FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[iotar__]

Don't always believe what AMuS writes - two days earlier they said it was McLaren, and then Boullier came out with his statement...I believe that certain "factual articles" are actually just bait to get a statement from the teams.

It's true that Amus doesn't always get it right (Ferrari engine safety) but in this case it makes sense. Ferrari is obvious direction even without technical details and only with rumours. Again: this "special meeting" springs to mind. About Boullier - I'd say smoke screen and auto-pilot denial, McL could hardly hide their happiness, I suspect especially for 2015. Red Bull is an interesting part, the fact that they have one of the better systems (rumours) doesn't mean they can't gain from banning it.

Week before GP and the situation is still unclear - how is that acceptable, are they delaying banning it or not? Classic political F1, at least they learned from Silverstone and don't change their decisions three times.

[FoxHound]

If I were a team boss and knew there would be a substantial performance loss, I'd run it anyway.
Thereby creating a sh*tstorm where the complainant(s) and the FIA face a deluge of bad publicity in the event of a post race disqualification.

The disqualified team(s) would also be subject to a large swathe of public sympathy from the people that don't count...the fans.

Politics 101 really.

[iotar__]

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/09099 "It's believed the leading outfits of Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Lotus and Williams have all agreed not to pursue a protest.
They are however having difficulty persuading some of the smaller teams - which have less complex FRIC systems and therefore more to gain from a ban - to do the same."

[if it's true and you believe it etc.] This line between technical working group(?), you know, big teams, and others suggests to me that this fake ban was to gain something for some of the big teams - marketplace theory. Smaller teams don't want to play along. Or maybe it's their way of saying: not our fault, it's FIA and small teams to blame for changing the rules mid-season (like HRT in Silverstone blowing case), obviously a lie. Either way, joke and little to do with technical side.

[bhall II]

Ferrari is obvious direction even without technical details and only with rumours.

That's one of the more confounding sentences I've ever read, and I live in America, Jack, where saying weird things is a way of life.


At any rate, I'm of the mind that Mercedes' decision to race without FRIC is a test of sorts. If running without it greatly upsets their place atop the pecking order, a position in which they rightfully belong by virtue of their performance thus far, then I don't think we'll see an in-season ban of the system. It would raise too many questions. (Though, to be fair, that hasn't stopped the FIA before.)

Instead, the ban will then happen after the season. And I still think this whole thing is to justify incurring the costs associated with moving to Pirelli-friendly 18-inch wheels.

[jz11]

If I were a team boss and knew there would be a substantial performance loss, I'd run it anyway.
Thereby creating a sh*tstorm where the complainant(s) and the FIA face a deluge of bad publicity in the event of a post race disqualification.

The disqualified team(s) would also be subject to a large swathe of public sympathy from the people that don't count...the fans.

Politics 101 really.

was this your stance on red bull running "illegal" fuel flow parameters in Australia?

[FoxHound]

was this your stance on red bull running "illegal" fuel flow parameters in Australia?

No it wasn't because they actually broke a law in the first instance of it being implemented. Incomparable and you know it.
Let's not be petulant, try keeping on topic.

[turbof1]

So it seems the big reason behind it is cost cutting:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922

While the ideology behind it is noble, the fact that the proposal in Monaco got denied and the fact that the FIA abuses 3.15, is plain sad. It also clarifies whether it is truly contravening current rules. It isn't, and it's a very dangerous precedent, in which the FIA tries to push through costsaving measures by using current technical regulation. The function to alter the rules lies in the F1 workgroup, which votes against such a move. The FIA effectively denies the authority of said group by this move.

[Just_a_fan]

If the FIA leave the ban "open", the funniest outcome would be for Mercedes to run in Germany without it and then, having won anyway, protest a team that was running it.

That way the stewards have to decide one way or another.

[tok-tokkie]

That Autosport article is well written and well reasoned. But this bit comes as a surprise:

'And the fact that Mercedes' main rivals - Red Bull, Ferrari, and Williams - have joined McLaren, Lotus and Marussia so far in saying they are happy for the systems to stay on board for 2014, proves that there is no plot to slow the Brackley-based outfit.'

I read Boullier as saying they had no problem if FRIC was to be removed immediately - I don't recall him saying they had no problem if it remains. I don't remember RB or Ferrari saying it either but I am not clear about them.

[Gaz.]

So it seems the big reason behind it is cost cutting:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922

While the ideology behind it is noble, the fact that the proposal in Monaco got denied and the fact that the FIA abuses 3.15, is plain sad. It also clarifies whether it is truly contravening current rules. It isn't, and it's a very dangerous precedent, in which the FIA tries to push through costsaving measures by using current technical regulation. The function to alter the rules lies in the F1 workgroup, which votes against such a move. The FIA effectively denies the authority of said group by this move.

What I find ridiculous is that this cost cutting comes after the money has been spent, especially as the financially insecure teams such as Marussia, Lotus & Sauber have already got wel developed FRIC systems so it's hardly doing them any favours. It'd be like telling Juliette Whiting that she can't wear her Louboutines that she's owned for several years because they are too expensive.

[iotar__]

As if it wasn't funny enough now it's all about costs - not "conspiracies". How about usual F1 politic instead of conspiracies? So before the season costs meant nothing and in the middle of the season they suddenly realised it's a problem? Like they care about costs anyway, as Jean Todt said these are joke cost-cutting measures. I can't wait when lack of FRIC will save teams from bankruptcy.

They are trying too hard to weasel themselves out of it every way possible: it's small teams' fault and cost-cutting solution. Yeah right...
edit: BTW I thought it was a matter of technical legality not made up cost cutting solution, oh wait:
"However, with correspondence between a number of teams and the FIA about FRIC developments getting increasingly frequent, the governing body elected to begin a detailed investigation into the systems shortly afterwards." No conspiracies at all.

[jz11]

So it seems the big reason behind it is cost cutting:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922

While the ideology behind it is noble, the fact that the proposal in Monaco got denied and the fact that the FIA abuses 3.15, is plain sad. It also clarifies whether it is truly contravening current rules. It isn't, and it's a very dangerous precedent, in which the FIA tries to push through costsaving measures by using current technical regulation. The function to alter the rules lies in the F1 workgroup, which votes against such a move. The FIA effectively denies the authority of said group by this move.

What I find ridiculous is that this cost cutting comes after the money has been spent, especially as the financially insecure teams such as Marussia, Lotus & Sauber have already got wel developed FRIC systems so it's hardly doing them any favours. It'd be like telling Juliette Whiting that she can't wear her Louboutines that she's owned for several years because they are too expensive.

Maybe it is to stop dumping resources into developing "not so active" suspension systems that act pretty much like active suspensions, but, by the wording of the rules, don't really fit the description? Especially when full blown active may be allowed in near future?

Similar thing happened few years ago in WRC, where active differentials were banned, and cost was named the main factor, guess what changed? Absolutely nothing, electric actuators and cpus got replaced by mechanics and hydraulics - this is basically the same thing.

I'm all for the innovation, don't get me wrong, just try to look further than the current season and not look for conspiracies just because someone is bad at expressing the direction which the management decided to take, which may have even been on purpose that way, else there wasn't much to write about in the media, keeps the ratings high you know...

[Tim.Wright]

This confusion of FRIC as an active or semi active system is way off base. You cannot make a passive system behave like an active system. There also seems to be some misconception that hydraulic = active.

Hydraulics, in themselves, are completely passive unless you put a hydraulic pump in the system. Additionally, hydraulics don't do anything that can't be achieved with mechanical linkages and sufficient space. This is a critical point to understand.

Hydraulics are used when it is not practical to use a mechanical link. A FRIC system is (likely) a hydraulically implemented anti-pitch bar (though they may additionally mimic a longitudinal Z bar for roll control) because its obviously not practical to run longitudinal links the entire length of the car. Its mode of operation is therefore conceptually similar (perhaps identical) to an anti roll bar.

Also, bear in mind that there is absolutely no discussion from the FIA or the teams expressing doubt that the system is active. The FIA are quoting 3.15 which is about moveable aero.

Active systems are extremely easy to spot: you only need to find an actuator somewhere. If there is no actuator, the system is passive. These days its impossible to hide an actuator, its power source and its controller.

[jz11]

All I'm saying is - FIA conveyed the reason is a bad way - but the purpose was to stop teams waste money on an unarguable performance gain today that will become obsolete in near future - temporary gain at great cost, which isn't really available for "budget" teams. How is that bad?

And I also think that definitions of active or semi active suspensions are way too conservative, which led to evolution of FRIC systems, and you don't always need external energy to do some work for you, take few different diameter pistons at each corner, few valves, a logic, and you will have energy at your disposal to mimic true active suspension behavior - which is exactly what they just banned.

On top of this - complex FRIC system opens up aero development options that weren't there before - one more money sink, not as useless "tomorrow" when they will allow active suspension, but rich teams can gain advantage right there. <- this is purely hypothetical from me, I won't be able to name any particular aero gain, that will not work with nonFRIC suspension and will with FRIC or active, because I haven't spent any time learning/thinking about it

[Dragonfly]

This confusion of FRIC as an active or semi active system is way off base. You cannot make a passive system behave like an active system. There also seems to be some misconception that hydraulic = active.
................

+1 to that
I tried several pages back to say that but it went unnoticed.

If they sincerely want to cut costs and prevent further spending on such system, they could simply put in the 2015 rules that FRIC is banned. No one is gonna spend on something which is forbidden.

Cost cutting is just a smoke screen which has become too transparent from constant abuse.