Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[Richard]

WB - in simple terms it says the suspension has to be a closed system. Force from outside the system can only be applied by the wheel. Forces external to the system such as brake pedals, pumps, hydraulics, etc. are not allowed.

[WhiteBlue]

WB - in simple terms it says the suspension has to be a closed system. Force from outside the system can only be applied by the wheel. Forces external to the system such as brake pedals, pumps, hydraulics, etc. are not allowed.

Well, that is your interpretation. But there can be other interpretations as the formulation is very ambiguous.

Perhaps one should wait for a comment by a team expert or by the FiA what is allowed. I feel we are deep into speculation. The main fact today is the legality of the system as reported by Autosport. Nobody has publicly denied the report.

[hardingfv32]

1) The rules are wonderfully ambiguous. This allows the FIA to make any ruling they want.

2) Is the discuss about the legality of using brake line pressure an attempt to keep it in the running as the system's main design feature?

3) Is it logical to expect that the driver has extra strength available to apply to raising the front of the car under braking?

Brian

[Richard]

errmm... What I'm saying agrees with Autosport.

The driver pushes a pedal, that applies a brake pad to the wheel and nothing else. The braking force causes a rotation of the wheel hub against the calliper. That rotation forces the suspension up.

Unless I misread your post, I think you are saying there is a hydraulic line from the brake pedal to the suspension? Auotsport report that would be illegal.

[hardingfv32]

I posted this in the R32 thread as well. It is Honda's TRAC system used in the 80s on its motorcycles:

Used in the 80's, why does F1 get around to using it in 2010 or so? Why was F1 so slow to jump on the design?

Brian

[WhiteBlue]

Unless I misread your post, I think you are saying there is a hydraulic line from the brake pedal to the suspension?

How do you brake if there is no hydraulic line from the brake pedal to the wheel hub. I'm just saying that it makes no difference if you connect the hydraulic strut cylinder and the brake pressure line or if you have a non fluidic transmission between.

Auotsport report that would be illegal.

Quotation please!

[timbo]

I'm just saying that it makes no difference if you connect the hydraulic strut cylinder and the brake pressure line or if you have a non fluidic transmission between.

No.
Somebody made a fine point. If a driver presses pedal while the car is stationary and it raises a suspension it is illegal.

[WhiteBlue]

Somebody made a fine point. If a driver presses pedal while the car is stationary and it raises a suspension it is illegal.

Why should that be relevant? When the car is stationary there is no aerodynamic influence.

[timbo]

Somebody made a fine point. If a driver presses pedal while the car is stationary and it raises a suspension it is illegal.

Why should that be relevant? When the car is stationary there is no aerodynamic influence.

It would be relevant to 10.1.2 and also as an indicator for alleged "primary" functionality of the system.

[WhiteBlue]

It would be relevant to 10.1.2 and also as an indicator for alleged "primary" functionality of the system.

Again, not a convincing answer. 10.1.2 makes no difference between rolling or standing car. Nowhere in the regulations there is one word about "indicators" or "primary functionality". IMO it is irrelevant if the nose goes up when the brake pedal is pushed while the car is stationary. Why should anybody at the FiA be interested?

[timbo]

Again, not a convincing answer. 10.1.2 makes no difference between rolling or standing car.

When the car is standing the loads are constant. If the suspension attitude changes while it's stationary it is not reacting to loads.
If the attitude change happens when the car decelerates one could argue it is reaction to weight transfer.

Nowhere in the regulations there is one word about "indicators" or "primary functionality".

But you proposed such a differentiation yourself.

[jason.parker.86]

Everyone is assuming that the car is lowered when the brake pedal is pressed...
What if the system lowers the nose when the brake pedal is pulled towards the driver... In effect a two way pedal?

[WhiteBlue]

Again, not a convincing answer. 10.1.2 makes no difference between rolling or standing car.

When the car is standing the loads are constant. If the suspension attitude changes while it's stationary it is not reacting to loads.
If the attitude change happens when the car decelerates one could argue it is reaction to weight transfer.

Nowhere in the regulations there is one word about "indicators" or "primary functionality".

But you proposed such a differentiation yourself.

Actually the loads on the wheel are not constant when you push the brake
pedal and the car is stationary. You apply brake pressure to the brake disk, which is part of the wheel. As the loads are changing the reactions can change. This is rather an indication that the opposite is true.

Your second paragraph is an argument that isn't substantial to the real issue and goes through loops. I suggest we drop that as we could be arguing here next Xmas.

[timbo]

Actually the loads on the wheel are not constant when you push the brake
pedal and the car is stationary. You apply brake pressure to the brake disk, which is part of the wheel. As the loads are changing the reactions can change. This is rather an indication that the opposite is true.

I doubt brake disk is a considered part of the suspension.
Also, it would not change vertical loads and the supposed attitude change happens due to vertical reaction.

Your second paragraph is an argument that isn't substantial to the real issue and goes through loops. I suggest we drop that as we could be arguing here next Xmas.

ok

[WhiteBlue]

Actually the loads on the wheel are not constant when you push the brake pedal and the car is stationary. You apply brake pressure to the brake disk, which is part of the wheel. As the loads are changing the reactions can change. This is rather an indication that the opposite is true.

I doubt brake disk is a considered part of the suspension.
Also, it would not change vertical loads and the supposed attitude change happens due to vertical reaction.

You are not addressing the point I made. I said the brake disk is part of the wheel and you say it is not considered part of the suspension. We all agree that a brake disk isn't part of the suspension. So can you please address the right point.

And to round up the point it is nowhere said in the regulation that the loads have to be vertical. This btw is one reason why I have called the paragraph ambiguous and irrelevant to the issue.

All the terms of the paragraph are ambiguous language that is not properly descriptive of or inappropriate to the wheel dynamics.