476 replies to this topic

[Jvr]

http://www.f1analisi...ificare-le.html

 

They claim Charlie has sent a letter to all teams to clarify some grey areas and as a result RB need to pretty much redesign all their front and rear suspension.

 

Autosport: Ferrari letter prompts row over 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

 

Leading Formula 1 teams could be forced to revise their suspension systems on the eve of the 2017 season following a Ferrari query over technology pioneered by Mercedes.

[Timstr11]

http://www.f1analisi...ificare-le.html

They claim Charlie has sent a letter to all teams to clarify some grey areas and as a result RB need to pretty much redesign all their front and rear suspension.

Interesting. Risky approach by RB by not asking clarification first. I wonder how much the high rake concept RB will retain given that drag levels will increase considerably.

[lio007]

http://www.f1analisi...ificare-le.html

They claim Charlie has sent a letter to all teams to clarify some grey areas and as a result RB need to pretty much redesign all their front and rear suspension.

OMG, I can't believe it!
I hope there is no truth behind this report!

[FPV GTHO]

Interesting. Risky approach by RB by not asking clarification first. I wonder how much the high rake concept RB will retain given that drag levels will increase considerably.

The high rake favours a higher drag formula. The tea tray on the front will be shorter as well, so they could increase the rake further.

[Timstr11]

The high rake favours a higher drag formula. The tea tray on the front will be shorter as well, so they could increase the rake further.

 

But if they can't get the rear suspension to compress to the extent needed to shed drag, they will end up with very draggy car on the straights.

[David1976]

http://www.f1analisi...ificare-le.html
 
They claim Charlie has sent a letter to all teams to clarify some grey areas and as a result RB need to pretty much redesign all their front and rear suspension.

So what exactly is being said in this article?

[Jvr]

So what exactly is being said in this article?

• Some team (they suspect Merc) has asked FIA to clarify some gray areas in 2017 regulation related to bodywork around suspension
• Charlie has responded about two weeks before Christmas to give FIA's interpretation
• RB had developed 2017 challenger rather a long way and sent already suspension parts to be manufactured in November
• Charlie's response has caught them by surprise and RB need to redesign their front and rear suspension from scratch
• Rest is description what RB was using last year as a suspension concept where the rear lowers down in straights to change the rake angle so that front and rear wings became less draggy but in the slow corners the suspension was back in higher position to give better downforce.
• They try to seek more information and will be back once they know more

[jcpower13]

Sounds like Red Bull thought they were the only ones to see the suspension loophole and it backfired when someone else spotted it too but knew they could not exploit it in time for the season so asked for clarification to head off their rivals. You'd think though that Red Bull would've made sure they had a 'plan B' just in case someone saw the same loophole they did.

[Marklar]

Row brewing over F1 suspension designs after Ferrari writes to FIA to query tech pioneered by Mercedes

https://www.autospor...-suspension-row

In a letter to F1 race director Charlie Whiting, circulated to all teams, Ferrari's chief designer Simone Resta said his team was considering a system that could replicate FRIC without a physical connection between the front and the rear of the car.

The issue was whether these systems breached the catch-all article 3.15 of F1's technical regulations that effectively outlaws moveable aerodynamic devices, as they could help the car's aerodynamic characteristics.[...]

Whiting responded that any suspension system that acted in such a way was not in compliance with the regulations.

"In our view any suspension system which was capable of altering the response of a cars' suspension system in the way you describe in paragraphs 1) and 2) would be likely to contravene article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations," he wrote.

Although Whiting's response would appear to outlaw the use of the trick suspension technology, it is understood teams affected have queried the situation.

As talks continue, any team running a device that could be interpreted as breaching the rules now faces a dilemma over whether to commit to it in its 2017 design but risk a final ruling outlawing the concept, or pursue an alternative system that may not be as competitive.

More in the article, including the whole letter.

[ConsiderAndGo]

Row brewing over F1 suspension designs after Ferrari writes to FIA to query tech pioneered by Mercedes

https://www.autospor...-suspension-row

More in the article, including the whole letter.

Fair enough. No point in pouring a lot of money into something that's going to be outlawed in Melbourne.

 

Don't really see this as Ferrari starting a 'row'. The FIA will either say its fine, or tell Merc and RB to remove it, with the former being highly likely.

Edited by ConsiderAndGo, 03 January 2017 - 11:39.

[Timstr11]

Fair enough. No point in pouring a lot of money into something that's going to be outlawed in Melbourne.

 

Don't really see this as Ferrari starting a 'row'. The FIA will either say its fine, or tell Merc and RB to remove it.

Or Ferrari understanding the concept now, but having trouble designing a working system and hence trying to get it outlawed...

Edited by Timstr11, 03 January 2017 - 11:44.

[ConsiderAndGo]

Or Ferrari understanding the concept now, but having trouble designing a working system and hence trying to get it outlawed...

 

That's a given haha as Ferrari are pretty useless.

[Clatter]

I've never really understood why Whiting allowed the frick suspension in the first place. It was obvously trying to recreate the effects of an active suspension and could easily have been banned using the same ruling that he used to ban the TMD.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Can't Ferrari get it working?

 

Leading Formula 1 teams could be forced to revise their suspension systems on the eve of the 2017 season following a Ferrari query over technology pioneered by Mercedes.

 

Resta specified that Ferrari's concern was over components that exhibited either:

"1) displacement in a direction opposed to the applied load over some or all of its travel, regardless of the source of the stored energy used to achieve this.

"Or

"2) a means by which some of the energy recovered from the forces and displacements at the wheel can be stored for release at a later time to extend a spring seat or other parts of the suspension assembly whose movement is not defined by the principally vertical suspension travel of the two wheels."

 

Whiting responded that any suspension system that acted in such a way was not in compliance with the regulations.

"In our view any suspension system which was capable of altering the response of a cars' suspension system in the way you describe in paragraphs 1) and 2) would be likely to contravene article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations," he wrote.

Although Whiting's response would appear to outlaw the use of the trick suspension technology, it is understood teams affected have queried the situation.

 

 

Source: Autosport+

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 January 2017 - 12:14.

[shonguiz]

Either that or they finally undestood that it takes a lot to make it work and do not wwant t commit if they think it will be bannned in the short term.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Looks and smells more like sour grapes to me, especially doing it this late into the 2017 design process...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Either that or they finally undestood that it takes a lot to make it work and do not wwant t commit if they think it will be bannned in the short term.

Unlikely as Red Bull didn't complain...

[shonguiz]

Red bull has already started deploying it in 2016, they know the basics and only have to perfect it.

[f1paul]

[superden]

Looks and smells more like sour grapes to me, especially doing it this late into the 2017 design process...

It just sounds like a team that, either due to technical difficulties or a desire to sidestep developing components that may well end up being banned, are looking to create the best scenario for their own interests. It's not new and all teams are guilty of doing it from time to time. Less sour grapes and more seeking any possible advantage. If it were a back marker team lodging the complaint and not Ferrari, I doubt they'd cop as much flack over querying FRIC ...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It just sounds like a team that, either due to technical difficulties or a desire to sidestep developing components that may well end up being banned, are looking to create the best scenario for their own interests. It's not new and all teams are guilty of doing it from time to time. Less sour grapes and more seeking any possible advantage. If it were a back marker team lodging the complaint and not Ferrari, I doubt they'd cop as much flack over querying FRIC ...

If that was the case, why did neither Mercedes or Red Bull query it instead of creating there own system(s)?

[Marklar]

Craig Scarborough‏ @ScarbsTech
FIA bans Mercedes trick 'energy recovery' suspension introduced mid 2016 as having primarily an aerodynamic influence

Someone asked if this is official

Craig Scarborough‏ @ScarbsTech
@snn_ozr the clarification on this sort of suspension is official

Craig Scarborough‏ @ScarbsTech
@rileykirn its been ongoing since the last GP so no huge surprise

Craig Scarborough‏ @ScarbsTech
@VinGee28 it will affect 2017. It takes time to understand these systems

[Garagista]

Because now it will be a disvantage for Red Bulls and Mercedes car development! Nothing better than killing 2 birds with 1 stone!

[P123]

Just the norm for F1: team spots something on a competitor's car so asks for clarification in hope of getting it outlawed. Getting it canned would save Ferrari a lot of time and money in coming up with their own system, and hopefully hinder the competition. So win-win. But the influence of FRIC in terms of the competitive order was shown to be wildly over-estimated once it was banned anyway, and there was shorter notice for teams to react with that.

[Clatter]

Looks and smells more like sour grapes to me, especially doing it this late into the 2017 design process...

They should have waited until the last day of testing and then got it banned.

[Marklar]

But the influence of FRIC in terms of the competitive order was shown to be wildly over-estimated once it was banned anyway, and there was shorter notice for teams to react with that.

It was reported that Mercedes introduced the final version of this system (they already introduced it at the end of 2015) during the European GP which suddenly increased their advantage over the others. Also GPS data would indicate that the majority of their advantage is down to the cars behaviour under direction changes. It *could* be significant.

(The thing is that everyone had FRIC back then, but just Merc & RBR have this system now)

Edited by Marklar, 03 January 2017 - 13:11.

[shonguiz]

They should have waited until the last day of testing and then got it banned.

It would have transformed into a mainly political matter then instead of a sporting one.

[Wuzak]

It just sounds like a team that, either due to technical difficulties or a desire to sidestep developing components that may well end up being banned, are looking to create the best scenario for their own interests. It's not new and all teams are guilty of doing it from time to time. Less sour grapes and more seeking any possible advantage. If it were a back marker team lodging the complaint and not Ferrari, I doubt they'd cop as much flack over querying FRIC ...

 

It seems like a team questioning the legality of a system used on other cars. And being right.

[ConsiderAndGo]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsTech  47m

47 minutes ago

FIA bans Mercedes trick 'energy recovery' suspension introduced mid 2016 as having primarily an aerodynamic influence

[Vesuvius]

Well played Ferrari, hopefully this will bring them to same level with Mercedes and Red Bull.

Both Mercedes and Red Bull are likely in trouble now as their cars are designed around this suspension system, it's not just simple take it off and use other kind of suspensios, they will have to redesing lots of other things as well.

[Lotus53B]

This is farking ludicrous - what is the point of mandating temperamental space age engines when you are going to keep other things, e.g. suspension, equally applicable to real world vehicles, in the stone age?

[CPR]

As far as I understand it, the basics of this are: the suspension should just be doing the job of the suspension - any aero benefits should be more like a lucky side effect rather than the primary purpose.

 

The devil in the detail is where to draw the line between "lucky side effect" and "primary purpose". So what Ferrari's letter is effectively asking for is "which side of the line does [x]" fall on. Whether that affects any other teams would depend upon what the other teams are really doing. Teams that have been playing it safe with the rules would likely be unaffected while teams that have been pushing the boundaries in this area might need to either reign them back or remove them entirely - but that would depend on what each team are specifically doing. I wouldn't necessarily assume that this is guaranteed to affect some specific teams and not affect other teams.

 

With heavier tyres and so on, I suspect that suspension systems will be more important in 2017 than they were in 2016. Probably won't be the last such clarification...

[RECKLESS]

Woohoo. Go Ferrari!    Hope this helps level the competition up front.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Just ban those naughty suspensions. I hope McLaren to be among beneficiaries because of banning 

Edited by RYARLE, 03 January 2017 - 14:08.

[blacky]

Both Mercedes and Red Bull are likely in trouble now as their cars are designed around this suspension system, it's not just simple take it off and use other kind of suspensios, they will have to redesing lots of other things as well.

 

Auto-Motor-Sport wrote already in September that in Monza teams will sit together and debate about the system and the trick how they hide it in the chassis section. So it is for sure no surprise for Mercedes and RBR.

[screamingV16]

Maybe Ferrari should concentrate on innovating and finding their own solution to steal a march on the rest of the pack. This just sounds like they're readying themselves for another season of fail.

[David1976]

Merc were doing pretty well prior to this innovation so I'd be surprised if it has a huge affect on the pecking order.

[f1paul]

Force India and Sergio Perez-Constructors & Drivers Champions 2017! 

[Jvr]

Merc and RB still have the hydraulic suspension that is legal. Ferrari did not manage introduce that last year. This energy recovering part is an extension to that so expect that RB and Merc still have superior suspension compared with Ferrari, unfortunately.

[Ali_G]

I've never really understood why Whiting allowed the frick suspension in the first place. It was obvously trying to recreate the effects of an active suspension and could easily have been banned using the same ruling that he used to ban the TMD.

Because FRIC was completely passive, that's why.

[Dabash]

What will really be funny is after banning this so called system Mercedes and Red bull turnup in Australia and blitz Ferrari by 1 sec in qualifying. I remember when they banned FRIC and everyone thought Mercedes would lose their advantage.

 

 

All will be revealed in Aus I guess

Edited by Dabash, 03 January 2017 - 15:42.

[Smiley]

Woohoo. Go Ferrari!    Hope this helps level the competition up front.

Don't you think its sad to stop other peoples "inventions" so you can take part in the competition up front? Its like where I live, if you can't pass your school year, don't worry, next year we will lower the standard

[Dabash]

I've never really understood why Whiting allowed the frick suspension in the first place. It was obvously trying to recreate the effects of an active suspension and could easily have been banned using the same ruling that he used to ban the TMD.

 

 

I thought they banned the FRIC

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Ferrari or any team is right to ask for more clarifications regarding regulations. Watching other teams is part of the game.

[Clatter]

Because FRIC was completely passive, that's why.

TMD wasn't in the air flow, but was deemed an aero device, Frick could be banned in the same way.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

This is ridiculous if they have banned it this late into the design process...

 

as this late change could cause a major design/chassis problem! Pretty unfair really, unless the teams knew it was coming behind the scenes...

[Ali_G]

TMD wasn't in the air flow, but was deemed an aero device, Frick could be banned in the same way.

The FIA's argument is as ridiculous now as it was then.

[OO7]

TMD wasn't in the air flow, but was deemed an aero device, Frick could be banned in the same way.

It may have been banned as movable ballast.

[Jordan44]

Well played Ferrari, hopefully this will bring them to same level with Mercedes and Red Bull.

Both Mercedes and Red Bull are likely in trouble now as their cars are designed around this suspension system, it's not just simple take it off and use other kind of suspensios, they will have to redesing lots of other things as well.

 

I seem to recall this is what many said when FRIC was outlawed.

[redreni]

Interesting. Risky approach by RB by not asking clarification first. I wonder how much the high rake concept RB will retain given that drag levels will increase considerably.

 

Risky but potentially rewarding. If the double diffuser teams had gone to the FIA in December 2008 and said "hey, Charlie, is this okay", he would almost certainly have said no. And the other teams didn't query it because (a) they hadn't thought of it and (b) they possibly weren't paying too much attention to what teams like Honda and Red Bull were doing. What had they ever achieved?

 

Hopefully this shows Ferrari is at least paying attention.