All F1 drivers trail brake in to corners. If you don't you're losing lap time by the bucket full.
All F1 drivers trail brake in to corners. If you don't you're losing lap time by the bucket full.
It could be Redbull, I guess we'll find out soon enough.Holm86 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2024, 18:52Verstappens rear brake got destroyed during the Melbourne GP, a few weeks ago somebody mentioned that something was found on the Red Bulls that FIA asked them to remove, their pace has been worse since, now this, ofc it's only speculation but my bet is that it's red bull
Surely this is a negligible force across the system - the braking pressure in the lines are significant, I doubt (and would love to be convinced) that any external force on the car/brakes would make any difference to the pads when there is pressure in the system?OO7 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 11:04I suspected that was how such a system would be implemented when I heard about the differential braking, however I wonder why it required clarification in the technical regulations, why it wasn't considered a contravention of the initial wordings.
There will always be inertial effects on the brake pads and pure lateral forces would mean that while the inside and outside pads on one brake disc (inside and outside in relation to the direction the car is turning, not in relation to the car itself) would be slightly different (the disc experiencing slightly more force from the inside pad), the same would be true of the other brake disc, meaning the total force on one disc would be equal to the other disc. Because the car is rotating when turning, the force on all four pads would be different due to inertial effects, with the outside pads and disc (in relation to the car this time) experiencing more force than the inside pads and disc, albeit an extremely small difference. I think this may be the loophole, so it's a little bit like flexible aero, in which the bodywork cannot be created infinitely rigid.
It could be argued (without actually measuring the braking forces) that the system was designed to help equalise the braking forces while the car is turning. With a more complex system, the forces on each pad could be controlled as such. This would require a caliper with separate lines for each pad though and I'm not sure if the regulations allow that.
I agree, but looking at the wording of the initial rules and considering how Red Bull would argue the system didn't break the rules, inertial effects on the pads could be their loophole, as the forces applied to the pads can never be the same with a 'standard' braking system when the car is turning.CMSMJ1 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 11:34Surely this is a negligible force across the system - the braking pressure in the lines are significant, I doubt (and would love to be convinced) that any external force on the car/brakes would make any difference to the pads when there is pressure in the system?OO7 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 11:04I suspected that was how such a system would be implemented when I heard about the differential braking, however I wonder why it required clarification in the technical regulations, why it wasn't considered a contravention of the initial wordings.
There will always be inertial effects on the brake pads and pure lateral forces would mean that while the inside and outside pads on one brake disc (inside and outside in relation to the direction the car is turning, not in relation to the car itself) would be slightly different (the disc experiencing slightly more force from the inside pad), the same would be true of the other brake disc, meaning the total force on one disc would be equal to the other disc. Because the car is rotating when turning, the force on all four pads would be different due to inertial effects, with the outside pads and disc (in relation to the car this time) experiencing more force than the inside pads and disc, albeit an extremely small difference. I think this may be the loophole, so it's a little bit like flexible aero, in which the bodywork cannot be created infinitely rigid.
It could be argued (without actually measuring the braking forces) that the system was designed to help equalise the braking forces while the car is turning. With a more complex system, the forces on each pad could be controlled as such. This would require a caliper with separate lines for each pad though and I'm not sure if the regulations allow that.
IIRC, the mass damper rule was about its effect on the aero platform, not its effect on everything else.
A brake bias mitigation system is allowed and present on every F1 car. Front/rear is not in question, the thing in question ist only left/right.GrizzleBoy wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 13:41I see no reason why this type of system could not also be implemented in a front/rear balancing fashion and not just side to side?
.....
Would pretty much act as automatic brake balance that auto adjust through every part of the braking phase in that configuration, if tuned correctly.
....
No, if you look into the rule it is very broad. Basically everything that moves under inertia, being a tuned mass or a simple valve is forbidden.
If that's the case, then any team using such a system is flat out cheating.basti313 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 15:16No, if you look into the rule it is very broad. Basically everything that moves under inertia, being a tuned mass or a simple valve is forbidden.
But maybe the argument was simply too much, I should not have added this. It is already enough that there is the quoted rule on the brake pad force, that disallows anything pressure regulation related in the brake system.
I know that. I'm just mentioning how this specific left right auto balancing system in question could also work in a front to rear fashion and how it potentially being removed suddenly would be a bigger drawback than auto tuned left to right configuration, considering most braking is done in straight lines and the G forces front to back are much higher and therefore require the most balancing.basti313 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 15:16A brake bias mitigation system is allowed and present on every F1 car. Front/rear is not in question, the thing in question ist only left/right.GrizzleBoy wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 13:41I see no reason why this type of system could not also be implemented in a front/rear balancing fashion and not just side to side?
.....
Would pretty much act as automatic brake balance that auto adjust through every part of the braking phase in that configuration, if tuned correctly.
....
This is why the quote in my post above speaks about "each circuit". It is totally allowed to tune every brake circuit (front and rear) alone. And also necessary because of the brake by wire system on the rear brakes.
No, if you look into the rule it is very broad. Basically everything that moves under inertia, being a tuned mass or a simple valve is forbidden.
But maybe the argument was simply too much, I should not have added this. It is already enough that there is the quoted rule on the brake pad force, that disallows anything pressure regulation related in the brake system.
Even if this thing were real, the system Scarbs has shown literally wouldn’t work. The pressure everywhere in the rear hydraulic circuit will equalise so the valve doesn’t do anything unless it’s fully blocking off one side of the brakes (which it won’t be because you’d end up doubling the caliper pressure on the inside wheel or locking the pressure on in the outside one… not at all doing what you’d want)