moRON speaks out again...

[Hondanisti]

2006
Kimi Raikkonen, McLaren: 1:26.045
Michael Schumacher, Ferrari: 1:27.180

2007
Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari: 1:25.235
Fernando Alonso, McLaren: 1:26.314

On familiar tires and with dramatically enhanced aerodynamics, Ferrari gained just under two seconds from last year. On the other hand, McLaren, on foreign tires and with a more subtly-developed aero, lost nearly two tenths.

colder track temp. last year & rain washed out the laid down rubber making it a lower grip track even on the softer 2006 compounds - making it not a straight comparison.

[DaveKillens]

I can't think of any racing series that doesn't have the same attitude towards those who are successful on a regular basis. As soon as someone wins, there's someone else muttering "cheat". And since Ferrari has been extremely successful as of late, fingers are pointed at them on a regular basis. Fact: they have been caught cheating or breaking the rules. It's on record. But so have other teams, they are definitely not alone in this regard.
But one ingredient for winning is being able to take risks. If you play it totally safe and never push the limits of the rules or technology, you won't win. You have to be willing to push the boundaries on about everything. Technology, innovation, and even the rules. Many, many decades ago Roger Penske was disliked by many because he had "an unfair advantage". Mark Donohue even titled a book after that, and I heartily recommend that book "The Unfair Advantage" to any and all motorsports fans.
So we come back to that seemingly perpetual question.. is Ferrari once again stepping over the line when it comes to the rules? My opinion is of no consequence, just read the rules yourself, examine the debate from as many angles as possible, and make up your own mind. Take your time, this argument will be around for awhile.

[flynfrog]

Therefore, it has to be a passive system, which can only deflect downwards under aerodynamic load, or upwards under collision with kerbs etc.

It can't be legal even if it is passive. Movable aerodynamic is movable aerodynamic part and it is of no importance if it is passive or active. FIA regulations say that all parts influencing aero must be rigidly secured. If they are suspended on a device with spring than they are no rigidly secured with both aerodynamic load and kerb impact moving them.

Flexing wings are passive and they are banned. There were no cables and pipes on Renault's mass damper and it didn't even had direct contact with air flow but as we all know it was banned. I think FIA should calculate max aerodynamic load on that floor lip multiply it with 2 and than introduce static load test just as it does with wings.

the mass damper was movable ballast anyway it was only a matter of time youve been down this road before *yawn*

[allan]

2006
Kimi Raikkonen, McLaren: 1:26.045
Michael Schumacher, Ferrari: 1:27.180

2007
Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari: 1:25.235
Fernando Alonso, McLaren: 1:26.314

On familiar tires and with dramatically enhanced aerodynamics, Ferrari gained just under two seconds from last year. On the other hand, McLaren, on foreign tires and with a more subtly-developed aero, lost nearly two tenths.

colder track temp. last year & rain washed out the laid down rubber making it a lower grip track even on the softer 2006 compounds - making it not a straight comparison.

It rained this year aswell.... as far as i remember
Another thing, did it rain and wash out in front of the Mclarens only??

[manchild]

the mass damper was movable ballast anyway it was only a matter of time youve been down this road before *yawn*

It wasn't banned as movable ballast but as movable aerodynamic device. If FIA banned it as movable ballast (in September of 2005) it would be understandable but they said it was movable aerodynamics.

[flynfrog]

the mass damper was movable ballast anyway it was only a matter of time youve been down this road before *yawn*

It wasn't banned as movable ballast but as movable aerodynamic device. If FIA banned it as movable ballast (in September of 2005) it would be understandable but they said it was movable aerodynamics.

i know and agree

[Red27]

Grey areas and loopholes...

I think it's fun when you come with something blatantly obvious as a 7/8th scale car (as mr. Yunick did many years ago) and I think it''s annoying when you take a well known but illegal technical device and spend many euros and manhours on the best way to conceal it from your competitors and scrutineers. Unfortunately the 'pinnacle of motorsport's' ingenuity has been focused on the latter part way too much. I think it's a result of the way the FIA enforces some of the rules.

Example. Say the FIA rule that the speed in the pitlane may never exceed 100 kph and choose to enforce that by measuring a cars speed only at the pit entry end exit lines. A driver can easily pass scrutiny every time and still break the rule every time he's in the pit lane.

In my view the same kind of thing is happening with the flexible parts that pop up on cars for a decade or so. The FIA rules that certain parts may not flex within a certain bandwidth to account for the natural flexibility of materials. They enforce those rules with rather simple tests, mostly a specified force (way lower than the forces occuring in race conditions) at a specified location in a specified direction. As we saw last year with the flexible wings it wasn't too hard for the teams to pass the test and break the rule at the same time. Something similar seems to be happening now with the floors. I'd like to see this way of enforcing rules changed, so engineers can spend their time designing great technical solutions instead of smart cover-ups.

[bizadfar]

Where's the proof that it is a sprung device? What if it is manually operated from cockpit?

I've noticed that Schumacher used to pull a lever or something else in the cockpit before and after a straight, always thought it had something to do with a downforce-toy-thingy, but I havent thought about it since... Have a couple of vids of it(notice what his right hand does before a braking zone after a straight): Shanghai http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipae-VxovA4 Monza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRUSqjmXzo from that it seem like he only has to turn it of and in turn raise the floor, but the floor stalls it self on its own.

Didn't se any other driver do the same so i was not sure what it was, if it doesnt have anything to do with the stalling floor, can anybody explain what it is

Watch Davidson's 2005 Quali lap on Malaysia. He specifically says its for brake bias. There is your proof. And its in FIA rules that it is manually operated, not electronic.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, now it seems Ron Dennis HAD a point. Paddy Lowe is a smart man.

... This would potentially allow the front of the floor to rise up when the car is at speed, which would improve its aerodynamics and specifically increase straight-line speed.

Paddy Lowe wrote to FIA: "We would like to consider the installation of a mechanism on the front of our floor, consisting of springs and pivots.

"By a suitable arrangement and configuration of the springs (rates and preloads) within this mechanism, we will be able to control the flexibility of the bib so as to meet the requirements of the test specified in Article 3.17.4, but to otherwise allow greater flexibility at higher loads by a non-linear characteristic."

Lowe's letter was clearly aimed at clarifying whether or not the use of such a device was deemed legal if its sole intention was to get around the FIA's flexibility tests.

A week later, FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting responded to McLaren, and in a letter also distributed to every other team, he clarified the allowed usage of such a device - and revealed that bodywork testing would be altered accordingly.

Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded.

"Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.

"We have no objection to a device in this area which is fitted to prevent the bodywork from moving downwards, provided it is clear that it is not designed to circumvent the test described in Article 3.17.4....

Who is the moron now? I wonder if Mr. Lowe shall send a letter saying something like:

"Appreciated Mr. Whitting:

IN CASE we don't comply with your previous letter, what would be the penalties or consequences we should confront?

Yours truly,

Paddy Lowe"

[RH1300S]

Ron Dennis is no fool - even if he appears to talk nonsense

The proposed method of measuring floor deflection now is with all such spring devices REMOVED If I read that correctly, the stiffness of the floor will have to come from the floor structure itself.

Good thing too..............

I must say that is a much neater way of "protesting" than to actually raise a complaint/protest at a GP.

[manchild]

kilcoo, change the topic title to "Ron rules" and write 100 times "I will never say word moron again"

[kilcoo316]

Why is everyone assuming that is what the ferrari device does?

[MrT]

I was very unimpressed by the reactions to Ron's comments on this forum, he is merely asking for clarification, so that if the device is legal he could have implemented the same. Rules have ambiguities, and EVERY team will question and ask for clarification.

[manchild]

error

[RH1300S]

Why is everyone assuming that is what the ferrari device does?

I think Super-Ron's point was that it "could"

As I understand this, the spirit of the rules were there to control flexible bodywork - so a deflection test was introduced.

For reasons that MAY or MAY-NOT be to do with creating a moveable aerodynamic device - some teams (just the two?) have created a hinge to the front part of the floor. The upward deflection is controlled by a spring.

McLaren's point is that using spring rate/pre-load and (I presume) falling rate geometry in the links - it would be quite easy to arrange this to pass the test, yet to "give way" in a controlled way at higher loads.

Controlled "give" probably has little to do with protecting the floor over kerbs - potentially a lot to do with aero advantage.

The argument about Ferrari's top speed not being fastest at Melbourne doesn't really hold water - they could well use the aero advantage gained (if it was ) to let them run more wing without losing too much straightline speed.

Anyway - I'm glad it's cleared up.