Movable aero parts banned... really??

[autoart]

Why are Ferrari still allowed to use those rear wheel covers?

Renault were banned from using Mass Dampers because Ferrari and Mclaren were unable to dial in their cars using it, so Ferrari complained that they were movable devices that aided the cars aero performance around corners.

OK I may not be a high ranking engineer but I do believe that a wheel rotates when a car is moving, something that Bernie and Co seem to have missed!!! Those covers also move at the same time as the wheel, amazing how that works!!!

It is well documented that those covers are there to aid areo performance around the rear wheels, so why oh why do Ferrari still get away with them???

[Galileo]

I thought "movable" meant able to be adjusted by the driver, or deforming in use. They move by the same way as the car moves and the wings move but they are not adjustable in use, are they?

[thunderbelmont]

Galileo said:

I thought "movable" meant able to be adjusted by the driver, or deforming in use. They move by the same way as the car moves and the wings move but they are not adjustable in use, are they?

Like the damper used by Renault last year.... not adjustable by the driver, nor deforming in use......

Rob.

[autoart]

thunderbelmont said:

Galileo said:

I thought "movable" meant able to be adjusted by the driver, or deforming in use. They move by the same way as the car moves and the wings move but they are not adjustable in use, are they?

Like the damper used by Renault last year.... not adjustable by the driver, nor deforming in use......

Rob.

Couldn't have put it better

[Locoblade]

I don't agree that a mass damper is a movable aero aid, but I don't think wheels come into the aero regs as such either. ISTR that there was a mention that there was a rule stating that the wheel itself must be made of a single casting and that automatically made it illegal according to all the other teams, but somehow Ferrari have managed to argue that they are brake cooling aids and the FIA agree, not an aero aid.

All seems a bit odd but they can't have a significant aero benefit otherwise all the other teams would have immediately followed suit. Thus far I think only Torro Rosso and possibly one other team have adopted them, but none of the other big teams have so maybe they genuinely are needed for cooling, and the other teams simply dont need the additional cooling.

Edited by Locoblade on Saturday 3rd February 16:33

[mchammer89]

autoart said:

Why are Ferrari still allowed to use those rear wheel covers?

Renault were banned from using Mass Dampers because Ferrari and Mclaren were unable to dial in their cars using it, so Ferrari complained that they were movable devices that aided the cars aero performance around corners.

OK I may not be a high ranking engineer but I do believe that a wheel rotates when a car is moving, something that Bernie and Co seem to have missed!!! Those covers also move at the same time as the wheel, amazing how that works!!!

It is well documented that those covers are there to aid areo performance around the rear wheels, so why oh why do Ferrari still get away with them???

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

[GreenV8S]

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

[flemke]

GreenV8S said:

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

Correct.

The Ferrari brake cooling cheat that is less ambiguous than the discs is how the tops of their front "brake cooling ducts" are blatantly aerodynamic in shape.

[Calorus]

flemke said:

GreenV8S said:

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

Correct.

The Ferrari brake cooling cheat that is less ambiguous than the discs is how the tops of their front "brake cooling ducts" are blatantly aerodynamic in shape.

Surely anything rigidly affixed to the unsprung mass moves relative to the sprung mass?

[limegreennutter]

Calorus said:

flemke said:

GreenV8S said:

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

Correct.

The Ferrari brake cooling cheat that is less ambiguous than the discs is how the tops of their front "brake cooling ducts" are blatantly aerodynamic in shape.

Surely anything rigidly affixed to the unsprung mass moves relative to the sprung mass?

Got it in one.

[flemke]

Taken from FIA Formula One regulations:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4,* any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.

- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.



*These exclusions were introduced in December, '05. Ferrari used the downforce-generating "brake ducts" during the 2005 season with no objection from FIA.

[eccles]

flemke said:

GreenV8S said:

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

Correct.

The Ferrari brake cooling cheat that is less ambiguous than the discs is how the tops of their front "brake cooling ducts" are blatantly aerodynamic in shape.

the front wishbones are also aerodynmic in shape as well, and they move.

[limegreennutter]

Yes, they are aerodynamic in shape, but I belive they have to be symetrical about the horizontal plane, rendering them neutral.

[paolow]

eccles said:

flemke said:

GreenV8S said:

mchammer89 said:

But if you think like that, you could say that all the aero parts move, as the car is moving isn't it? (unless a McLaren or driven by Button)

I think the term 'moving' has been defined as moving relative to the main sprung mass of the vehicle.

Correct.

The Ferrari brake cooling cheat that is less ambiguous than the discs is how the tops of their front "brake cooling ducts" are blatantly aerodynamic in shape.

the front wishbones are also aerodynmic in shape as well, and they move.

they are - but theyre downforce neutral.

[GreenV8S]

limegreennutter said:

Yes, they are aerodynamic in shape, but I belive they have to be symetrical about the horizontal plane, rendering them neutral.

At what suspension position?

[steviebee]

thunderbelmont said:

Galileo said:

I thought "movable" meant able to be adjusted by the driver, or deforming in use. They move by the same way as the car moves and the wings move but they are not adjustable in use, are they?

Like the damper used by Renault last year.... not adjustable by the driver, nor deforming in use......

Rob.

IIRC, the damper system could be controlled by the driver in the same way the breake bias or roll bar could.

[limegreennutter]

GreenV8S said:

limegreennutter said:

Yes, they are aerodynamic in shape, but I belive they have to be symetrical about the horizontal plane, rendering them neutral.

At what suspension position?

Any, as they move through an arc neutral to the direction of airflow

[MrKipling43]

limegreennutter said:

GreenV8S said:

limegreennutter said:

Yes, they are aerodynamic in shape, but I belive they have to be symetrical about the horizontal plane, rendering them neutral.

At what suspension position?

Any, as they move through an arc neutral to the direction of airflow

I thought they were also allowed to be used as 'flow conditioners'. Perhaps not.

Incidentally, the only way mass dampers could have been legally banned was if thy banned suspension too. And those Ferrari 'wheel trims' are blatantly movable aerodynamic devices, especially if they run half the race with them and half the race without them! They have some CFD renderings in this month's F1 Racing, I'll have a look at the colours around that bit of the car.