Mercedes W13

[Just_a_fan]

At the end of the day, all of these are things that Ferrari and RedBull and Haas have checked with FIA, in exactly the same way as the spaceship mirrors from the W13. So unless you claim it violates the spirit of the rules or something like that, it's most likely legal as FIA has seen it and approved it, from 2 very different manufacturers. Merc should just copy it.

As I mentioned, lots of stuff was perfectly legal right up until the Fia decided it wasn't. Even stuff cleared by the FIA ahead of time, DAS for example!

These devices have been visible since testing - if the other teams thought there was anything dodgy going on here they'd be making noises about it.

[dialtone]

At the end of the day, all of these are things that Ferrari and RedBull and Haas have checked with FIA, in exactly the same way as the spaceship mirrors from the W13. So unless you claim it violates the spirit of the rules or something like that, it's most likely legal as FIA has seen it and approved it, from 2 very different manufacturers. Merc should just copy it.

As I mentioned, lots of stuff was perfectly legal right up until the Fia decided it wasn't. Even stuff cleared by the FIA ahead of time, DAS for example!

Of course, but FRIC had a rationale of cost capping, and DAS was protested by basically every team. As Brawn said, teams have to provide an interpretation that wasn't considered when the approval was given that would change their ruling. Otherwise it will likely stay.

[PlatinumZealot]

I agree bonbon1979 even in this compromised state the Merc is ahead of the mid field and within touching distance of RB and Ferrari with the promise of a significant step to come hopefully. It's not a McLaren with a multitude of issues.

I can't wait to see images of the RB and Ferrari floors, hopefully not via a serious crash, to see if there's a 'trick' being used.

I wondered also if the floor could be designed to flex up and arch when load is applied to the outer edges? This would make a skirt but also raise the ride height of the floor along the centre line of the car. OK, I really do expect this idea to be shot down but F1 teams are sneaky so-in-sos who do this sort of thing if they think they can get away with it.

These cars have tunnels. Like two inch deep throat about 3 inches inward from the edge of the floor. So its not the edge of the floor that has the issue per say. It's the massive volumes of air moving through the 2 inch deep throat still get choked at high speeds.

Under the floor you have the vanes that swwp air to the side and out. Then immediatle behind the vanes you will see the tunnels flanked by a convex edge. So contrary to what many are saying on the internet, these tunnels cannot "bottom out."

[dans79]

Of course, but FRIC had a rationale of cost capping, and DAS was protested by basically every team. As Brawn said, teams have to provide an interpretation that wasn't considered when the approval was given that would change their ruling. Otherwise it will likely stay.

Fric wasn't banned for cost reasons!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/formu ... 9/5050989/

According to sources, the governing body wrote to teams on Tuesday to tell them that following detailed investigations into the design of the FRIC systems, it believes they are in contravention of the rules.

In the note, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting said: "Having now seen and studied nearly every current design of front to rear linked suspension system we, the FIA, are formally of the view that the legality of all such systems could be called into question."

Whiting suggests that the way the suspension systems help control pitch and roll could be in breach of article 3.15 of F1's technical regulations.

Article 3.15 is the catch-all regulation that relates to moveable aerodynamic devices. It outlaws any part of the car that influences the aerodynamics that is not "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)."

The FRIC systems link the front and rear suspension to maintain a constant ride height for improved performance.

[ivan599]

[dialtone]

Of course, but FRIC had a rationale of cost capping, and DAS was protested by basically every team. As Brawn said, teams have to provide an interpretation that wasn't considered when the approval was given that would change their ruling. Otherwise it will likely stay.

Fric wasn't banned for cost reasons!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/formu ... 9/5050989/

According to sources, the governing body wrote to teams on Tuesday to tell them that following detailed investigations into the design of the FRIC systems, it believes they are in contravention of the rules.

In the note, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting said: "Having now seen and studied nearly every current design of front to rear linked suspension system we, the FIA, are formally of the view that the legality of all such systems could be called into question."

Whiting suggests that the way the suspension systems help control pitch and roll could be in breach of article 3.15 of F1's technical regulations.

Article 3.15 is the catch-all regulation that relates to moveable aerodynamic devices. It outlaws any part of the car that influences the aerodynamics that is not "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)."

The FRIC systems link the front and rear suspension to maintain a constant ride height for improved performance.

That may be the technicality they used to ban it, but it was widely reported that it was due to costs. Brawn also commented around 2015/6 on how expensive and critical these suspension systems had become. Although I can't find a pointer for it now, it might have been during one pre-season testing interview with Ted one of those years.

https://www.racecar-engineering.com/tec ... -is-frics/

Interestingly it did seem likely that interconnected suspension would be banned for the 2015 season on cost grounds despite the fact that every team in Formula 1 now has the technology. It remains legal in other forms of motorsport such as LMP1 where Porsche is using a highly advanced system on its 919 Hybrid (above).

[matteosc]

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray.

During the course of F1 history several things have been allowed by the rules for non trivial periods of time before the fia changed their mind, or someone posed a question, or pretested. The mass damper and Fric are good examples.

It may be, but as mentioned before, this topic was directly addressed by FIA for this year's cars. Mass damper and Fric were protested later because they were not visible and it took a while for other teams to realize what was going on.

I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

The rule any team implementing such a device must be very mindful of is this one.

3.2.2 Aerodynamic Influence
{...]

[...]

I do not dispute potential aerodynamic effects, my point is that there is no reason to call this a "mass damper".

[PlatinumZealot]

Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.

I honestly can't see how the teams are getting around this without being hit with moveable aerodynamic device rules. They're blatently sprung and damped pieces of chassis for aero advantage.

These have been left untroubled by rule enforcer since the early 2000s because they don't move, but have substantial rigidity. Meaning that aerodynamic forces cannot move them.

[matteosc]

At least two teams showed it clearly and no one protested. In several link that I posted before (even if not from the official regulation page) it is directly stated that a spring/damper system was allowed for the t-tray.

During the course of F1 history several things have been allowed by the rules for non trivial periods of time before the fia changed their mind, or someone posed a question, or pretested. The mass damper and Fric are good examples.

I cannot see on which bases you say it is not legal or why you keep calling it mass damper, which is a completely different thing. Not every system with a mass and a damper is a "mass damper"...

The rule any team implementing such a device must be very mindful of is this one.

SNIP

At the end of the day, all of these are things that Ferrari and RedBull and Haas have checked with FIA, in exactly the same way as the spaceship mirrors from the W13. So unless you claim it violates the spirit of the rules or something like that, it's most likely legal as FIA has seen it and approved it, from 2 very different manufacturers. Merc should just copy it.

Completely agree. Not sure whether Mercedes can copy it or not because of the electronics placed in that area to free up space in the sidepodes.
Also I am not sure that this is what creates the porposing issue for Mercedes. All efforts seems to be focused on the rear of the car, which I assume is where the flow chokes and initiate the porposing. Increasing the speed the downforce increases and moves towards the back of the car, so I doubt that the t-tray is the main problem.

[matteosc]

Which would, of course, be illegal. It would be interesting if Merc, for example, persuaded the FIA that it is a mass damper.

I honestly can't see how the teams are getting around this without being hit with moveable aerodynamic device rules. They're blatently sprung and damped pieces of chassis for aero advantage.

These have been left untroubled by rule enforcer since the early 2000s because they don't move, but have substantial rigidity. Meaning that aerodynamic forces cannot move them.

Also, the purpose of the t-tray damper is to deal with road impacts, not with aerodynamic forces. I am pretty sure we are barking at the wrong tree.

[Shakeman]

It's very clear that the car is being run in a hugely compromised state. If they do manage to sort it out, and run the car in anything like it's proper set up then it looks like it could be an absolute monster. It's a big if though...

If we think back to McLaren's 'suspension blockers' all their sims told them it was a massive step forward but in reality, on track it was a very 'peaky' downforce generator which the drivers couldn't rely upon. I remember Jensen saying when it works the grip is on another level but that grip can disappear in an instant.

I think Merc have got a systems that on paper performs amazingly well and in the sim but in the real world the performance is, like McLaren's blockers too 'peaky' to be usable. I looks to me like they're generating too much downforce that their suspension cannot support it, as soon as the floor hits a critical distance they get slammed into the tarmac.

The reason it's not going to be a quick fix or just a new floor is because to not leave performance on the table will require a redesign of their suspension in order to better support the downforce levels they're generating. If they can make the floor less 'peaky' with a suspension that can support higher loads Merc could have a rocket on their hands.

I don't think other teams have fixed their porpoising issues, I don't think many teams are generating anywhere near the downforce from the floor that the Merc is. Look at the McLaren, they didn't solve porpoising, they just don't have any downforce.

We will see floor and suspension development go hand in hand and we'll eventually see nothing but skinny wings on the cars as teams learn to keep their cars sucked to the floor over a wider range of cornering speeds. Suspension development is going to be taken to whole new levels with this formula.

If I'm talking out of my arse please shoot me down.

As you know, propoising and downforce are inextricably linked. Mitigate porpoising is good but at the expense of downforce. If a team did a design that makes downforce at certain ride height and suspension setting but come to the track only to find out it's smack dab where the porpoising happens they are in more trouble than a team whose cars proporsing transition point is much closer to ground.

You are right, Suspension development will be integral to solving the problem. It will be more of a control measure than a prevention measure however.

If you can get the suspension rebound damping to be extremely high but only when the car is on straights. It cannot be suspension travel tuned because the tyre pressure, thus radius, changes over the race and we are taking an order of a couple milimeters of control here.

Hmmm. Need to look at the tech regs to see what are the limits on suspension contol. Can a passive mechanical brain be used? As in we know hydaulics are banned. But what about a pitot tube input into a pneumatic system?

TBH I think my ideas regarding Merc's specific case of porpoising is off given JA's comments in the Bahrain debrief. It sounds like there are several mechanisms for generating porpoising and it's a more complex subject than has been presented so far.

I was thinking along similar lines as you regarding suspension. Obviously suspension has been very important in the past but now it seems doubly important and an area ripe for development.

[AMG.Tzan]

Did Lewis eventually race the new floor tested at Bahrain or not??

And which floor is this??

[Sevach]

Did Lewis eventually race the new floor tested at Bahrain or not??

And which floor is this??

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 3025405959

No he did not.
This one seems like it has the same aero characteristics of the "Russell floor" but reinforced near the edges.

[izzy]

on Racefans, Gary Anderson can't understand why they've cut the top/back edge off with its Gurney flap, when that's where it has the most leverage.

[Just_a_fan]

on Racefans, Gary Anderson can't understand why they've cut the top/back edge off with its Gurney flap, when that's where it has the most leverage.

Probably because they had to pull some drag off the car and they don't have an alternative rear wing in Jeddha.

Wouldn't it be amusingly ironic if the trimmed wing resulted in less porpoising and a lap time improvement?