F1technical.net

So if the general consensus is that this is deemed legal is it also legal in the sense that it is within the "spirit of the regulations?" Clearly they are using this to generate additional aerodynamic downforce as to recreate the now banned beam wing.

Phillyred wrote:So if the general consensus is that this is deemed legal is it also legal in the sense that it is within the "spirit of the regulations?" Clearly they are using this to generate additional aerodynamic downforce as to recreate the now banned beam wing.

Why is there still debate as to whether it's legal? The FIA have declared it legal.

I thought that Allison and Lowes complaint was that the moveable aero argument is satisfied but rear suspension arms, which typically has four appendages (upper lower x2) can have a max of six ( ). The current arrangement of the Mac appears to have eight (2upper 2lower x2).

cherok1212 wrote:I thought that Allison and Lowes complaint was that the moveable aero argument is satisfied but rear suspension arms, which typically has four appendages (upper lower x2) can have a max of six ( ). The current arrangement of the Mac appears to have eight (2upper 2lower x2).

Blanchimont wrote:"10.3.5
There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.
Redundant suspension members are not permitted."

Edit:
6 = 1 push/pull rod + 1 track rod + 2 wishbones (2 elements each)
6 = 1 + 1 + 2*2

Read the thread before posting, mate!

Phillyred wrote:So if the general consensus is that this is deemed legal is it also legal in the sense that it is within the "spirit of the regulations?" Clearly they are using this to generate additional aerodynamic downforce as to recreate the now banned beam wing.

Every suspension piece on every car helps a little with the aero, they can't get them with that.

Definitely Dragonfly.

Phillyred wrote:So if the general consensus is that this is deemed legal is it also legal in the sense that it is within the "spirit of the regulations?" Clearly they are using this to generate additional aerodynamic downforce as to recreate the now banned beam wing.

It's like déjà vue - 2009 - Brawn 001 with Jenson romping around 0.5 second quicker with most people convinced the DDD was illegal and it wouldn't make Australia or at least be banned by Spain. If it was legal was it within the spirit of the regulations.

Skip forward to 2014 - MP4/29 with Jenson romping around 0.5 seconds quicker .........

Sebp wrote:

cherok1212 wrote:I thought that Allison and Lowes complaint was that the moveable aero argument is satisfied but rear suspension arms, which typically has four appendages (upper lower x2) can have a max of six ( ). The current arrangement of the Mac appears to have eight (2upper 2lower x2).

Blanchimont wrote:"10.3.5
There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.
Redundant suspension members are not permitted."

Edit:
6 = 1 push/pull rod + 1 track rod + 2 wishbones (2 elements each)
6 = 1 + 1 + 2*2

Read the thread before posting, mate!

A quote I read on another F1 site that I believe was attributing it to Newey;Since re-designing the entire rear suspension layout is an arduous task, it comes as no surprise that Red Bull's technical wizard believes McLaren's solution is illegal.

"I have not seen the photos," he said, "but as it is described, it sounds as though there are eight suspension elements, where only six are allowed.

"Moreover, there are clear rules for the width of the suspension."
I hadn't read the entire thread but I didn't know this was brought up before. Also I believe he was referencing the rear legs of the arm assembly are two joined pieces. But imagine Red Bull complaining.

Mclarens suspension could be new '' passive DDRS''. Remember that device? Mercedes never got it right, Lotus spent few years without any result! Mclaren could have huge problems with it! Who knows how will affect air around diffuser ! They could lose much time if doesn't work right!

Hope nothing will come from the protests.
https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

Holm86 wrote:Hope nothing will come from the protests.

https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

Saddly, that's how it works on F1 these days: if a team finds something inovative, protest and demand to make it ilegal

Today nearly 100 laps with no big problems, so it seems the car is quite reliable.

Holm86 wrote:Hope nothing will come from the protests.

https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

I fail to see how you could claim the PRIMARY purpose of rear wishbones was aero-benefit as without them the wheels would surly fall off, and as regards to the size... most teams have suspension parts far wider (if not taller) than necessary to hold the wheels on, surly if 1 team had to change them they'd all have to change them

The weight of the car has increased, they need to that fat to hold the weight of the car.
Other teams should be happy they didn't need to make theirs as big.

the EDGE wrote:

Holm86 wrote:Hope nothing will come from the protests.

https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

I fail to see how you could claim the PRIMARY purpose of rear wishbones was aero-benefit as without them the wheels would surly fall off, and as regards to the size... most teams have suspension parts far wider (if not taller) than necessary to hold the wheels on, surly if 1 team had to change them they'd all have to change them

Every god damn suspension component on an F1 car is designed with aero in mind. Most are just designed to have as little drag as possible. McLaren just made a design within the rules which are capable of creating downforce. I don't see its any different than all those winglets and flow conditioners which are mounted on the brake ducts and uprights.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112365
maybe they should have waited just a little

f1rules wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112365
maybe they should have waited just a little

Yeah I think they showed that way too early. McLaren really is one of the most innovative teams but their innovations are often quickly adapted by the other teams. So quick that McLaren hardly gets an advantage from it.