Ferrari's carbon rim ring

[Mikey_s]

oops, you are right M C, now I check I was reading the 2008 regs that I had downloaded. My apologies...

I can't imagine that the regs on magnesium relate to it burning - of course it will burn, but by the time yo have it up to the temperature it requires for ignition the driver will be toast... although perhaps very thin sections could ignite, but then again Mg is a rather soft metal and I don't know why it would be used other than for bodywork - however, nowadays cf composite is lighter and stronger for that.

[manchild]

I can't imagine that the regs on magnesium relate to it burning - of course it will burn, but by the time yo have it up to the temperature it requires for ignition the driver will be toast... although perhaps very thin sections could ignite, but then again Mg is a rather soft metal and I don't know why it would be used other than for bodywork - however, nowadays cf composite is lighter and stronger for that.

No need to apologize

It is banned (reduced to over 3mm) for safety reasons only after tragedy in Le Mans 1955 when Levegh's Mercedes burned like match because as site linked below says - "Still blazing fiercely, minutes after the crash, body of the Mercedes rests atop wall near a spectator it killed. Made of magnesium, it burst into flames as fuel ignited it, showered area with white-hot sparks.."

http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm

After that tragedy Mercedes withdrew from motorsport for more than 30 years and in Switzerland motorsport was banned.

[Reca]

Filisetti's drawing has nothing to do with reality. Just compare his drawing and my edited version with real photos of carbon ring.

Paolo drawing is correct, it’s showing the device used in Imola, a real duct starting from outer side of the rim and protruding inside, quite likely with a carefully studied shape, till the spokes.
I’m quite convinced that was the real device Ferrari always planned to use and the thin ring in the first 3 races was just to generate FIA/other teams reaction.
When Ferrari mounted the ring in Bahrain teams complained, as they always do by default when someone else introduces something the didn’t think about, especially when it’s very visible; even before starting to think how it works, if it gives advantages etc etc, they complain that it’s not legal.
In Bahrain technical delegate said the Ferrari interpretation was correct, still it was decided to discuss the matter in dept at the first TWG meeting (TWG includes the teams technical directors). That meeting is traditionally before the first European race, hence the Wednesday before Imola. Meanwhile you can bet other teams tested the device and very likely found no advantage from it, simply because that ring gave no advantage at all...
Once the TWG discussed the matter in dept and decided that the interpretation as brake duct is the correct one hence the device is absolutely and completely legal, Ferrari, without fear of further complaints on the matter, immediately introduced the real device, conceptually identical in term of interpretation but different in term of design, clearly an extension of the brake duct.
Now other teams will test it and very likely we’ll see similar devices on other cars in the next races, just like it happened in 2001 with the drum brakes, first teams complained, then when it was decided they were absolutely legal, they copied, it’s always like that in F1 and always has been.

Since Ferrari claims that ring isn’t part of the wheel but part of the braking system it becomes movable aero because it has aerodynamic influence

The brake air ducts, that are part of the braking system, have to follow article 11.4 (that you quoted before), and if you read article 3.15, the one talking about movable aero you see that it specifically says :

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 [...]

Without that specification even the “normal” brake ducts would be movable aero devices because they move relatively to sprung part of the car.

[Mikey_s]

Reca,

thanks for that informative reply, but I'm now even more confused... if the shape is really as in the Filisetti drawings, it must be a relatively simple piece of work to simply cast the wheel in a different shape?? then there would be no issue about illegality (perhaps the tyre valve would simply project radially inwards, rather than out towards the rim, but...

ho hum, still darned if I know how it works!

[zac510]

Yeah easy to cast one wheel - but casting several dozen of them would get expensive.. Then if you want to modify the design..! Gotta be a practical limit on the cost sometimes, even at Ferrari.

[RH1300S]

Reca,

thanks for that informative reply, but I'm now even more confused... if the shape is really as in the Filisetti drawings, it must be a relatively simple piece of work to simply cast the wheel in a different shape?? then there would be no issue about illegality (perhaps the tyre valve would simply project radially inwards, rather than out towards the rim, but...

ho hum, still darned if I know how it works!

Dunno........could it be a strength/weight issue? To change the shape of the rim may have needed extra mass to keep the original strength. The CF part will weigh naff all. Also, I assume they can change the CF part as often as they like to fine tune whatever effect they are after.

I must say, what the part actually does is a bit of a puzzle........

[RH1300S]

Yeah easy to cast one wheel - but casting several dozen of them would get expensive.. Then if you want to modify the design..! Gotta be a practical limit on the cost sometimes, even at Ferrari.

I would have thought quite the reverse - once you can cast one, you can cast many.........

I expect these wheels are forged BTW - anyone know?

[Reca]

if the shape is really as in the Filisetti drawings, it must be a relatively simple piece of work to simply cast the wheel in a different shape??

To cast the wheel in a different shape requires lot more work, for example you have to make all the structural calculations from the start (not clever if you ask me).
With that solution you can simply add an easy to make carbon piece, and if you develop a better shape, just change it, ie substitute the yellow part in the following picture (notice, the shape isn’t necessarily same as in Ferrari) with a new one. Lot more practical.
[IMG:152:130]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/1201 ... 8si.th.jpg[/img]
http://www.f1total.com/bilder/zoom.php? ... &d=3&b=106

Edit : sorry, didn't read others already answered while I was looking for the pics to post !

[manchild]

Interesting... Filisetti didn't draw ring used on first 3 races at all... I guess it was less interesting than aero updates on Aguri :^o

Back to tech talk...

If Filisetti's drawing shows the version from Imola than it is illegal because "ring duct" collides with this "11.4 Air ducts :...Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond the periphery of the tyre or backwards beyond the wheel rim."

Ring from Filisetti's drawing extends outwards beyond width of the wheel and beyond periphery of the tyre.

The size of the air ducts used to cool the brakes is strictly controlled and they must not protrude beyond the wheels.

Even if they've changed it after 3 races its only function is still the same and it is conditioning air flow around the wheel/car and trough the wheel without being mechanically attched to any part of braking system - Which makes it part of the wheel and as such illegal because "12.3 Wheel material: All wheels must be made from an homogeneous metallic material."

When it matters talk about its "movable aero" status that just can't be compared with real, static ducts. Ring rotates and changes angle during rotation affection air flow around the rear end of the car. Functioning of brakes cooling wouldn't be affected at all if the ring wasn't there so calling it part of the brake system just buys the aliby.

Another thing; If ring is as Ferrari claims just a duct than how are FIA stewards able to check out dimensions of “duct” that was used on previously changed sets of tyres after the race? There is no “Parc Ferme” for used tyres and wheels. Basically they could use “duct” shaped like fan on first sets of tyres and than during last change put wheels with normally shaped duct because only wheels found on the car in “Parc Ferme” are checked by FIA.

To cast the wheel in a different shape requires lot more work, for example you have to make all the structural calculations from the start (not clever if you ask me).
With that solution you can simply add an easy to make carbon piece, and if you develop a better shape, just change it, ie substitute the yellow part in the following picture (notice, the shape isn’t necessarily same as in Ferrari) with a new one. Lot more practical.

I agree thet it means less work and that it is more pratical to make it out of CF but that is illegal - "12.3 Wheel material: All wheels must be made from an homogeneous metallic material."

------------------------------------------------

Bottom line of my talk - the problem is only in material and glueing - if it was made in one piece with the rest of the wheel from "an homogeneous metallic material" as FIA regulations insist all the talk would end.

[RH1300S]

Another thing; If ring is as Ferrari claims just a duct than how are FIA stewards able to check out dimensions of “duct” that was used on previously changed sets of tyres after the race? There is no “Parc Ferme” for used tyres and wheels. Basically they could use “duct” shaped like fan on first sets of tyres and than during last change put wheels with normally shaped duct because only wheels found on the car in “Parc Ferme” are checked by FIA.

This is a very interesting point

Otherwise, I think you are close to one of your regular Ferrari rants old bean The bit about protruding past the tyre......probably the drawing is innaccurate (bring in Giorgio Piola here for decent tech work ) - I am pretty sure that the Bridgestone tyre bulges beyond the rim.

[manchild]

Otherwise, I think you are close to one of your regular Ferrari rants old bean The bit about protruding past the tyre......probably the drawing is innaccurate (bring in Giorgio Piola here for decent tech work ) - I am pretty sure that the Bridgestone tyre bulges beyond the rim.

Tyre bulges beyond the rim when static or under braking but tyre isn't in question here but carbon ring that protudes beyond wheel/rim.

Oposite to crown shaped ring that was glued to inner side of the rim, version from Imola is glued sideways on rim and it protudes beyond wheel (because it is glued on outer side of the rim, not inside it as older version).

We are talking milimeters here... don't forget that 1mm wear of skid block means disqualification.

[Reca]

manchild, given that the Technical Working Group that

- includes the teams technical directors (I would say all but I’m not sure if SA is allowed to take part)
- collaborated with FIA to write the rules
- definitively knows ALL the rules way better than any anonymous casual fan sitting at home behind his keyboard and knowing just the little part of them released by FIA, could ever hope to do

decided that the Ferrari interpretation is correct and that the device is perfectly legal, then doesn’t that means that the device is legal ? Should we ask UN intervention to settle the matter ?
Or maybe you are trying to convince us that the technical directors of all the teams accept as legal an illegal device just because they are biased and want to favour Ferrari ?

As for using Filisetti drawing as proof it’s illegal, it’s damn obvious as RH1300S said that these aren’t perfect scale representation of the exact solution on the car, these are just drawings to show the parts of the car adding a short explanation for benefit of non-technically educated people, ie the vast majority of people following formula 1 or visiting formula1.com.
The fact that in his drawing the duct is attached on the outside of the rim doesn’t mean that is the same on the car, from the pics I saw in fact it seems to me it’s not. In the drawing there’s a step probably only to make it clear that rim and duct are separate parts, just to make the explanation easier to understand.

Besides, even if that step existed, it would be legal anyway because the way you read the rule is, as usual, wrong. The rule you referred to says “while viewed from the side”. Well, that Filisetti’s drawing is not the side view, that’s the front (or back or up or down...) view. The rules on brake ducts don’t specify a lateral limit on the outside of the rim, that limit is the car overall width, as long as the duct mounted on the car is less than 900 mm from the car centreline, that’s inside the rules.

Basically they could use “duct” shaped like fan on first sets of tyres and than during last change put wheels with normally shaped duct because only wheels found on the car in “Parc Ferme” are checked by FIA.

Or maybe in the second stint in Imola, while gaining 1.5 s per lap on MS, Alonso was using lighter rims and used the heavy ones only on first and last stint to go over minimum weight...

BTW, if FIA wanted they could check all the tyres, just like they can check the changed nosecones and all the parts of the car that get changed during the race, including rims and these carbon ducts.

But we all know that I’m just wasting time here because the real point, the reason this debate is now going over the 5 pages in spite of the fact that both scarbs and I told you repeatedly about the TWG decision, is that in your opinion any team is innocent until proved otherwise while Ferrari is guilty even if proved otherwise.
If that attitude helps you to sleep at night, fine, but, please, stop ranting endless over it in the technical forum, we want to discuss technical matters here.

[Reca]

bring in Giorgio Piola here for decent tech work

I know this is a somehow funny remark, so don’t take this reply as a correction to you, it’s only that I’d like to point out a couple of things about Filisetti since his work has been a few times denigrated on this forum by couple of people.
He is, IIRC an aerospace engineer. I had the chance to see him on tv often (couple of times he also made drawings by hand and he’s pretty good at it, not up to Piola level but close) and to once talk with him; what I discovered is that he simply adapts his descriptions to the preparation level of the listener, when he wants or has to be absolutely accurate, you can bet he is, it’s just that most of times an excess of accuracy can reduce the efficacy of the explanation and confuse people.

[manchild]

manchild, given that the Technical Working Group that

- includes the teams technical directors (I would say all but I’m not sure if SA is allowed to take part)
- collaborated with FIA to write the rules
- definitively knows ALL the rules way better than any anonymous casual fan sitting at home behind his keyboard and knowing just the little part of them released by FIA, could ever hope to do

decided that the Ferrari interpretation is correct and that the device is perfectly legal, then doesn’t that means that the device is legal ? Should we ask UN intervention to settle the matter ?
Or maybe you are trying to convince us that the technical directors of all the teams accept as legal an illegal device just because they are biased and want to favor Ferrari ?

If everyone you mentioned and as you explain have no problem with Ferrari CF ring why would than fromula1.com write this one day after the race in Imola?

Since its introduction in Bahrain, the protruding outer lip (in red) on Ferrari's wheel rims has been the subject of much discussion, with rivals questioning whether it constitutes an illegal moveable aerodynamic device - the movement being the wheel's rotation...

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technic ... 4/267.html

When they mention in regulations "viewed from the side" I'm sure they don't think about visual glance from FIA steward but on position of inspection/measurement. Even if Imola version of Filisetti's drawing is a bit inaccurate it is obvious that such new shape can't be glued as old one so gluing sideways causes that ring to "protrude forwards beyond the periphery of the tyre or backwards beyond the wheel rim" (one of those two at least).

Or maybe in the second stint in Imola, while gaining 1.5 s per lap on MS, Alonso was using lighter rims and used the heavy ones only on first and last stint to go over minimum weight...

BTW, if FIA wanted they could check all the tyres, just like they can check the changed nosecones and all the parts of the car that get changed during the race, including rims and these carbon ducts.

Weight of the rims isn't specified by FIA regulations as well as inspection of wheels used during the race but FIA regulation clearly mention that ducts are measured after the race so I asked if Ferrari is calling CF ring "duct" how will be FIA able to measure all "ducts" used in race since there is no "Parc Ferme" for wheels.

FIA isn't checking parts that are not found in "Parc Ferme" because they could be replaced and altered by team and that is the problem with Ferrari "ducts" on wheels since by FIA regulations ducts are subject of checks after the race but not all Ferrari "ducts" will be inspected because several of them will be replaced during the race and never reach "Parc Ferme". BTW, changing noses takes too much time that someone would try that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But we all know that I’m just wasting time here because the real point, the reason this debate is now going over the 5 pages in spite of the fact that both Scarbs and I told you repeatedly about the TWG decision, is that in your opinion any team is innocent until proved otherwise while Ferrari is guilty even if proved otherwise.

If that attitude helps you to sleep at night, fine, but, please, stop ranting endless over it in the technical forum, we want to discuss technical matters here.

Reca, what you and Scarbs wrote was that everyone from TWG agrees 100% with use of CF ring. I was attacked for days for discussing about it and than on Monday, one day after the race official formula1 site writes that "Since its introduction in Bahrain, the protruding outer lip (in red) on Ferrari's wheel rims has been the subject of much discussion, with rivals questioning whether it constitutes an illegal moveable aerodynamic device". Is that ranting too?

I wrote a lot here in this thread and tried to explain my viewpoint trough analysis of technical regulations and what can be observed on photos and Filisetti's drawings. I used tech talk, talked about parts, positions, materials, procedures and FIA regulations so it had nothing to do with chats about Schuey’s driving etc.

Unfortunately, you call everything that doesn't suits you "ranting" even if it has nothing to do with ranting. Everything you or someone else writes pro-Ferrari is tech talk and not a bit "ranting" but if someone writes something that doesn’t suits Ferrari than it is “ranting”. Sorry but those are double standards and attempts to silence person with different opinion rather than discuss matter.

I could easily call everything you said about TWG as "ranting" because since Monday on official formula1 site it is publicly stated that Ferrari rivals are questioning legality of this ring so I think they are doing the same thing as I'm doing here. It is easiest thing to call what I've been writing as “ranting” in the lack of arguments to back up your viewpoint. I'm not saying that my viewpoint has more or better backing but since I'm not calling your or Scarbs posts "ranting" please don't call my posts like that either. I have no problem with discussing anything as much as it takes but I certainly won’t shut up because you don’t like what I’m saying.

Name me one post where I told anyone to stop “ranting” in order get out of the difficult situation as you tried in quoted post. I was discussing technical matter using proper way so when you write “If that attitude helps you to sleep at night, fine, but, please, stop ranting endless over it in the technical forum, we want to discuss technical matters here” I can find that only as shouting in the lack of evidence and as an pathetic attempt to gain sympathy from people who agree with you about this matter.

[tpe]

manchild, please allow me to say this:
I am not participating to the forums for long time, but I read them quite some time now (and my apologies for my English, too).

BUT:
TWG is not a biased by Ferrari.
TWG had a meeting the week before San Marino GP.
F1.com said that the other teams raised questions. Not that they still have the same questions regarding the legality of the CF. Why can't you simply accept the fact that something that you thing as illigal (and I have to say that you have proved your point!) the Technical Directors of the rest 9 teams thinks that it is legal?

Not that anyone will bother, but I am just tired to listen (not only from you) that Ferrari is doing this and Ferrari is doing that, while ALL teams try to stretch the regulations, try to find any gray zone etc.

You and me and everyone else may have an opinion. But you cannot force us to accept it as a correct one. Have you ever thought that the 10 TD and FIA are more (please, someone correct the term) sufficient to know if the CF is legal or not?

And note that you have proved from my eyes that it is illegal.

And finally, even if it is illegal, the governing body say that it is legal. Remember that Prost won a WDC because governing body desided the opposite of the rest of the world. Period.

PS: Don't take it personnal, OK? I just want to point that sometimes we are not on the same room with other people and we do not know all the details