Legality of McLaren's "Butterfly" suspension

[PhillipM]

There is no 'fuel for the fire' this isn't a witch hunt, it either complies with the regulations or not, and that's the end of it. To that extent McLaren can do what they damned well want with running them, changing them, or not running them, so long as it meets the regulations, that's all that matters.

Personally I would imagine most places they'll just run a low drag rear wing and leave this in, but I could see perhaps the removal of one 'pair' of butterflies at the fastest tracks.

[raymondu999]

The FiA will not outlaw the McLaren suspension as it stands, because as I understand it, their argument is that it is structural.

But if they make a different, more aero-neutral suspension, then that shows the FiA that the suspension because it is obviously being traded in and out as part of the setup/performance aspect of the car.

[beelsebob]

The FiA will not outlaw the McLaren suspension as it stands, because as I understand it, their argument is that it is structural.

But if they make a different, more aero-neutral suspension, then that shows the FiA that the suspension because it is obviously being traded in and out as part of the setup/performance aspect of the car.

I don't think that "there is another design that provides the necessary structure" is an argument that it's not structural.

[raymondu999]

The FiA will not outlaw the McLaren suspension as it stands, because as I understand it, their argument is that it is structural.

But if they make a different, more aero-neutral suspension, then that shows the FiA that the suspension because it is obviously being traded in and out as part of the setup/performance aspect of the car.

I don't think that "there is another design that provides the necessary structure" is an argument that it's not structural.

No but I'd say it would be the grounds for an argument that it's movable aero, "because otherwise, why would you have changed it?"

[Holm86]

The FiA will not outlaw the McLaren suspension as it stands, because as I understand it, their argument is that it is structural.

But if they make a different, more aero-neutral suspension, then that shows the FiA that the suspension because it is obviously being traded in and out as part of the setup/performance aspect of the car.

I don't think that "there is another design that provides the necessary structure" is an argument that it's not structural.

No but I'd say it would be the grounds for an argument that it's movable aero, "because otherwise, why would you have changed it?"

Of course not. Every damn car has suspension components with aero effect. If FIA wanted to prevent that then why on earth not just regulate the wishbones to be round?? And why are you allowed to incline the wishbones 5° if it wasn't for aero purpose??

[timbo]

I think it's simply too early to say whether there would be a verdict by FIA or not. We did have seen things banned after they were green lighted. Sometimes this came from FIA itself, sometimes after the protest of other teams.

[Lazy]

Some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that these parts have been deemed legal because McLaren have somehow duped the FIA into believing that they are purely structural. This is not the case, the FIA may have been getting a bad rap in recent years but they are not that dumb.

The parts have been passed because they comply to the regulations concerning aero effect of suspension parts.

[raymondu999]

Some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that these parts have been deemed legal because McLaren have somehow duped the FIA into believing that they are purely structural. This is not the case, the FIA may have been getting a bad rap in recent years but they are not that dumb.

The parts have been passed because they comply to the regulations concerning aero effect of suspension parts.

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that these parts have been deemed legal because McLaren have somehow duped the FIA into believing that they are purely structural.

[Lazy]

Some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that these parts have been deemed legal because McLaren have somehow duped the FIA into believing that they are purely structural. This is not the case, the FIA may have been getting a bad rap in recent years but they are not that dumb.

The parts have been passed because they comply to the regulations concerning aero effect of suspension parts.

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that these parts have been deemed legal because McLaren have somehow duped the FIA into believing that they are purely structural.

In that case it won't make any difference if they decide to fit different parts at certain races.

[PhillipM]

No but I'd say it would be the grounds for an argument that it's movable aero, "because otherwise, why would you have changed it?"

So, the teams that have changed from round pullrods/wishbones to faired ones, can we ban those too, because that fits your arguement that there's a better structure for them and they've only done it for aero

And for the 90,000th time, the movable aero rule only applies to the sprung chassis, otherwise every car on the grid would be thrown out because if the brake ducts.

[enri_the_red]

And for the 90,000th time, the movable aero rule only applies to the sprung chassis, otherwise every car on the grid would be thrown out because if the brake ducts.

drs and brake ducts are the only elements of the car explicitly excepted from complying with 3.15

[PhillipM]

And for the 90,000th time, the movable aero rule only applies to the sprung chassis, otherwise every car on the grid would be thrown out because if the brake ducts.

drs and brake ducts are the only elements of the car explicitly excepted from complying with 3.15

Okay, so, how many teams will be putting in a protest about teardrop wishbones, flow conditioning push/pull rods and driveshaft fairing wishbones at the first race then?

None, because it applies to the sprung mass, hence:

- 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.

Otherwise we've just made suspension illegal.

[Pup]

And for the 90,000th time, the movable aero rule only applies to the sprung chassis, otherwise every car on the grid would be thrown out because if the brake ducts.

Just because it's been said 90,000 times doesn't mean it's correct.

The Moveable Aero Rule, aka 3.15, very clearly prohibits anything not on the sprung chassis from having an aerodynamic influence.

There is an argument in favor of McLaren's suspension, but this isn't it.

[tpe]

None, because it applies to the sprung mass, hence:
Otherwise we've just made suspension illegal.

I am sorry, but, suspension arms can be way they are today because of precedence.
If I a not mistake, Ferrari protested to FIA about the suspension arms of Stewart GP (claiming that they way movable aerodynamic devices). FIA declared them legal and after that everyone copied the design.
Now, if a team protest against McLaren's suspension arms and FIA found them legal...

[shady]

Question: If McLarens suspension is legal.

Is there anything in the rules that state that BOTH arms have to be the same? I know that each piece needs to be symmertrical along its major axis and a 3.5:1 ratio... but what is stopping anyone from configuring two independently shaped complimentary structures out of each arm? I havent read that the rules state that each arm has to be shaped identically...

This legality, opens up some extremely creative possibilities. A team could offset the geometry horizontally creating a longer "flatter" surface with less drag...