no way to police it, etc, etc, etc.

It's just another way to argue the "spirit of the rules", which we all know carries no weight in F1.

Ferraripilot wrote:3.15 was essentially invented to give Charlie carte Blanche in his review and ruling of questionable components.

Citation needed.

Pup wrote: Unfortunately, there is no way in F1 to measure intent. So they don't. They set up rules, and if you meet those rules you're good, regardless of the intent. And each year, they look at the designs and if they're headed in a direction they don't like, then they alter the rules a bit, like they did when they changed 3.15 in order to prohibit the F-ducts.

Only one small answer (more academic than technical but since nothing else is going on). Of course there is, they measure intent by measuring effects and results. What do you think happened with flexing wings and rules corrections mid-season or ride-height clarification? Sometimes they don't, even if there's a clear intent and result - like with coandas before 2012, F-duct was different, no legal stick to hit McL with except safety. BTW imagine if it was Red Bull before dominating another season, 90% of reactions - they're cheating... .

Ferraripilot wrote:3.15 was essentially invented to give Charlie carte Blanche in his review and ruling of questionable components. I agree that questioning intent of a regulation is open to interpretation, but digging further I believe yields that there is no interpretation for this situation as the Lotus device showed us last year that a component can clearly be within the rules but 3.15 can be utilized, which it was as it was clearly a device that moved for the benefit of aero. So Yes the butterfly components are correct per the letter of the law (unless they deem the multiple components as unnecessary redundant members thus are structural and illegal) but 3.15 could still easily apply as it did for Lotus and their 'legal' component.


I will wait and see how the arguments stack up to Charlie.

you really need to watch the scarbs video, or watch it again if you already have. he says quite literally, "suspension is exempt from the moveable aero rules because it is on the unsprung part of the car."

Keep in mind, this is a guy who has personally discussed this subject with Charlie Whiting, who told scarbs he views it as legal.

Is there any argument regarding the redundancy of the suspension component? Mclaren's arms are not required to be designed like this to function as a suspension arm which is it's primary purpose making any add ons redundancies. The are legal from a size perspective but not from a redundancy perspective.

acosmichippo wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote:3.15 was essentially invented to give Charlie carte Blanche in his review and ruling of questionable components. I agree that questioning intent of a regulation is open to interpretation, but digging further I believe yields that there is no interpretation for this situation as the Lotus device showed us last year that a component can clearly be within the rules but 3.15 can be utilized, which it was as it was clearly a device that moved for the benefit of aero. So Yes the butterfly components are correct per the letter of the law (unless they deem the multiple components as unnecessary redundant members thus are structural and illegal) but 3.15 could still easily apply as it did for Lotus and their 'legal' component.


I will wait and see how the arguments stack up to Charlie.

you really need to watch the scarbs video, or watch it again if you already have. he says quite literally, "suspension is exempt from the moveable aero rules because it is on the unsprung part of the car."

Keep in mind, this is a guy who has personally discussed this subject with Charlie Whiting.

Yes and as I say on the first page of this thread its nothing different from the winglets and diverters teams are running with the front and rear brake ducts and uprights. The purpose of those is also 100% to create downforce but dimension wise they confine with the regulations.

Ferraripilot wrote:Is there any argument regarding the redundancy of the suspension component? Mclaren's arms are not required to be designed like this to function as a suspension arm which is it's primary purpose making any add ons redundancies. The are legal from a size perspective but not from a redundancy perspective.

that is not what redundancy means.

acosmichippo wrote:you really need to watch the scarbs video, or watch it again if you already have. he says quite literally, "suspension is exempt from the moveable aero rules because it is on the unsprung part of the car."

Keep in mind, this is a guy who has personally discussed this subject with Charlie Whiting, who told scarbs he views it as legal.

I don't doubt the legality of the suspension of course, but this particular defense I'm not so sure about. One of the primary purposes of 3.15 is to prohibit anything unsprung from having an aerodynamic influence.

3.15 wrote:...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

I'm not sure if it could be any more clear.

Either Scarbs or Charlie are confused - it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's Charlie.

The question isn't whether the suspension is an aerodynamic device - it is. The question is whether is is one as defined by the rulebook. Per 10.3, it is not.