Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[lebesset]

have the FIA issued a statement that this will be allowed after 2012 ?
autosport say the ban is for 2012

[Dragonfly]

"Article 3.15 of the 2012 technical regulations, published this month, states that "any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

Then the brakes should be illegal?? They make the cars nose dive changing aerodynamics.

Holding the nose at stabil level under braking dosnt change any aero???

No – reread what the FIA said – had the <em>primary if not sole</em> purpose of altering the cars aerodynamics. Breaks certainly have a different primary purpose than altering the aero of the car.

But it's still a matter of interpretation. I'd be equally right saying that the RRH system preserves the aerodynamic characteristics. While a diving nose under braking alters them.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Quick question: did McLaren develop this as well?? I don't recall hearing anything about their version but I could be wrong. Thanks in advance.

I really wanted to see this in action this year!

When this is a rather simple hydraulic application, as long as you don't dig into temperature's influence on stiffness and what not, and being a well known practice on motorcycles since a long time, I'd be surprised if it has not been evaluated and possibly tested by most top-teams in Formula One?

That's just it, when you dig deeper into how truly complicated the system is and will be to implement you can see development is going to be expensive & time consuming. Bulk Modulus comes to mind which adds many variables & increases the complexity. Better it's banned now.

[xpensive]

That's true X2, bulk modulus will play tricks with stiffness and natural frequencies when oil temperature increases rapidly, but when the lifting sequence will be xtremely short, less than a second of braking, I don't think it matters much.

[Terrible3]

Whats next... will a third spring be illegal since it helps control dive and squat, thus aiding aero?

[bjpower]

its ok in 7 months time they will try and figure out how to make f1 more relevant to road cars and fix everything by sticking in more batteries.

i love this sport but someone should be shot.
they whine and make rules to make the sport more road car relevant. if they let suspension and brakes have less regulations they may have some hope.

[Tim.Wright]

From Autosport.com
Article 10.2.1 states: "With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre and the orientation of its rotation axis must be completely and uniquely defined by a function of its principally vertical suspension travel, save only for the effects of reasonable compliance which does not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom."

I've never seen this rule before, but the device is very clearly in breach of this. I wonder how the device was cleared in the first place though.

Tim

[dren]

The geometry of the wheel moving up and down doesn't change with the Lotus system. It extends the pushrod which would oppose a vertical movement. The wheel still moves in the same arc up and down. The extended pushrod would make up for the compression in the spring/damper.

[Tim.Wright]

you are somewhat correct, but it will change the limits of the system. I.e. under braking it will introduce an additional rebound movement of the wheel which will of course add more positive camber, wheel track movement etc.

This addional rebound movement is a function of brake torque, not vertical motion so it is in breach.

Tim

[xpensive]

From Autosport.com
Article 10.2.1 states: "With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre and the orientation of its rotation axis must be completely and uniquely defined by a function of its principally vertical suspension travel, save only for the effects of reasonable compliance which does not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom."

I've never seen this rule before, but the device is very clearly in breach of this. I wonder how the device was cleared in the first place though.

Tim

Agreed, while if that doesn't do it, the following 10.2.3 surely does. Quite obviously, it should have been killed in its infancy and if not, the accountable engineers within the teams should perhaps have realized it wouldn't fly for long?

But either way, it's an interesting challenge for a mechanical engineer, mostly to find a practical solution which will be hydraulically- and braking-wise reliable, but also not to compromise the suspension functions when not activated.
As I said before, myself and a non-active member are still chipping away on such a solution and while we are slowly getting there, you very soon encounter a dead end or three.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder how the device was cleared in the first place though.

Tim

Usually the FIA says yes to things and then the other teams get to hear about it by various means. At that point the other teams will say "hey, Charlie, that can't be legal!" and then the FIA changes its mind and bans the device.

There is a history of this sort of thing...

[Crucial_Xtreme]

The FIA response to the RRHS:

On Friday, the FIA, in a letter from Charlie Whiting to the coaches of the teams in Formula 1, decided to ban the height control system, as timely and immediately reported boxGP.

After the monitoring point from the drafting of our information portal make the unexpected decision over the weekend, now transcribe the document unveiled Autosprint magazine which confirmed one by one, items on Sunday boxGP lie awake from.



The text deals with the FIA ​​as follows:



"We have received many requests from system level to modify the configuration of the suspensions according to the braking torque variations. We want to clarify our position: after all the systems that have been submitted to us are based on variations in length of an element suspension, with the main objective (if not only) to influence the aerodynamics of the car, we believe that this goes against Article 3.15 of the technical regulation ... Some systems also allow the movement of the brake calipers, an aspect that we believe will against Article 3.15. The clamp can be moved over the suspended part of the car but any movement is against Article 3.15 because it comes with the purpose of influencing the aerodynamics ... Also we believe that the compliance of these with respect to Articles 10.2.1 and 10.2.3 debatable "



As anticipated at the time, the Article 3.15 is the system that defines the DRS rear wing, as the only component which can alter the aerodynamics of the car. Also, and especially, the 10.2.3 clearly states that: "You can not make any regulation in the suspension system while the car is in motion."



The FIA ​​thus avoiding an escalation of the use of these devices and the performance of the cars that could even lead to dangerous situations. The collateral damage of this decision are the costs and investments that teams, especially Lotus Mercedes AMG, made in the development of these systems.


via http://www.boxgp.com/formula-1/item/164 ... ipos-de-f1

[hardingfv32]

The collateral damage of this decision are the costs and investments that teams, especially Lotus Mercedes AMG, made in the development of these systems.

This is a inaccurate view of motor racing.

1) The technical progress of a motor racing program is all about innovation and experimenting. Some things fail to perform on the track and other fail in the tech inspection. All part of the learning experience. Some managements are better at maneuvering around the stewards than others. Just part of the sport.

2) Even though this system failed under the rules, there could still be something else that was learned during its development.

Brian

[Crucial_Xtreme]

The collateral damage of this decision are the costs and investments that teams, especially Lotus Mercedes AMG, made in the development of these systems.

This is a inaccurate view of motor racing.

1) The technical progress of a motor racing program is all about innovation and experimenting. Some things fail to perform on the track and other fail in the tech inspection. All part of the learning experience. Some managements are better at maneuvering around the stewards than others. Just part of the sport.

2) Even though this system failed under the rules, there could still be something else that was learned during its development.

Brian

Take it up with the author of the article, I didn't write that.