FRIC Could Be Banned As Soon As Germany

[basti313]

1.: Of course there is a big difference between the air flowing round the car and fluids or gases that are clearly a part of the car. You can not really count the air round the car as a part of it...so I like the thought that the fluids are a part of the car and influence aero.

Is there? Airflow is not only shaped by the car, it's used as an extention of the "bodywork" car in the shape of airflow structures, pressure zones, vortices etc.

The air around the car is part of the car, just as much as fluids inside the car are part of it.

Once the car is in scrutineering, there is no airflow, but just air
This is getting too philosophical for me...sorry, I do not really know how I can discuss this. Even if I try to avoid every sort of common sense I do not know how to discuss the air around a car as a part of the car in the sense of movable bodywork.

3.: Other parts? I think there are plenty even if you do not like the fluid. §3.15 also has the point of "Bodywork rules" in it. So no part influencing the the aero may be flexible. That means: No flexible hoses, no springs, no valves.

It also means no aero-shaped suspension or stacked winglets-like brake ducts. Those are allowed, so why not fric?[/quote]
The brake ducts: They are explicitly excludet from §3.15.
Aero-shaped suspension may be discussed as a part of the non-sprung part....but when it comes to other things like passive DRS or DDRS I do not know. Maybe these are just ok, because Charlie is not giving a $hit and can only concentrate on one thing per season...

[turbof1]

No it's because Charley Whiting is plain incompetent for the job.

[basti313]

No it's because Charley Whiting is plain incompetent for the job.

I tried not to write it that harsh.
But still I can not find a fault in banning the interconnected suspension (connection between front and rear meant) except that they are a few years late.

[Tim.Wright]

I thought the difference between a passive system and an active system is that a passive system reacts to the road / conditions it is in and the other acts out a programmed routine and can be demonstrated as such in the garage without being on track.

Active: power is added to the system
Passive: no power is added to the system

There seems to be a confusion between passive/active and closed loop/open loop. Passive systems have closed loop components (ie it reacts to a certain condition) but that doesn't make it active.

[FW17]

I thought the difference between a passive system and an active system is that a passive system reacts to the road / conditions it is in and the other acts out a programmed routine and can be demonstrated as such in the garage without being on track.

The current system cannot lower or raise the chassis independently at each wheel. The current system is a adaptive active suspension.

[beelsebob]

I thought the difference between a passive system and an active system is that a passive system reacts to the road / conditions it is in and the other acts out a programmed routine and can be demonstrated as such in the garage without being on track.

The current system cannot lower or raise the chassis independently at each wheel. The current system is a adaptive active suspension.

No, no power is added, it is not active.

[iotar__]

Amus claims two (three) teams may be behind FRIC saga: Ferrari and McLaren. http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 53531.html

I don't believe it! Who would have thought that, if you can't win on track... F1 is an outright circus joke. In couple of years there will be fairy tale stories on internet boards about how Merc only won because of illegal FRIC advantage, like Renault in 2006 . [to be honest their engine adv. is kind of unfair]

[Kiril Varbanov]

So far nearly every team says: it won't hurt us. Go for the ban, then.

[astracrazy]

So far nearly every team says: it won't hurt us. Go for the ban, then.

So it seems

Which to me sounds like the teams might be trying to double bluff the FIA and in actual fact its quite the opposite.

Just another example of the fia being hypocrites when it comes to saving money.

[Thunder]

Amus claims two (three) teams may be behind FRIC saga: Ferrari and McLaren. http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 53531.html

I don't believe it! Who would have thought that, if you can't win on track... F1 is an outright circus joke. In couple of years there will be fairy tale stories on internet boards about how Merc only won because of illegal FRIC advantage, like Renault in 2006 . [to be honest their engine adv. is kind of unfair]

^

That's actually a wrong Translation. The FRIC Ban does come from the FIA, but as already known the FIA has asked all Teams to state their opinion on the legality of the FRIC. And it is rumoured that Ferrari, McLaren and Caterham do think it is illegal. Mercedes wants a Clarification from the FIA asap and won't be running FRIC in Germany, just as Red Bull.

[astracrazy]

Ferrari, McLaren and Caterham do think it is illegal

the three teams having bad seasons....it adds up then. But Macca is running it, so why would they say its illegal (but hey we are running it too)

[Thunder]

Ferrari runs it too, EB said almost every Team is running it. But some got it handled better (Merc, RB) than others.

But like i said, at the Moment it's just Rumours.

[gray41]

So Mercedes saying ok not to worry, we'll just win without it.

[SectorOne]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/487194875969159169 Please F1 gods, make sure Red Bull and Mercedes laps the field about 36 times in Germany.

[SiLo]

Why run without it? Surely if they haven't had a rule clarification then they can run with it, seeing as they have been doing so for quite some time now?

I'd run with it until they ban if, if they don't then you don't have to worry, and if they do, then you plan for that.

But yes I'd like to see Red Bull and Merc destroy the field at this race just to make a point about this silly ban from the FIA.