Legality of McLaren's "Butterfly" suspension

[PhillipM]

It holds the car off the ground with a geometry which was designed for the benefit of aero. Suspension geometry could have been acquired using other mounting methods; therefore, such geometry is ambiguous to being aero. The arms being designed in their current mushroom form have nothing to do with being necessary to function as suspension arms, easy to prove.

The same as EVERY OTHER suspension member on the grid.
The funny thing is the front of the Mclaren suspension is one of the least compromised in terms of geometry for aero compared to the rest of the cars...

[cossie]

he's saying that since McLaren came up with the idea it has to be illegal, if it was bolted to a Ferrari he would then deem it legal, just saying

[Alexgtt]

Incorrect. Primary function is suspension. If it wasn't there the car would not be suspended. Shape is within the regs so areo has nothing to do with it. Simple. Read the regs.

It holds the car off the ground with a geometry which was designed for the benefit of aero. Suspension geometry could have been acquired using other mounting methods; therefore, such geometry is ambiguous to being aero. The arms being designed in their current mushroom form have nothing to do with being necessary to function as suspension arms, easy to prove.

Can I ask you one simple question?

1. What is the PRIMARY function of the suspension arms and tie rod?

[chumma]

On the contrary. Every other suspension design on the grid shows that McLaren's design is not necessary for the suspension to do its job and therefore that McLaren have gone out of their way to design a shape for it to have an aero benefit.

Precisely. Mclaren have made their rear suspension to be aerodynamically beneficial first, and as a function of suspension geometry secondary or at least equal. This is opposed to every other team who has made the area of their suspension geometry first and if it offers any aero benefit it is secondary. Mclaren breaches regulation by specifically and consciously going out of their way to design a suspension geometry that is unnecessary as a function of suspension geometry, it offers no gain being where it is in terms of its geometry, its location and design is purely for aerodynamic benefit and completely unnecessary.

For Mclaren to make this legal they would have to successfully argue that their specific suspension system absolutely requires them to mount their suspension arms at their specific current location and the mushrooms are also part of that specific design and are necessary for the suspension to function as a suspension system first, aerodynamic benefit second.

To beat a horse further, the rules clearly indicate a suspensions function is as suspension first and foremost, not aero, and what Mclaren have done is make an unnecessary suspension design for the benefit of aero. Wrong, illegal.

I don't think so, the suspension is designed first and foremost as suspension, otherwise the car will not run, that line alone has turned me off even reading the rest of your post.

[Ferraripilot]

Seriously you are still saying that every suspension on the grid is illegal. Otherwise every wishbone would just be round. A round wishbone would do the job of suspension perfectly. But no cars on the grid runs that. They are all aero shaped. All have this in common. 1. priority suspension. 2. priority aerodynamics. All other teams just focus on cutting drag. And inclining them the legal 5° to create a small amount of downforce. McLarens just make more downforce than the rest.

Not at all, just that the function of aero is clearly secondary to an item being suspension first, and Mclaren clearly wanted to introduce an unnecessary geometry as being for the benefit of aero. If this is declared legal then we will start seeing some incredibly odd looking elongated suspension arms with completely ridiculous mounting areas with all manner of shapes so long as they meet the quoted criteria mentioned earlier. Ridiculous, it won't fly.


Let's see what the Fia says later, I could be wrong.


I sense Richard is going to move this to its own thread any moment haha.

[chumma]

ps why are people still arguing legality? It is currently legal, until there is an official protest can we get off the legality of it, and leave this to tech? Surely theres another place of the forum where you can argue about legality of parts.

[1158]

It seems to me comparing the Lotus brake setup last year to McLaren's wishbones this year is apples to oranges.

The Lotus brakes worked by themselves without the ride height system, correct? (if that isn't the case my arguement falls apart lol)

The McLaren suspension can clearly not work without the wishbones.

I don't think the argument of it was designed to work that way flies either. The coanda pods the last 2 years were most definitely against the spirit of what the rules were trying to do but met the required regulations. The teams didn't need to design them that way but they did.

At least that's how I see it. I'm not a McLaren fan, but kudos to them for this setup.

[bill shoe]

I'm bored with discussions about illegality that depend on assumptions about McLaren's intent. The technical regulations don't specify what McLaren's intent must be. So we can argue about intent and yell and throw frying pans at each other, but it doesn't matter.

Red Bull is obviously flexing the heck out of their tea-tray to get lower ride height, and you know what? I don't care what their intent is. Their tea tray complies with the technical regulations. Good for them.

The underlying problem with regulating by intent is that you can have two identical cars on the grid. One is illegal because the designer "intended" something wrong when it was drawn up, but the other is allowed to race because its designer "intended" something else.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hope nothing will come from the protests.

https://twitter.com/tedkravitz/status/4 ... 1325607936

I fail to see how you could claim the PRIMARY purpose of rear wishbones was aero-benefit as without them the wheels would surly fall off, and as regards to the size... most teams have suspension parts far wider (if not taller) than necessary to hold the wheels on, surly if 1 team had to change them they'd all have to change them

Every god damn suspension component on an F1 car is designed with aero in mind. Most are just designed to have as little drag as possible. McLaren just made a design within the rules which are capable of creating downforce. I don't see its any different than all those winglets and flow conditioners which are mounted on the brake ducts and uprights.

You just contradicted yourself. The intent of the suspension member rules is to have the wishbones be as benign as possible. The teardrop shapes are aimed at making the air pass through thin the least obstructive way. THIS Mclaren.... mockery... is solely aimed at creating downforce! They should be banned and the car burnt ALIVE!!

[rscsr]

So you are trying to tell us that Drag Reduction is no Aerodynamic purpose, but Downforce is an aerodynamic purpose?

[Ferraripilot]

A judge or jury commonly makes a ruling based on the intent of a law which is often defined by certain case law. The intent of a single word in a law is often dissected.

The difference between this and for instance a flexing front wing or tea tray is that there are actual tests used to determine the legality of those components, and those tests can be cleverly circumvented thus making a clearly flexing component legal. There is no test for Mclaren's design other than our form of case/common law which consists of what has traditionally been done over the years and is mutually accepted to comply, and that is to not specifically design a suspension system as a means of creating downforce. Mclaren cannot sell this, in my opinion, as a secondary byproduct of their necessary rear suspension geometrical design. That is a very very tall sell.

[Maynard G. Krebs]

A judge or jury commonly makes a ruling based on the intent of a law which is often defined by certain case law. The intent of a single word in a law is often dissected.

The difference between this and for instance a flexing front wing or tea tray is that there are actual tests used to determine the legality of those components, and those tests can be cleverly circumvented thus making a clearly flexing component legal. There is no test for Mclaren's design other than our form of case/common law which consists of what has traditionally been done over the years and is mutually accepted to comply, and that is to not specifically design a suspension system as a means of creating downforce. Mclaren cannot sell this, in my opinion, as a secondary byproduct of their necessary rear suspension geometrical design. That is a very very tall sell.

There IS a test for compliance of this part. It is very specifically described ... with dimensions. Is there something in the rules about tradition or primary or secondary effect?

[Ferraripilot]

So you are trying to tell us that Drag Reduction is no Aerodynamic purpose, but Downforce is an aerodynamic purpose?

As long as it meets the below:

10.1.2 The suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in
load applied to the wheels.


The above could apply also to Mclaren's case as it could be questioned whether their system alters suspension movement especially in high downforce situations, with the air pressure this essentially blunt object is facing it is possible it alters suspension movement in other ways not controlled from load applied to the wheels.

[Pup]

I sense Richard is going to move this to its own thread any moment haha.

Why don't you just start a thread then, instead of filling up two pages of this one with this nonsense?

[Ferraripilot]

A judge or jury commonly makes a ruling based on the intent of a law which is often defined by certain case law. The intent of a single word in a law is often dissected.

The difference between this and for instance a flexing front wing or tea tray is that there are actual tests used to determine the legality of those components, and those tests can be cleverly circumvented thus making a clearly flexing component legal. There is no test for Mclaren's design other than our form of case/common law which consists of what has traditionally been done over the years and is mutually accepted to comply, and that is to not specifically design a suspension system as a means of creating downforce. Mclaren cannot sell this, in my opinion, as a secondary byproduct of their necessary rear suspension geometrical design. That is a very very tall sell.

There IS a test for compliance of this part. It is very specifically described ... with dimensions. Is there something in the rules about tradition or primary or secondary effect?

Correct, it's called compliance of a 'suspension' part which also must not be an aerodynamic device. Rule 3.15 gives Charlie Whiting carte blance in such situations.