Illegal parts on cars

[LogicPro]

What is the issue of Lotus suspension?

I don't understand it from what I read here: http://au.eurosport.com/formula-1/lotus ... tory.shtml

I thought a suspension must have two wishbones, a tie-rod and a push-rod (or pull-rod) and thus four linkages on the upright. How can four elements be connected together? The suspension wouldn't work if the elements were joined together, because it would not fix all the degrees of freedom... I'm a bit confused

[Tim.Wright]

Normally the push rod is connected to the wishbone not the upright. Especially on the front where it could affect the steering feedback to the driver if its connected to the upright.

[Belatti]

Normally the push rod is connected to the wishbone not the upright. Especially on the front where it could affect the steering feedback to the driver if its connected to the upright.

Not if you design a suspension where you want to transfer load from side to side with determined steering angle.

[Cam]

There's been a fair number of cases of illegal parts on cars...

Lotus' recently discovered front suspension
McLaren's flexing front wing assembly
(not confirmed but fairly certain) Red Bull's flexing front wing/nose/splitter.

In all of these cases, the FIA's response seems to have been "that's not on, change it for the next race".

But, my mind goes back to Australia a couple of years ago, where Sauber got an excellent result, and were then found to have a rear wing with a marginally too high curvature, and disqualified.

Is there a reason why teams are being allowed to get away with illegal parts now, when Sauber were so unceremoniously dumped out of the results a couple of years back?

Could it be the case that a team can demonstrate its interpretation of the regulations approves the part? Only once the FIA 'clarify' said regulation, the team has an opportunity to race again unchanged and be penalized or make changes to conform with the regulation clarification - e.g. Red Bull hole in floor. Thats how I see it.

[Tim.Wright]

Normally the push rod is connected to the wishbone not the upright. Especially on the front where it could affect the steering feedback to the driver if its connected to the upright.

Not if you design a suspension where you want to transfer load from side to side with determined steering angle.

http://scarbsf1.com/RBT_Upright.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/548 ... 4c4e_b.jpg

I said "normally". I have seen such setups before and I dont think they are trying to do what you say. Especially the first one, because the push rod pick up is directly on the kingpin axis. Any variable load transfer mad using this technique will be sent back through the steering too so the driver will feel it. Generally not a desirable thing I'd say, the driver needs to be feeling the self aligning moment from the tyres, not the load transfer.

[LogicPro]

So does Lotus have the push-rod linked to the lower wishbone? That would make three arms linked together, but apparently (as written on F1.com) they have four arms linked together. I can't imagine the steering arm connected to the lower wishbone as well as the push-rod: the upright would have a degree of freedom of rotation around vertical axis and the the steering arm would not steer the wheel

[i70q7m7ghw]

Cars are checked at the end of the race, if an illegal part is found then the car is DQed. There are no exceptions to this. I believe the cases your referring to will be when the parts are spotted during practice sessions.

[Greg Locock]

I said "normally". I have seen such setups before and I dont think they are trying to do what you say. Especially the first one, because the push rod pick up is directly on the kingpin axis. Any variable load transfer mad using this technique will be sent back through the steering too so the driver will feel it. Generally not a desirable thing I'd say, the driver needs to be feeling the self aligning moment from the tyres, not the load transfer.

Tim, on production cars we often use a sta bar link onto the spindle on the front suspension. This becomes a tuning aid for bump steer (which we don't particularly want) vs roll steer, which we like a lot. if you look down the king pin then the ratio of the apparent length of the sta bar link to its vertical length is the proportion of the sta bar force you get as a moment around the KP, and the radius is obvious.

[Tim.Wright]

Nice trick, cheers Greg. Will keep that one in my toolbox.

[astracrazy]

Sauber were DQ'd coz there car failed scrutineering so it was the stewards that dq'd them

When teams are told 'change it for the next race' doesn't that come from Charlie? I can only guess some things aren't checked during scrutineering so in some ways he doesn't have a choice to say that for that race but could make it a bigger issue in the next race.

[beelsebob]

Sauber were DQ'd coz there car failed scrutineering so it was the stewards that dq'd them

When teams are told 'change it for the next race' doesn't that come from Charlie? I can only guess some things aren't checked during scrutineering so in some ways he doesn't have a choice to say that for that race but could make it a bigger issue in the next race.

Right, but charlie is entirely capable of directing the stewards to check something. When he says "change that for the next race", what he means is "if you don't change that, I'm gonna refer it to the stewards, and my bet is they're gonna find it illegal".

[astracrazy]

Right, but charlie is entirely capable of directing the stewards to check something. When he says "change that for the next race", what he means is "if you don't change that, I'm gonna refer it to the stewards, and my bet is they're gonna find it illegal".

that's basically what I meant. I think when Charlie is told about or see's something which is on the edge or in a grey area he looks at and gives his opinion. He obviously advises the team to change it for the next race or he'll have it properly checked by the stewards. And you can obviously understand the teams then changing it because its a lot easier than turning up to the next race with a car which is then DQ'd for being illegal.

An extreme example i can only guess would be double deck diffusers. I wonder if Charlie said remove it, teams said no so it led to the hearing - all though that's a guess because i can't exactly remember how it came about

It also works on the other foot, for example like the Fduct. It was checked and deemed ok.

[peanutaxis]

I think in the case of Sauber's rear wing the FIA were looking at just one race in which it was used. With Lotus' suspension I think Lotus said they'd been using it for 2 years! It's a bit hard to penalize in retrospect that much and that far back. Also, they were probably not gaining much from their suspension. Anyone know why the regulation is there in the first place?

[peanutaxis]

They are moving with respect to the sprung mass which is what matters. This is the reason that the wheel covers of a few years ago were fixed. Its also the same reasons fan blades incoporated into the wheels to do the same job were banned a few years ago. The only possible leg they had to stand on is if they tried to argue that they were holes for weight reduction.

By this logic the holes in the rotors of the disc brakes are also moving aerodynamic devices. Also, it was my impression that the wheel covers were stationary because they wanted the brake dust/hot air to exit at the bottom.