21 replies to this topic

[Ali_G]

A quick question.

My knowledge of FRIC is that it was a passive hydraulic system which linked the front and rear suspension in order to reduce pitch. It was banned by the FIA as a moveable aerodynamic device.

So, the anti roll bar instead of linking the front to the rear suspension, links the left to the right suspension. It's job is to reduce roll instead of pitch. Given the FIA's judgement on FRIC, why is the anti roll bar still legal. The only difference is that it isn't done via hydraulics. It certainly affects the aerodynamics of the car and should be viewed as a moveable aero device if FRIC is surely?

[Wuzak]

The anti-roll bar's job is to ensure that both wheels stay in contact with the road. So it is primarily performing the role of suspension.

[Ali_G]

The anti-roll bar's job is to ensure that both wheels stay in contact with the road. So it is primarily performing the role of suspension.

But doesn't it really reduce body roll which aids the suspension in maintaining contact with the road.

The anti roll bar isn't acting on the wheel or the rest of the suspension per say?

Edited by Ali_G, 04 January 2017 - 12:43.

[Wuzak]

But doesn't it really reduce body roll which aids the suspension in maintaining contact with the road.

The anti roll bar isn't acting on the wheel or the rest of the suspension per say?

 

Yes, it is.

 

[munks]

Also, roll doesn't affect aerodynamics nearly as much as pitch (i.e. rake) does.

[Bloggsworth]

A quick question.

My knowledge of FRIC is that it was a passive hydraulic system which linked the front and rear suspension in order to reduce pitch. It was banned by the FIA as a moveable aerodynamic device.

So, the anti roll bar instead of linking the front to the rear suspension, links the left to the right suspension. It's job is to reduce roll instead of pitch. Given the FIA's judgement on FRIC, why is the anti roll bar still legal. The only difference is that it isn't done via hydraulics. It certainly affects the aerodynamics of the car and should be viewed as a moveable aero device if FRIC is surely?

Must be why cars in the 1920s had anti-roll bars, they realised that they were in sore need of moveable aerodynamic assistance, specially at Brooklands where a substantial part of each lap was airborne...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 04 January 2017 - 21:42.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Must be why cars in the 1920s had anti-roll bars, they realised that they were in sore need of moveable aerodynamic assistance, specially at Brooklands where a substantial part of each lap was airborne...

LOL! I do not think they understood aerodynamics in the 1920 quite as well as they do now...

[Catalina Park]

My car has FRIC suspension and it isn't for aerodynamic reasons.

[gruntguru]

Morris 1100?

[Wuzak]

Citroen?

[Catalina Park]

Gruntguru got it right, Morris 1100.

[Kelpiecross]

A lot of Mini models in Oz were also Hydrolastic - including the later S Types.

[Catalina Park]

All the Australian made Cooper S's were hydro. They didn't make any Cooper S here without it. As well as the Mini Deluxe, Mini K, Clubman, Clubman GT and some early Leyland Mini S.
Pretty much nearly every Australian made Mini between 65 ad 73.

[Kelpiecross]

My 1965 998cc Cooper was rubber suspension and so was my 1977 1100cc Clubman. I think the early S-Types (sliding windows) sold in Oz were rubber - but possibly they were made in England.

[imaginesix]

A quick question.
My knowledge of FRIC is that it was a passive hydraulic system which linked the front and rear suspension in order to reduce pitch. It was banned by the FIA as a moveable aerodynamic device.
So, the anti roll bar instead of linking the front to the rear suspension, links the left to the right suspension. It's job is to reduce roll instead of pitch. Given the FIA's judgement on FRIC, why is the anti roll bar still legal. The only difference is that it isn't done via hydraulics. It certainly affects the aerodynamics of the car and should be viewed as a moveable aero device if FRIC is surely?

Nobody has disagreed with the premise of the question, yet everyone treats it like it's a stupid question. Weird.

If the FIA only gave 'moveable aerodynamic device' as an explanation for the ban, then it's dishonest because as you point out, anti-roll bars could also be banned on the same grounds. In fact all suspension would be illegal on those grounds! Going by memeory, I believe 'moveable aerodynamic device' was well defined as a movement of the bodywork in relation to the reference plane, which is the floor of the car. Since FRIC would move every part of the bodywork in sync with the floor (ie no relative movement) then it shouldn't have been banned under that rule.

My first suspicion is maybe you have the story wrong? But if you're right then the only explanation is that the FIA used 'moveable aero' as an excuse, but they really just wanted to ban it to try and level the field and control costs.

Edited by imaginesix, 09 January 2017 - 02:33.

[Charlieman]

Primary intent. FRIC was designed so that the car moved up and down -- for aerodynamic purposes. The chassis did not need FRIC to maintain consistent camber.

[imaginesix]

Primary intent. FRIC was designed so that the car moved up and down -- for aerodynamic purposes. The chassis did not need FRIC to maintain consistent camber.

Is that what the FIA said? Is it in the rulebook somewhere? Is that the part of the story Ali_G missed?

Or, is it just your interpretation based what you feel is right and wrong?

[desmo]

If ARBs aren't "moveable aerodynamic devices" (and they to some degree of course are, like all F1 suspension) the 3rd spring-dampers meant to control squat under aero load are unambiguously so.  Once TMDs had been ruled as such, logic had left the barn here.  The rule as it is interpreted today is obviously just a meaningless catch-all to use ad hoc to ban or allow devices based on purely subjective criteria. The phrase means whatever Charlie Whiting wants it to mean on any particular day, which is a longer way of saying it means nothing at all.

[bobellsmore]

If ARBs aren't "moveable aerodynamic devices" (and they to some degree of course are, like all F1 suspension) the 3rd spring-dampers meant to control squat under aero load are unambiguously so.  Once TMDs had been ruled as such, logic had left the barn here.  The rule as it is interpreted today is obviously just a meaningless catch-all to use ad hoc to ban or allow devices based on purely subjective criteria. The phrase means whatever Charlie Whiting wants it to mean on any particular day, which is a longer way of saying it means nothing at all.

Quite so. In the days of the Max & Bernie show, the rule book was deliberately left vague to allow them to "interpret" the rules as they saw fit. These days the rule book is a little firmer and Charlie does the "interpretation", otherwise no significant change although with rather more cost-saving and rather less political aims I think.

[imaginesix]

If ARBs aren't "moveable aerodynamic devices" (and they to some degree of course are, like all F1 suspension) the 3rd spring-dampers meant to control squat under aero load are unambiguously so.  Once TMDs had been ruled as such, logic had left the barn here.  The rule as it is interpreted today is obviously just a meaningless catch-all to use ad hoc to ban or allow devices based on purely subjective criteria. The phrase means whatever Charlie Whiting wants it to mean on any particular day, which is a longer way of saying it means nothing at all.

Oh yeah! TMDs! Had to look that up, apparently that was 10 years ago.

http://formula1-dict...ass_damper.html

According to that definition of 'aerodynamic influence', the engine itself should be illegal! Though this particular rule wouldn't justify the ban on FRIC as it is solidly mounted to the sprung part of the car. There'd have to be another rule for the FIA to mis-apply in order to ban FRIC. Anyway as you suggest, this mocking of FIA rules rests on the assumption that rules are meant to be specific, clear, and uniformly applied. Clearly this is an antiquated view of how rules work.

[Bloggsworth]

Anti-squat and anti-dive suspensions were fairly commom in the 60s by angling the inboard wishbone mountings so that the extension of the pivot axes passed through the centre of gravity, this was long before aerodynamics were a consideration in this regard. IIRC, anti-squat was in general abandoned because of "Feel."

[Bloggsworth]

Morris 1100?

The opposite front to rear, but very effective laterally! Cornered flat as a pancake.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 10 January 2017 - 21:29.