FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[SectorOne]

I´m sure they can wrap it around whatever theme they want to postpone it. I think it´s wrapped around money rather then safety.

[basti313]

In case you were wondering -

Craig Scarborough @ScarbsF1 · 5m
@gizm770o FIF1 have it on and off. Everyone else runs it

Craig Scarborough @ScarbsF1 · 2m
@thejudge13 @scarbs merc lotus ferr RBR marussia have been heavily tied into it for a while

Great info!

Interesting, now with that i´m quite positive teams will all vote to postpone it.

Why? For me this clearly says, that FI can run without it and that their system is not good enough to run it everywhere. So at least one team that will be clearly against postponing the ban.

[iotar__]

Why? For me this clearly says, that FI can run without it and that their system is not good enough to run it everywhere. So at least one team that will be clearly against postponing the ban.

I don't think it works like that, just because everyone has it it doesn't mean they all are equal. Everyone had blowing diffuser in 2011, right?

It's how to save Ferrari embarrassment exercise ala Silverstone 2011 with some space for usual, cheap marketplace. If we agree unanimously it can be delayed - how much for that? Let's start with I don't know... engines. BTW nice cost-cutting, instead of developing cars to make it faster (speed is some kind of a problem for some in 2014-) let's spend money and resources on removing FRIC and adjusting car's development mid-season. Thanks for nothing - smaller teams.

[FrukostScones]

Why? For me this clearly says, that FI can run without it and that their system is not good enough to run it everywhere. So at least one team that will be clearly against postponing the ban.

I don't think it works like that, just because everyone has it it doesn't mean they all are equal. Everyone had blowing diffuser in 2011, right?

It's how to save Ferrari embarrassment exercise ala Silverstone 2011 with some space for usual, cheap marketplace. If we agree unanimously it can be delayed - how much for that? Let's start with I don't know... engines. BTW nice cost-cutting, instead of developing cars to make it faster (speed is some kind of a problem for some in 2014-) let's spend money and resources on removing FRIC and adjusting car's development mid-season. Thanks for nothing - smaller teams.

[Gaz.]

Surely this is financially disastrous for the likes of Lotus, Sauber & Caterham?

[George-Jung]

It's how to save Ferrari embarrassment exercise ala Silverstone 2011 with some space for usual, cheap marketplace.

Could you please stop ventilating your frustration towards the Ferrari team in almost every topic..

Ontopic,
I don't understand why they want to ban this mid-season? With so much money being spend on the development of this system..

[dans79]

This is stupidest mid season rule change they have had in a really long time.

[myurr]

This is about giving the smaller teams leverage over the big teams. None of the big teams will want such a fundamental change mid-season.

How the FIA can say it's even safe to change something as fundamental as the suspension system with 2 weeks notice is an absolute joke. They expect the teams to run with untested suspension parts with aero running outside it's designed and tested operating window, and presumably prone to performance fluctuation when the drivers aren't necessarily expecting it.

This is entirely political and about giving the smaller teams something with which they can hold the big teams to ransom. Frankly it's F1 at its worst and shows the FIA is not fit for purpose. Years of actual flexing aero ignored or dealt with quietly on the side, despite video evidence, and suddenly another suspension component is guilty of being an aerodynamic device!? Surely it's easy to argue the primary purpose of the FRIC system is to manage weight transfer and any aerodynamic benefit is secondary and thus legal.

I honestly hope the big teams call the FIAs bluff of this one and run with it, daring them to exclude them all from the standings and taking them to the EU court if they do. It's a political abuse of power and the FIA deserve to be slapped down and put in their place.

[dans79]

It's how to save Ferrari embarrassment exercise ala Silverstone 2011 with some space for usual, cheap marketplace.

Could you please stop ventilating your frustration towards the Ferrari team in almost every topic..

to be fair if I had to pick the cry baby that's working behind the scenes pushing for this it would either be, Bernie, Dietrich, or Luca.

[dans79]

for those that want to, feel free to complain to the fia.

http://www.fia.com/contact-us

I already have.

[bill shoe]

Teams have been reducing anti-dive over the last few years as they increase reliance on FRIC. Merc appears to run almost no anti-dive on their front suspension. They would be stuck with a combination of higher ride height and harder front suspension in order to avoid dragging the plank under braking. A team that happens to run significant anti-dive would be in relatively good shape in the event of a ban. Cars like this include this year's Caterham (and last year's McLaren). I have seen rear suspension geometry changes during a season, but I can't remember anyone ever changing front suspension pickup points on the tub. I think if FRIC is banned then everyone is stuck with whatever front suspension geometry they have now. FRIC ban seems very likely to cause at least a small reduction in safety due to lousy suspension setups on aero-sensitive cars.

Again, this potential ban is just too bizzare to attribute to a simple technical reinterpretation by the FIA. The Charlie Whiting FIA statement on what is not allowed boils down to: no coupling of front and rear suspension. Yet everyone knew for at least a couple years that FRIC existed precisely to couple the front and rear suspension. And now Charlie suddenly figures that out by looking at technical drawings?

I figure the FIA is either asserting themselves and their power, or they are genuinely concerned about the backmarkers because their financial condition is horrible to the point that they are about to fail to show up for races.

[beelsebob]

I don't see how this in any way breaks the "entirely sprung part of the car" rule - the suspension is the springing, by definition. All the aero is attached to the stuff above the suspension, even if it's FRIC, and even if wheels move independently. I can't see how that rule can be twisted to ban anything here.

[myurr]

I don't see how this in any way breaks the "entirely sprung part of the car" rule - the suspension is the springing, by definition. All the aero is attached to the stuff above the suspension, even if it's FRIC, and even if wheels move independently. I can't see how that rule can be twisted to ban anything here.

When you're judge, jury and executioner.... Probably wouldn't stand up in court if the teams fought it though. Hope they realise that public opinion is likely to be on their side.

[beelsebob]

I don't see how this in any way breaks the "entirely sprung part of the car" rule - the suspension is the springing, by definition. All the aero is attached to the stuff above the suspension, even if it's FRIC, and even if wheels move independently. I can't see how that rule can be twisted to ban anything here.

When you're judge, jury and executioner.... Probably wouldn't stand up in court if the teams fought it though. Hope they realise that public opinion is likely to be on their side.

I just... I guess I'm looking for some tiny glint of hope that someone sees any way that this is possibly not rigidly attaching all aero parts to the entirely sprung part of the car. Which aero part do they think is not?

[Tim.Wright]

A team that happens to run significant anti-dive would be in relatively good shape in the event of a ban. Cars like this include this year's Caterham (and last year's McLaren).

I remember a discussion about the McLaren anti dive from last year. My opinion is that it has very low or even negative anti dive. I haven't had a good look at the Caterham though.