FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[Cam]

Van der Garde was satisfied with progress up to that point as he ended the test fourth fastest.

In total, he completed 84 laps before his accident, which included work running without the FRIC suspension system that is set to be banned for the German Grand Prix.

At least one team is planning on it being banned.

[myurr]

There's another anomaly in that the story on autosport suggests that the FIA aren't outlawing the FRIC system explicitly, they've just said that they'd be minded to support any team which protested the legality of a car running it. So all the teams are free to race with FRIC and it won't fail scrutineering, another team would need to protest the result. They suggest the stewards would then rule in the protesting teams favour, leaving us with a disputed race result and court case if the protested team defended the action (likely if they ran the system in the first place). This would then need a ruling from the FIA court of appeal which could be challenged in the European courts should either side be unhappy with the ruling.

My interpretation of this is that it's going to require at least one of the teams to stand up and dispute another team's car, enduring the PR sh*t storm that is liable to follow. If this is the case it highlights again that this is a political maneuver.

[mikeerfol]

Van der Garde was satisfied with progress up to that point as he ended the test fourth fastest.

In total, he completed 84 laps before his accident, which included work running without the FRIC suspension system that is set to be banned for the German Grand Prix.

At least one team is planning on it being banned.

Did he crash while running the non-FRIC car?

[Cam]

That information was not supplied. Interestingly, Boulier says the change to non-Fric is no big deal.

But while he does not expect it to be a game-changer for most teams, he suspects that any teams with a more extreme FRIC concept could be hurt competitively.

"In the case of McLaren, we are quite relaxed," said Boullier. "We don't see any issue with this for us.

"I don't think it will be too much disturbance for the rest of the season.

With words like that, it might be difficult to argue against any ban.

[Juzh]

That information was not supplied. Interestingly, Boulier says the change to non-Fric is no big deal.

But while he does not expect it to be a game-changer for most teams, he suspects that any teams with a more extreme FRIC concept could be hurt competitively.

"In the case of McLaren, we are quite relaxed," said Boullier. "We don't see any issue with this for us.

"I don't think it will be too much disturbance for the rest of the season.

With words like that, it might be difficult to argue against any ban.

Well if it indeed is not a big deal, then running order should be largely intact. Somehow I doubt it.

[basti313]

The letter from Charlie (Boullier calls it a technical directive) states, that every sort of interconnection is forbidden by the current rules. There is nothing why it could take until 2016:
"Failing this, we would have to consider making a report to the stewards about the non-compliance of any car fitted with a system which appears to allow the response of the suspension at either or both of the rear corners to drive the response of the suspension at either or both of the front corners (or vice versa)."

There's nothing in the current written regulations that forbids interconnected suspension, nor there will be in 2015. That's a fact.

Interesting that you call that a fact and Charlie says exactly the opposite...
For me it is quite clear: The interconnection of the axles has nothing to do with "classic" roll-control, that you can find on every car. And if it starts to lift the car in an "unnatural" way (unnatural in contrast to a normal suspension) it does not comply with the rule about movable aero. It just moves the whole unsprung part.

Like beelsebob said, this would in turn ban anti-roll bars. That's insanity.

No one can argue about roll-bars being passive. For me the system of the rear axle controlling the front axle over a complex system of valves and springs has nothing to do with passive. This is as passive as active suspension controlled by a computer. And this is what I read from the technical directive: No more control of the front axel with the rear axle and vice versa.

No...front-rear connection. Anti-roll bars do not connect front and rear...

This is what you said and I quote:

that every sort of interconnection is forbidden by the current rules.

Beelsebob's argument is valid, too. Anti-roll bars fall under "every sort of interconnection". So either you misquoted, Bouillier misquoted or we have large hiat in this supposed-to-be TD.

Well, I thought it would be clear, that "inter" in "interconnection" stands for the "inter-axle-connection". I never saw the use of interconnection for Anti-roll bars.

If any of the teams feels they are being played with, and have the courage to take it to the FIA court of appeal, the FIA will not be able to refer to any regulation that bans interconnection.

For sure. Would be the second court this season about the question if technical directives are just an opinion or if you have to follow them. Last time they said the teams have to follow them...

[mikeerfol]

That information was not supplied. Interestingly, Boulier says the change to non-Fric is no big deal.

But while he does not expect it to be a game-changer for most teams, he suspects that any teams with a more extreme FRIC concept could be hurt competitively.

"In the case of McLaren, we are quite relaxed," said Boullier. "We don't see any issue with this for us.

"I don't think it will be too much disturbance for the rest of the season.

With words like that, it might be difficult to argue against any ban.

Well if it indeed is not a big deal, then running order should be largely intact. Somehow I doubt it.

Perhaps Boullier means it's not a big deal for his team, others like Red Bull and Mercedes could be in bigger trouble.

[Cam]

That's as i read it. Perhaps McLaren have a simpler setup?

Regarding the TD, Indeed, that is my view on TDs now too. The Red Bull case clarified that. While a TD could still be challenged, we already have very strong wording from the FIA on its position. Unless there is a unanimous vote, which is unlikely, Fric runners in Germany are taking a big risk.

[mikeerfol]

That's as i read it. Perhaps McLaren have a simpler setup?

Or they are struggling a lot with setting it up, which I believe is the case.

[Cam]

Well if it indeed is not a big deal, then running order should be largely intact. Somehow I doubt it.

Perhaps Boullier means it's not a big deal for his team, others like Red Bull and Mercedes could be in bigger trouble.

Scarbs suggests that some teams will have bigger issues than others in switching back, but importantly, he sees no safety issue in not running it. That's a key concept. So what reason could teams have to keep it?

It could be argued that a rushed FRIC ban will be unsafe, but it is probably more fair to say that the change will compromise cars' handling and teams' ability to predict it. But there should not be the dramatic effect seen when active suspension was banned for 1994.

[turbof1]

Interesting that you call that a fact and Charlie says exactly the opposite...
For me it is quite clear: The interconnection of the axles has nothing to do with "classic" roll-control, that you can find on every car. And if it starts to lift the car in an "unnatural" way (unnatural in contrast to a normal suspension) it does not comply with the rule about movable aero. It just moves the whole unsprung part.

And it's interesting you hang on to this. Go check the 2014 and 2015 technical regulation pdf. There's no regulation forbidding interconnected suspension. You can argue how interesting or not this all day, but there's no single line about this.

Well, I thought it would be clear, that "inter" in "interconnection" stands for the "inter-axle-connection". I never saw the use of interconnection for Anti-roll bars.

"Every sort of".We can't be taken responsible for interpreting that in a wide sence, since it's described in the wide sence. You know well enough F1 has a long standing history of interpretation and reinterpetation, and as an extention: here.

For sure. Would be the second court this season about the question if technical directives are just an opinion or if you have to follow them. Last time they said the teams have to follow them...

Except this time it is not a technical directive. Clarifying a rule or laying down procedures and instructions related to the rule, that is a technical directive. Banning interconnected suspension that only works the dynanics of the car, that is a rule. Charley can try all that he wants, but abusing the system by trying to put it into a technical regulation is an ungrounded, unfounded move. Charley's word is not absolute, and has been overwritten on several occasions in the past.

No one can argue about roll-bars being passive. For me the system of the rear axle controlling the front axle over a complex system of valves and springs has nothing to do with passive. This is as passive as active suspension controlled by a computer. And this is what I read from the technical directive: No more control of the front axel with the rear axle and vice versa.

It is as reactive as anti-roll bars. It gets the same input from the same influencing factor. Just because it acts different through a different construction, does not make it active. Just because a passive system simulates results from an active system, does not make it active by itself.

You determine for yourself where you draw the line, but if you want to be thay strict then everything is active. Then no passive exist, because everything in the universe happens due an influence. But don't make the mistake that an anti-roll bar is less influenced then an interconnected system.

[basti313]

Interesting that you call that a fact and Charlie says exactly the opposite...
For me it is quite clear: The interconnection of the axles has nothing to do with "classic" roll-control, that you can find on every car. And if it starts to lift the car in an "unnatural" way (unnatural in contrast to a normal suspension) it does not comply with the rule about movable aero. It just moves the whole unsprung part.

And it's interesting you hang on to this. Go check the 2014 and 2015 technical regulation pdf. There's no regulation forbidding interconnected suspension. You can argue how interesting or not this all day, but there's no single line about this.

The nice thing about this is: We will see in one week what is right and what is wrong. Either they postpone the ban, they run without FRIC or nothing changes.

"Every sort of".We can't be taken responsible for interpreting that in a wide sence, since it's described in the wide sence. You know well enough F1 has a long standing history of interpretation and reinterpetation, and as an extention: here.

I would rather call it intentional misinterpretation of everything you can misinterpret. This really helps the discussion. =D>

[Cam]

I can just imagine how this all came about too. (just for laughs - I mean, if we don't laugh, we cry, eh?)

“Hmm, what’s this letter? Smells of perfume! Ohh, something special I hope, a little vroom-vroom, maybe?.” excites Todt as he starts to open his morning mail. He starts to read, skimming through quickly. “Hi Mr Todt… big fan…Napoleon-esk…blah, blah…FRIC banned…. customer cars….Alonoso’s contract…. WTF?! “. Slamming down the letter, Todt calls through his office door to his secretary, “Alice dear, get ‘Him’, on the line, now please”.
Phone ringing. Click. “mo money, hello?”
Todt asks angrily “What’s this about banning Fric? We’ve been running that for years, no questions asks?”.
MrE replies, snickering “Morning love, I see you got my letter?”
“Got it indeed, the teams won’t like this. What about Lauda? You’re promise to him or he said they’d quit?” says Todt.
MrE snickering louder, “I kept my promise. We’re not changing engines this year are we? No one mentioned suspension though. All he asked for was to switch engines - he’s got that”.
“Well, how are we going to sell this publicly, the fans are already at the gates beying for blood?” sighs Todt.
“Let me worry about that, sweetheart”, says MrE, “besides, you got bigger things to worry about, like those shares in Pirelli. Did you see the pics on Autosport this morning?”
“Did I”, exclaimed Todt, “the suckers, I mean fans are going to lap that up, and don’t worry about the shares, all sorted. Can anyone say ‘yacht time’, snickered Todt. “see you at the next ‘safety meeting’, joked Todt. MrE laughing out loud “ha ha ha, safety… boy, that never get’s old”.
Click.

[turbof1]

I would rather call it intentional misinterpretation of everything you can misinterpret. This really helps the discussion.

Infact, studies tells intentional misinterpretation statistically delivers more results from discussions since it keeps attention to the topic and forces all participants to think actively about their words. Furthermore, Intentional misinterpretation leads to a subdebate that furthers understanding of the intended interpretation and the contextual placement of said debate.

Something that is unfortunaly not present in F1 since it is full with one sided decisions and regulations that could have been solved through debate.

[Cam]

I think I understand that interpretation...