FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[Tim.Wright]

A quick look at the Caterham suggests that they have pro-dive on their front suspension, so I'd expect the ban to kick them hard in the balls.

http://f1tcdn.net/gallery/var/resizes/2 ... 8/nose.jpg

The control arms are largely parallel and slope down to the back of the car so this would put the IC below the ground which means negative anti dive.

That is anti-dive, Tim. Front arms sloped back/ rear arms sloped forward.

Not quite. This seems to be a common misunderstanding though. You need to visualise the intersection of the upper and lower control arm planes and the wheel centre plane. This will give you a point. The location of this point will give the anti dive tendancy:
Below ground/behind wheel cen :- pro dive
Above ground/behind wheel cen:- anti dive
Below ground/ fwd of wheel cen:- anti dive
Above ground/fwd of wheel cen:- pro dive

Its unfortunately quite common for anti effects to be described incorrectly even in some books.

The ultimate proof though is to do an fbd analysis of the upright under a braking load. The sign of the relationship between braking load and spring load will tell you if you are anti or pro dive.

The flexure joints on F1 cars might have some altering effect on the results but I doubt its a big effect.

FWIW, McLaren had this kind of setup last year and the car was teerible in bumpy braking zones. I don't know if they had a FRIC system or just very stiff front springs but there are a lot of videos of that car bouncing very badly over bumps in the braking zone.

[wesley123]

If they're simply raising or lowering wheels with the suspension, then I don't see how anyone could interpret that as violating the rules. At least, no more than any other suspension system.

The teams raising or lowering the suspension by their own while the car is in motion sounds like active suspension to me.

[Cam]

The plot thickens.

The Spanish sports newspaper Marca reports that the FIA is also considering clamping down on the rate and flow of hybrid power from the new 2014 'power units'.

A source was quoted as saying that while the actual combustion engines produced by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault this year are remarkably close in performance, the big advantage enjoyed by Mercedes is in the 'hybrid' areas.

The source said Mercedes' advantage could be as much as "between 110 to 130 horse power on the straights".

[myurr]

Hmmm chances are Silverstone had an important result then. If the two lead drivers in the championship were still separated by a race win in points then I doubt the FIA would be triggering this now. They've waited for things to be pretty even so there can't be accusations of manipulating things in that fight, but now Lewis has closed right up they can pull the trigger and try and change the running order of all the teams. This is entirely politically motivated and is designed to "improve" the show by closing the grid up and shuffling the running order around. What are the odds this is the fallout of Luca's meetings with Todt?

Whatever the motivation this is the ugly side of the "sport" rearing its head again. Such a shame F1 keeps shooting itself in the foot like this.

[FW17]

Whatever the motivation this is the ugly side of the "sport" rearing its head again. Such a shame F1 keeps shooting itself in the foot like this.

I for one support BOP. I would not want to stifle the leading team, just bringing them closer to others.

2% engine power advantage between engines should be enough specially when everyone speaking of cost control and development of engine is frozen.

If the diff between he lead team and others are 2.5 % (as it was the case in Silverstone) it is bad for F1, 2.5% should be the range from front to last.

[myurr]

Whatever the motivation this is the ugly side of the "sport" rearing its head again. Such a shame F1 keeps shooting itself in the foot like this.

I for one support BOP. I would not want to stifle the leading team, just bringing them closer to others.

2% engine power advantage between engines should be enough specially when everyone speaking of cost control and development of engine is frozen.

If the diff between he lead team and others are 2.5 % (as it was the case in Silverstone) it is bad for F1, 2.5% should be the range from front to last.

If you want equality then turn it into a spec series. Changing the rules or the interpretation of those rules in the middle of the season is an incompetent and terrible way to run a "sport" and to do it for political reasons is corrupt.

[Cam]

BOP = Ban On Performance? I assume?

While it would be good to say the FIA simply doesn't ban any innovations to hinder performance, it simply bans items that are not 'legal' - too many of us have been around too long to swallow that morsel.

That said - if Fric is illegal, it has to go. Can you imagine the uproar if teams are allowed to carry on with illegal parts? Especially when others have had results removed because of the exact same thing. If the FIA is to keep any credibility, they'll have to follow this one through, or you can just imagine the next court case.

The teams cannot question it's legality (they can vote to keep it in - on safety grounds?) - they can (and should) question, HTF the FIA allowed it through in the first place, then allowed 9 races before picking it up. It's not like it's new for this season.

That, is the biggest question of all.

[FW17]

If you want equality then turn it into a spec series. Changing the rules or the interpretation of those rules in the middle of the season is an incompetent and terrible way to run a "sport" and to do it for political reasons is corrupt.

WEC uses BOP, I don't see anyone calling it a spec series?

Sport - is finding a way for everyone to compete in near equal terms

BOP = Ban On Performance? I assume?

[myurr]

WEC uses BOP, I don't see anyone calling it a spec series?

Sport - is finding a way for everyone to compete in near equal terms

I don't see WEC being heralded as the pinnacle of motorsport either though.

Spot does not mean that in any way shape or form. I didn't see Germany only allowed 9 players to Brazil's 13 last night. Usain Bolt doesn't carry extra weights in his shorts.

What sport should mean is consistent, clear and universal rules applied equally to all to provide a level playing field in terms of the competitive area. That does not include reinterpretation of the rules in the middle of a season to outlaw technology that has been on the cars for years giving the teams two weeks notice. It shouldn't mean political maneuvering by the competitors being as important as actual ability.

[autogyro]

F1 IS a spec series.
I could design an autonomous car with no driver to go round just as fast.
Where is the race technical development if the FIA only want parity?

[FoxHound]

Sport - is finding a way for everyone to compete in near equal terms

The terms are the same for all competing teams.
You wouldn't see the athletic governing body tie down Usain Bolt with weights after winning his heats during the Olympics, or the Rugby Governing body stipulate the All Black's start every game with a 20 point deficit after trouncing the opposition at a World Cup.

[Gaara]

So presumably Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull don't use this. Is that right?

[WaikeCU]

Will this have an effect like in 1993-1994? When bans were applied on lots of electronic aids, which caused cars to be fast and uncontrollable?

The ban of FRIC could be dramatic for certain teams. If the drive of the Ferrari is this awful already and it doesn't have FRIC. Imagine what that would be when you take the FRIC away from a powerful Mercedes car like the W05.

If this does happen and the FIA wants further restriction on hybrid power. Be sure to say bye bye to Mercedes F1 next season.

[FoxHound]

So presumably Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull don't use this. Is that right?

Red Bull use it, as do Ferrari. Mclaren I'm unsure of their particular system, but they have used something along those lines as far as I'm aware

[matt21]

Regarding the 3rd spring: The rule of movable aero excludes the sprung part of the car. I would say a third spring is part of the sprung part, so this should no problem in contrast to hydraulic cylinders driving the interconnected suspension.

I assume you mean that the rule excludes the unsprung part.
With this definition the dampers would also be unsprung mass and they are driving the fluid.

Thats debatable. The third spring doesn't have a connection to the chassis. Its "floating" between the two rockers in exactly the same way that the hydraulic fluid is floating between the front and rear hydraulic clkinders

You could only define the pipes and reservoirs as definitly sprung parts.

Also FRIC is one of the last road-relevant things on a F1-car.