More FIA Dice Rolling-FRIC Suspension to be Banned
Discussion
This is an absolute joke. They bang on about cost saving, and limit testing and development, whilst at the same time making the most dramatic changes to engine regulations in memory, and now (effectively) cause most people to look at changing their suspension design with only a couple of weeks' notice.
Madness.
Madness.
Scuffers said:
Sexual Chocolate said:
Does this now mean that Merc will lose some of their performance advantage?
well, one assumes they were using it for a reason?Sexual Chocolate said:
Ok, I guess I should have worded that different. With Merc removing their FRIC does this now mean that it levels the playing field or is their car that good the difference will be negligible.
The latter...Yes, it may be a tenth in race pace, its not going to be the 1+ the others are behind.
Ok so assuming FRIC is banned, and all teams are to a greater or lesser extent affected, the next question it prompts for me is, assuming the removal of FRIC reduces some of the stability/handling of the cars, and given the new changes to engine/downforce for 2014 have already made the cars a handful - does this not play into the hands of the drivers who throw the cars around more and drive more on the edge. Can you expect the likes of Hamilton/Alonso and may even Button to have an advantage over Rosberg and Vettel (Vettel seems to have struggled with the handling of the 2014 car compared to Riccardio, or at least that is what I have observed).
Please read the above as more of a question rather than a statement, caveated by the point I am an F1 (motorsport) fan rather than hugely knowledgeable about it and it's finer details!!
Edited to add: After reading the post above from Scuffers and the view that the ban will not entirely close the gap, does the potential ban play into the hands of Hamilton in his battle with Rosberg given he seems confident/happy to throw the cars around a bit more.
Please read the above as more of a question rather than a statement, caveated by the point I am an F1 (motorsport) fan rather than hugely knowledgeable about it and it's finer details!!
Edited to add: After reading the post above from Scuffers and the view that the ban will not entirely close the gap, does the potential ban play into the hands of Hamilton in his battle with Rosberg given he seems confident/happy to throw the cars around a bit more.
Edited by rpgk on Tuesday 15th July 13:50
Slightly off topic as I agree that changing rules mid-season is crazy in terms of cost for the teams but it interesting to listen to the latest Motorsport magazine podcast on Formula Student where team representatives confirm that their engine costs this season are lower in actual terms than was the case ten years ago. That cost reduction is because they are using less engines but the overall cost has definitely been reduced.
Back to FRIC though......
I would have thought it more appropriate to say all teams had to agree to it being banned now than agreeing to keep it.
Back to FRIC though......
I would have thought it more appropriate to say all teams had to agree to it being banned now than agreeing to keep it.
andyps said:
I would have thought it more appropriate to say all teams had to agree to it being banned now than agreeing to keep it.
It's been suggested it is against the Regulations and could be grounds for an appeal by a team. Therefore all teams have to agree to promise not to appeal (ie. agree that FRIC is legal). And obviously that's not going to happen. Good analysis from Mark Hughes at Motorsport Magazine:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/why-frics-is-...
Front and rear interconnected suspension (FRICS) suddenly swept into the F1 headlines last week after the FIA’s technical delegate Charlie Whiting wrote to all the teams, advising them that in his opinion such systems were not legal. That didn’t mean they were banned as such – Charlie is neither the judge nor jury in such cases – but it did raise the spectre of any car thus equipped in subsequent races being protested, and then Charlie’s opinion would carry a lot of weight.
Given that the system was introduced by Renault five years ago and has been progressively adopted by the rest of the field since, mid-season 2014 seemed an odd time to be raising legality questions about it. Conspiracy theories were quickly flying about, such as that it was a plot to clip the wings of Mercedes, to bring a bit of variation into the results, instigated by Bernie Ecclestone.
Or it was a devious ploy by Ferrari (or Red Bull) to pull themselves closer to Mercedes. Certainly in its timing and procedure, it all felt similar to the mass damper ban of mid-season 2006 – which really could only be read as a massively politically loaded attempt by Ferrari through the FIA at neutralising a key advantage of its championship rival, Renault.
This time it’s almost certainly innocuous in its intent from the FIA’s perspective (something that wasn’t easy to claim during the Max Mosley-led time of the mass damper ban when Ferrari and the FIA were always aligned and Renault’s Flavio Briatore was frequently off-message). But as to why Charlie has been obliged to look at FRICS, that could be a slightly different story.
Ostensibly, he’s given his opinion because he was specifically asked for it by two teams – believed to be Red Bull and Ferrari – because they claimed it affected how they configured their 2015 cars, which are being designed now. Their inference was they were thinking of incorporating FRICS into a new area of advantage, but they needed the reassurance of its legality before making such a step.
The frequent reality in such cases is that such a development is theoretical at best, fantasy at worst, and that it’s simply made as a threat in order to have a technology banned. The only reasons teams try to have a technology banned is 1) because they believe it will neutralise an advantage held over them by a rival or rivals. Or 2) because they believe it will destroy a compensating technology other teams have in combating a different technology advantage they have.
FRICS hydraulically links the front and rear suspension through a series of actuators and reservoirs. It is a purely mechanical system, activated by the spring movements and as such does not contravene the ban on electronically active suspensions in place since 1994. Some teams – notably Mercedes, Williams and Lotus – have the further refinement of side-to-side linking. There are several side benefits but the key one is aerodynamic (which is what, in Charlie’s opinion, makes it illegal).
In allowing the car to remain more level under heavy braking, the static front ride height can be set lower, conferring a downforce advantage, particularly in slower corners where the car is running at its highest, relatively uncompressed by downforce – a force which squares with speed and therefore square-root reduces with loss of speed.
With a non-FRICS car, as the braking is released into the slow corner, so the front of the car pops back up and downforce is lost. With a FRICS car, hydraulically linking the energy from the car’s diving motion to the front dampers, it can be engineered to stay down for as long as needed.
If you were cynical you might say that this technology would reduce the advantage of any team that had found a way of combining carbon lay-up with stress analysis and aero simulation to come up with a nose that deflects upwards as the car is forced downwards by downforce, thereby allowing a much lower front ride height – even without FRICS.
This has been at the heart of Red Bull’s aerodynamic advantage since at least 2010. The team has an exclusive use agreement with the company that devised the software combining stress finite element analysis (FEA) with CFD to give the required carbon lay-up that allows this, whilst still passing all the FIA flexibility tests.
Get rid of FRICS and the advantage of the nose-flexing technology is surely increased. Has Ferrari decoded how it works, perhaps aided by the inevitable flow of personnel over time between teams, and is looking to incorporate it into next year’s car? A clue might be the performance of Red Bull at Hockenheim if everyone elects to run without FRICS this weekend.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/why-frics-is-...
Front and rear interconnected suspension (FRICS) suddenly swept into the F1 headlines last week after the FIA’s technical delegate Charlie Whiting wrote to all the teams, advising them that in his opinion such systems were not legal. That didn’t mean they were banned as such – Charlie is neither the judge nor jury in such cases – but it did raise the spectre of any car thus equipped in subsequent races being protested, and then Charlie’s opinion would carry a lot of weight.
Given that the system was introduced by Renault five years ago and has been progressively adopted by the rest of the field since, mid-season 2014 seemed an odd time to be raising legality questions about it. Conspiracy theories were quickly flying about, such as that it was a plot to clip the wings of Mercedes, to bring a bit of variation into the results, instigated by Bernie Ecclestone.
Or it was a devious ploy by Ferrari (or Red Bull) to pull themselves closer to Mercedes. Certainly in its timing and procedure, it all felt similar to the mass damper ban of mid-season 2006 – which really could only be read as a massively politically loaded attempt by Ferrari through the FIA at neutralising a key advantage of its championship rival, Renault.
This time it’s almost certainly innocuous in its intent from the FIA’s perspective (something that wasn’t easy to claim during the Max Mosley-led time of the mass damper ban when Ferrari and the FIA were always aligned and Renault’s Flavio Briatore was frequently off-message). But as to why Charlie has been obliged to look at FRICS, that could be a slightly different story.
Ostensibly, he’s given his opinion because he was specifically asked for it by two teams – believed to be Red Bull and Ferrari – because they claimed it affected how they configured their 2015 cars, which are being designed now. Their inference was they were thinking of incorporating FRICS into a new area of advantage, but they needed the reassurance of its legality before making such a step.
The frequent reality in such cases is that such a development is theoretical at best, fantasy at worst, and that it’s simply made as a threat in order to have a technology banned. The only reasons teams try to have a technology banned is 1) because they believe it will neutralise an advantage held over them by a rival or rivals. Or 2) because they believe it will destroy a compensating technology other teams have in combating a different technology advantage they have.
FRICS hydraulically links the front and rear suspension through a series of actuators and reservoirs. It is a purely mechanical system, activated by the spring movements and as such does not contravene the ban on electronically active suspensions in place since 1994. Some teams – notably Mercedes, Williams and Lotus – have the further refinement of side-to-side linking. There are several side benefits but the key one is aerodynamic (which is what, in Charlie’s opinion, makes it illegal).
In allowing the car to remain more level under heavy braking, the static front ride height can be set lower, conferring a downforce advantage, particularly in slower corners where the car is running at its highest, relatively uncompressed by downforce – a force which squares with speed and therefore square-root reduces with loss of speed.
With a non-FRICS car, as the braking is released into the slow corner, so the front of the car pops back up and downforce is lost. With a FRICS car, hydraulically linking the energy from the car’s diving motion to the front dampers, it can be engineered to stay down for as long as needed.
If you were cynical you might say that this technology would reduce the advantage of any team that had found a way of combining carbon lay-up with stress analysis and aero simulation to come up with a nose that deflects upwards as the car is forced downwards by downforce, thereby allowing a much lower front ride height – even without FRICS.
This has been at the heart of Red Bull’s aerodynamic advantage since at least 2010. The team has an exclusive use agreement with the company that devised the software combining stress finite element analysis (FEA) with CFD to give the required carbon lay-up that allows this, whilst still passing all the FIA flexibility tests.
Get rid of FRICS and the advantage of the nose-flexing technology is surely increased. Has Ferrari decoded how it works, perhaps aided by the inevitable flow of personnel over time between teams, and is looking to incorporate it into next year’s car? A clue might be the performance of Red Bull at Hockenheim if everyone elects to run without FRICS this weekend.
JonRB said:
andyps said:
I would have thought it more appropriate to say all teams had to agree to it being banned now than agreeing to keep it.
It's been suggested it is against the Regulations and could be grounds for an appeal by a team. Therefore all teams have to agree to promise not to appeal (ie. agree that FRIC is legal). And obviously that's not going to happen. Unanimity not agreed, surprise surprise...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114969
"Formula 1 teams have failed to agree unanimously to delay a ban on FRIC suspension until the end of the season, AUTOSPORT can reveal.
The situation means that the door is now open for protests to be lodged at this weekend's German Grand Prix against any outfit that runs with the front-and-rear-interconnected suspension concept."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114969
"Formula 1 teams have failed to agree unanimously to delay a ban on FRIC suspension until the end of the season, AUTOSPORT can reveal.
The situation means that the door is now open for protests to be lodged at this weekend's German Grand Prix against any outfit that runs with the front-and-rear-interconnected suspension concept."
Doink said:
Please correct me if i'm wrong but where does it say Merc are removing their FRICS, can't find anything
Here you go... http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28453.htmlWe mustn't get wrapped up in the idea that the system on the car 2 years ago is identical to the one on it today. Like all things on the car, they evolve.
I agree it'd be great if the FIA (or maybe the media) could tell us a bit more about the system, specifically the amount of inputs into the system and how if has evolved, if it has. Perhaps then they could tell the difference between systems that are purely increasing downforce and those that are just trying to counter the changes caused by fuel burn.
However it sounds like they want to nip the whole thing in the bud before they even have to make that kind of decision.
I agree it'd be great if the FIA (or maybe the media) could tell us a bit more about the system, specifically the amount of inputs into the system and how if has evolved, if it has. Perhaps then they could tell the difference between systems that are purely increasing downforce and those that are just trying to counter the changes caused by fuel burn.
However it sounds like they want to nip the whole thing in the bud before they even have to make that kind of decision.
The problem is its all way beyond their comprehension imho.
The cars and systems are very complicated nowadays and teams will only give them the minimum information, for obvious reasons. Charlie hasn't picked up a spanner in what ? 30 years ? more ? Herbie the same.
I think they need some expertise to fully understand what the teams are doing and to properly advise on technical rules, regulations and so on. Then, maybe, just maybe we wouldn't see these silly grey areas and U turns going on.
Some time ago Brawn was tipped for a job in the FIA, I think he could do an awful lot to improve the FIA's technical competence
The cars and systems are very complicated nowadays and teams will only give them the minimum information, for obvious reasons. Charlie hasn't picked up a spanner in what ? 30 years ? more ? Herbie the same.
I think they need some expertise to fully understand what the teams are doing and to properly advise on technical rules, regulations and so on. Then, maybe, just maybe we wouldn't see these silly grey areas and U turns going on.
Some time ago Brawn was tipped for a job in the FIA, I think he could do an awful lot to improve the FIA's technical competence
without reading the gumpf, sounds 2 me like FRIC is a front-to-rear anti-roll bar system
if CW wants to reduce costs (yeah right!), would be far better to supply teams with a standard front wing ....
if CW wants to reduce costs (yeah right!), would be far better to supply teams with a standard front wing ....
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff