182 replies to this topic

[jonklug]

from https://x.com/mollym...713281764196641

 

 

The 2024 F1 sporting & tech regulations were just updated today with some very interesting changes. From a really cheeky braking system update, Mule Car testing, tyre testing, penalty application, stopping on track during qualifying, and more A THREAD 
 

1) 11.1 Brake Circuits and pressure distribution -Any system or mechanism which can produce systematically or intentionally, asymmetric braking torques for a given axle is forbidden.

 

This would suggest a team has found a way outside of the typical front/rear brake bias shifts - most notably called Brake Magic by Mercedes and a team has been doing something cheeky with their brake maps, or braking controls that allows for improved braking not only front to back but left front, right front, left rear right rear. Which would be HUGE in corner performance.

 

This is cheeky as typically a regulation this explicit isn't rolled out mid season into regulations unless:

 

1) The FIA found, observed, or it was reported by other teams, that a team or all teams were doing this as it is a grey area and consider it not in the spirit of regulations (see: DAS). And the FIA wanted to put a stop to it.
 

2) This was a complete miss on their end and they're closing a regulatory loop hole - please comply.

 

Note: Id almost anticipate there being a TD on this issued but we don't see those. It could also be such a grey area they went straight to adding it to the regulations as a do not do. 

Its important to note teams do modulate on the rear side specifically with the diff and how locked/unlocked it is. But to have vectored braking is potentially a huge tool they can also modulate just like the diff to aid in balance and cornering. 
 

2) Mule Car testing (TMC 10.10) TMC is as any track running time using cars in compliance\with current regs or any of the four (4) calendar years falling immediately prior to the calendar year of the Championship but modified for the purpose of providing track testing of future products. 
 

This is a significant addition to the regulations as this allows teams to build cars based on chassis from the current season through last 4 seasons (pre ground effect era) to allow for on track testing( mainly tyres) for the upcoming 2026 regulations as current 2024 regulation cars make it difficult to garner any correlateable data for the 2026 regulation shake up. 

Mule tests will be really fascinating to watch as the cars will be "minimally modified" for the necessary purpose of testing desired components. Since our last time with true mule testing was 2017 when car size was increasing. However 2026 it is the opposite. 
 

3) Clarification to 54.3 with time penalties now *may* be carried over to the next race as grid penalties. This ones confusing. But I understand it as 5 or 10 sec penalties can now also be carried if the driver is unclassified in the race, or retirements, in addition to pit lane drive throughs or stop-and-go's. 

This reads like the closure in a loop hole. As a driver must run 90% race distance to be considered classified last I checked the regulations. and seems to be deterring teams from maybe trying to try something cheeky when handed one of these. 
 

4) The Carlos in China qualifying conundrum. Aka updating 39.6 to now read: Any driver whose car stops on the track in any area other than the Pit Lane during the qualifying session or the sprint qualifying session and receives physical assistance will not be permitted to take any further part in that session.

 

Basically, if your car stops on track and you're able to get it going again on your own accord, you would be fine. The previous regulation which read any drivers car stops on track in any area other than the pit lane during the session they will not be allowed to continue, is what led to Aston Martin protesting these results 
 

This is a step in the right direction as its a direct lesson learned from Aston Martin's protest of qualifying results. However I have my reservations, as a situation like this would create a red flag or local yellow conditions- in which there is no penalty for causing in F1 during qualifying. Without a rule similar to that of IndyCar where a driver who causes a red flag during qualifying loses their two fastest lap, or causes a yellow flag loses one of their fastest lap times drivers can continue without consequence. 
 

A 3rd reason this could have been put in which I totally forgot about, is that a team asked about it. Teams do not operate in a vacuum when it comes to developing cars and things they want to bring to the track. Which is also a potential reason why this was added to the regulations. A team said “hey, FIA, we are developing this, we want to bring it to the track” and the FIA very well could have **** it down that way as well. 

 

 

Checked here(https://www.fia.com/...on/category/110) for the changes and indeed 11.1 Brake circuits and pressure distribution is indeed updated. 

 

edit: screenshot added:

 

Edited by jonklug, 01 August 2024 - 08:24.

[jonklug]

So I think the early conclusion is that somebody has been caught with asymmetric braking torques and they decided to explicitly forbid it. Will be interesting to see if it causes any changes in performance at the top. 

[SpeedRacer`]

McLaren were using a third peddle to do that in '97 and early '98 (called the fiddle peddle) and it cost them a huge chunk of time when outlawed.

[macjim]

My aren't they a sneaky bunch.

[PayasYouRace]

McLaren were using a third peddle to do that in '97 and early '98 (called the fiddle peddle) and it cost them a huge chunk of time when outlawed.

It didn’t. It was outlawed before Brazil and they dominated that just as emphatically as Melbourne.

[FirstnameLastname]

Aw, the racings been so close too… hope this doesn’t open the pack back up

I’m all for close racing and sneaky tech developments. Why can’t we start a development war if we’re under the cost cap?

Thrifty development war ftw

[Beri]

So we can safely assume there is a team who was fiddling with the brake system. The question now is; who was it?

[catent]

McLaren or Mercedes seem to be the most likely candidates. The great irony would be if it’s Ferrari and they’ve been up to shenanigans without much to show.

[Kvothe]

The team who got 7 poles in the first 7 races and then has mysteriously lost pace since Imola? 🤔

A 2019 Ferrariesque decline

Edited by Kvothe, 01 August 2024 - 09:50.

[catent]

The team who got 7 poles in the first 7 races and then has mysteriously lost pace since Imola?

A 2019 Ferrariesque decline

This might be the answer. I just read F1Technical and someone shared a rumor that RBR were using a mechanism that allowed for differential braking across the front axle. The lack of front-end and Max’s incessant complaining about understeer would make a lot more sense.

Edited by catent, 01 August 2024 - 19:29.

[jonklug]

The team who got 7 poles in the first 7 races and then has mysteriously lost pace since Imola?

A 2019 Ferrariesque decline

 

Could be either way. At the same time other teams brought upgrades that erased half a second of deficit. 

[Paahto]

Aw, the racings been so close too… hope this doesn’t open the pack back up

I’m all for close racing and sneaky tech developments. Why can’t we start a development war if we’re under the cost cap?

Thrifty development war ftw

 

I'm with you. If there's a cost cap in place, let them have at it. The racing isn't suffering because of it at the moment. Let's see if it makes a difference.

[Clatter]

McLaren were using a third peddle to do that in '97 and early '98 (called the fiddle peddle) and it cost them a huge chunk of time when outlawed.

 

I don't remember it having much effect at all.

[DevilDare]

I think the FIA should have to disclose who was up to these tricks.

[Whatisvalis]

The team who got 7 poles in the first 7 races and then has mysteriously lost pace since Imola?

A 2019 Ferrariesque decline

 

That would be my guess considering the utter domination to current form swing. 

[Broekschaap]

So it didn't fit under the new system or technology rule and it did need a mid season rule update. Yeah that doesn't raise questions at all.

[SpeedRacer`]

It didn’t. It was outlawed before Brazil and they dominated that just as emphatically as Melbourne.

 

In McLaren's own words it was almost half a second a lap. That's quite substantial.

 

https://www.mclaren....-pedal-3153421/

[PayasYouRace]

In McLaren's own words it was almost half a second a lap. That's quite substantial.

https://www.mclaren....-pedal-3153421/

Their recollections don’t quite match the actual results.

Maybe putting it on the 1997 was worth up to half a second per lap. But their winning margin in Brazil was equally good as at Melbourne after it was banned.

[Spillage]

I don't remember it having much effect at all.

Wasn't it banned after the Brazilian GP of 1998? They absolutely domianted both there and in Melbourne, and didn't domiante afterwards.

[AlexPrime]

The great irony would be if it’s Ferrari and they’ve been up to shenanigans without much to show.

Won't be surprised at all.

[AlexPrime]

The team who got 7 poles in the first 7 races and then has mysteriously lost pace since Imola?

A 2019 Ferrariesque decline

Nah, that's probably lack of Newey help

[MRX94]

Gonna throw my hat into the ring and say it's Mercedes. Their rise from 4th best to winning races on merit has been rapid. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it's both them and McLaren.
I don't believe it's Red Bull, they'd probably keep doing it right until the moment it got officially banned. The drop-off in performance is easily explained by the fact it's a team in turmoil. The Horner-Marko war, losing Newey, whispers around Max...

[DJH63]

I’m a cynical person but it seems a bit too coincidental that within weeks of RB asking the FIA to inspect McLaren’s braking system, which Stella admitted happened, they amend the rules to outlaw braking system manipulations.

[LolaB0860]

Maybe it's actually Sauber and we can all have one big laugh.

[sterlingfan2000]

So the rumours aout Red Bull beeingt caught by FIA could be true ?

Time will tell us.

Let's hope Redbull domination won't be back again, I am totally against in season changes.

Edited by sterlingfan2000, 01 August 2024 - 12:37.

[jonklug]

Maybe it's actually Sauber and we can all have one big laugh.

 

Or Alpine, imagine poor Pierre 

[ARTGP]

Their recollections don’t quite match the actual results.

Maybe putting it on the 1997 was worth up to half a second per lap. But their winning margin in Brazil was equally good as at Melbourne after it was banned.

 

 The fact that they still dominated in Brazil just shows that the car suited Brazil more than Melbourne. Losing the system made the car slower. It's explained in the article. Imagine Brazil + Brake steer. The gap would have been even larger than it was. 

Edited by ARTGP, 01 August 2024 - 16:37.

[Garagista]

Mclaren entering China affraid of the slow corners and then having a really good and surprising race, comes to mind. It would explain why they kept the talk of being bad in slow corners in the beggining of the year, with Stella even saying they could only address next year. This assuming this trick is good for slow corners.

[Goron3]

You'd think it would impact a team that wasn't competitive but suddenly found some improvement in speed, as opposed to a team that started off competitive but dropped off. I say this because it's only just come into place - if the rule change happened after Canada then you'd think it could have been RBR.

[ARTGP]

This might be the answer. I just read F1Technical and someone shared a rumor that RBR were using a mechanism that allowed for differential braking across the front axel. The lack of front-end and Max’s incessant complaining about understeer would make a lot more sense.

 

The lack of front end has been a Red Bull problem since 2022. It didn't start this season. Max has always complained about wanting more front end. The same guy you are quoting was also the same guy spreading the rumor that it was a suspension ban in Miami. Now he's saying it was a brake system ban. The guy is throwing **** at the wall because he doesn't like Red Bull.  

 

Also, this kind of system would have made a car very strong under braking entry and in low and medium speed corners. These have been Red Bull's weaknesses since 2022. In contrast, they have been strengths of Ferrari since 2022, and of Mclaren since around China. Curious. 

 

Basically what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense for it to be Red Bull because their strength was always high speed corners, not slow and tight corners. I'd call it either of Mclaren, Ferrari, or Mercedes who are all better than Red Bull in these types of corners. 

 

This reg change is definitely targeted and I think we will see a team lose pace after the summer break.   

Edited by ARTGP, 01 August 2024 - 16:46.

[MikeTekRacing]

So the rumours aout Red Bull beeingt caught by FIA could be true ?

Time will tell us.

Let's hope Redbull domination won't be back again, I am totally against in season changes.

you don't like Red Bull dominating or mid season changes?

Not sure how you rank those. I feel you disagree with changes because RB is no longer dominating and you are concerned they might be again. Would you be equally concerned with mid season changes if RB was dominating?

RB were rumored to have had something with the suspension. Now it's the brakes and it took FiA 3 months to publish this?

 

I hope the ones that are doing cheeky things, around the rules, stop doing them once clarifications are out. May them be Red Bull, Ferrari or Haas.

 

Who ends up dominating or not is an irrelevant topic. 

[FirstnameLastname]

Could it maybe just be one of these situations where a team ‘enquires’ to the FIA and the fia say no and decide to explicitly outlaw it before anyone else tries?

[FirstnameLastname]

I'm with you. If there's a cost cap in place, let them have at it. The racing isn't suffering because of it at the moment. Let's see if it makes a difference.

Yeah - otherwise just give the guys a box of bits and some instructions *shrug*

[Massa_f1]

I doubt it's Red Bull if the trick is just getting band over the summer. It's likely a team that's suddenly jumped up the order, and not a team that's already lost performance for several races.

[MikeTekRacing]

Could it maybe just be one of these situations where a team ‘enquires’ to the FIA and the fia say no and decide to explicitly outlaw it before anyone else tries?

of course. But that's not fun

[pdac]

The pinnacle of motorsport that stifles innovation.

[onewingedangel]

If a team had a system the FIA thought to be illegal they may have been advised to remove it prior to any update to the rules to make it more explicit. Will be interesting to see if the pecking order changes much come the Dutch GP.

[ARTGP]

Could it maybe just be one of these situations where a team ‘enquires’ to the FIA and the fia say no and decide to explicitly outlaw it before anyone else tries?

 

 

of course. But that's not fun

 

Maybe, but it's interesting that every other regulation change listed is a direct response to something which actually happened. 

[MikeTekRacing]

If a team had a system the FIA thought to be illegal they may have been advised to remove it prior to any update to the rules to make it more explicit. Will be interesting to see if the pecking order changes much come the Dutch GP.

why would someone remove something that the FiA needs to rewrite the rules to make it banned? 

I'd keep it. If it needs new rules it's not illegal. It can be against the spirit of the rules, but most things are that way

[onewingedangel]

why would someone remove something that the FiA needs to rewrite the rules to make it banned?
I'd keep it. If it needs new rules it's not illegal. It can be against the spirit of the rules, but most things are that way

The FIA could have presented to a team that a solution was already prohibited under the old regulations and would result in a disqualification and the change in wording is just clarifying what could of been a grey area if viewed in isolation.

I think people may be forgetting that a grey area inherently comes with the risk it may be deemed illegal, as opposed to a loophole where a solution meets the rules whilst breaking the intent.

[Heyli]

Dont care which team did it, or is doing it. I'm generally not a fan of mid-season regulation changes. If a team found a loophole, good for them. Close it for next season.

 

It's been a pretty cool season so far, so from that perspective I hope things stay close!

[pup]

What with the talk of Red Bull having been told to remove something from their car, and their subsequent loss of form, it seems pretty obvious that this is just formalizing what the FIA told Red Bull earlier. Especially with them bleeding personnel, if they had secrets to be told, then it would only be a matter of time before they came to light.

Seems like a pretty involved system. If I’m right then I guess the question is how long had they been running it and how did the FIA find out. I’d say the most likely source would be McLaren via Rob Marshall, and them electing to take it to the FIA rather than spend money duplicating it.

[Heyli]

What with the talk of Red Bull having been told to remove something from their car, and their subsequent loss of form, it seems pretty obvious that this is just formalizing what the FIA told Red Bull earlier. Especially with them bleeding personnel, if they had secrets to be told, then it would only be a matter of time before they came to light.

Seems like a pretty involved system. If I’m right then I guess the question is how long had they been running it and how did the FIA find out. I’d say the most likely source would be McLaren via Rob Marshall, and them electing to take it to the FIA rather than spend money duplicating it.

Sounds like you are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on not very much?

 

Why would they need to formalize something if Red Bull already removed it? And why would it take them so long?

[pup]

Well, for timing, if McLaren asked for clarification at the first race, it would take the FIA a race or two to decide what to do and then they’d probably give them two or three races to sort out the changes. So that would coincide well with Red Bull’s drop in performance. And of course we have the previous rumors that they’d been asked to remove something fairly important. And as others have said, Red Bulls problems of late are exactly the sort that you’d expect if they in fact had to remove something like that. And if anyone at Red Bull knew the details of that sort of system it would be Marshall. So, yeah it’s a theory but not a leap in logic. You’ve got a lot of things from different directions pointing to Red Bull.

As for your last few questions, I think they answer themselves. It seems obvious that it’s something that the FIA would want to clarify in the rules, but if it was only one team doing it, then there’s no point in rushing out a separate rule change, so just roll it in with the other changes during break.

Edited by pup, 01 August 2024 - 21:04.

[jacdaniel]

Seems unlikely to be Red Bull. Why wouldn’t they keep doing it until it was officially against the rules…

Seems more likely to be one of the teams that’s actually gained performance.

Edited by jacdaniel, 01 August 2024 - 21:07.

[pup]

Seems unlikely to be Red Bull. Why wouldn’t they keep doing it until it was officially against the rules…

Because the FIA told them to? That was the talk at least.

Seems to me that both McLaren and Merc cut their gap to Red Bull by about the same amount at the same time. That seems like a big coincidence for two teams to simultaneously make a big jump like that. People want to think that one or the other started cheating but it seems more likely that Red Bull got pegged back.

Why Ferrari isn’t in that group I don’t know, but probably would be because they stumbled when they rushed their big update and that, too, would be about the same time.

Edited by pup, 01 August 2024 - 21:18.

[Heyli]

Because the FIA told them to? That was the talk at least.

Seems to me that both McLaren and Merc cut their gap to Red Bull by about the same amount at the same time. That seems like a big coincidence for two teams to simultaneously make a big jump like that. People want to think that one or the other started cheating but it seems more likely that Red Bull got pegged back.

Why Ferrari isn’t in that group I don’t know, but probably would be because they stumbled when they rushed their big update and that, too, would be about the same time.

Pretty sure McLaren closed the gap to RB a long time before Merc did.

[jacdaniel]

Because the FIA told them to? That was the talk at least.

Seems to me that both McLaren and Merc cut their gap to Red Bull by about the same amount at the same time. That seems like a big coincidence for two teams to simultaneously make a big jump like that. People want to think that one or the other started cheating but it seems more likely that Red Bull got pegged back.

Why Ferrari isn’t in that group I don’t know, but probably would be because they stumbled when they rushed their big update and that, too, would be about the same time.

Red Bull were last dominant at China which was end of April. I’ll be the first to admit, I’ve always found it odd that they lost so much performance so quickly.

But I don’t see why it would take 3 months to update the regs if something changed back in April.

You could also look at it that McLaren made massive gains that weekend in Miami. Mercedes are still behind I think although they’ve improved.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the team that become the best car is the one that found a trick. Time will tell

[Paa]

Sorry if the Merc bump on the nose was already debunked. I didn't follow that very closely.

 

But if the purpose of that newly appeared bump is not clear yet, this could be it? 

[OO7]

why would someone remove something that the FiA needs to rewrite the rules to make it banned? 

I'd keep it. If it needs new rules it's not illegal. It can be against the spirit of the rules, but most things are that way

It may have been a Technical Directive before being assimilated into the tech regs.