39 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

My German is crap but according to this story ( http://www.auto-moto...port.de/d/72656 ) the FIA has forbidden a transmission innovation BAR had in the pipeline for next year. Apparently gear shifts should take no less the 300ms. Also Renault's start strategy is forbidden for next year.
Can anyone translate this?
Thanks!

[aleph]

Renault and BAR blocked
new rules from the FIA have blocked Renault and BAR-Honda. The (F1) sport organization wants to reduce any driving help and as a consequence the rocket-starts of the 2005 Renault will belong to the past. The blocked teams scent betrayal.

In the past season no other team won more positions in a race than Renault. The simple reason: at the start of the race the yellow-blue drivers were shot as if out of a canon and made the rest of the field seem as wrongly parked cars. But the Renaults "blitz" start should now be over.

A special clutch lever with which the Renault drivers could find the optimum point of grip, is forbidden in the 2005 season.
The clutch spring must now be activated with constant pressure for all the length. Furthermore the traction control can only be activated from 100 km/h on.

BAR gearbox to the museum
BAR feels themselves blocked. BAR engineers have developed a gearbox, which can switch without any interruption of power transmission. The advantage: extremely short shift time an no loss of speed while using the clutch while acelerating. But also in this case did the FIA shoot the initiative.
From now on each shift operation must take at least 200 milliseconds when shifting up and at least 300 miliseconds when shifting down.
BAR can now display their wonder-gearbox in a museum.

The sport organization argues that the driver must more and more be in the foreground of the events, but the teams impacted suspect a totally different reason for the blocking action.
They suspect that Ferrari has forced the FIA to impose the rules.

[michaelab]

but the teams impacted suspect a totally different reason for the blocking action.
They suspect that Ferrari has forced the FIA to impose the rules.

Yeah right, I forgot that Ferrari writes the rules. I don't know why they don't write a rule that Ferrari can have a 4L engine and all the other teams must use a 3L one . This kind of accusation really infuriates me

Michael.

[Group B]

Originally posted by michaelab

Yeah right, I forgot that Ferrari writes the rules. I don't know why they don't write a rule that Ferrari can have a 4L engine and all the other teams must use a 3L one . This kind of accusation really infuriates me

Michael.

Isn't it amazing; if we had 18 wet races next year it would be because Ferrari forced God to help favour BS & their wets

It's a shame that Ferrari forgot the FIA's phone number for all those years

[ViMaMo]

Why doesn't BAR confirm with FIA about the feasability of their design to the regulations before going ahead.

[xflow7]

I don't buy the Ferrari conspiracy theory at all. Having said that, it's not implausible that Ferrari asked the FIA for a clarification and this is the result. But if so, I wouldn't chalk that up to FIA trying to pave the way for further Ferrari domination.

Regardless, though, this kind of nickel-and-dime banning of innovation is really starting to piss me off. I understand the push towards fewer driver aids, but this clutch lever thing has to be one of the stupidest technical regs ever, IMO.

[Q-8]

With Ferrari’s “timely” intervention on the wider than expected Michelin tires in 2003 and their unwillingness to cooperate with the pack on current cost cutting measures, we can all understand why some people would be resentful of them and buy into the many unfounded conspiracy theories. Now consider that they also dominate the sport.

[MrSlow]

I remember a time when Ferrari had the fastest gear changes and the most sophisticated "seamless" technique....

Oh, they still have it?

[ViMaMo]

Originally posted by MrSlow
I remember a time when Ferrari had the fastest gear changes and the most sophisticated "seamless" technique....

Oh, they still have it?

In the museum. Time flies.

[Wuzak]

BAR accused Ferrari of getting the wing fences banned earlier in the season.

It turns out that it was Jaguar seeking a clarification in the TWG - at which BAR was present.

Wasn't there a claim that Ferrari's gearbox could change gears in around 30ms?

And hasn't this minimum shift time rule been applied before?

[Tuxy]

Originally posted by Q-8
With Ferrari’s “timely” intervention on the wider than expected Michelin tires in 2003 and their unwillingness to cooperate with the pack on current cost cutting measures, we can all understand why some people would be resentful of them and buy into the many unfounded conspiracy theories. Now consider that they also dominate the sport.

Their unwillingness stems from the fact that the cost saving measures proposed won't work. Second Michelin were outside the rules, and any other team would had done the same thing in Ferrari's situation.

[mightyv10]

Originally posted by vivian
Why doesn't BAR confirm with FIA about the feasability of their design to the regulations before going ahead.

Getting a confirmation from the FIA means little. Even after the FIA gives the go ahead, the system can be challenged by rival teams. And the stewards at the race meeting can ask the team to remove/disable the offending system.

An example of this would be the events at 2000 Monza, McLaren's electronic diff was judged to be illegal by the local stewards.

McLaren had Charlie Whiting over at their factory to demo the concept and to get his blessing. With his go ahead, the system was developed and raced. At Monza, Ferrari challenged the system and the local stewards asked that the system be removed.

This is actually a good tactic. Cause your rival has spent a lot of resources on a dead end technology.

[Mark Beckman]

Shame when you consider the highlights of the year - Renaults starts and BAR's competiveness.

[ralphrj]

Originally posted by Wuzak
BAR accused Ferrari of getting the wing fences banned earlier in the season.

It turns out that it was Jaguar seeking a clarification in the TWG - at which BAR was present.

Wasn't there a claim that Ferrari's gearbox could change gears in around 30ms?

And hasn't this minimum shift time rule been applied before?

IIRC a minimum shift time was brought in for 2001. The aim was to cripple the advantage Ferrari had as their gearbox was significantly faster than Williams or Mclaren.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by mightyv10

Getting a confirmation from the FIA means little. Even after the FIA gives the go ahead, the system can be challenged by rival teams. And the stewards at the race meeting can ask the team to remove/disable the offending system.

An example of this would be the events at 2000 Monza, McLaren's electronic diff was judged to be illegal by the local stewards.

McLaren had Charlie Whiting over at their factory to demo the concept and to get his blessing. With his go ahead, the system was developed and raced. At Monza, Ferrari challenged the system and the local stewards asked that the system be removed.

This is actually a good tactic. Cause your rival has spent a lot of resources on a dead end technology.

It is not a confirmation from the FIA, but merely an opinion by Charlie Whiting on the legality.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by ralphrj
IIRC a minimum shift time was brought in for 2001. The aim was to cripple the advantage Ferrari had as their gearbox was significantly faster than Williams or Mclaren.

I thought that the objection to the Ferrari's gearbox speed was that it could be used as a traction control device. By varying the gearchange, from super fast to slow, it would act as a traction control device.

The Honda gearbox when changing into second gear, if that was below 100kmh where traction control is then allowed, then logically it would also be able to be a traction control device. Also possibly, if no power is lost between changes, then maybe it is an extra gear.

Didn't someone enquire about VW's twin clutch gearbox, which also does not loose power? I have a memory of the FIA also saying that was outside the rules as well, but maybe it was a thread discussion. Nonetheless VW's gearbox would achieve the same, not loose power when changing gear.

[Wuzak]

Traction control is not allowed until the car has reached 100km/h from the start, after which it is completely free.

[mrman_3k]

I have a question about the gearchange time. If I'm not mistaken, the Ferrari Enzo road car shifts in 150ms. The BMW SMG II shifts in 80ms. F1 cars shift WAY faster than them and from my trial seems more like 10ms (there is no comparison between road car SMG and F1, in F1 the gear changes are like a switch as you can see on TV and in real life it is even more apparent).

So if they force the minimum shift time to 200ms up, that's quite a bit slower than road car SMG's. Something doesn't seem right. I could see maybe 20ms, but 200 is a magnitude of 10 slower.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by mrman_3k
I have a question about the gearchange time. If I'm not mistaken, the Ferrari Enzo road car shifts in 150ms. The BMW SMG II shifts in 80ms. F1 cars shift WAY faster than them and from my trial seems more like 10ms (there is no comparison between road car SMG and F1, in F1 the gear changes are like a switch as you can see on TV and in real life it is even more apparent).

So if they force the minimum shift time to 200ms up, that's quite a bit slower than road car SMG's. Something doesn't seem right. I could see maybe 20ms, but 200 is a magnitude of 10 slower.

It could be that because the crankshaft/clutch rotational inertia of the F1 car is a small fraction of that of a road car, and they are no doubt electronically rev-matching to some extent during the 200ms, it sounds like, from engine pitch, that the car is in the next gear before it actually is engaged.

[ensign14]

Why don't they just ban electronic gearboxes? Make 'em shift by hand, as God and Panhard intended.

[CARVER]

Renault's starting advantage was clearly visible, although I think it was not only the clutch lever system that caused this. (I believe it was mentioned that the chosen chassis/engine/gearbox concept was partially responsible for this advantage).

I haven't got a clue how large the advantage of BAR's gearbox was. Could someone make a (calculated) guess what the advantage over an average lap would be, between BAR's gearbox and Ferrari's (presumably) 30 ms shifts gearbox? So let's say an average 5 km lap with a laptime of around 90 seconds. I don't know how many shifts would be made during that lap, but let's say 35 up-shifts (is that about correct?). So how much time would that bring you during such a lap? So all those 30 ms of acceleration instead of deceleration. Could someone make an educated guess so we can see how big BAR's gearbox advantage was and if it was at all a significant advantage?

[ViMaMo]

Originally posted by CARVER
Renault's starting advantage was clearly visible, although I think it was not only the clutch lever system that caused this. (I believe it was mentioned that the chosen chassis/engine/gearbox concept was partially responsible for this advantage).

I haven't got a clue how large the advantage of BAR's gearbox was. Could someone make a (calculated) guess what the advantage over an average lap would be, between BAR's gearbox and Ferrari's (presumably) 30 ms shifts gearbox? So let's say an average 5 km lap with a laptime of around 90 seconds. I don't know how many shifts would be made during that lap, but let's say 35 up-shifts (is that about correct?). So how much time would that bring you during such a lap? So all those 30 ms of acceleration instead of deceleration. Could someone make an educated guess so we can see how big BAR's gearbox advantage was and if it was at all a significant advantage?

14 up shifts in Monza per lap. 14 down shifts.

[Paco]

Am I the only one tired of the FIA limiting teams innovations! I thought formula 1 was the pinnacle of motorsport. All the manufacturers are poor 100's millions into the sport and yet, everytime they are able to come up with some different and innovative, their hands get slapped. WTF should they stay in the sport.

If they want to participate in a spec series, they could go so IRL or Nascar!

Safety issue's I can understand, such as the case a few year's back at Mercedes and the use of toxic materials. However, flexible wings, transmission innovations, electronic etc. are part of the sport!

Personally, I would like to see electronic shifting being deemed illegal. Other than that, the FIA has to open the rule book a bit, this is getting bloody ridicioulus. No wonder I'm getting more and more disinterested in F1.

Paco

[Melbourne Park]

People need to remember that the VW gearbox, with the two seperate clutches and the pre selection of the next gear on the disengaged clutch, was not legal several years ago. If BAR or Honda has come up with another flavour of the same concept, why should it be deemed legal when the other was deemed illegal. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[nichola102]

Originally posted by Paco
Am I the only one tired of the FIA limiting teams innovations! I thought formula 1 was the pinnacle of motorsport. All the manufacturers are poor 100's millions into the sport and yet, everytime they are able to come up with some different and innovative, their hands get slapped. WTF should they stay in the sport.

If they want to participate in a spec series, they could go so IRL or Nascar!

Safety issue's I can understand, such as the case a few year's back at Mercedes and the use of toxic materials. However, flexible wings, transmission innovations, electronic etc. are part of the sport!

Personally, I would like to see electronic shifting being deemed illegal. Other than that, the FIA has to open the rule book a bit, this is getting bloody ridicioulus. No wonder I'm getting more and more disinterested in F1.

Paco

I so agree with you!!

The definition of Formula One is: the technological pinnacle of all motorsports.

How can a sport advance and stay on top of the ever-changing world of technology if change is constantly censored? Let these teams build their innovations. What do the FIA have to lose; except a more level playing field and a bit of variety on a Sunday afternoon?

[Viktor]

Originally posted by Paco
Am I the only one tired of the FIA limiting teams innovations! I thought formula 1 was the pinnacle of motorsport. All the manufacturers are poor 100's millions into the sport and yet, everytime they are able to come up with some different and innovative, their hands get slapped. WTF should they stay in the sport.

Do you have any % of how many of the innovations that the F1 teams come up with every year gets banned?

/Viktor

[nichola102]

Originally posted by Viktor

Do you have any % of how many of the innovations that the F1 teams come up with every year gets banned?

/Viktor

100% of BAR's!! Or so it seems.....

To go back to Ferrari never coming up short against the rules: do we think it's because they're an old team and know the limits of the FIA very well (having helped set most of them), and that BAR tend to get slapped on the wrist like an errant toddler because they're forever pushing the boundries as they're a newer team and are unsure how hard to push? As it were.

[zac510]

If there was a smiley for a sigh, it would be here!

Was it Mosley just a couple of years ago ('02 I think), who was encouraging top teams to be revolutionary, not evolutionary? We saw some significant innovations this 2004 season, for Williams and McLaren they failed, for BAR and Renault they have been banned!

[Melbourne Park]

They let Alfa's fan car win its race, then they banned it.

[scarbs]

As is often the case the published stories do not reflect the facts.

Yesterday I asked a F1 technical director abouth these rule chnages and he explained

1) gear shift strategy is about the MAXIMUM time for a shift, that is the time between asking for it and the gear engaging. Currently the rules effectively state the drive rmust call for each gear, I beleive what has been happening is the driver calls for the next gear as soon as the last one goes in and the eletronics work out when to upshift, so while it is not fully automated (which is now banned) the driver doesnt have to hit the paddle at preciselty the right moment as the electronics will do that. so the maximum time effectively means the driver has to be accurate (again) in selecting shifts.

2) the clutch rule prohibits anything other than the linear reflection of what is happenign at the clutch paddle, Renault (and other teams) have the driver release the clutch paddle and the electronics time the progressive releas eof the clutch, this clutch management is not active process (banned for this year) and hence strictly legal but not within the spirit of the launch control ban.

Both these clarifications are not banning innovation they are simply reinforcements of rules (that we all supported...) to get rid of driver aids.

Scarbs...

[ZE.FT]

Originally posted by Paco
Am I the only one tired of the FIA limiting teams innovations! I thought formula 1 was the pinnacle of motorsport. All the manufacturers are poor 100's millions into the sport and yet, everytime they are able to come up with some different and innovative, their hands get slapped. WTF should they stay in the sport.

If they want to participate in a spec series, they could go so IRL or Nascar!

Safety issue's I can understand, such as the case a few year's back at Mercedes and the use of toxic materials. However, flexible wings, transmission innovations, electronic etc. are part of the sport!

Personally, I would like to see electronic shifting being deemed illegal. Other than that, the FIA has to open the rule book a bit, this is getting bloody ridicioulus. No wonder I'm getting more and more disinterested in F1.

Paco

Due to Paul Van Valkenburgh s report "A privileged first look inside Toyota's NASCAR V8"
Januar 2005 issue of Racecar Engineering P 22
"....In turn the spark plug is so close to them that its threads almost cut into the berryllium-copper valve seat inserts.This same material is also used for the valve guides,and they machine all of this toxic metal in-house."

So ,what is a spec series or what is the pinnacle of motorsport?
IMO we'll discuss this over and over.

[Oho]

Originally posted by vivian
Why doesn't BAR confirm with FIA about the feasability of their design to the regulations before going ahead.

I doesnt help, McLaren did that with their brakes in 98 and their differential in 00, in both cases FIA back tracked after primarily Ferrari cried foul.

[Ursus]

Originally posted by ralphrj


IIRC a minimum shift time was brought in for 2001. The aim was to cripple the advantage Ferrari had as their gearbox was significantly faster than Williams or Mclaren.

AFAIK there was a maximum time allowed until throttle control was handed back to the driver after a shift(200ms iirc). This was as early as 1999. The popular theory at the time was that Ferrari with their fast shifting gearbox (~40ms) had 160ms worth of 'legal' traction control to play with. Extremely unsporting according to the punters at this board.

[scarbs]

What a FIA rule to stop a Ferrari advantage...! According these forums is such a thing possible..? LOL

[zac510]

Originally posted by scarbs
1) gear shift strategy is about the MAXIMUM time for a shift, that is the time between asking for it and the gear engaging. Currently the rules effectively state the drive rmust call for each gear, I beleive what has been happening is the driver calls for the next gear as soon as the last one goes in and the eletronics work out when to upshift, so while it is not fully automated (which is now banned) the driver doesnt have to hit the paddle at preciselty the right moment as the electronics will do that. so the maximum time effectively means the driver has to be accurate (again) in selecting shifts.[/B]

Thanks scarbs.. that is a very sneaky interpretation of the rule

[CARVER]

Originally posted by scarbs
As is often the case the published stories do not reflect the facts.

Yesterday I asked a F1 technical director abouth these rule chnages and he explained

1) gear shift strategy is about the MAXIMUM time for a shift, that is the time between asking for it and the gear engaging. Currently the rules effectively state the drive rmust call for each gear, I beleive what has been happening is the driver calls for the next gear as soon as the last one goes in and the eletronics work out when to upshift, so while it is not fully automated (which is now banned) the driver doesnt have to hit the paddle at preciselty the right moment as the electronics will do that. so the maximum time effectively means the driver has to be accurate (again) in selecting shifts.

2) the clutch rule prohibits anything other than the linear reflection of what is happenign at the clutch paddle, Renault (and other teams) have the driver release the clutch paddle and the electronics time the progressive releas eof the clutch, this clutch management is not active process (banned for this year) and hence strictly legal but not within the spirit of the launch control ban.

Both these clarifications are not banning innovation they are simply reinforcements of rules (that we all supported...) to get rid of driver aids.

Scarbs...

Thanks for clearing this up scarbs. I have to say it is very funny to hear what they came up with. It sounds so simple, yet it never crossed my mind. Got anymore of these kind of 'solutions'?

[ivanalesi]

Despite that Fisico is driving next year for Renault, I'm totally agree about this change! But on the opposite end regarding BAR's gearbox, i dont think that this has any relation with the driver's input + BAR have spent quite a lot of money on it and I think that it is very good for the sport to have another top team!

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by ivanalesi
Despite that Fisico is driving next year for Renault, I'm totally agree about this change! But on the opposite end regarding BAR's gearbox, i dont think that this has any relation with the driver's input + BAR have spent quite a lot of money on it and I think that it is very good for the sport to have another top team!

It is never good for any sport to allow anyone to break rules to catch up with the leaders. Unfortunately, that has, i'm afraid, not always been the case in F1. Propably not in any other sport either. But BAR is putting a lot of money into inventions that have been tested and banned for years, they should hire someone that can actually read the rule book.

[nichola102]

BAR deny gearbox ban

Worth a read, I wonder how accurate it is?

[ferrarista]

A question

Does someone know if the BAR's FTT has been declared illegal?
Or will BAR be able to use it the next season?