Ferrari brake duct\wheel fairings (silverstone)

[FLC]

It is very nice that you have given us the rules with your own interpertation, MC, but some of them, if not all of them, are clearly not right, not to say manipulated.

The fairings are not the rim. They are part of the braking duct system, or so does Ferrari says, and as the "regular" brake ducts are in a way a part of the rim to the other side and made of CF, so are the fairings.

The overall width of the car, including complete wheels, must not exceed 1800mm with the steered wheels in the straight ahead position. Overall width will be measured when the car is fitted with tyres inflated to 1.4 bar.

The width of the F2007, reported on this site, as others, is 1796mm. So I guess they have some room there.

In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top and forward edges of the lateral extremities of any bodywork forward of the front wheels must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm. Providing it is inclined at an angle less than 60º to the car centre line, the forward edge of any horizontal part of the bodywork in these areas need not comply with these requirements.

It's not an aero reg. It's a bodywork reg. and clearly another hole in the book.

Aero regulations states that:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

The cover in 6.5.2 is the refueling connector cover and the ducts in 11.4 are the front and rear brake ducts.

[manchild]

3. Regulations say that aero parts must be 10 mm thick and rounded to prevent tyre damage - fairings are much thinner and very sharp.

...if it's an aero part.

No, "if" and "aero" are not mentioned in regulations - it is universal rule and how team defines a part is of no importance at all. What am I saying?! It IS an aero part - wings are for flying, F1 inverted wings are for downforce, winglet is aero part! That's like adding another axle make a 6 wheeler and officially say that those extra wheels are not for rotation, traction and grip but for aero.

In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top and forward edges of the lateral extremities of any bodywork forward of the front wheels must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm. Providing it is inclined at an angle less than 60º to the car centre line, the forward edge of any horizontal part of the bodywork in these areas need not comply with these requirements.

It's not an aero reg. It's a bodywork reg. and clearly another hole in the book.

Well, rear fairing is betraying them now - rear fairing is attached to the rim and rotates with it. Front fairing isn't attached to the rim or wheel but to axle, axle is attached via upright and wishbones to the chassis and therefore front fairing is part of the bodywork since it is attached to it just like bargeboards or mirrors.

Even if is part of the braking system despite that there is a primary rule that says that parts influencing aero must be firmly secured while winglet on fairing has no contact with hot air from brakes. It is there to do what Ciwai suggested on his fake pic.

[manchild]

Just think of this - FIA imposed thick rounded noses and wings to prevent tyre demage on cars. It was done for the sake of safety. What we have now are sharp aero influential parts added on already questionable fairings on the most certain place for tyre demage to another car.

How good, sane and sporing is that? Should they be allowed to use those Roman-chariot styled wheel knifes? Is FIA there to take care of the safety or not? They act like most dogmatic churches - sticking to backward politics no matter what time has brought and showed. Sane race steward would ban that ASAP - regulations or not, because it is obviously dangerous.

Why not mount an laser or machine gun on car? "It is not illegal because regulations don't ban use of lasers and machine guns"???

[FLC]

Even if is part of the braking system despite that there is a primary rule that says that parts influencing aero must be firmly secured while winglet on fairing has no contact with hot air from brakes. It is there to do what Ciwai suggested on his fake pic.

I think you have your own F1 series with your own set of rules.

I just quoted that "primary" rule, and it says that "with the exception (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance...". I suggest you better read them rules as a whole and not manipulate certain lines to your own liking. You very typically ignored my entire post.

And where is that rule that says that all parts of the braking system must come in contact with hot air coming out of the brakes? Can you show me that?

Live with it. Ferrari are on to a big hole in the book and made a creative interpretation to their own advantage. This is what motorsports teams should do. If other teams want to use it, they are more than welcome. Nobody has given Ferrari an exclusive right to use it.

And you are more than right. "Regulations or not" ban anything that isn't to your liking . Yes, that's very smart. This will surely bring some order into F1. Like you even said anything when Alonso left the pits like he did in Germany. That was also dangerous, but not against the rules. Did you preach here to ban something? Did you preach for this when DC almost cut off Wurz's head with the floor? Did you say we should ban all sharp floor edges? Make them round? Or do you only preach when it is Ferrari?

[manchild]

I just quoted that "primary" rule, and it says that "with the exception (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance...".

So because Ferrari calls them ducts they are ducts and as such fall under ducts regulations?

... Did you preach here to ban something? Did you preach for this when DC almost cut off Wurz's head with the floor? Did you say we should ban all sharp floor edges? Make them round? Or do you only preach when it is Ferrari?

viewtopic.php?t=4039

Did we see the same incident? He could have taken Wurz's head off with that ill thought out maneouvre!

I agree completely with SR. Part of the car's floor below sidepods could have smashed or even cut his helmet in two. That's 600kg of sharp carbon fiber traveling at high speed. No helmet or HANS could prevent fatal outcome. AS SR wrote, HANS is to help with G forces during impact. It can't protect driver's head and neck from direct impact of such huge mass at high speed as whole car is.

If DC's car was only 50 cm more backwards it would sit on Wurz's helmet and that would snap his spine like a toothpick. If it slided of top of the cockpit it would smash or perhaps even cut his helmet in two.

I've never seen an F1 accident after 1994 closer to fatal outcome than this one.

What has FIA done about it? Nothing. IF Wurz was injured or killed than they'd impose modification for sidepods for next race - hypocrite as they always are.

[checkered]

I don't think this

dilemma will go away until there's some specific regulation about it. I do think that every point against the fairings given thus far, even those that seem very valid, are extrapolations of rules that couldn't originally take such a development into account. Usually I'm all for simplifying regulations in F1, but at least temporarily this requires direct action instead of decisions that leave something to debate about.

Other teams have been quiet about the fairings, which I find curious in itself as there's really nothing "hidden" about them. Maybe the FIA doesn't want to repeat what in my mind at least was one of the mistakes done with regard to the TMD - namely making determinations about unexpected technical developments (in a regulatory sense) mid-season. The right place and time to revise regulations is between seasons.

So my humble opinion about this is that once the season is over, the FIA add the following to Technical Regulations, Article 11, Brake System (the hypothetical revision in italic, everything else is existing regulation):

11.4 Air ducts:
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not protrude beyond:
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel;
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel;
- a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the centre line of the car.
- no integral part of the air ducts nor any separate aerodynamical, mechanical or protective addition to the air ducts may protrude beyond the outward wheel face contour from the vehicle centre line
Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond the periphery of the tyre or backwards beyond the wheel rim.
All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.

[Tom]

It's not an aero reg. It's a bodywork reg.

Any non-mechanical part of the car in contact with the airflow going over/around the car is defined as an aerodynamic device.
The term bodywork only applies to a cover shielding the internal workings of the car from view (which I'm pretty sure are not supposed to be displayed any more either.)

[Ciwai]

3. Regulations say that aero parts must be 10 mm thick and rounded to prevent tyre damage - fairings are much thinner and very sharp.

...if it's an aero part.

No, "if" and "aero" are not mentioned in regulations - it is universal rule and how team defines a part is of no importance at all. What am I saying?! It IS an aero part - wings are for flying, F1 inverted wings are for downforce, winglet is aero part! That's like adding another axle make a 6 wheeler and officially say that those extra wheels are not for rotation, traction and grip but for aero.

In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top and forward edges of the lateral extremities of any bodywork forward of the front wheels must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm. Providing it is inclined at an angle less than 60º to the car centre line, the forward edge of any horizontal part of the bodywork in these areas need not comply with these requirements.

It's not an aero reg. It's a bodywork reg. and clearly another hole in the book.

Well, rear fairing is betraying them now - rear fairing is attached to the rim and rotates with it. Front fairing isn't attached to the rim or wheel but to axle, axle is attached via upright and wishbones to the chassis and therefore front fairing is part of the bodywork since it is attached to it just like bargeboards or mirrors.

Even if is part of the braking system despite that there is a primary rule that says that parts influencing aero must be firmly secured while winglet on fairing has no contact with hot air from brakes. It is there to do what Ciwai suggested on his fake pic.

I think those who have awareness of the catastrophic failures and subsequent banning of the hub mounted wings of the late 60s are aware how sacrosanct the regulations concerning wheels and movable bodywork attached to them have been regarded. That the rule is being infringed upon so visibly with not a squeak of protest from the other teams, or any other type of uproar in the f1 press is unfathomable to me.

Thanks for posting the pic! and for following through on this topic.

[FLC]

Manchild,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to do. You didn't preach for nothing in that quote. You didn't ask to ban anything, didn't ask to change it or anything else in that direction. All you did was to describe what would happen "if". So I don't buy it.

[manchild]

I'm preaching here 24/7 how FIA is neglecting safety and deals with things that are not their business at all. What was there to preach about? Red Bull didn't implement some suspicious or controversial part like Ferrari did. All cars have such shape below sidepods.

[captainmorgan]

could the other teams be saving this protest for just before the testing freeze? Is there a test freeze this year?

[modbaraban]

could the other teams be saving this protest for just before the testing freeze? Is there a test freeze this year?

it is... at this very moment.

All cars have such shape below sidepods.

I think it's even imposed by the rules.

[megz]

Well, nothing was changed in the DC - Wurz crash because (I'd Say) It was a very freak occurance and the chances of it happening are very low. Note also the high "shoulders" on the cockpit meant to protect the driver in these instances and i'm not totally sure but the mandatory Zylon coating could have staved off a large amount of the energy (Although now I mention it seems ridiculous to think a thin layer of composite stops a 600kg 100mph car in its tracks....). Nothing will ever be totally safe (Unless you want the cars made of plastecine and powered by snails)

[flynfrog]

manchild wont stop until they are diving big boxes of nonflamable foam on tracks surrounded with 3 miles of run off and ferrari is banned because they are the only team that would ever look for loop holes in the rules


:yawn:

You cannot make racing perfectly safe i dont see any major threat to anyone by running brake ducts or super wings or whatever you want to call them. If it had been renalts idea we never would have hear a word about wait aren't they running one on the rear now

[modbaraban]

...wait aren't they running one on the rear now

Yes one, as the other one fell off in Nurburgring.

PS: poor animal.