Braking regulation change - "asymmetric braking torques for a given axle is forbidden"

[Just_a_fan]

It would also only really be there for those drivers that prefer to do a little bit of trail braking into the corners.

All F1 drivers trail brake in to corners. If you don't you're losing lap time by the bucket full.

[taperoo2k]

Verstappens 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

It could be Redbull, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[napoleon1981]

If it is RB, it would also be interesting to know when the system found its way on the car...

[clownfish]

There is a bit of discussion about this now on The Site Formerly Known As Twitter:

[OO7]

I 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.

[CMSMJ1]

I 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.

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]

I 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.

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?

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.

[basti313]

But that would not need any clarification. Everything inertia related is forbidden by the mass damper rule, no matter if big swinging mass or tiny brake pad mass.

Hydraulics, already explained very well in different threads, would not have the simply application as suggested with a simple valve. You would need to have an active pressure regulator, just a valve does nothing. This pressure regulator would need to have additionally a fast way to bleed the pressure to avoid locking.

From the rules:
11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force exerted on the brake pads within
each circuit are the same at all times.

I think the idea of a hydraulics valve is neither technically thought through, not would it take any clarification, it was clearly forbidden before.

I think the whole thing is just ERS/Diff related, just given by the rule above, it can not be the brake system. The only thinkable way is, that they are using the diff with the ERS/and or engine braking to apply more stopping on the inside wheel exactly when they need it. This is allowed, as they are transferring torque from outside to inside, not the other way, which is forbidden in the rules.

Remembering the complaints about downshifts at RedBull since two? years...I was always wondering why they do not get the downshifts in line, something AlphaTauri was not fighting with although having the same engine and gearbox. Especially remembering Spore last year, they did not get the downshifts sorted and did not get the car rotating.

Now the assumption: They are either using an automated system or a switch to change the diff mode to rotate the car, which maybe even switches back on throttle application. I do not see how this is forbidden by the rule, similar to brake distribution presets drivers are using by standard.
This would be a system that "can produce systematically or intentionally, asymmetric braking torques".
Just the dosing and adjustment would be super hard. So not easy to apply or copy.

[GrizzleBoy]

I 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?

Especially if it's G load activated/tuned since G loads will be highest in heavy braking zones.

Would pretty much act as automatic brake balance that auto adjust through every part of the braking phase in that configuration, if tuned correctly.

In a regulation set where stability of the aerodynamic platform is pretty much everything, that would be quite the convenient thing to have, and IMO would make more sense when it comes to explaining Max's new issues with braking than lateral G load braking balancing would.

[OO7]

But that would not need any clarification. Everything inertia related is forbidden by the mass damper rule, no matter if big swinging mass or tiny brake pad mass.

IIRC, the mass damper rule was about its effect on the aero platform, not its effect on everything else.

[basti313]

I 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.
....

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.
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.

But that would not need any clarification. Everything inertia related is forbidden by the mass damper rule, no matter if big swinging mass or tiny brake pad mass.

IIRC, the mass damper rule was about its effect on the aero platform, not its effect on everything else.

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.

[OO7]

But that would not need any clarification. Everything inertia related is forbidden by the mass damper rule, no matter if big swinging mass or tiny brake pad mass.

IIRC, the mass damper rule was about its effect on the aero platform, not its effect on everything else.

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.

If that's the case, then any team using such a system is flat out cheating.

[GrizzleBoy]

I 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.
....

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.
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.

But that would not need any clarification. Everything inertia related is forbidden by the mass damper rule, no matter if big swinging mass or tiny brake pad mass.

IIRC, the mass damper rule was about its effect on the aero platform, not its effect on everything else.

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.

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.

[organic]

It's always possible that no team was using this and someone sought clarification and FIA made the rule to be more clear.

[Vaexa]

I am invoking the Forbidden Website because occasionally there's a guy on there who does know what he's talking about, and u/GaryGiesel actually works in the sport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... s/lidrnd8/

re. Scarbs' proposed 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)