Legality of McLaren's "Butterfly" suspension

[PhillipM]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112365
maybe they should have waited just a little

Yeah I think they showed that way too early. McLaren really is one of the most innovative teams but their innovations are often quickly adapted by the other teams. So quick that McLaren hardly gets an advantage from it.

I don't think you can risk not having a major part of the car aero not working in testing this year, they need too much milage on the car themselves to worry about other teams seeing it, they just need to take advantage of what they have early on. It's a design that will take a fair bit of time to copy to the same magnitude anyway.
Besides, the other teams appear to have more to worry about at the moment!

[JDC123]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112365
maybe they should have waited just a little

Yeah I think they showed that way too early. McLaren really is one of the most innovative teams but their innovations are often quickly adapted by the other teams. So quick that McLaren hardly gets an advantage from it.

I agree. There was no need for McLaren to test it out this week, they should just be focusing on reliability and performance from the engine, before they look at aero performance at the next two tests. I do think however it will take awhile for teams to copy as they will have to adapt/reposition their lower wishbones to optimise this design. However i think atm teams with Renault engines (Red Bull mostly) have more important issues to focus on, like getting their car to work first.

[wesley123]

The problem with the rules regarding suspension arms is that they are rather open to interpretation, and they can't be any different.

If I'm correct, the rules state that parts like suspension arms cannot have an aerodynamic effect. Well, if it's exposed it has an effect on the aerodynamics, both around itself as in it's own right.

Also, everyone's wishbones are shaped in a more aerodynamic way, a symmetrical wing profile doesn't have a weight or structural advantage compared to an round profile, making the shape purely aerodynamic and making the McLaren suspension arms nothing different than any other.

Having a beneficial effect on aero doesn't stand here either, since the other arms are shaped in such a way that it would improve airflow and reduce drag in it's own right. Also, this is open to interpretation as the McLaren suspension arms look rather draggy. I wouldn't call drag an beneficial effect.

The rules regarding suspension arms should require a shape that requires a continuous, symmetrical section(i.e, no trailing edge), this would remove the whole point of having symmetric wing profiles. Also the 5 degree rule seems rather weird to have on parts that cannot have an aerodynamic effect on a car or in it's own right.

[JesperA]

Well, the arms seem aeroneutral and if FIA tests a wishbone by itself i am sure they will be aeroneutral and therefor comply with the rules, its only when they are combined with other component that the other components become aerobenefitial from the wishbones, but the wishbones themselves is still aeroneutral.

In the comfort of my armchair i would say that with the current phrasing of the rules, they are legal.

[smr]

The thing is if Mclaren hadn't run this rear suspension "dragon fly" effect at this test (in a bid to prevent other team's copying) how would they know whether it worked properly? Getting to Bahrain and testing it then could have proved too late could it not?

[Ben27]

After a non-running session on Tuesday they told the media After staying in the garage all day long that It was for a hydraulic/electrical problem.
So does that mean the new devised system is hydraulic?
Well, actually it's hydraulic as it works with the suspension indeed however I'm not so sure if this system is legal.
What I know is they are focusing on performance over reliability because the system need to be check out.

[beelsebob]

The problem with the rules regarding suspension arms is that they are rather open to interpretation, and they can't be any different.

If I'm correct, the rules state that parts like suspension arms cannot have an aerodynamic effect. Well, if it's exposed it has an effect on the aerodynamics, both around itself as in it's own right.

You're not right – the rules state that the suspension arms must be symmetrical about their major axis, this in the past has lead to aero neutral (mostly) parts.

[iotar__]

Hope nothing will come from the protests.

https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

Whether it's worth to protest it depends also on whether they can copy/use it, to what extent compared to competition and when. FIA as usual waits to see who cares about it (remember flexing wings "delay"?). F1 is brilliant.

[Ferraripilot]

This in a way reminds me of the clever Lotus front braking system which was physically attached to the front brake lines and simply kept the car more level under braking. Lotus were positive it was legal as the Fia had deemed it legal earlier, but then the protest went in and it was almost immediately declared illegal. I can very likely see this mclaren suspension system going the same way as it is quite aerodynamically beneficial, it has literally no other purpose for being designed that way other than that it's benefitting aero. If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

[Holm86]

This in a way reminds me of the clever Lotus front braking system which was physically attached to the front brake lines and simply kept the car more level under braking. Lotus were positive it was legal as the Fia had deemed it legal earlier, but then the protest went in and it was almost immediately declared illegal. I can very likely see this mclaren suspension system going the same way as it is quite aerodynamically beneficial, it has literally no other purpose for being designed that way other than that it's benefitting aero. If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

I don't think its anything alike. The Lotus height adjuster was a separate feature which did not brake any rules. The McLaren wishbones is not a separate feature. Its a feature which exists on every car on the grid. Only difference is the shape. And the shape does not brake the regulations.

[Ferraripilot]

Yes, it breaks a regulation in a sense that the only reason for the suspension member to be where it is and how it's designed is for aerodynamic benefit. Mclaren had several other options for rear geometry but the specifically chose that one. A clear breach IMO.

[Rikhart]

After a non-running session on Tuesday they told the media After staying in the garage all day long that It was for a hydraulic/electrical problem.
So does that mean the new devised system is hydraulic?
Well, actually it's hydraulic as it works with the suspension indeed however I'm not so sure if this system is legal.
What I know is they are focusing on performance over reliability because the system need to be check out.

There is no "system", it´s only the shape of the suspension.

[Holm86]

Yes, it breaks a regulation in a sense that the only reason for the suspension member to be where it is and how it's designed is for aerodynamic benefit. Mclaren had several other options for rear geometry but the specifically chose that one. A clear breach IMO.

I don't agree. It has to have a shape. And as long as that shape confines with the regulations which it does I see no problem.

[adrianjordan]

Yes, it breaks a regulation in a sense that the only reason for the suspension member to be where it is and how it's designed is for aerodynamic benefit. Mclaren had several other options for rear geometry but the specifically chose that one. A clear breach IMO.

As did every team that chose every rear suspension geometry...

[PhillipM]

If that suspension member were *required* to be designed as such to maintain that particular suspension geometry and aero benefit was secondary then I would gladly declare it legal, but such is not the case.

You've just outlawed the suspension on every car on the grid.