More FIA Dice Rolling-FRIC Suspension to be Banned
Discussion
RenOHH said:
The car will now dive further downwards at the front under heavy breaking, thus transferring more weight to the front of the car (I think). Hamilton likes more rear brake bias, whereas Rosberg likes more on the front. So it's possibly a bit better for Rosberg.
Anyway this is all complete b
ks. I can't stand all this whinging from the teams that are chasing.
The only reason it will transfer more weight to the front would be because they'd have to run higher ride heights....and if so, they'd have less downforce, so slightly lower braking force, which means less weight to the front....in the end, it probably barely changes the weight transfer.Anyway this is all complete b
ks. I can't stand all this whinging from the teams that are chasing.What it will do, is give the chassis a more natural reaction under braking, etc, which is what Hamilton struggled with last year, so I'd expect him to get even better on the brakes even if the car is slower without FRIC.
PhillipM said:
The only reason it will transfer more weight to the front would be because they'd have to run higher ride heights....and if so, they'd have less downforce, so slightly lower braking force, which means less weight to the front....in the end, it probably barely changes the weight transfer.
What it will do, is give the chassis a more natural reaction under braking, etc, which is what Hamilton struggled with last year, so I'd expect him to get even better on the brakes even if the car is slower without FRIC.
so it's your fault for jinxing him!What it will do, is give the chassis a more natural reaction under braking, etc, which is what Hamilton struggled with last year, so I'd expect him to get even better on the brakes even if the car is slower without FRIC.
Crafty_ said:
Stil watching even though you hate it so much then ?
I watched Q3 today, and then only because I was between runs to the tip, I'll probably watch the race tomorrow as well. In years gone by I've arranged my weekends around F1, watched the qualy, the build up, the race and the post race analysis, even the races that start at silly o clock. I usually subscribe to a virtual network so I can watch Sky F1 when abroad for business or holiday, and arranged one particular business trip so I could be in Shanghai and go to the race there. One year we had a work trip to Spa to watch the race, and I've been to Silverstone a few times. This year I'll watch the race and qualy if I'm around, but no build up, no post race analysis, no practice, and no live races. I get Sky F1 as part of my HD package, but if I lost it for any reason I wouldn't pay for it (and I was one of the few who paid for Bernie Vision back in the day). I still watch F1 when I can but I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as I've been for the last 30+ years, now a casual viewer not a fan.
I saw the interview with Rob Smedley today and he described the FRIC as being used to prop up the front nose up when rear downforce depresses the rear suspension, which stops the front wing dragging and creates lower drag.
Previously I'd only thought that the FRIC would be used to stabilise the car under braking with some kind of anti-dive effect (although perhaps it does that, too), which is more similar to an anti roll bar but working in pitch rather than roll.
It must be Smedley's description that has led the FIA to conclude it is being used primarily for aerodynamic effect.
Previously I'd only thought that the FRIC would be used to stabilise the car under braking with some kind of anti-dive effect (although perhaps it does that, too), which is more similar to an anti roll bar but working in pitch rather than roll.
It must be Smedley's description that has led the FIA to conclude it is being used primarily for aerodynamic effect.
zac510 said:
I saw the interview with Rob Smedley today and he described the FRIC as being used to prop up the front nose up when rear downforce depresses the rear suspension, which stops the front wing dragging and creates lower drag.
Previously I'd only thought that the FRIC would be used to stabilise the car under braking with some kind of anti-dive effect (although perhaps it does that, too), which is more similar to an anti roll bar but working in pitch rather than roll.
It must be Smedley's description that has led the FIA to conclude it is being used primarily for aerodynamic effect.
My understanding is that it has a few benefits one of which is aerodynamic, if they can stabilise the ride height then this has an aero benefit when they set the ride height which has a massive effect with both diffuser and front wing. But it also acts as a weight bias control so stopping weight transfer during braking and acceleration. Previously I'd only thought that the FRIC would be used to stabilise the car under braking with some kind of anti-dive effect (although perhaps it does that, too), which is more similar to an anti roll bar but working in pitch rather than roll.
It must be Smedley's description that has led the FIA to conclude it is being used primarily for aerodynamic effect.
I cant see a problem as long as it remains an analogue system and doesn't use electronics to control it.
I also think that if the FIA wanted to ban it then it should have been written into next years rules not forced in midway into the season with potential side effects for all those cars designed around it and have been for the last few years.
Even Hamilton admitted his 2008 McLaren had such a system, that was 6 years ago, surely the teams and FIA knew about the gains to be had from the system before the last 2 weeks.
It doesn't stop weight transfer. Weight transfer is just a function of the CoG height, wheelbase and the braking/acceleration force.
What the more complex systems were doing is using the dive under the brakes to also pull the rear of the car down, and then they were using some sort of interial system or valve block to keep the front of the car down there rather than bobbing back up when the brakes were reduced, so they still had the benefit of the downforce from the wing running close to the track.
What the more complex systems were doing is using the dive under the brakes to also pull the rear of the car down, and then they were using some sort of interial system or valve block to keep the front of the car down there rather than bobbing back up when the brakes were reduced, so they still had the benefit of the downforce from the wing running close to the track.
If the vehicle dives or lifts during braking or acceleration that is weight transfer, my understanding is the system is designed to keep the car level. If the pressure on the front of the car also stops the rear from lifting during braking that is controlling weight transfer. It all depends on the way the system is valved and how it transfers fluid around the car.
Mikey G said:
If the vehicle dives or lifts during braking or acceleration that is weight transfer
Those are the manifestations of weight transfer, which as you say can be controlled by an effective FRICS system, but the weight transfer itself still occurs with or without FRICS, because:PhillipM said:
Weight transfer is just a function of the CoG height, wheelbase and the braking/acceleration force.
Maybe just semantics, but an important differentiation.thegreenhell said:
Mikey G said:
If the vehicle dives or lifts during braking or acceleration that is weight transfer
Those are the manifestations of weight transfer, which as you say can be controlled by an effective FRICS system, but the weight transfer itself still occurs with or without FRICS, because:PhillipM said:
Weight transfer is just a function of the CoG height, wheelbase and the braking/acceleration force.
Maybe just semantics, but an important differentiation.the only change in weight transfer that can occur is when the height of the COG moves relative to the track (under braking, more specifically, the track under the front wheels)
juansolo said:
Has it allowed Caterham to close the gap on Marussia? I suspect we're all concentrating on the wrong end of the grid when it comes to the instigators of this one...
I certainly read somewhere that the Marussia system was relatively well developed, along with Lotus and possibly Williams, I cant remember the 3rd team mentioned.Mikey G said:
I also think that if the FIA wanted to ban it then it should have been written into next years rules not forced in midway into the season with potential side effects for all those cars designed around it and have been for the last few years.
Even Hamilton admitted his 2008 McLaren had such a system, that was 6 years ago, surely the teams and FIA knew about the gains to be had from the system before the last 2 weeks.
I think you've got the wrong bogeyman; the FIA did say it's OK to wait until next year but the teams could not agree on that.Even Hamilton admitted his 2008 McLaren had such a system, that was 6 years ago, surely the teams and FIA knew about the gains to be had from the system before the last 2 weeks.
It seems as though if the FIA hadn't reacted with their statement then a team would have made a protest and we would have gone through this in a far more ugly way (race protests etc).
zac510 said:
Mikey G said:
I also think that if the FIA wanted to ban it then it should have been written into next years rules not forced in midway into the season with potential side effects for all those cars designed around it and have been for the last few years.
Even Hamilton admitted his 2008 McLaren had such a system, that was 6 years ago, surely the teams and FIA knew about the gains to be had from the system before the last 2 weeks.
I think you've got the wrong bogeyman; the FIA did say it's OK to wait until next year but the teams could not agree on that.Even Hamilton admitted his 2008 McLaren had such a system, that was 6 years ago, surely the teams and FIA knew about the gains to be had from the system before the last 2 weeks.
It seems as though if the FIA hadn't reacted with their statement then a team would have made a protest and we would have gone through this in a far more ugly way (race protests etc).
this situation only came up because Charlie made a statement that he considered it illegal, thus opening up the door to an easy protest.
without that statement, we would not be here, simple. No team would have protested it without Charlie basically saying it's an open door.
way I see it, Charlie should not be in a position to say such things and any changes to the regs should be done on a year by year basis, not midseason by the back-door.
who wants to guess which team would not agree?, certainly was not RB/Williams/FI/Merc...
There is much more evidence for the whole thing being prompted by a team, but there's no evidence for malicious intent by a team.
1. Team asks for clarification about use of FRIC. Numerous news articles.
2. FIA responds "no that would be illegal"
3. At least one team now knows that certain uses of FRIC could be illegal and could protest.
Thus the FIA did the right thing by make the statement to the whole grid rather than just one team.
There's no evidence that there malicious intent by a team, although I can see how you and the media would think that is more exciting.
I'm sorry to subvert your conspiracy theories but I think the FIA acted the best way out of several possibly bad scenarios.
1. Team asks for clarification about use of FRIC. Numerous news articles.
2. FIA responds "no that would be illegal"
3. At least one team now knows that certain uses of FRIC could be illegal and could protest.
Thus the FIA did the right thing by make the statement to the whole grid rather than just one team.
There's no evidence that there malicious intent by a team, although I can see how you and the media would think that is more exciting.
I'm sorry to subvert your conspiracy theories but I think the FIA acted the best way out of several possibly bad scenarios.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff