FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[Webber2011]

Ok, I'm a complete dumbo compared to all of you guys when it comes to race car engineering.

What I do know very well is horticulture, so please take the time to listen my ( maybe slightly crazy ) understanding of stored energy in the fluids I understand.

My forte was for years grafting all sort of fruit trees.
After much time spent learning, I've progressed to other species but the principles are still the same.
It's all about the flow of the liquid ( sap ) and how you go about using it.

One thing that has been tried, tested, and proven true, is that you can store the sap by making a cut in a tree ( a closed valve I guess ? ), and this will force the liquid to go somewhere else, or be stored depending on where you make the cut.
If you graft over that cut ( open the valve ) then it goes pretty much back to where it was going originally, depending on where the graft starts and stops.

This all takes part over weeks, months or years by the way

I can honestly store the liquid in most types of tree for as long or as short as I want, so can FRIC do this as well ?

[Tommy Cookers]

If the Austin / Mini Metro could have what basically was FRIC why can't a supposedly cutting edge 2014 "F1" car

presumably for the same 'reason' that millions of Citroen 2(3)CVs could have mass dampers but 2007 Renault F1s couldn't

[Andres125sx]

what would you call a system that:
1) has the car sit higher than normal ride height while stationary;
2) while driving at high speed on straight accumulates energy as the suspensions 3rd spring (either or both) is being compressed to optimal ride height;
3) stores this energy in an accumulator(might be the 3rd spring itself);
4) releases this energy under braking as adding accumulated hydraulic fluid "on top" of front suspension damper valve block thus preventing the suspension compression;
5) same as 4, except this time fluid is added "under" rear damper valve block thus pushing the suspension up to prevent rear of the chassis from lifting.

A sofisticated passive system, but passive yet

It´s the same as the extension part of any suspension, you use the fluid stored in the upper part of the damper, to soften the extension movement. But you still need the first movement (input) to get any output, the same you still need the compression of the 3rd spring to get any work, yet still passive.

While an active system can act by itself, without previous input

This is really my question of where are the lines drawn? Do you take the front and rear of the car as one? or two separate systems?

That´s a good question and I´d even bet if FIA ban FRIC, this will be the way they do it.

But right now I think this is legal and considered passive because there´s no rule stating each end of the car must work separately or be considered a separate system. If they decide to consider both suspension two separate systems, then it could be considered an active system and be banned, but right now there´s no rule about this, thus it´s legal

[Gaara]

Great post from Mark Hughes as always.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/wh ... spotlight/

This has been at the heart of Red Bull’s aerodynamic advantage since at least 2010. The team has an exclusive use agreement with the company that devised the software combining stress finite element analysis (FEA) with CFD to give the required carbon lay-up that allows this, whilst still passing all the FIA flexibility tests.

Get rid of FRICS and the advantage of the nose-flexing technology is surely increased. Has Ferrari decoded how it works, perhaps aided by the inevitable flow of personnel over time between teams, and is looking to incorporate it into next year’s car? A clue might be the performance of Red Bull at Hockenheim if everyone elects to run without FRICS this weekend.

[Moxie]

what would you call a system that:
1) has the car sit higher than normal ride height while stationary;
2) while driving at high speed on straight accumulates energy as the suspensions 3rd spring (either or both) is being compressed to optimal ride height;
3) stores this energy in an accumulator(might be the 3rd spring itself);
4) releases this energy under braking as adding accumulated hydraulic fluid "on top" of front suspension damper valve block thus preventing the suspension compression;
5) same as 4, except this time fluid is added "under" rear damper valve block thus pushing the suspension up to prevent rear of the chassis from lifting.

A sofisticated passive system, but passive yet

It´s the same as the extension part of any suspension, you use the fluid stored in the upper part of the damper, to soften the extension movement. But you still need the first movement (input) to get any output, the same you still need the compression of the 3rd spring to get any work, yet still passive.

While an active system can act by itself, without previous input

This is really my question of where are the lines drawn? Do you take the front and rear of the car as one? or two separate systems?

That´s a good question and I´d even bet if FIA ban FRIC, this will be the way they do it.

But right now I think this is legal and considered passive because there´s no rule stating each end of the car must work separately or be considered a separate system. If they decide to consider both suspension two separate systems, then it could be considered an active system and be banned, but right now there´s no rule about this, thus it´s legal

Please explain to this layman how the front and the rear can be interpreted as separate systems. The loads move, and the front and rear portions of the suspension system distribute those loads to the road, and translate irregularities to the chassis. Eliminate, the rear springs and dampers and torsion bars, and the whole system goes to hell.


Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air if the FIA simply stated "The rules are being changed because we are we are cruel and capricious overlords, and this rule change serves our quest for money and power!" Then again what fun would we have analyzing every detail of that?

[iotar__]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114958 FRIC protests will be up to the Formula 1 teams
"An FIA source said: "Making a report to the stewards is an option that is open to us, but we would prefer a sensible approach. "So we might continue with it, even if we don't get everyone to sign [the agreement not to protest]." The FIA's position means FRIC would only get challenged if an official protest was lodged against a team that was running it."

is this a joke, it's up to teams? They create this whole mess mid-season with technical directive and now are trying to pretend it's not their problem. We might do sth but only if there are protests, don't blame us. "[the agreement not to protest]" Huh, what a hell is this? I thought it was the opposite voting to accept the change of rules.

FIA says it's illegal, they vote, because that's required legal procedure to change mid-season and it's either legal or illegal. How many more grey areas to weasel themselves out of any responsibility and create drama do they need? Instead of making cars faster now teams will be taking or leaving FRIC, protesting or not, and FIA will be penalising or not. Why can't Whiting say clearly whether FRIC is illegal or legal in Germany and should or should not be on a car according to F1 rules and procedures. So even if this change is illegal(?), no unanimous decision, they will still punish it if some team protests? We can do anything but you should figure it out yourself says FIA to the teams = trade away.

[bill shoe]

Oh my goodness-- It's actually less clear than it was last week.

I think this is what the FIA might be getting at: Teams are supposed to protest this kind of thing on Thursday before any running. If there's no Thursday protest then it's still legal, and the FIA will kind-of support this. If there is a Thursday protest then the FIA will kind-of support the protest and the largely untechnical stewards will then have to decide what kind of suspension F1 runs this weekend. Also, as a joker, there is nothing to stop a financially desperate Caterham or Sauber or Xxxxxx from protesting after the race Sunday. In which case the FIA would kind-of support it.

This reminds me of the early 80's when the FIA said F1 cars needed a minimum ride height (to reduce ground effects) but the FIA didn't know how or whether to ban hydraulic systems that could temporarily raise the cars in the pits to a compliant height. The teams didn't really know what would be legal or illegal from weekend to weekend or even day to day.

[turbof1]

Wow... .

I try to make sentences about this, but I'm speechless, astonished by all of this. Maybe better to make a chronological list of this:
-Monaco: the F1 work group, consisting out of 3 parties: the fia, fom and 6 teams, vote on cost-saving measures and rule changes. The FIA wants fric banned, but doesn't get the necessary majority.
-Silverstone test: the FIA announces it, and I quote this specific word, "feels" fric is illigal based on article 3.15 and announces it'll ban it straight away unless unaminous agreement from all teams to keep it, is established. Then it'll banned from next season on.
-In the days after we get that teams are surprised by this move.
-Jonathan Noble meanwhile discovered through sources close to the FIA that the real reason is cost savings. Having failed to get the work group to ban fric through new regulations, it looks very apparent that the fia, although not saying it, uses 3.15, a technical regulation, for an isssue that primarily is a sporting issue.
-It now releases that'll only ban fric when a team complains, leaving the entire field with distrust.
-This all is a huge effort concerning political/juristical maneuvring from the fia, and it now looks clear what the true intentions were: they wanted it to have banned due its costs. Having hoped to get the job done at Monaco, it now needed to ban it through existing regulation. In theory they could have waited with this until the end of the year, but it wouldn't be cost saving when teams had to redesign and rebuilt their cars at the last moment. So they had to do so now.
But that left them with another issue: 3.15 works both for this year as 2015. Trying to ban something for 2015 through that article meant it is banned for this year.
So they actually pushed the responsibility to the teams, essentially saying: "we want it removed for next year even though the work group didn't put it through. It's up to all of you if you want to keep it. Essentially we don't have issues with you having it for the remainder of this season."

I don't agree with any of the moves the fia pulled off, but I have to admit the cunning and political intellect is something I very much find admireable. Why in earth they don't use the same wisdom when drawing up technical rules is beyond me.

[Andres125sx]

A sofisticated passive system, but passive yet

It´s the same as the extension part of any suspension, you use the fluid stored in the upper part of the damper, to soften the extension movement. But you still need the first movement (input) to get any output, the same you still need the compression of the 3rd spring to get any work, yet still passive.

While an active system can act by itself, without previous input

This is really my question of where are the lines drawn? Do you take the front and rear of the car as one? or two separate systems?

That´s a good question and I´d even bet if FIA ban FRIC, this will be the way they do it.

But right now I think this is legal and considered passive because there´s no rule stating each end of the car must work separately or be considered a separate system. If they decide to consider both suspension two separate systems, then it could be considered an active system and be banned, but right now there´s no rule about this, thus it´s legal

Please explain to this layman how the front and the rear can be interpreted as separate systems. The loads move, and the front and rear portions of the suspension system distribute those loads to the road, and translate irregularities to the chassis. Eliminate, the rear springs and dampers and torsion bars, and the whole system goes to hell.

Maybe I didn´t explain it properly (my english sucks, I know). I just meant a simple rule stating: front and rear suspensions cannot be interconnected, both must work independently with nothing working in-between (3rd spring)

Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air if the FIA simply stated "The rules are being changed because we are we are cruel and capricious overlords, and this rule change serves our quest for money and power!" Then again what fun would we have analyzing every detail of that?

I know you were being ironic, but the bolded part just hitted the nail

Too much domination -> TV numbers decreasing -> both investing and incoming do decrease -> their quest for money and power is affected

[dans79]

Why in earth they don't use the same wisdom when drawing up technical rules is beyond me.

Techinical ineptitude.

Frankly I hate rule ambiguity, and the "spirit of the rule" crap. Every form of racing I have ever seen it used is has been because the rule makers lack the skill to make bulletproof rules.

[Andres125sx]

So they actually pushed the responsibility to the teams, essentially saying: "we want it removed for next year even though the work group didn't put it through. It's up to all of you if you want to keep it. Essentially we don't have issues with you having it for the remainder of this season."

I don't agree with any of the moves the fia pulled off, but I have to admit the cunning and political intellect is something I very much find admireable. Why in earth they don't use the same wisdom when drawing up technical rules is beyond me.

IMO if it would really be because of costs, they would have never considered the ban mid-seasson. They know banning anything mid-seasson will increase the costs because all the teams will need to re-design some/many components.

Any mid-seasson ban, if it´s not clearly breaking an existing rule or is safety related, must be considered a political movement IMHO. But they don´t know how each team would be affected, so they send the message, see each team reaction, and draw some conclusions about if that would reallly equal the grid or not.

Conspiracy? Maybe. I call it everyone look after their own interests. FIA is not an exception obviously so they must take care of the competition and avoid boring domination periods that entail, without exception, severe drops on the audience numbers.

[the EDGE]

Oh my goodness-- It's actually less clear than it was last week.

Indeed, perhaps we should be asking why on earth the FIA can't make a FRIC-ing decision

[DaveW]

Past experience suggests that the way the FIA decide on the legality of a design is to devise a compliance test. The vertical stiffness test of the tea tray is one example.

It would be interesting to speculate on the (static) test the FIA might devise to check that suspensions are not interconnected. In case you think that is too easy, you might also want to speculate how a team might defeat the test (legitimately or otherwise).

[bhall II]

[...]
In case you think that is too easy, you might also want to speculate how a team might defeat the test (legitimately or otherwise).

Nefarious: the front and rear suspension would only be interconnected when a nominal force, say a percentage of the driver's weight, is applied to a linkage found under the seat. Potential drawback: things could get a little dicey for cars at the top of Radillon at Spa.

[dren]

Test:
1. Hold chassis in place
2. Load cell at each wheel
3. Apply load to one wheel, examine for change of load at opposite end (not side) of car.
4. Car passes when front loaded wheels do not move rears, and vice versa.

Beat test:
1. Linked circuit has a master valve that only opens (and stays open - mechanical lock in relay basically) by means of a certain car acceleration that would be met during the start or warm-up lap. Since cars are pushed to scrutineering, they would never meet the required acceleration.

Of course you have to know the test first to design around it.