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

[dialtone]

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)

That’s just saying what Scarbs wrote isn’t right, not that there’s no cheating involved. FIA wording change remains a fact.

Also keep in mind that press was also wrong in how Ferrari achieved their engine advantage back then. RedBull even gave FIA a fuel line setup with electronic interference with the pump to allow overcoming it but FIA still couldn’t figure out what was going on until Ferrari explained it.

FIA knows, something was fishy, Scarbs probably isn’t right. All of these can be true at once.

[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)

That’s just saying what Scarbs wrote isn’t right, not that there’s no cheating involved. FIA wording change remains a fact.

Also keep in mind that press was also wrong in how Ferrari achieved their engine advantage back then. RedBull even gave FIA a fuel line setup with electronic interference with the pump to allow overcoming it but FIA still couldn’t figure out what was going on until Ferrari explained it.

FIA knows, something was fishy, Scarbs probably isn’t right. All of these can be true at once.

WMSC mid-season rule changes require unanimous approval from participating teams so I'm not sure how that adds up to the FIA knowing something is fishy.

This entire topic is based on a voted-on rule change and on an article written by an unreliable journalist, reposted by an unreliable... social media user? I'm not sure what Windsor is nowadays. Scarbs did some drawings (of a system that literally would not work as advertised) and now it has become gospel. The only, and I do mean only fact here is there was a mid-season rule change which requires unanimous approval. Not a technical directive, no investigation, a voted-on rule change clarifying existing rules vis-a-vis brakes.

[dialtone]

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:

That’s just saying what Scarbs wrote isn’t right, not that there’s no cheating involved. FIA wording change remains a fact.

Also keep in mind that press was also wrong in how Ferrari achieved their engine advantage back then. RedBull even gave FIA a fuel line setup with electronic interference with the pump to allow overcoming it but FIA still couldn’t figure out what was going on until Ferrari explained it.

FIA knows, something was fishy, Scarbs probably isn’t right. All of these can be true at once.

WMSC mid-season rule changes require unanimous approval from participating teams so I'm not sure how that adds up to the FIA knowing something is fishy.

This entire topic is based on a voted-on rule change and on an article written by an unreliable journalist, reposted by an unreliable... social media user? I'm not sure what Windsor is nowadays. Scarbs did some drawings (of a system that literally would not work as advertised) and now it has become gospel. The only, and I do mean only fact here is there was a mid-season rule change which requires unanimous approval. Not a technical directive, no investigation, a voted-on rule change clarifying existing rules vis-a-vis brakes.

There’s more facts than just that to be fair.

RedBull went from winning 7 of 8 at the start, with 8 poles, to not having won much since.

RedBull is also the only car with serious braking issues this season and developed into very understeery given driver feedback.

[Vaexa]

That’s just saying what Scarbs wrote isn’t right, not that there’s no cheating involved. FIA wording change remains a fact.

Also keep in mind that press was also wrong in how Ferrari achieved their engine advantage back then. RedBull even gave FIA a fuel line setup with electronic interference with the pump to allow overcoming it but FIA still couldn’t figure out what was going on until Ferrari explained it.

FIA knows, something was fishy, Scarbs probably isn’t right. All of these can be true at once.

WMSC mid-season rule changes require unanimous approval from participating teams so I'm not sure how that adds up to the FIA knowing something is fishy.

This entire topic is based on a voted-on rule change and on an article written by an unreliable journalist, reposted by an unreliable... social media user? I'm not sure what Windsor is nowadays. Scarbs did some drawings (of a system that literally would not work as advertised) and now it has become gospel. The only, and I do mean only fact here is there was a mid-season rule change which requires unanimous approval. Not a technical directive, no investigation, a voted-on rule change clarifying existing rules vis-a-vis brakes.

There’s more facts than just that to be fair.

RedBull went from winning 7 of 8 at the start, with 8 poles, to not having won much since.

RedBull is also the only car with serious braking issues this season and developed into very understeery given driver feedback.

All of this is circumstantial. Verstappen has been complaining about understeer since at least 2021 - which was a totally different rules set. Mercedes and Ferrari have had issues with brakes and brake splits this season too, are they suspicious as well?

[Quantum]

WMSC mid-season rule changes require unanimous approval from participating teams so I'm not sure how that adds up to the FIA knowing something is fishy.

What about the supermajority the FIA says on their website...
Is there a direct rule that overcomes supermajority?

Responsible for all matters relating to the FIA Formula One World Championship, including amendments to the regulations governing the sport, the F1 Commission is where ideas aimed at improving the championship are generated or first tabled.

For a concept to progress to the next stage, a majority is required. In the case of F1’s Sporting and Technical Regulations, the vote must be made prior to the end of April of the year preceding the introduction of the proposed regulatory change and a simple majority of 25 of the 30 available votes is required. However, if the change is tabled after the end of April of the year preceding introduction of the regulatory change, a super majority of 28 votes is required.

https://www.fia.com/news/writing-rules- ... -formula-1

[basti313]

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.

Again: There is an automatic balancing system front/right in every F1 car. The system does the brake mitigation while the driver brakes into a corner moving the brake bias. What do you want to tell, what else do you want to do with the brakes???

That’s just saying what Scarbs wrote isn’t right, not that there’s no cheating involved. FIA wording change remains a fact.
.... All of these can be true at once.

Yes. But the wording change hints to a grey area rather than cheating. As mentioned: It can not be hydraulics as this is spot on cheating and no wording change required.
They are doing something with software and this is obvious in the logs of the central electronics. I bet it is completely "against the spirit of the rules" and this is why they stopped them from using it in the background without a fuzz. Now the wording change to make it bullet proof.

By the way, I do not 100% buy the story about the ban at Miami or the relevance with the burning brake in Oz. Understeer was always a bit of discussion on Fridays, but if I am not mistaken RedBull has major issues to deal it out only since Austria. That fits a bit better from the timeline of the new rule wording.

[Flanker27]

Ops, illegal another time...

[myurr]

Two random spitball guesses, both likely waaaay off the mark:

1. Apply torque to the rear wheels using the ERS and differential to direct torque to one wheel or the other whilst under braking.

2. Varying the coefficient of friction in some way. Move the brake pads up and down so they're only partially in contact, rotate the brake pads with them having different coefficients in either orientation, drip a small amount of oil on the brake pad that burns off as it next gets hot...

Happy to be the dumb guy in the room throwing out random ideas for the smart people to shoot down, or perhaps take inspiration from.

I think there's a clue in the change of wording between the original wording that spoke of symmetric braking force, and the new clarification changes this to talk of symmetric torque.

[chrisc90]

How many G's or weight of the 'damper' inside a T-piece would you need to overcome ~100bar of fluid pressure?

[AR3-GP]

How many G's or weight of the 'damper' inside a T-piece would you need to overcome ~100bar of fluid pressure?

The fluid pressure is equal on all sides of the mass so there is no net force on it. Think of this like swimming at the bottom of the ocean. There is a large pressure, but it doesn't push you in any direction (other than "inward") because it is "hydrostatic" (all directions).

The dynamics of the weight are only controlled by inertia, the stiffness of the spring, and the drag from the viscosity of the brake fluid that it swims in.

It is essentially a mass damper which is why a struggle to believe that this design is what would be used. Mass dampers are explicitly banned. It doesn't matter if there is a secondary function. If they allowed it, then you could design a mass damper inside of the drinks system, and argue the primary function is to prevent back flows in the drinks system. This would be ridiculous, of course.

Besides, I think someone should make their drinks reservoir baffled and mount it vertically.

[scuderiabrandon]

Two random spitball guesses, both likely waaaay off the mark:

1. Apply torque to the rear wheels using the ERS and differential to direct torque to one wheel or the other whilst under braking.

2. Varying the coefficient of friction in some way. Move the brake pads up and down so they're only partially in contact, rotate the brake pads with them having different coefficients in either orientation, drip a small amount of oil on the brake pad that burns off as it next gets hot...

Happy to be the dumb guy in the room throwing out random ideas for the smart people to shoot down, or perhaps take inspiration from.

I think there's a clue in the change of wording between the original wording that spoke of symmetric braking force, and the new clarification changes this to talk of symmetric torque.

1. Apply torque to the rear wheels using the ERS and differential to direct torque to one wheel or the other whilst under braking.

Torque vectoring is forbidden.

[GrizzleBoy]

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.

Again: There is an automatic balancing system front/right in every F1 car. The system does the brake mitigation while the driver brakes into a corner moving the brake bias. What do you want to tell, what else do you want to do with the brakes???

And I'm saying that the level of mitigation which is set by drivers selecting a value on the steering wheel (or lever in the past), is not the same as a G load sensitive brake balance system, as mentioned in the tweet above?

What I'm describing is the level of brake bias being dynamically set without drivers inputting values themselves, with that level automatically adjusting front to rear or vice versa through each phase of braking in an attempt to make sure the cars aero platform remains as stable.

Are you saying there's something like this in all F1 cars?

[basti313]

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.

Again: There is an automatic balancing system front/right in every F1 car. The system does the brake mitigation while the driver brakes into a corner moving the brake bias. What do you want to tell, what else do you want to do with the brakes???

And I'm saying that the level of mitigation which is set by drivers selecting a value on the steering wheel (or lever in the past), is not the same as a G load sensitive brake balance system, as mentioned in the tweet above?

What I'm describing is the level of brake bias being dynamically set without drivers inputting values themselves, with that level automatically adjusting front to rear or vice versa through each phase of braking in an attempt to make sure the cars aero platform remains as stable.

Are you saying there's something like this in all F1 cars?

Yes.
The brake bias is set on a function to shift backwards with lowering the pressure on the pedal. This is similar to using the G force as input due to the downforce. So everything is perfectly adjusted by the driver as the function is depending on the preset done by the driver for each corner.

Torque vectoring is forbidden.

Hmmm...my assumption...still only assumption:
They stop the inside rear wheel to get the car rotating before the apex (I think the handbrake turn explanation in one of the links above is nonsense). This is the slower turning wheel. So transferring torque to it is allowed:
9.10.1 Any system or device the effect of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a
slower to a faster rotating wheel is not permitted.
So if they have a way to send the engine braking or ERS harvesting to the inside wheel, this is allowed and not falling under this torque vectoring rule.

[mwillems]

[scuderiabrandon]

Again: There is an automatic balancing system front/right in every F1 car. The system does the brake mitigation while the driver brakes into a corner moving the brake bias. What do you want to tell, what else do you want to do with the brakes???

And I'm saying that the level of mitigation which is set by drivers selecting a value on the steering wheel (or lever in the past), is not the same as a G load sensitive brake balance system, as mentioned in the tweet above?

What I'm describing is the level of brake bias being dynamically set without drivers inputting values themselves, with that level automatically adjusting front to rear or vice versa through each phase of braking in an attempt to make sure the cars aero platform remains as stable.

Are you saying there's something like this in all F1 cars?

Yes.
The brake bias is set on a function to shift backwards with lowering the pressure on the pedal. This is similar to using the G force as input due to the downforce. So everything is perfectly adjusted by the driver as the function is depending on the preset done by the driver for each corner.

Torque vectoring is forbidden.

Hmmm...my assumption...still only assumption:
They stop the inside rear wheel to get the car rotating before the apex (I think the handbrake turn explanation in one of the links above is nonsense). This is the slower turning wheel. So transferring torque to it is allowed:
9.10.1 Any system or device the effect of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a
slower to a faster rotating wheel is not permitted.
So if they have a way to send the engine braking or ERS harvesting to the inside wheel, this is allowed and not falling under this torque vectoring rule.

To me that's still sounds like torque vectoring, but maybe that is my lack of understanding showing.

Anyway, sending more braking force to the inside wheel to induce rotation seems really hard to do. The inner wheel will always be completely unloaded, meaning lock-ups become a big problem. For it to work as intended, you'd probably require ABS.