F1technical.net

PhillipM wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote: If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

You've just outlawed the suspension on every car on the grid.

On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit. Just like every other front brake design showed that Lotus' brake design was not necessary for it to do its job and that its geometry was aimed purely at aero gain.

Of course, you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't think Lotus' brake design should have been banned and neither do I think McLaren should be made to replace their suspension. But the same goes for the FIA: they did ban Lotus' brakes and therefore should ban this suspension.

Whether they will or not is another matter. In the end, nothing goes on those cars that isn't designed with aero in mind, even if that thought is only "shame we can't make it more aerodynamic", making that rule a bit.. odd.

Rikhart wrote:

Ben27 wrote:After a non-running session on Tuesday they told the media After staying in the garage all day long that It was for a hydraulic/electrical problem.
So does that mean the new devised system is hydraulic?
Well, actually it's hydraulic as it works with the suspension indeed however I'm not so sure if this system is legal.
What I know is they are focusing on performance over reliability because the system need to be check out.

There is no "system", it´s only the shape of the suspension.

Very good point. =D>

Ral wrote:
On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit.

Precisely. Mclaren have made their rear suspension to be aerodynamically beneficial first, and as a function of suspension geometry secondary or at least equal. This is opposed to every other team who has made the area of their suspension geometry first and if it offers any aero benefit it is secondary. Mclaren breaches regulation by specifically and consciously going out of their way to design a suspension geometry that is unnecessary as a function of suspension geometry, it offers no gain being where it is in terms of its geometry, its location and design is purely for aerodynamic benefit and completely unnecessary.

For Mclaren to make this legal they would have to successfully argue that their specific suspension system absolutely requires them to mount their suspension arms at their specific current location and the mushrooms are also part of that specific design and are necessary for the suspension to function as a suspension system first, aerodynamic benefit second.

To beat a horse further, the rules clearly indicate a suspensions function is as suspension first and foremost, not aero, and what Mclaren have done is make an unnecessary suspension design for the benefit of aero. Wrong, illegal.

Ferraripilot wrote:...
what Mclaren have done is make an unnecessary suspension design for the benefit of aero. Wrong, illegal.

Like when they used a pull rod layout last year, you mean ?

Ral wrote:

PhillipM wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote: If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

You've just outlawed the suspension on every car on the grid.

On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit. Just like every other front brake design showed that Lotus' brake design was not necessary for it to do its job and that its geometry was aimed purely at aero gain.

Of course, you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't think Lotus' brake design should have been banned and neither do I think McLaren should be made to replace their suspension. But the same goes for the FIA: they did ban Lotus' brakes and therefore should ban this suspension.

Whether they will or not is another matter. In the end, nothing goes on those cars that isn't designed with aero in mind, even if that thought is only "shame we can't make it more aerodynamic", making that rule a bit.. odd.

Then Ferrari's and Caterhams pull-rod suspension should be illegal as well?? All the other teams run push-rod so pull-rod is not necessary and only gives them an aero benefit.

Pull rod suspension is a suspension system first, that's precisely how it must be mounted first, any aero benefit is 100% secondary. Teams using pull rod suspension could not consciously design it to work any other way than how it currently does. The pull rod is also not designed in some fantastical aerodynamic way either.

Mclaren's rear suspension had I'm sure plenty of options, but they consciously went for an aerodynamically beneficial route first, suspension geometry second, because they clearly could have obtained that specific suspension geometry dozens of other ways. The mushroom arms are just icing on this 'aerodynamic first' cake to kick it out of the park.

Ferraripilot wrote:

Ral wrote:
On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit.

Precisely. Mclaren have made their rear suspension to be aerodynamically beneficial first, and as a function of suspension geometry secondary or at least equal. This is opposed to every other team who has made the area of their suspension geometry first and if it offers any aero benefit it is secondary. Mclaren breaches regulation by specifically and consciously going out of their way to design a suspension geometry that is unnecessary as a function of suspension geometry, it offers no gain being where it is in terms of its geometry, its location and design is purely for aerodynamic benefit and completely unnecessary.

For Mclaren to make this legal they would have to successfully argue that their specific suspension system absolutely requires them to mount their suspension arms at their specific current location and the mushrooms are also part of that specific design and are necessary for the suspension to function as a suspension system first, aerodynamic benefit second.

To beat a horse further, the rules clearly indicate a suspensions function is as suspension first and foremost, not aero, and what Mclaren have done is make an unnecessary suspension design for the benefit of aero. Wrong, illegal.

Incorrect. Primary function is suspension. If it wasn't there the car would not be suspended. Shape is within the regs so areo has nothing to do with it. Simple. Read the regs.

In fact read the last sentence you wrote and you are contradicting yourself.

"To beat a horse further, the rules clearly indicate a suspensions function is as suspension first and foremost, not aero, and what Mclaren have done is make an unnecessary suspension design for the benefit of aero"

If other teams were to lodge a protest then McLaren may as well counter protest over the shape of pretty much all rear suspension components across the field. Every team has profiled their components to perform aerodynamically as a secondary purpose - McLaren have just taken the philosophy a step (or two!) further. The front suspension arms are extra wide and flat nowadays to straighten the airflow coming from the top of the front wing; totally aero neutral? Not for me, circular arms would be just as stiff but would not recycle the airflow as effectively so are no longer considered.

Obviously the MP4-29 solution is an extreme interpretation of the rules but so was the Double Diffuser, the F-Duct, the hot-blown EBDs and the various DDRS systems and all of those were allowed to remain on the cars. I just think that any protesting teams could be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they do decide to protest.

Ral wrote:

PhillipM wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote: If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

You've just outlawed the suspension on every car on the grid.

On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit. Just like every other front brake design showed that Lotus' brake design was not necessary for it to do its job and that its geometry was aimed purely at aero gain.

Of course, you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't think Lotus' brake design should have been banned and neither do I think McLaren should be made to replace their suspension. But the same goes for the FIA: they did ban Lotus' brakes and therefore should ban this suspension.

Whether they will or not is another matter. In the end, nothing goes on those cars that isn't designed with aero in mind, even if that thought is only "shame we can't make it more aerodynamic", making that rule a bit.. odd.

If the FIA wants suspension components to be round rods they should just say so. Otherwise, teams will do things like this.

Ferraripilot wrote:Pull rod suspension is a suspension system first, that's precisely how it must be mounted first, any aero benefit is 100% secondary. Teams using pull rod suspension could not consciously design it to work any other way than how it currently does. The pull rod is also not designed in some fantastical aerodynamic way either.

Mclaren's rear suspension had I'm sure plenty of options, but they consciously went for an aerodynamically beneficial route first, suspension geometry second, because they clearly could have obtained that specific suspension geometry dozens of other ways. The mushroom arms are just icing on this 'aerodynamic first' cake to kick it out of the park.

Seriously you are still saying that every suspension on the grid is illegal. Otherwise every wishbone would just be round. A round wishbone would do the job of suspension perfectly. But no cars on the grid runs that. They are all aero shaped. All have this in common. 1. priority suspension. 2. priority aerodynamics. All other teams just focus on cutting drag. And inclining them the legal 5° to create a small amount of downforce. McLarens just make more downforce than the rest.

Ferraripilot wrote:

Ral wrote:
On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit.

Precisely. Mclaren have made their rear suspension to be aerodynamically beneficial first, and as a function of suspension geometry secondary or at least equal. This is opposed to every other team who has made the area of their suspension geometry first and if it offers any aero benefit it is secondary.

Are you blind or have you just not noticed the massively angled front suspension on cars in recent years?

Because that was actually detrimental to both suspension geometry and tyre life. That was aero first and geometry second.
How about shrouding the driveshafts with the wishbones?
The wide planed front lower wishbones that are almost on piece being used a flow straighteners?
Pull rod fronts simply to get cleaner air under the car to the detriment of suspension performance and tub stiffness?

And if FIA hasn't lost all form of reasoning I can only see one thing happening. That is that FIA confirms this suspensions legality and every team will have this solution at some point of the year. Then a clarification of the regulations will be presented for the 2015 season defining the horizontal and vertical dimensions of suspension members.

Jackles-UK wrote:If other teams were to lodge a protest then McLaren may as well counter protest over the shape of pretty much all rear suspension components across the field. Every team has profiled their components to perform aerodynamically as a secondary purpose - McLaren have just taken the philosophy a step (or two!) further. The front suspension arms are extra wide and flat nowadays to straighten the airflow coming from the top of the front wing; totally aero neutral? Not for me, circular arms would be just as stiff but would not recycle the airflow as effectively so are no longer considered.

Obviously the MP4-29 solution is an extreme interpretation of the rules but so was the Double Diffuser, the F-Duct, the hot-blown EBDs and the various DDRS systems and all of those were allowed to remain on the cars. I just think that any protesting teams could be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they do decide to protest.

Agreed, I think they all protest as it's the nature of F1 whenever someone arrives with a clever idea they didn't think of. How many times have F1 teams protested whilst carrying on developing their own version of the clever idea? It's simply a tactic. Or sour grapes.

Alexgtt wrote:
Incorrect. Primary function is suspension. If it wasn't there the car would not be suspended. Shape is within the regs so areo has nothing to do with it. Simple. Read the regs.

It holds the car off the ground with a geometry which was designed for the benefit of aero. Suspension geometry could have been acquired using other mounting methods; therefore, such geometry is ambiguous to being aero. The arms being designed in their current mushroom form have nothing to do with being necessary to function as suspension arms, easy to prove.