TimW wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 15:19
Hoffman900 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 14:36
Hmm, apparently Ferrari and Red Bull are considering a protest if the Mercedes' suspension constitutes some kind of movable aerodynamic device ala the mass damper which was banned on those grounds.
Source? I'd like to think on this site if people throw stuff like this out there, they can back it up with a legitimate source. Throw in "apparently" and naming no source, just sounds like politicking on your side to me...Searching anyone of these: "Mercedes protest" "Ferrari protest" "RedBull protest" "protest COTA", etc. in Google with a 24hr filter finds nothing.
It would also be the dumbest protest in history... if the FIA requires rake to be fixed from static to dynamic, RedBull is absolutely f**ked (so would be any other high rake concept). It won't happen because that's impossible and they ALL do it. As Scarbs pointed out this is 1) an old trick 2) they all do it to varying degress 3) the FIA absolutely knows about it, has talked about it, and has decided they're okay with it.. at least until the new cars.
It is not as black and white as that. The way Scarbs describes it they use a valve that opens at a set speed and closes with a set hysteresis. Basically that is a very simple logic circuit. By that you are entering a grey area. You could expand that(maybe they already did) with more valves to create a basic logic circuit, and that way you are creating an hydraulic computer.
The thing is that with hydraulics valves you can also build an active suspension. That is why FRIC was banned, because it had developed into an active suspension. E.g have interia operated valves that detects is you are cornering, ,or increase ride height when it is bumpy....
The problem is, any shock / damper could be set up that way. Talk with Ohlins, Penske, and Multimatic, and they'll be more than happy to set you up like this with enough money.
The solution is FIA would have to issue spec and sealed shock / damper. Valving is open in Indy Car and this is a big difference between the front running and mid pack teams, Grosjean highlighted this as a difference for them on the street circuits.
It can be argued the conventional quite linear soft rear spring improves traction and therefore has a primary suspension function, whereas a collapsible heave spring that suddenly drops the rear of the car seems to be designed purely for aerodynamics.
Everything is a system. Potentially Mercedes proves that improves initial braking performance or stability at speed. The wholly incidental or contrived argument is easy to muck up enough to make it almost unenforceable.
People are pointing to a video of the RedBull at Austria being "linear". Looking linear and being linear are two different things, and without the data, it's just a guess. Furthermore, horses for courses, it's tuneable and without data at the same track, it's pointless.