Opinion on 2022 regulations

[JordanMugen]

Just allow more interesting suspension, worthy of "the pinnacle of motorsport"

There's absolutely no need for F1 to have more sophisticated suspension than F2 IMO.

Active suspension should have been standard for 2022 onwards. In fact it could have been a spec part (the internals) and then let the teams do their own setup and software.

Active suspension cars are boring for spectators to watch, the lack of body movement (the normal pitch, roll, dive and squat) seems unnatural and is undesirable IMO.

[Ryar]

Just allow more interesting suspension, worthy of "the pinnacle of motorsport"

There's absolutely no need for F1 to have more sophisticated suspension than F2 IMO.

Active suspension should have been standard for 2022 onwards. In fact it could have been a spec part (the internals) and then let the teams do their own setup and software.

Active suspension cars are boring for spectators to watch, the lack of body movement (the normal pitch, roll, dive and squat) seems unnatural and is undesirable IMO.

"Pinnacle of motorsport" is an unnecessary tag for the sport. I don't know who desired it. Technical innovations are part of every motorsport series and calling F1 as the pinnacle is just rubbish. A sporting series where for the namesake there are 10 teams, but in all honesty only 3 are capable of competing makes it the "Pinnacle of stupidity". The more technically complex components you introduce, the more that gulf is going to be between the leading teams and the "blue flag" teams. If this is to be fundamentally referred as a "racing" series, let alone "pinnacle of motorsport" it first need to enable all teams to compete.

[henry]

[

2. Allow more sophisticated suspension components. I have never seen an explanation of why they banned the acceleration based facilities, inerters and inertial damping valves.

As mentioned by Sieper, these were banned as it was difficult to scrutineer the legality or otherwise of such systems.

Both were not policeable for the FIA and both have been suspect.

I don’t think there was anything that was illegal about the suspension systems at least as far as last years’ regulations were concerned. What could there possibly be other than the “possibly, maybe, they’re using it to influence aerodynamic behaviour”? For an aero dominated formula what’s the problem?

[Sieper]

because they were suspect, as was the rear wing.

In an aero driven formula every benefit that you can engineer is massively important. If it fails to comply with the rules but the very limited tests and the what, 3 man team by FIA can't determine that, so be it.

Truth isn't confirmed by inspection when inspection is unable to find the truth.

[henry]

because they were suspect, as was the rear wing.

In an aero driven formula every benefit that you can engineer is massively important. If it fails to comply with the rules but the very limited tests and the what, 3 man team by FIA can't determine that, so be it.

Truth isn't confirmed by inspection when inspection is unable to find the truth.

But what was suspect? Which rule was being contravened?

The rear wing was observed to flex and that was judged to be a safety issue, they’d keep flexing them in till they broke. So they introduced measurement techniques to control the amount of flex.

What was being observed that meant inerters should not be used? Or inertial based valving? Or hydraulic connections?

[Sieper]

all of the above, who knows, a suspension is to suspend a car, not to get aero benefit. Mercedes was dropping the rear on the straights and was opening its main wing plane. How exactly they achieved that not even the FIA was able to determine. Main plane bending is now certainly not going to be possible anymore as separate wing end plates were eliminated. But if I remember correctly you also simply declined the notion on that. So why do we have this simple one piece mainwing now. Because that can be policed better, as can be simple suspension systems. Any potential of reintroducing more complex systems also means FIA wont be able to police its workings, again. Plus, it seems to me the car was already developed for getting those systems back. Steiner even mentioned that in his interview yesterday (with the wording "but I don't think that was the plan" (so why mention it then, classic tactics).

[adrianjordan]

So people seriously believe that an organisation the size of Mercedes would intentionally engineer a bad car in the hopes of getting a rule change forced through??

Jeez, maybe the contrails are really after all

[Sieper]

Is it a bad car though? It has the highest downforce of all potentially and it is not over weight.

[henry]

all of the above, who knows, a suspension is to suspend a car, not to get aero benefit. Mercedes was dropping the rear on the straights and was opening its main wing plane. How exactly they achieved that not even the FIA was able to determine. Main plane bending is now certainly not going to be possible anymore as separate wing end plates were eliminated. But if I remember correctly you also simply declined the notion on that. So why do we have this simple one piece mainwing now. Because that can be policed better, as can be simple suspension systems. Any potential of reintroducing more complex systems also means FIA wont be able to police its workings, again. Plus, it seems to me the car was already developed for getting those systems back. Steiner even mentioned that in his interview yesterday (with the wording "but I don't think that was the plan" (so why mention it then, classic tactics).

The suspension has been subordinated to aerodynamics for decades. Suspension member positioning and their shapes, characteristics of heave, pitch and roll, are all first conceived for aero benefit and then the suspension team’s remit is to suspend the car as best they can with those constraints. (Actually it’s probably more of a dialogue but the aero team have by far the largest voice).

And why shouldn’t Mercedes’ rear have squatted, after all the rest of the field had huge rear suspension travel designed to increase downforce at low speed and reduce it at high. (It also had some traction benefits, because the suspension teams’ whispers sometimes got heard).

As @DchemTech has said a few times, the regulations should constrain the goal not the means. If you don’t want squat define squat and say what’s allowable and what isn’t.

Finally the 3 Scrutineers is a red herring. The detailed scrutiny is done by the teams, for themselves and each other, the FIA only look at a few items in general and a larger number randomly. If the teams take a risk on the random elements the penalties are harsh, see Brazil last year.

My opinion is still the same, the FIA changed the balance of tools between aero and suspension making it much more difficult to get a winning compromise. Well done Red Bull for doing best at that compromise but the window to achieve that is so small that the goal of closer racing is potentially a complete fail. I’m assuming Ferrari will be affected more by the TD at Canada than Red Bull. It’s Mercedes in 2014 again, and that’s not what the doctor ordered.

[adrianjordan]

all of the above, who knows, a suspension is to suspend a car, not to get aero benefit. Mercedes was dropping the rear on the straights and was opening its main wing plane. How exactly they achieved that not even the FIA was able to determine. Main plane bending is now certainly not going to be possible anymore as separate wing end plates were eliminated. But if I remember correctly you also simply declined the notion on that. So why do we have this simple one piece mainwing now. Because that can be policed better, as can be simple suspension systems. Any potential of reintroducing more complex systems also means FIA wont be able to police its workings, again. Plus, it seems to me the car was already developed for getting those systems back. Steiner even mentioned that in his interview yesterday (with the wording "but I don't think that was the plan" (so why mention it then, classic tactics).

The suspension has been subordinated to aerodynamics for decades. Suspension member positioning and their shapes, characteristics of heave, pitch and roll, are all first conceived for aero benefit and then the suspension team’s remit is to suspend the car as best they can with those constraints. (Actually it’s probably more of a dialogue but the aero team have by far the largest voice).

And why shouldn’t Mercedes’ rear have squatted, after all the rest of the field had huge rear suspension travel designed to increase downforce at low speed and reduce it at high. (It also had some traction benefits, because the suspension teams’ whispers sometimes got heard).

As @DchemTech has said a few times, the regulations should constrain the goal not the means. If you don’t want squat define squat and say what’s allowable and what isn’t.

Finally the 3 Scrutineers is a red herring. The detailed scrutiny is done by the teams, for themselves and each other, the FIA only look at a few items in general and a larger number randomly. If the teams take a risk on the random elements the penalties are harsh, see Brazil last year.

My opinion is still the same, the FIA changed the balance of tools between aero and suspension making it much more difficult to get a winning compromise. Well done Red Bull for doing best at that compromise but the window to achieve that is so small that the goal of closer racing is potentially a complete fail. I’m assuming Ferrari will be affected more by the TD at Canada than Red Bull. It’s Mercedes in 2014 again, and that’s not what the doctor ordered.

Well written!!

[Sieper]

Brazil last year was a prime example of what can be achieved when parts cannot be policed. Yes they got caught on one simple aspect that was being tested. But only on request, as last year Hamilton was not scrutineered once. From the at random checks. But the rear plane still bended and the suspension still squatted. The car was SO dominant it was a sure fire win anyway and the things that should have been policed were not being touched. And before people get upset, yes Hamilton is a fantastic driver, I have always said that and will always do so. He can produce stints that perhaps nobody can match.

After that additional experimental wing check they even went as far as say deal with it, 3 races left, they didn’t literally say but redbull also cheated with their wing last year (the whole unit bended backwards) so we will do nothing more now. But for next year we have the single element rear wings.

We also had the simpler suspension. Now let’s see how long it takes before those “medium term technical changes” get introduced and what the effects of the current shake up will be. Redbull is not happy at all.

[Tzk]

redbull also cheated with their wing last year (the whole unit bended backwards)

Well, RedBull somehow found a way to let it bend while still passing the required tests. So i'd not call it cheating, but finding a way around the rules. Shady? Yes. Illegal? As long as the FIA doesn't intervene: No. It's always been like this, teams always try to find loopholes or clever interpretation of the rules... The current Merc sidepods are the same, not cheating but a clever interpretation of the sidepod rules.

Cutting drag on the straights will help performance a lot, that's why Merc introduced the squatting and RedBull the rearwing bending...

[Sieper]

redbull also cheated with their wing last year (the whole unit bended backwards)

Well, RedBull somehow found a way to let it bend while still passing the required tests. So i'd not call it cheating, but finding a way around the rules. Shady? Yes. Illegal? As long as the FIA doesn't intervene: No. It's always been like this, teams always try to find loopholes or clever interpretation of the rules... The current Merc sidepods are the same, not cheating but a clever interpretation of the sidepod rules.

Cutting drag on the straights will help performance a lot, that's why Merc introduced the squatting and RedBull the rearwing bending...

Strictly it was not illegal. But you can’t have moving aero. Especially not the kind that can be seen on TV easily.

[henry]

redbull also cheated with their wing last year (the whole unit bended backwards)

Well, RedBull somehow found a way to let it bend while still passing the required tests. So i'd not call it cheating, but finding a way around the rules. Shady? Yes. Illegal? As long as the FIA doesn't intervene: No. It's always been like this, teams always try to find loopholes or clever interpretation of the rules... The current Merc sidepods are the same, not cheating but a clever interpretation of the sidepod rules.

Cutting drag on the straights will help performance a lot, that's why Merc introduced the squatting and RedBull the rearwing bending...

Strictly it was not illegal. But you can’t have moving aero. Especially not the kind that can be seen on TV easily.

So Red Bull reduced rake on the straights but Mercedes squatted?

[Sieper]

??? Redbull had a rearwing that folded backwards, independently of the car.