manchild wrote:
I still didn't heard explanation why was it allowed to Ferrari to make alterations or brake system in Japanese GP. I'd except explanation bhallg2k gave for Chinese GP but what weather conditions change occured during race in Japan?
The explanation was in the first part of my post you quoted.
The weather change in China had nothing to do with the possibility to change the brake ducts during the race because the change of weather conditions is a requirement only to apply safety modifications while in parc fermè (the article of sporting rules bhallg2k quoted about change of climatic condition is article 117, the first one of the “post qualifying parc fermè” part of the sporting rules) when, normally, you can’t change parts without FIA approval and even with that approval you can replace a part only with an identical one.
After the start of the warm up lap hence during the race the cars aren’t anymore in parc fermè, consequently the above conditions aren’t required anymore, teams can replace any part without asking FIA approval or waiting for change of climate condition and the new part can be different from the original one, only requirement now being that the new part can’t be heavier than the replaced one.
ginsu wrote:
For one, why would you use it only on the rear brakes if it helps cooling so much? Obviously the front brakes could use alot more cooling than the rear would need.
Secondly, it obstructs any airflow from coming in or out of the wheel rim. Because the intake duct is on the inside of the wheel, wouldn't you want it to exhaust through the wheel rim? If this is the case, then the lip is preventing proper airflow through the wheel.
At the front certainly the airflow entering from the intake on the inside goes solely thru the wheel spokes, the whole design is aimed to that, consequently to close the rim would mean to close the only outlet.
Is it the same at the rear ? Well, maybe there are more clever places where you can send that flow
pRo wrote:
So you're saying it's ok if it's a brake cooler AND an aerodynamis device? I don't think things work like that.
I can't argue whether it helps brake cooling or not, but I'm sure it helps aerodynamics -> it should be banned.
Actually what I (and others) said on this thread and a few times in the other one at the start of the season is that it would be legal even if it was solely an aerodynamic device and had absolutely no effect on brake cooling. It’s legal exclusively because of its physical location in a given area, not because of its alleged function.
Then my personal opinion is that it is actually meant first of all to improve the Ferrari rear brake ducts concept while the advantage of aero drag reduction is negligible due to the tyre aspect ratio (width/diameter). My opinion is based mainly on a comparative wind tunnel studies I read few years ago between real wheels (tyre + rim) and cylinders (with both faces closed) of equal dimensions and confirmed by a recent interview with Pat Symonds declaring they tested the concept but found no advantage at all.
Anyway the real aim of the design is absolutely unrelated with talk about legality and doesn’t influence it, it’s an entirely different matter. Matter that is, obviously, several times more interesting than the lawyers crap about legality...
Besides, all the brake ducts used by all cars help aerodynamics, actually almost all parts of every car help aerodynamics. If you look at a F1 car you’ll notice that most of parts have at least 2 different functions, I think it was John Barnard the one who said several years ago words to the extent that a component of a f1 car doing only one thing is a waste of weight, don’t remember the exact words but that was the meaning and the concept isn’t certainly new, particularly in the aeronautical industry.
pRo wrote:
But how come a suspension component gets banned, if it affects aerodynamics, but brake component is ok?
I assume you are referring to the mass damper.
First of all the MD is not an element of the suspension, long part of the hearing was exactly to establish that detail.
Second, article 3.15 of the rules, the one with the requirements for parts with influence on aero is :
3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
The difference between the brake component and the MD is that as soon as I start to read the article I find the line “With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4” (that is the article specifying the area where the bodywork around the wheel, brake ducts, winglets and fairings, are located), so for brake ducts I can ignore the remaining part of the article.
But since there’s no line saying “with the exception of a mass suspended via two springs in the nosecone” for the MD I need to continue and answer the following questions.
Has the MD influence on aero performance ? Yes, it isn’t immediate to notice it unless you have direct experience of its application on a F1 car (hence why FIA technical delegates didn’t notice until another team, allegedly McLaren, asked for a clarification after having discovered the real effects of the device), but it definitively has, even Renault agreed.
Is it rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car ? No, clearly it has a degree of freedom.
Is it immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car ? No.
