FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

Semi-active in that the system has a feedback loop with a mechanical computer as the brain.

[Tim.Wright]

No, not semi active.. Use of mechanical logic whether through hydraulics or mechanical joints is in no way an active system. Not even semi active. Don't assume that because there is a feedback loop its active. Every mechanical system has a feedback loop with its environment.

Take a normal racing damper which you can buy from Penske, Koni, Multimatic, Sachs etc. They all have complex internal hydraulic logic circuits. They have seperate hydraulic circuits for bump and rebound which use one way valves to achieve this seperation. Then each of these two circuits have reed valves in the form of a shim stack whick open up different circuits once the damper speed has reached a certain level. Some dampers even have extra circuits open up at different stroke positions to help recognise certain driving conditions from the body angle. Then there are often blow-off valves which open a bypass circuit at very high damper speeds to detect a curb strike and heavily reduce the damping. All lf this is done mechanically, without adding power and is therefore absolutely passive.

FRIC is just a series of passive valves and accumulators in the same way that a damper is.

[jz11]

in other words you think the ban on the active suspensions back in the day meant they didn't want microchips in the car, but all is fine if the same is accomplished by stored kinetic energy via hydraulics?

[Tim.Wright]

They aren't accomplishing the same with hydraulics.

You can add all the logic you want but unless you have an externally powered actuator physically moving the suspension you will not be able to have the same behaviour as an active system.

[turbof1]

IMO, has it really come this far that we are questioning what a passive system is and what an active system is?

Tim, maybe you should start calling yourself Tim RIght. You are spot on.

An active system acts on it own. For instance a system that scans the track in front and adjust the suspension accordingly, or a pre-configurated system that works together with accurate gps.

A passive system is a system that hits a bump in the road and after that a series of valves and hydraulics set in motion due and only due the energy input from hitting that bump.

I tend to make a comparison to reactive, but that isn't completely true either since a reactive system can be both active and passive.

[Andres125sx]

Tim, maybe you should start calling yourself Tim RIght

+1

[jz11]

I'm not questioning what passive and active systems are, I'm questioning peoples thought about what really was banned in the 90ties, and how that compares to what FRIC systems are capable now and their future designs would, and how valuable that research would be when true active suspensions are allowed again.

[bhall II]

Forgot about this...

F1 could bring back highly-sophisticated 'active suspension' to cut costs.

Reporting from Shanghai, Telegraph correspondent Daniel Johnson said the idea is among a draft proposal by the FIA after teams blocked Jean Todt's plans for a budget cap.

Active suspension was banned after Williams utterly dominated in 1993, but bringing it back could cut costs by making it easier and cheaper to set up today's complex cars.

Johnson said every car would by 2017 be fitted with 'FIA standard active suspension', and along with other benefits it could mean teams could function without as many staff at grands prix.

[...]

So maybe that's on the way.

[SiLo]

More standardisation... Because that's exactly what the sport needs!

Soon it will be called F1 because it is a ONE make FORMULA.

[piast9]

I don't get that reasoning that this ban is to reduce cost. Almost each ban causes the increase of the cost because teams try to get an equivalent effect of the simpler solution which was banned by introducing more complex one which exploits the loopholes. I think that if there was a design freedom then a fraction of current costs would be enough to build a car that is as fast as the F1.

[Shrieker]

I don't get that reasoning that this ban is to reduce cost. Almost each ban causes the increase of the cost because teams try to get an equivalent effect of the simpler solution which was banned by introducing more complex one which exploits the loopholes. I think that if there was a design freedom then a fraction of current costs would be enough to build a car that is as fast as the F1.

But !






Will it blend ?


Joking aside, I agree with what you say. The fric ban is just a political power struggle. Seen it with the mass damper before.

[Moxie]

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.

That would certainly be one way for a small team to get exposure for their sponsors.

[Moxie]

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.

B.S. (Not to you turbo. B.S. To the article you quoted)

Banning FRIC in the middle of the 2014 season to cut costs makes absolutely no sense. A ton of money has already been spent on engineering and building cars to run using FRIC systems. Now each team will have to throw away a lot of hard earned and expensive data, and re-engineer their suspension, in a ridiculously short period of time, with a chassis designed to work with FRIC. At least for the 2014 season this will add unexpected costs. This could be terrible for the teams that are already financially strapped.

If cost cutting was the goal, it would have been wise to announce that the new rule interpretation will go into effect in 2015.

[FoxHound]

that would certainly be one way for a small team to get exposure for their sponsors.

A posthumous Dale Carnegie would disagree.
The small teams need the big big boys, and going about publicity in this way would invoke the wrath of the food chains upper echelons.
In short, 1 step forwards 2 steps back.

I see what you are saying, I see no prudence in pursuing this route though.

[Moxie]

that would certainly be one way for a small team to get exposure for their sponsors.

A posthumous Dale Carnegie would disagree.
The small teams need the big big boys, and going about publicity in this way would invoke the wrath of the food chains upper echelons.
In short, 1 step forwards 2 steps back.

I see what you are saying, I see no prudence in pursuing this route though.

Yeah, I didn't intend for that to be taken seriously.