Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[mx_tifoso]

The only interesting thing about 2012, besides Raikkonen, has just been removed so what do we have left?

And why doesn't the FIA move in a lot sooner to prevent the teams from spending even more money on it? All of this is ridiculous despite the fact that it is bordering on a moveable aero device.

[andartop]

Thank goodness they didn't find Raikkonen illegal as well.

[Mr.S]

I dont get it. The whole paddock new. We knew. Teams literally inquired about this months back & now they ban it.

Why can't they get their act together with clear rules & interpretation & ban stuff early if they want to ban it.

[awizul]

Thank goodness they didn't find Raikkonen illegal as well.

=D> =D>

[xpensive]

I dont get it. The whole paddock new. We knew. Teams literally inquired about this months back & now they ban it.

Why can't they get their act together with clear rules & interpretation & ban stuff early if they want to ban it.

I'm afraid these things are down to the technical competence of Charlie Whiting, just consider his inability to understand how the flex-wings actually works, a team asks him for the nod and he gives it without properly fathom the concept.

Then other teams with engineers better equipped looks at the rule-book, finds this and protests;

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

In retrospect, it's actually pretty black and white I must admit.

[Mr.S]

I dont get it. The whole paddock new. We knew. Teams literally inquired about this months back & now they ban it.

Why can't they get their act together with clear rules & interpretation & ban stuff early if they want to ban it.

I'm afraid these things are down to the technical competence of Charlie Whiting, just consider his inability to understand how the flex-wings actually works, a team asks him for the nod and he gives it without properly fathom the concept.

Then other teams with engineers better equipped looks at the rule-book, finds this and protests;

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

In retrospect, it's actually pretty black and white I must admit.

Why ban now?? After teams have spend Huge amount on money & resources for it?? This is ridiculous. They changed the EBD ban. Now this is EBD part 2 only with different results.

[Giblet]

We don't know all the details of how the device was suposed to work or why they initially thought iy would be OK. I find it odd and a bit of a logical disconnect to already be blaming Whiting.

We don't know exactly how the system works, or why it was banned. Don't let that stop anyone from chomping at the bit though.

[Shakeman]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I reckon RB has been using this device or similar for 2 years in conjunction with flexi-wings.

I can remember McLaren being amazed that RB could continue to be so low to the ground on qualifying fuel load and race load. This lead to all those rumours of slow leak to suspension gases etc etc.

Perhaps this banning is a eureka moment in understanding what RB have been up to?

[xpensive]

We don't know all the details of how the device was suposed to work or why they initially thought iy would be OK. I find it odd and a bit of a logical disconnect to already be blaming Whiting.
...

I beg to differ Gibs, when a team inquires to the FIA about the legality of this or that, the first instance is Whiting.

Therefore, I find it logical that he gave the nod from the beginning, when the solution became more or less public, other teams found it in direct contradiction with 10.2.3, why they protested and the case went higher up within the FIA?

The result was a ban, better now than mid-season anyway, but I can appreciate the frustration of Lotus.

[myurr]

We don't know all the details of how the device was suposed to work or why they initially thought iy would be OK. I find it odd and a bit of a logical disconnect to already be blaming Whiting.

We don't know exactly how the system works, or why it was banned. Don't let that stop anyone from chomping at the bit though.

My view is that it's not really Whiting's fault, as he cannot ultimately make the decision one way or the other merely provide a recommendation, it is more a systemic failure of the FIA. The teams have to invest millions into these technological ideas and developments and usually do so only after getting the green light from the FIA. Autosport is reporting that Lotus / Renault checked with the FIA a **year** ago and were given the green light to develop the system. Now after a year of expense and effort, diverting resources away from other aspects of the car, they are suddenly told it's not legal.

I have called for this several times now as the FIA has a long long history of similar stupidity and inconsistency. The teams need to be given an official body that they can go to for an official FIA decision on a particular piece of technology or idea, and once that body has given their ruling they should only be able to reverse their decision for the following season.

We'll never completely get away from this type of situation as F1 is an incredibly complex sport to police, but it should certainly be the exception rather than the rule - something that the FIA is clearly failing to achieve.

[PlatinumZealot]

Before this goes too far, I'd like to point out that my suggestion that Red Bull had something to do with the FIA's about-face on this matter was made with tongue planted firmly in-cheek. At this point, there's no way to know exactly why the FIA reversed course.

I think RedBull may have been running the system themselves! This very same system could be what has been allowing them to run those very flexible wings! RB might simply be against it now because the other teams will have it!

Food for thought..

[WhiteBlue]

Well WB, it seems that your crystal ball got things wrong this time, or did you just hedge your bets?

Indeed I hedged my bets. As you can read in this thread I immediately thought that the system might be called illegal as soon as someone mentioned 10.2.3. That has apparently happened by now.

But the story is not finished at this point. Lotus can take this to a race meeting and have it disqualified on a car. They can then have their national sporting authority take the case to the ICA. It would not be the first time that the ICA would overturn a technical directive by an FiA technical delegate or a scrutineering decision by a race steward.

Even if the ICA finds the thing illegal Lotus still has the option to lobby the F1commission for 2013 to scrap the §10.2.3. I would certainly do it. I still find such clever suspension developments highly desirable and I can imagine that there would be strong support in the F1commission.

We don't even know if the whole thing wasn't just a test balloon by Lotus to start the process of having the rules adjusted. We do know from Mercedes and Ferrari that they very much support such systems. Those manufacturers still have a lot of clout in the commission. Bernie and the FiA could throw their hats into the ring and the thing could be legal within two or three months for 2013.

[FrukostScones]

A pity that they banned it (I think itwas Williams behind it not Red Bull , RB have the funds, brain and manpower to copy that system easily).
But it was quite obvious that the system was not so kosher if you read 10.2.3 and remembered the mass-damper saga.
So if that Autosport article is correct, Merc, Ferrari and Renault just lost half a second of lap time....... Damn!

[IchII3D]

I was a little disappointed reading this news, it could have made for some amazing slow motion shots Not to mention new technology is always fascinating. I have high hopes to one day see that Lotus name up there again, even if its over the Renault badge.

[Ferraripilot]

Contract law in the US would be in question on this one. Lotus agreed by contract when they formed their team and built their car to adhere to the rules as set forth by the FiA.

Lotus develops the technology and has it reviewed for approval.

FiA approves the technology some time ago. Here's the issue: Once the FiA gives approval they have thus voided the rights rule §10.2.3 in stating it is not applicable for this situation.

Lotus further proceeds with development of the technology.


Once the FiA in essence voided the law some time ago in agreeing to the technology, Lotus and other teams using this tech could undoubtedly argue with success that the FiA was in breach of their amended verbal agreement which I am sure Lotus has documented. In the US, I would call almost this a 'bad faith' case.

In the US, this would be successful but I haven't any idea regarding how these international venues might govern things. I'm guessing it's their way or the highway on most occasions though.