Bib parc fermé ride height trick

[-wkst-]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

[motobaleno]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

All the following things can be done during parc ferme. several requires removing parts from the car and using tools...I would say that a mechanism like that we are discussing can be activated very easily while doing things on the list

Engines can be started, fuel added or removed and a fuel breather fitted and spark plugs can be removed to allow internal engine inspections and cylinder compression checks. Energy storage devices can also be charged or discharged.

The brake system can be bled, engine oil can be drained, compressed gases can be drained or added and other fluids can be drained or replenished as long as the replacement fluid is the same specification as the original.

Wheels, fasteners and tyres can be removed, changed or rebalanced and tyre pressures checked. Heating or cooling devices can be fitted and a jump battery can be connected so the electronics can be accessed via a physical connection.

The front wing can be adjusted using existing parts but no parts can be added, removed or replaced. Bodywork can be removed, cosmetic changes can be made, tape can be added and any part of the car can be cleaned.

Onboard cameras, marshalling systems and timing transponders can be removed, refitted or checked. Changes can also be made to the mirrors, seat belts and pedals and the drinks bottle can be filled up to a maximum of 1.5 litres.

[Vanja #66]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

This makes absolute sense, RB20 is absolutely not a car that is capable of exploiting elevated or softer front bib with their excessively stiff front end. If they exploited this in Q at least, they would have been able to run a lot better over kerbs and bumps - but they can't due to inherit suspension limit, in which case running a bib tilted up is probably even hurting you. McLaren's softer front end, eg, would be perfect to exploit this kind of device and they do have the Q speed and the best Q/R pace balance of all cars.

On the other hand, neither RB18 or RB19 were better in Q than R, so having such a change available on their cars would have resulted in a lot better Q3 performance in two previous seasons. I never suspected RB to be the targeted team, they simply have too many issues that such a setup change between Q and R would compensate.

[FittingMechanics]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

If we want to give benefit of the doubt to Red Bull it would be great to know how load of the spring is changed on other cars. Is it much more complicated or just a matter of doing it outside of the cockpit (below the car). If it is simple to change it on other cars and there is no real benefit of putting it inside the cockpit, then we probably shouldn't trust Red Bull story that they never used it in parc ferme.

Tools in the cockpit is probably done for various other things (pedal adjustment for example).

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

This makes absolute sense, RB20 is absolutely not a car that is capable of exploiting elevated or softer front bib with their excessively stiff front end. If they exploited this in Q at least, they would have been able to run a lot better over kerbs and bumps - but they can't due to inherit suspension limit, in which case running a bib tilted up is probably even hurting you. McLaren's softer front end, eg, would be perfect to exploit this kind of device and they do have the Q speed and the best Q/R pace balance of all cars.

On the other hand, neither RB18 or RB19 were better in Q than R, so having such a change available on their cars would have resulted in a lot better Q3 performance in two previous seasons. I never suspected RB to be the targeted team, they simply have too many issues that such a setup change between Q and R would compensate.

Whatever the theory, having an ability to run slightly different setup in qualifying compared to the race is a benefit. If what you say RB20 maybe is not the car that would gain from such a change as much as others, but they would still gain something. That much is blatantly obvious. This is just the nature of having a fixed setup after qualifying. You need to make compromises. Being able to change a few things means less compromises are needed.

[organic]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

This makes sense

[CMSMJ1]

Feels like a massive nothing burger to me. As the existence of a device isn't in contravention of any rule - the use of one would be - and we would* surely all want to believe that this kind of cheating isn't actively part of a team strategy?

If this is in place to allow better packaging - i/e the standard route to adjust would be blocked, or made more difficult/time consuming - then so what? That is clever engineering

Adding a seal to it to ensure that it cannot be used is a neat, sensible and issue killing solution.

Of course - were it proven that they had been actively using this in breach of parc ferme - then gather the rocks up and let's stone them!


*We are a non partisan and sensible crowd...right?

[organic]

From AMuS

Red Bull does not deny the existence of such an adjustment mechanism. It is also located in the cockpit, as the critics have claimed. However, in order to get to the adjusting screw, a panel in the cockpit has to be removed. A tool is also required to change the preload of the spring.

This means that there is no reason to suspect that the setting was changed unnoticed in the parc fermé or on the starting grid. Red Bull claims that it is impossible to quickly adjust the height of the skid in the garage or even while driving. The world champion team is therefore relaxed about the investigation.

Becomes a bit of a nothingburger if this is true

[XRayF1]

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

If we want to give benefit of the doubt to Red Bull it would be great to know how load of the spring is changed on other cars. Is it much more complicated or just a matter of doing it outside of the cockpit (below the car). If it is simple to change it on other cars and there is no real benefit of putting it inside the cockpit, then we probably shouldn't trust Red Bull story that they never used it in parc ferme.

Tools in the cockpit is probably done for various other things (pedal adjustment for example).

Schmidt (AMuS) writes that McLaren denigrated RBR at the FIA, some sort of revenge for the rear wing saga in Baku.

A cover in the cockpit must be removed and a tool is necessary to change the initial load of the spring.

Not possible in the forbidden time without notice (parc ferme).

This makes absolute sense, RB20 is absolutely not a car that is capable of exploiting elevated or softer front bib with their excessively stiff front end. If they exploited this in Q at least, they would have been able to run a lot better over kerbs and bumps - but they can't due to inherit suspension limit, in which case running a bib tilted up is probably even hurting you. McLaren's softer front end, eg, would be perfect to exploit this kind of device and they do have the Q speed and the best Q/R pace balance of all cars.

On the other hand, neither RB18 or RB19 were better in Q than R, so having such a change available on their cars would have resulted in a lot better Q3 performance in two previous seasons. I never suspected RB to be the targeted team, they simply have too many issues that such a setup change between Q and R would compensate.

Whatever the theory, having an ability to run slightly different setup in qualifying compared to the race is a benefit. If what you say RB20 maybe is not the car that would gain from such a change as much as others, but they would still gain something. That much is blatantly obvious. This is just the nature of having a fixed setup after qualifying. You need to make compromises. Being able to change a few things means less compromises are needed.

If I may add further to this, I despise having discussions about 'not having gained an advantage' after a team having themselves admitted breaching the rules.
Either I do have rules, or not.
FIA by their interpretation have found RB being in breach of this regs, which RBR have confirmed.

Who can actually say that it has not contributed to the performance of the car?
Nobody but RBR, and the statement they made about not having used it between Q & R may be believed, or not.

Bottom line to me, why has RBR brought the device into the car as it is, if it not to gain an advantage?

[FittingMechanics]

Who can actually say that it has not contributed to the performance of the car?
Nobody but RBR, and the statement they made about not having used it between Q & R may be believed, or not.

Bottom line to me, why has RBR brought the device into the car as it is, if it not to gain an advantage?

If we want to give them the benefit of a doubt, if the device allowed Red Bull to make this changes quicker during FPs, that could be worth making it, especially if you are limited by time to make changes in free practices (I am not sure this is the case always).

But if there is no clear advantage in doing it that way other than potentially using it in parc ferme, why would they make it.

I've read that apparently they had to remove the nose cone, a panel, and a pedal box? before they could make that change. This doesn't seem simple or fast so I struggle to see how would that be any faster than other teams in practice from outside the cockpit. But it may give an opportunity to make a change in parc ferme during car inspection. Hopefully we get insight how other teams make this change to see whether Red Bull explanation make sense.

[jumpingfish]

To me it looks like using jacks during a race - it's a legal tool. But if you touch the car with a jack before the 5-10 seconds of the pit stop penalty have passed - you will be penalized.

[Vanja #66]

Whatever the theory, having an ability to run slightly different setup in qualifying compared to the race is a benefit. If what you say RB20 maybe is not the car that would gain from such a change as much as others, but they would still gain something. That much is blatantly obvious. This is just the nature of having a fixed setup after qualifying. You need to make compromises. Being able to change a few things means less compromises are needed.

If the idea is to raise the front bib for Q setup, this will be done primarily to set the car up for riding lower than bumps and kerbs would "allow" and the negative aspect would be creating a small gap that will increase drag and lift locally. If you can't ride bumps and kerbs for other reasons, you'd probably only get the negatives out of it.

If you have an overall setup for maximum cornering speed in high-speed corners (ie you are already running at the lowest attitude) this kind of front bib geometry won't help you running lower since your car is already as low as possible. It can only bring the negatives of local lift and drag increase.

All of this is based on an assumption of very flexible floor and plank and both of those grey areas have already been addressed in recent years

[FittingMechanics]

If the idea is to raise the front bib for Q setup, this will be done primarily to set the car up for riding lower than bumps and kerbs would "allow" and the negative aspect would be creating a small gap that will increase drag and lift locally. If you can't ride bumps and kerbs for other reasons, you'd probably only get the negatives out of it.

If you have an overall setup for maximum cornering speed in high-speed corners (ie you are already running at the lowest attitude) this kind of front bib geometry won't help you running lower since your car is already as low as possible. It can only bring the negatives of local lift and drag increase.

All of this is based on an assumption of very flexible floor and plank and both of those grey areas have already been addressed in recent years

Can we agree that being able to run two different setups in qualy and race is usually beneficial? We can speculate as much as we want and think how much it could help, but I think the basics of it are simple. If you are able to make a change in parc ferme, that is almost certainly an advantage (or at least opportunity for an advantage).

Maybe in some cases you don't need to make a change because it's perfect as is, but for things like ride height which are affected by the weight, I think it doesn't work that way.

[Watto]

Who can actually say that it has not contributed to the performance of the car?
Nobody but RBR, and the statement they made about not having used it between Q & R may be believed, or not.

Bottom line to me, why has RBR brought the device into the car as it is, if it not to gain an advantage?

If we want to give them the benefit of a doubt, if the device allowed Red Bull to make this changes quicker during FPs, that could be worth making it, especially if you are limited by time to make changes in free practices (I am not sure this is the case always).

Thats the only benefit of doubt I can think of and I do think its fair. In particular with sprint weekends.

Is it possible the FIA were spooked a little that it may be a little too easy for a mechanic make a change pre race with some of the above mentioned bleed the brakes. and so on it may not look out of place unless you knew what you were looking for with all the setup on the grid that happens. Wheels off etc etc

[FittingMechanics]

Thats the only benefit of doubt I can think of and I do think its fair. In particular with sprint weekends.

Is it possible the FIA were spooked a little that it may be a little too easy for a mechanic make a change pre race with some of the above mentioned bleed the brakes. and so on it may not look out of place unless you knew what you were looking for with all the setup on the grid that happens. Wheels off etc etc

Yeah, I think that is one reading of it. It may be something innocent but if the scrutineers are not aware of it that it can be changed without anyone noticing. So they will add some more checks and balances (maybe seal over it) to make sure it can't be changed during parc ferme.

I still think it is more likely that they used it to make a change during parc ferme. Process they explained is used for their bib change is not simple so hard to see how it would be a big benefit during free practice. But if it can be done during inspection without anyone noticing, that is a benefit.