Jump to content


Photo

Pyrosic and "the index" of banned materials


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 AvranaKern

AvranaKern
  • Member

  • 6,409 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:57

Uuuu AMuS:

McLaren was the most promising rival to Red Bull in the test season. Of which is not much left. The new McLaren MP4-26 is lame, because he rarely comes to driving. There are problems with the front wing and the exhaust.

The latest statements from Lewis Hamilton sound like a cry in the forest. "I am optimistic and hope for positive improvements. Let us keep your fingers crossed that the guys come up with something new. The hill, the need to climb up yet, is steep, but I know we can do it. Last year we had beginning of the season not the fastest car. " Nicely put, marketing experts would applaud.

Unfortunately, only half the story. The McLaren was at its twelve days of testing often and long in the garage, and he was not particularly fast. Hamilton protested: "We are not two seconds away from the top, even though I've never made it under the brand 1.22er But in the endurance tests, the lap times it's okay.." When asked what he expects the McLaren in qualifying trim, "said Matt Hamilton:" A deep 1.22er time. " So a second slower than Michael Schumacher in the Mercedes.
McLaren missing km


The ranking of test miles says it all. In front, Ferrari to 6980 km. McLaren managed barely half that 3602 km on the account. "Far too little," called for Jenson Button. "We are still not all the setup options have played."

Also in the last test week, continued to technical malfunction. Hydraulic leak, a broken exhaust and a security engine change cost valuable time. In between, the wait for replacement parts. McLaren had not kept free on Thursday to secure the parts replenishment.

McLaren in search of the wing-secret
The two largest sites are in the front wing and the exhaust system. McLaren apparently has big problems with the deformation of the front wing. Further indicated by numerous tests. On Friday, the front wing was sprayed the MP4-26 with different colors to trace the flow paths.

Twice appeared the car with a bump on the nose, which had four wing struts connected to the extremities. Meanwhile, it transpired that was hidden under the bulge a servo motor that moved the wing tips up and down, to learn more about the different currents, depending on the bending of the wing.

Known, McLaren had last year offensively policy against Red Bulls operated wing, which lower apparently under heavy load to the end plates toward the street. The same phenomenon was also at the new RB7 observed in the recent test session. An engineer from a competing team said: "It is a science in itself to construct the front wing so that it bends in a controlled McLaren seems to stand in the woods.." Apparently McLaren has already used nine different panel types. The production department is working under high pressure.

Problems even with conventional exhaust
The second controversial issue is the exhaust. On three of four test days with McLaren drove a very conventional system. The tail pipes open into the back part where the rear trim ends and two holes a peek into the inner life are free. So that the exhaust blows very simple diffuser on the roof, as well as Lotus practice and Virgin.

Jenson Button announced on the first day of testing while in between the lines that they wanted to test later in the week with a different arrangement, but that was not seen until Friday afternoon. It was on Wednesday that is providing a renewed damage to the exhaust. What would you want to experiment with large, when there is already a simple solution for trouble?

FIA bans tailpipe from Pyrosic
Where exactly is the cause of the disease was exhaust, not to learn at McLaren. May cause the hot gases burn in the area. The FIA, the teams recently warned in a newsletter that could be used exclusively as the miracle material Pyrosic protection from heat damage.

Some teams had at the French producers have asked if they could produce all the tailpipes of Pyrosic. The rejects from the World Federation for cost reasons. "The material is actually on the index, 'warned the FIA ​​race director Charlie Whiting. A pipe from Pyrosic would cost, together with the tools to be created 20,000 euros.

http://www.auto-moto...el-3543640.html

Advertisement

#2 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 12:31

Well it's pity they can't use PyroSic, it seems ideal...
http://www.high-temp...ic-pyrokarb.htm


#3 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 15 March 2011 - 12:41

Well it's pity they can't use PyroSic, it seems ideal...
http://www.high-temp...ic-pyrokarb.htm

Pyrosic is already used by teams to insulate the floors from burning, with the introduction of EBD. Very expensive material apparently, as Pyrosic are the sole supplier in the world.

I don't believe AMuS's story about problems with the frontwing though. McLaren are merely experimenting with different builds to see how they flex. Same experiment RedBull did 2 years ago before they introduced their flexing wing.

Edited by Timstr11, 15 March 2011 - 12:42.


#4 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 12:59

Pyrosic is already used by teams to insulate the floors from burning, with the introduction of EBD. Very expensive material apparently, as Pyrosic are the sole supplier in the world.


Oh, what's that quote from Whiting then about PyroSic being on "the index"? It sounded like 'index of banned materials'.



#5 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:11

Oh, what's that quote from Whiting then about PyroSic being on "the index"? It sounded like 'index of banned materials'.


Is there an idex of banned materials and if so, where can it be found? Anyway, it didn't seem to have solved reported Mclaren heating problems.

Edited by femi, 15 March 2011 - 13:12.


#6 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:15

Oh, what's that quote from Whiting then about PyroSic being on "the index"? It sounded like 'index of banned materials'.


There is a whole bunch of matrix composites & alloys including Beryllium, Iridium and Rhenium that's are not permitted for use in the Engine. You can try and argure a Loophole and argue that the exhaust plenum is now a part of the floor assembly. Coatings are permitted in some circumstances.

#7 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:16

Pyrosic is already used by teams to insulate the floors from burning, with the introduction of EBD. Very expensive material apparently, as Pyromeral is the sole supplier in the world.

I don't believe AMuS's story about problems with the frontwing though. McLaren are merely experimenting with different builds to see how they flex. Same experiment RedBull did 2 years ago before they introduced their flexing wing.

fixed ;)

#8 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:18

I had a quick squit at tech regs online so may have missed something, but I never noticed an 'Index' as such

ARTICLE 15 : CAR CONSTRUCTION
15.1 Materials :
15.1.1 The use of magnesium sheet less than 3mm thick is forbidden.
15.1.2 No parts of the car may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater
than 40 GPa / (g/cm3). Tests to establish conformity will be carried out in accordance with FIA Test
Procedure 03/02, a copy of which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

Elsewhere there is a specific approved material for the fuel bladder, plus section which prohibits composite engines, plus few other bits and pieces.

#9 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:19

There is a whole bunch of matrix composites & alloys including Beryllium, Iridium and Rhenium that's are not permitted for use in the Engine. You can try and argure a Loophole and argue that the exhaust plenum is now a part of the floor assembly. Coatings are permitted in some circumstances.


Agreed, one can use that argument as long as FIA definition of car engine does not include the exhaust pipes.

#10 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 7,972 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:20

Just buy the company or headhunt some of its leading technicians,

#11 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:20

There is a whole bunch of matrix composites & alloys including Beryllium, Iridium and Rhenium that's are not permitted for use in the Engine. You can try and argure a Loophole and argue that the exhaust plenum is now a part of the floor assembly. Coatings are permitted in some circumstances.


Ahhhh from the horses mouth LOL

Edited by Stormsky68, 15 March 2011 - 13:32.


#12 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:20

Is there an idex of banned materials and if so, where can it be found? Anyway, it didn't seem to have solved reported Mclaren heating problems.

Nope there's a list of permitted materials and there are some things excepted from it like coatings and heat shields hence entire exhausts not being allowed.
Just check the FIA F1 technical regulations for "permitted materials".

#13 Flojoe

Flojoe
  • Member

  • 294 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:20

There is a whole bunch of matrix composites & alloys including Beryllium, Iridium and Rhenium that's are not permitted for use in the Engine. You can try and argure a Loophole and argue that the exhaust plenum is now a part of the floor assembly. Coatings are permitted in some circumstances.


@ATM_Andy...any reason to be optimistic come Australia next week??? are you expecting any major upgrades for the race and any further progress witht he exhaust issues....am sorry asking all at a go....but am sure everyone on here is desperate for some news....

#14 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:22

Is there an idex of banned materials and if so, where can it be found? Anyway, it didn't seem to have solved reported Mclaren heating problems.


This is the babelfish translation:

"FIA forbids exhaust final pipe from Pyrosic Where exactly the cause of the exhaust epidemic lies, was not to be experienced with McLaren. Possibly the hot gases cause burns in the environment. The FIA warned the teams recently in a circular that the surprising off Pyrosic may be used exclusively as protection before heat damages. Some teams had already inquired with the French manufacturer whether one could manufacture whole final pipes from Pyrosic. That rejects the world union from cost reasons. " The material actually stands on the Index" , FIA Rennleiter Charlie Whiting warned. A final pipe from Pyrosic would cost tools which can be provided including 20,000 euros."

So it sounds like maybe the Index means they have to get permission. And Charlie has banned it from the tailpipes and from being used for the whole exhaust pipe.

So maybe it's not banned from the manifold end of it. But the story doesn't obviously fit with the one about machining parts from steel billet, that keep cracking with heat and vibration.

Ah, just seeing ATM_Andy's post... :up:

#15 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:22

Just buy the company or headhunt some of its leading technicians,


Why bother to pay so much for insulation heat resisting and insulating material. procuring NASA's services will not only be far cheaper and effective, it will yeild results way quicker.

#16 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 7,972 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:27

what ever it takes to get this team back on track, if its nasa or whoever

#17 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:31

CMSX alloy is quite intresting, it uses Rhenium at less than 5% bv.

#18 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:36

CMSX alloy is quite intresting, it uses Rhenium at less than 5% bv.


Oooh, so it is...

"CMSX-4 alloy successfully for turbine blade applications. CMSX-4 alloy is a second-generation nickel-base single-crystal superalloy containing 3 percent (wt) rhenium (Re) and 70 percent volume fraction of the coherent γ' precipitate strengthening phase. Its finely balanced composition offers an attractive range of properties for turbine airfoil applications. In particular the alloy's combination of high strength in relation to creep-rupture, mechanical and thermal fatigue, good phase stability following extensive high temperature, stressed exposure and oxidation, hot corrosion and coating performance,"
http://cat.inist.fr/...&cpsidt=3067647

Hey I want some of this in the MP4-26 :D

#19 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:42

Oooh, so it is...

"CMSX-4 alloy successfully for turbine blade applications. CMSX-4 alloy is a second-generation nickel-base single-crystal superalloy containing 3 percent (wt) rhenium (Re) and 70 percent volume fraction of the coherent γ' precipitate strengthening phase. Its finely balanced composition offers an attractive range of properties for turbine airfoil applications. In particular the alloy's combination of high strength in relation to creep-rupture, mechanical and thermal fatigue, good phase stability following extensive high temperature, stressed exposure and oxidation, hot corrosion and coating performance,"
http://cat.inist.fr/...&cpsidt=3067647

Hey I want some of this in the MP4-26 :D


That info is from Andy. It kind of make me doubt that the difficult to solve problem the car is reported to have could be very wrong. What's going on?

Edited by femi, 15 March 2011 - 13:42.


Advertisement

#20 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 13:50

That info is from Andy. It kind of make me doubt that the difficult to solve problem the car is reported to have could be very wrong. What's going on?


Well I'm encouraged that Andy is around and feeling playful :cool: .

And the novelty of the problem ought to be a sign that the design is breaking some new ground.

Plus there could well be a solution in the factory while the media is out of date. CMSX superalloy could be the solution, or it could be an obsolete thing that they tried and have now improved on.

So for me, grounds for hope. Though I am looking for hope...

#21 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 14:30

Please keep to the topic

"Pyrosic and "the index" of banned materials"

#22 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 15 March 2011 - 15:01

I had a quick squit at tech regs online so may have missed something, but I never noticed an 'Index' as such

ARTICLE 15 : CAR CONSTRUCTION
15.1 Materials :
15.1.1 The use of magnesium sheet less than 3mm thick is forbidden.
15.1.2 No parts of the car may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater
than 40 GPa / (g/cm3). Tests to establish conformity will be carried out in accordance with FIA Test
Procedure 03/02, a copy of which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

Elsewhere there is a specific approved material for the fuel bladder, plus section which prohibits composite engines, plus few other bits and pieces.

There are so many side documents to the F1 regs we don't get to see.

#23 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 15 March 2011 - 15:06

There is a whole bunch of matrix composites & alloys including Beryllium, Iridium and Rhenium that's are not permitted for use in the Engine. You can try and argure a Loophole and argue that the exhaust plenum is now a part of the floor assembly. Coatings are permitted in some circumstances.

So Pyrosic is some metal matrix composite containing one of the 'Index' alloys?

It would be stretching it to argue that exhausts are an extension of the floor, rather then the engine.
...Hope Mclaren was not relying on Pyrosic for the exhausts.

Edited by Timstr11, 15 March 2011 - 15:07.


#24 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 March 2011 - 15:21

So Pyrosic is some metal matrix composite containing one of the 'Index' alloys?

It would be stretching it to argue that exhausts are an extension of the floor, rather then the engine.
...Hope Mclaren was not relying on Pyrosic for the exhausts.


A stretch is a stretch isn't it? I never heard of anyone buying an engine with the exhaust supplied as an integral part. They are very separate car components and I very much doubt the FIA has a different view, in fact I can't find any.

#25 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,752 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 March 2011 - 15:59

A stretch is a stretch isn't it? I never heard of anyone buying an engine with the exhaust supplied as an integral part. They are very separate car components and I very much doubt the FIA has a different view, in fact I can't find any.


A slot and a hole were a strech but the FIA said okay... Flexable bodywork is literally a strech but okay...

#26 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 15 March 2011 - 18:38

I'm pretty sure 20,000 euros is not that far off of the cost of a handmade titanium exhaust for a F1 engine.

Beryllium was one of the reasons why engines could hit 20,000rpm -but it's super toxic stuff.

#27 x-ondrasek

x-ondrasek
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 March 2011 - 18:51

So Pyrosic is some metal matrix composite containing one of the 'Index' alloys?

It would be stretching it to argue that exhausts are an extension of the floor, rather then the engine.
...Hope Mclaren was not relying on Pyrosic for the exhausts.


It's a glass-ceramic matrix composite, but it could be on the index nevertheless.

I think this is quite interesting

However, the tests also showed that the attachments used to connect the composite exhaust components to metal parts (e.g. headers or engines) should be carefully designed, as cracking around the attachments is generally the main cause for failure.

http://www.high-temp...53-dec-2009.pdf

Maybe they use PyroSic for the "floor part" of the exhaust as Andy hinted, but suffer from cracking at the transition to the normal exhaust pipes.

Edited by x-ondrasek, 15 March 2011 - 18:52.


#28 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 15 March 2011 - 20:11

What the Hell is Pyrosic

Posted Image



#29 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:02

According to Petr Hlawiczka (f1news.cz) :

McLaren weren't allowed to produce exhausts from PyroSic.

Edited by hunnylander, 16 March 2011 - 15:58.


#30 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:08

According to Petr Hlawiczka (f1newz.cz) :

McLaren weren't allowed to produce exhausts from PyroSic.


That doesn't quite tally with Andy's comments yesterday and reading more about the use of the product, it is not new to F1.

Edited by femi, 16 March 2011 - 15:11.


#31 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,752 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:26

That doesn't quite tally with Andy's comments yesterday and reading more about the use of the product, it is not new to F1.


I think it completly tallys - Macca truied to exploit a loophole and were told to F-O...

#32 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:26

That doesn't quite tally with Andy's comments yesterday and reading more about the use of the product, it is not new to F1.

whole exhaust from PyroSic which they were not allowed - Petr

#33 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 8,288 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:30

whole exhaust from PyroSic which they were not allowed - Petr


Well, this is a massive blow. It really does make sense to me the comment that Mclaren engineers don't know what to do. The FIA well and trully shafted them.

Edited by femi, 16 March 2011 - 15:34.


#34 Spa95

Spa95
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:30

AMuS already reported this yesterday. :yawnface:

#35 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 3,692 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:34

I think it completly tallys - Macca truied to exploit a loophole and were told to F-O...


Is this the root of their problems?

#36 skonesit

skonesit
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:40

According to Petr Hlawiczka (f1newz.cz) :

McLaren weren't allowed to produce exhausts from PyroSic.


This adds up nicely to what Ross Brawn said:

There have been clarifications in the last week or two about the materials and one or two other things, but they are not really that controversial.


If it is true, the question is whether PyroSic was McLaren's original solution, later forbidden and replaced with traditional materials (hence all the problems). Or did PyroSic came up as one possible solution as a result of problems at the tests. I believe it's the latter, McLaren traditionally wait for all-clear from FIA before bringing anything into final car design.
What worries me is that McLaren seeking advanced materials may indicate that they ran out of options with what is allowed. Not a very good position to be in. On the bright side - if McLaren start their season with simplistic exhausts (and I believe they will), there is potentially a lot of performance waiting to be unlocked later on ;)

#37 Jamiednm

Jamiednm
  • Member

  • 2,546 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:51

The McLaren website had a banner on the homepage in the days leading up to the '26 launch - if I remember it correctly, it was an image of the MP4-1 (first carbon fibre F1 car?). Was this a hint that McLaren would be using a previously unused material in F1 (or using a common material in a more significant way) that would become F1-standard because of the advantage given?? If this is the case then they obviously are relying very heavily on this feature. If it is Pyrosic and its usage in this way has been banned then the 26 concept is probably a write off.

Edited by Jamiednm, 16 March 2011 - 15:52.


#38 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:52

I think they started with a relatively common steel to test the concept, run into problems, asked the FIA for a ruling on PyroSic, got it, and have moved onto other options (Andy dropped CMSX into the thread) Rather ironically I suspect a CMSX - type solid maching may turn out more expensive than PryoSic, even though the FIA ruling was made for cost reasons.

Edited by Stormsky68, 16 March 2011 - 15:55.


#39 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:56

Well, this is a massive blow. It really does make sense to me the comment that Mclaren engineers don't know what to do. The FIA well and trully shafted them.


Yeah, if that quote about it being banned for costing €20k is right, it is a shafting, €20k for an exhaust isn't that much.

And ATM_Andy's post, plus that quote from the regs, Art 15 IIRC, seemed to say that 'the index' is just about materials used in the engine, anyway :confused: .

Advertisement

#40 werks prototype

werks prototype
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:57

That doesn't quite tally with Andy's comments yesterday and reading more about the use of the product, it is not new to F1.


That is right.

Firstly, he has recently mentioned Alloys, either here or elsewhere. And secondly, the radio clip, specifically mentions the difficult manufacturing of a metal part. I speculated some form of 'fixture'.

PyroSic is neither new to F1 nor is it a metal.

It is a funny old business. McLaren are very quite though. I hope it is a quite confidence.

I have a feeling that clarification was asked for, with either the use of PyroSic as an insert, to line the inside of the proposed exhaust, or probably more likely for PyroSic to be used as a fixture between the exhaust and the bodywork.

Edited by werks prototype, 16 March 2011 - 16:01.


#41 Jamiednm

Jamiednm
  • Member

  • 2,546 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:58

That is right.

Firstly, he has recently mentioned Alloys, either here or elsewhere. And secondly, the radio clip, specifically mention the difficult manufacturing of a metal part. I speculated some form of 'fixture'.

PyroSic is neither new to F1 nor is it a metal.

It is a funny old business. McLaren are very quite though. I hope it is a quite confidence.


Yep, I only got test report emails off them from the first test. No word since!

#42 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 16 March 2011 - 15:59

Brawn on exhausts (autosport article):

"There have been clarifications in the last week or two about the materials and one or two other things, but they are not really that controversial."

Edited by F.M., 16 March 2011 - 16:00.


#43 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,752 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:10

Yeah, if that quote about it being banned for costing €20k is right, it is a shafting, €20k for an exhaust isn't that much.

And ATM_Andy's post, plus that quote from the regs, Art 15 IIRC, seemed to say that 'the index' is just about materials used in the engine, anyway :confused: .


I guess the exhaust is part of the engine.

#44 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,500 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:11

I guess the exhaust is part of the engine.


or is it the floor these days?;)

#45 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 5,373 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:13

Well, this is a massive blow. It really does make sense to me the comment that Mclaren engineers don't know what to do. The FIA well and trully shafted them.

So now it's the FIA's fault? :drunk:

#46 ArtShelley

ArtShelley
  • Member

  • 3,560 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:13

In terms of safety, we are lucky to have the modern era of the FIA. In terms of innovation, we are unlucky. If the FIA of today were present at the time, McLaren would never have been able to introduce the carbonfibre chassis that we take for granted now. The cost of carbonfibre has come down by leaps and bounds compared to decades ago. F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport. A showcase for technology. I am not saying that is not the case anymore. It is, but I don't think as much as it could be. I ask again, would the FIA of today have allowed something so innovative, expensive and extravagant as what the carbonfibre chassis was at the time it was first introduced? Of course not, we would still be running with alloy spaceframes.

#47 werks prototype

werks prototype
  • Member

  • 7,211 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:18

or is it the floor these days?;)


You know we won't really find out anything in that department until one of the drivers has an off, sufficient enough that we get to see the poor bloody MP4-26 hanging from a crane on the back of a tow truck!

Even then, PyroSic would have looked very much like Carbon Fibre.

#48 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:22

And ATM_Andy's post, plus that quote from the regs, Art 15 IIRC, seemed to say that 'the index' is just about materials used in the engine, anyway :confused: .

What was that post from Andy? I missed to see that, it's got deleted probably.

#49 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 11,564 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:30

So now it's the FIA's fault? :drunk:

:rotfl: :up:

I bet we are gonna hear more of the McLaren getting shafted by the FIA. Also £20K for a small team is great deal of money.

I'm not a fan of the RRA and cost cutting measures for this very reason, and also because it makes F1 accessible to any fool with a big bank balance. Mostly it hampers new technologies and innovations from being introduced, but it is what it is and McLaren will now have to make another plan.

#50 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 March 2011 - 16:34

Well, this is a massive blow. It really does make sense to me the comment that Mclaren engineers don't know what to do. The FIA well and trully shafted them.

I think Matrix Composites are banned from use in engines.
If exhaust headers are seen as part of the engine, you can't use Matrix Composites.
If exhausts are seen as part of the bodywork (floor) then it would be possible I think.
I'm sure many will agree that arguing that exhausts should be seen as bodywork is just ludricous.
However, as a previous poster already said, I don't think McLaren were counting on using PyroSic as headers initially, but may have asked for clarification when looking for a solution to their problem.

Edited by Timstr11, 16 March 2011 - 16:35.