Legality of McLaren's "Butterfly" suspension

[scarbs]

As I understand it, the McLaren set up is legal and CW is happy with it. Although the ‘wishbones’ are shaped and move with the suspension, they meet the specific rules concerning wishbone dimensions. As far shaped fairings being legal, it’s been a while since teams bothered to make shaped structural wishbones and now simply make solid CF inners and bond on ‘fairings’.
I saw a queue of Tech Directors lined up outside CW’s office, this could be for all sorts of reasons, but this was mainly on Wednesday morning, the day Mac started running. I also questioned a few Tech Directors and they said they may well meet the word of the regulations, but there may be come older tech directives (clarifications) which have set out to define what’s accepted. Even though these may be a few years old, the precedent stands, but I understand TD have no place in F1 regulations.

IMO the McLaren set up is illegal, it’s just a case of wording the argument, it may need something formal in Melbourne to get the situation cleared.

[turbof1]

I have to ask on that subject: who did actually declared it legal - Charlie or somebody else from the FIA? Charlie has been often overruled by his own employee throughout the years.

Not to mock him, but he lost quite some credibility with the tyre test debacle last year. No matter if he is right or wrong, I feel like teams and the fia can just run over him.

[Pup]

As far shaped fairings being legal, it’s been a while since teams bothered to make shaped structural wishbones and now simply make solid CF inners and bond on ‘fairings’.

That's new info to me. Thanks!

[Richard]

I have to ask on that subject: who did actually declared it legal - Charlie or somebody else from the FIA? Charlie has been often overruled by his own employee throughout the years.

Not to mock him, but he lost quite some credibility with the tyre test debacle last year. No matter if he is right or wrong, I feel like teams and the fia can just run over him.

As we learnt from the DDD, something can only be illegal when scrutinised for a race. Until then any comments from the FIA are merely opinion.

[Ferraripilot]

I think precedent is the only form of common law the regs really have to prop themselves against, clearly the various TD are familiar with those specific to this situation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Trocola]

IMO the McLaren set up is illegal, it’s just a case of wording the argument, it may need something formal in Melbourne to get the situation cleared.

For what i read and listen from you, i though you were quite sure the suspension was legal

[Maynard G. Krebs]

I think precedent is the only form of common law the regs really have to prop themselves against, clearly the various TD are familiar with those specific to this situation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

But this is a club, and when you join the F1 club you agree to abide by the rules and rulings. It doesn't have to be fair or equitable or anything else. Many sports leagues are the same. In the NFL they often admit to having made bad calls but it's too bad. You can't sue the NFL (well, you can try, but you can't win) to overturn a call. You agreed to abide by the rulings when you joined. "Common law", and "precedent", may help them with credibility but it doesn't have to inform their decisions.

[turbof1]

I think precedent is the only form of common law the regs really have to prop themselves against, clearly the various TD are familiar with those specific to this situation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

But this is a club, and when you join the F1 club you agree to abide by the rules and rulings. It doesn't have to be fair or equitable or anything else. Many sports leagues are the same. In the NFL they often admit to having made bad calls but it's too bad. You can't sue the NFL (well, you can try, but you can't win) to overturn a call. You agreed to abide by the rulings when you joined. "Common law", and "precedent", may help them with credibility but it doesn't have to inform their decisions.

This isn't the same as a sport like the NFL, where you only have sporting rules. The sporting side is equally treated in F1, but the technical side is a whole different area. If something is legal or not is determined before the race with more then enough time to think about it, to avoid "bad calls". You agree with the rules you are given, but you don't have to agree with is intended but porely written down. The teams have the responsibility to follow the regulations, but the ruling body has the responsibility to be clear. Any grey areas left open is on the head of the ruling body.

[SiLo]

How does this actually help the diffuser again? By limiting flow over the top and increasing the differential between speeds of the air underneath the car and above it?

[wuzak]

As far shaped fairings being legal, it’s been a while since teams bothered to make shaped structural wishbones and now simply make solid CF inners and bond on ‘fairings’.

The rules specifically state that non-structural parts of the suspension are considered bodywork, and that bodywork must be fixed to the chassis.

A fairing, therefore, would be deemed non-structural and thus would need to be fixed to the chassis.

IMO the McLaren set up is illegal, it’s just a case of wording the argument, it may need something formal in Melbourne to get the situation cleared.

My first thought was that it was illegal. But so long as the fairings are actually a structural part of the arm it is technically OK. But I still think they're taking the piss. No way it complies with the "spirit of the law", though that hasn't been a factor for many years.

[FW17]

Private rule clarification with CW/FIA should be banned, if you want to risk a design, build it then get it verified at official test or GP weekend.

[Just_a_fan]

No way it complies with the "spirit of the law", though that hasn't been a factor for many years.

There never has been a "spirit of the law". The rules are applied as written so if the suspension complies with the written rules for that part of the car then it's legal. The same with the flexing wings - the rules say "don't deflect when load X applied". They didn't deflect so they were legal. The fact that everyone could see they deflected on track didn't make them illegal it just made the rules/rule makers look silly.

What will happen is that the FIA / teams will reword this section of the rules requiring suspension arms that are "traditional" in shape i.e. like they were last year.

[acosmichippo]

Private rule clarification with CW/FIA should be banned, if you want to risk a design, build it then get it verified at official test or GP weekend.

What is your reasoning for this?

[motobaleno]

There never has been a "spirit of the law". The rules are applied as written so if the suspension complies with the written rules for that part of the car then it's legal. The same with the flexing wings - the rules say "don't deflect when load X applied". They didn't deflect so they were legal. The fact that everyone could see they deflected on track didn't make them illegal it just made the rules/rule makers look silly.

What will happen is that the FIA / teams will reword this section of the rules requiring suspension arms that are "traditional" in shape i.e. like they were last year.

I'm not against your reasoning but some thing you says are not true. The rules does not say "don't deflect when load X applied"
the rules says "flexible wing are not allowed" then a rule enforcing protocol (that's not a rule) says that FIA will practically verify if your wing is compliant with the rules by applying x load bla bla....then while a rule cannot of course be changed (during the season) the control protocol can be changed even abruptly for instance saying that from now on the load will be 2X......that's one of the reasons why talking about the spirit of the rules is not completely pointless...even if it would maybe better to talk about "rules enforcing protocols" more than "spirit of the rules"

[motobaleno]

anyhow I don't know if macca wishbones are legal or not. but for sure, differently from someone says, if they will be deemed legal, it will be very far from easy for the other teams to copy them. All the rear suspension layout, the gearbox and also the internal air flow design must be changed