FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[Dragonfly]

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.

I am afraid you are wrong in your assumption about 'active' suspension.
If you take a classic car suspension you have springs, some kind of rod/lever to connect the spring to the wheel and a dampener.
Now take the classic Citroen hydropneumatic suspension - the spring is compressed gas, the connecting rod is oil and because of the negligible compression ratio can be regarded as solid, the dampener is incorporated in the oil path as a combination of calibrated holes and valves.
Where do you see the active part?
In theory this system can be designed to be purely mechanical (although heavy and bad for packaging). The point under attack is not whether it's active or not but the interconnection between front and rear - axle to axle, side to side and diagonally.

[Cam]

Isn't the argument simply that the suspension effect aero, regardless how it achieves it? To dumb this right down - a car with basic springs etc will roll and tilt under braking and corners, effecting the aero in a normal way. FRIC removes (or minimises) that roll and tilt - enhancing aero. It's moving an aero device abnormally - the car body. Would this be a close summation?

[beelsebob]

Isn't the argument simply that the suspension effect aero, regardless how it achieves it? To dumb this right down - a car with basic springs etc will roll and tilt under braking and corners, effecting the aero in a normal way. FRIC removes (or minimises) that roll and tilt - enhancing aero. It's moving an aero device abnormally - the car body. Would this be a close summation?

That seems to be the argument being made, but it doesn't seem to hold up against the rule. The car body *is* the "sprung part of the car". It obviously can't move relative to the spring part of the car...

[Cam]

Is this like that whole DDRS argument - is it driver operated, because the driver pushed the button or it's not driver operated, because the driver operate a switch and the switch operates the DDRS?

Either way, this whole thing is messed up. Fun to watch turn into a $hit heap, but messed up.

[Moxie]

I hear this is MrE's successor;

http://www.prowrestling.com/wp-content/ ... cmahon.jpg

Nail on the head!!!

I'll remind the forum that many years ago now, Vince McMahon was forced to admit under oath that his televised "professional wrestling" productions were not so much sports as they were entertainment. Formula one has joined the ranks of WWE wrestling, Professional Boxing, and Wipeout as entertainment masquerading as sport.

On another note, I have been rethinking my earlier statement that this may have been some knee-jerk reaction to the departure if Tony Fernandez. This may be just the thing that that drives a team under. Several teams are already in financial dire straits. They have engineered a car for the 2014 season, and whatever their performance may be, they have been accumulating data and learning. Now, mid-season, they are being told to scrap their suspension system, and start over.

[PhillipM]

Isn't the argument simply that the suspension effect aero, regardless how it achieves it? To dumb this right down - a car with basic springs etc will roll and tilt under braking and corners, effecting the aero in a normal way. FRIC removes (or minimises) that roll and tilt - enhancing aero. It's moving an aero device abnormally - the car body. Would this be a close summation?

So basically, if you read your own assumption back, you've just confirmed that if this ruling goes ahead, all suspension should be banned, because it affects the aero?
And of course, we'll need to change to solid plastic tyres, because those rubber deformable ones, they're affecting it too...

[beelsebob]

Isn't the argument simply that the suspension effect aero, regardless how it achieves it? To dumb this right down - a car with basic springs etc will roll and tilt under braking and corners, effecting the aero in a normal way. FRIC removes (or minimises) that roll and tilt - enhancing aero. It's moving an aero device abnormally - the car body. Would this be a close summation?

So basically, if you read your own assumption back, you've just confirmed that if this ruling goes ahead, all suspension should be banned, because it affects the aero?
And of course, we'll need to change to solid plastic tyres, because those rubber deformable ones, they're affecting it too...

I honestly don't believe that the FIA, and the technical delegates would be pushing on this unless they had a strong case. F1 teams are not beyond taking the FIA to court if they believe they've acted improperly, and against their business. So they must have solid ground to base this on.

The question is - what is the solid ground. I don't buy the "suspension affects aero" argument, because the rule explicitly states that aero parts must be rigidly attached to the entirely sprung part of the car. The question is then - which aero part have they found which is not rigidly attached to the entirely sprung part of the car? Can anyone point to a part that does not move perfectly in synchronicity with the chassis (modulo the normal flexing due to basic physics)?

[Cam]

Fluid? Fluid moving back and forward between front and back, left to right? It would move opposite to what the chassis is doing?

[beelsebob]

Fluid? Fluid moving back and forward between front and back, left to right? It would move opposite to what the chassis is doing?

Heh, that's an interesting take on it... It would be pretty hard to argue that fluids in sealed tubes are aero parts though.

[Cam]

all fluids are just compressed air though?

a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.

It's movable, it effects aero, it's in the FRIC suspension, plus, you can only imagine the advanced versions and what they're doing. Probably way off, but that's what I can think of. Don't think like an engineer, think like a lawyer.

[beelsebob]

all fluids are just compressed air though?

a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.

It's movable, it effects aero, it's in the FRIC suspension, plus, you can only imagine the advanced versions and what they're doing. Probably way off, but that's what I can think of. Don't think like an engineer, think like a lawyer.

I don't buy that explanation either - if you count fluid in the car as a "specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance" then you would also have to count the air flowing through the radiators as such a part too. Suddenly all aerodynamics are banned. More so, you would have to count the springs as having aerodynamic influence, and they are clearly not rigidly attached to the entirely sprung part of the car.

I still think there must be some part they can point to that they can say "this moves relative to the chassis".

[Cam]

But doesn't context play a part here? The FIA could say "remove the fluid from the FRIC and it's legal" - that basically kills the FRIC, but the hardware can remain is it was not the issue, it was the 'air or fluid' contained in it? They're not saying 'all fluid is illegal". The context is in how the device functions?

The same could be said for almost any of the other suggestions too. In context to the FRIC, most of those could be singled out. I'm not suggesting this is 'the' answer, but an example of when you try to play lawyer on something, you can weasel words just about any which way.

What else could it be?

Edit: or to flip your point, fluid in the radiator does not directly effect aero, it cools the engine. Any subsequent 'benefit' to aero as a result of that cooling is secondary. Whereas the fluid in FRIC is primary... if that makes sense?

[beelsebob]

But doesn't context play a part here? The FIA could say "remove the fluid from the FRIC and it's legal" - that basically kills the FRIC, but the hardware can remain is it was not the issue, it was the 'air or fluid' contained in it? They're not saying 'all fluid is illegal". The context is in how the device functions?

The same could be said for almost any of the other suggestions too. In context to the FRIC, most of those could be singled out. I'm not suggesting this is 'the' answer, but an example of when you try to play lawyer on something, you can weasel words just about any which way.

What else could it be?

Edit: or to flip your point, fluid in the radiator does not directly effect aero, it cools the engine. Any subsequent 'benefit' to aero as a result of that cooling is secondary. Whereas the fluid in FRIC is primary... if that makes sense?

On the contrary, the primary reason for the shaping of the radiator ducts is for aerodynamic benefit, not for cooling. Cooling is just a useful side effect.

I just don't see the FIA going after such a tenuous claim here. They usually admit even the most tenuous rule bending by the teams. That indicates that they feel that they need to have an extremely good case before they can say something is illegal on a car.

Because of that, I think the FIA must have something much much more solid to point the finger at and say "look, that solid part, right there, that doesn't move in the same way as the chassis does."

[Cam]

I still don't again with you're dismissing that idea. The point you gave, the radiator, cowling, pipes, aero flicks etc, do not move. Just the fluid inside the radiator moves, and that is primarily to cool. What the air does around the radiator etc has no bearing, unless the cowling deflects, or the radiator shrinking in size, etc.

I can see where you're trying to look, but I think that's too obvious. Mass dampeners etc are fully banned. Every team knows that. Any bit of hardware that moves opposite to pitch of the car is off limits (correct me if I'm wrong).

So what's the FRIC consistent of?

Nothing substantial. Pipes, valves and cylinders.

Valves and cylinders are a no brainer. Pipes carry fluid. The answer is obtuse, whatever it is. Which is why i suggested the fluid. What else in there can move, opposite to the pitch of the car? Maybe how the accumulator works? Maybe it's ECU controlled based on sensors?

[bill shoe]

I think some of ya'll are giving the FIA too much technical benefit of the doubt. There's a theme in a lot of posts that the FIA must have found something improper or at least potentially dubious in their review of technical drawings, so they are specifically banning those forms of FRIC, or perhaps banning all FRIC due to the difficulty of policing the different forms.

Reality is simpler. The FIA has decided that it's a technical violation to have "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)." This means a simple anti-roll bar is legal because it couples the left and right corners together, but the same device turned longitudinally would be illegal because it couples the front and rear corners together. The FIA is not saying they have to ban all FRIC because of the difficulties of policing complicated systems, rather they are explicitly saying front-rear coupling itself is illegal. Full stop.

It's been open knowledge for several years that the purpose of FRIC is to couple front and rear corners together. On Tuesday the FIA decided this coupling was illegal. Perhaps that was the first day Charlie Whiting read the excellent F1T thread "What the FRIC is it?"

The quote above is from the FIA's letter to the teams this week, as reported by the reputable Adam Cooper at this link--
http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/07/08/fia- ... n-systems/