More FIA Dice Rolling-FRIC Suspension to be Banned
Discussion
Gaz. said:
As discussed on F1Technical, it's really about cost cutting:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922
AFTER the money was spent...
Cost cutting? The teams have had to completely redesign their cars around new and extremely expensive power units, but tinkering with the (already designed and installed) suspension systems is somehow going to reduce costs? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922
AFTER the money was spent...
As for the 'moveable aero' clause, surely anything on a car in motion can be cosidered as both moveable and aero. If anything, FRIC is the opposite of moveable aero because it's trying to reduce movement of the aero components by maintaining a stable platform.
The bottom line is it's more bul
it from the FIA, with "rulings made on the fly" in an attempt to level the playing field.
There is a long history of crazy decisions being made (as posted earlier on in this thread by PH'es with far more knowledge and far better recollection of all the facts than I have) which highlight the FIA's ineptitude / meddling / bias.
In this particular case calling FRIC an aero device is (at least IMHO) stretching the bounds of rational thinking.
And to get almost halfway through the season and then for the FIA (read: Charlie Dim-Whit) to start more FIA meddling - with associated cost implications for the teams in a so-called era of cost0-savings (after making them move onto a whole new engine format this year) - just reeks of crass stupidity (at best).
it from the FIA, with "rulings made on the fly" in an attempt to level the playing field.There is a long history of crazy decisions being made (as posted earlier on in this thread by PH'es with far more knowledge and far better recollection of all the facts than I have) which highlight the FIA's ineptitude / meddling / bias.
In this particular case calling FRIC an aero device is (at least IMHO) stretching the bounds of rational thinking.
And to get almost halfway through the season and then for the FIA (read: Charlie Dim-Whit) to start more FIA meddling - with associated cost implications for the teams in a so-called era of cost0-savings (after making them move onto a whole new engine format this year) - just reeks of crass stupidity (at best).
zac510 said:
wow, I really don't understand all of the FIA/Charlie Whiting hate all of a sudden. He's upholding the regulations, how can we harangue him for that?
Six years late ! If they are illegal fine, but lets revoke every WDC, WCC and race win since then, as they were gained using illegal machinery.
Haymarket will need another server 
Banning FRIC under the aero rules is a nonsense. If you wish to use that as a basis you best ban any form of damper, because you certainly can control the aero platform using simple damper valving technology.
It will be impossible to introduce Active suspension technology in 2017 if they ban FRIC systems using this rule interpretation.
I hope Mercedes do run minus FRIC, then protest every team using it in Germany, that will highlight what a nonsense situation the FIA have created. By all means ban the concept for next years rules, but don't use a bogus interpretation of a rule, making the sport look ridiculous to do it.
The FIA boggles the mind sometimes.
It will be impossible to introduce Active suspension technology in 2017 if they ban FRIC systems using this rule interpretation.
I hope Mercedes do run minus FRIC, then protest every team using it in Germany, that will highlight what a nonsense situation the FIA have created. By all means ban the concept for next years rules, but don't use a bogus interpretation of a rule, making the sport look ridiculous to do it.
The FIA boggles the mind sometimes.
Likes Fast Cars said:
In this particular case calling FRIC an aero device is (at least IMHO) stretching the bounds of rational thinking.
Did you even read the Autosport article quoted above by Gaz? In there a team's technical director says they only use it for stabilising the aero platform. but that's not to say that's how all of the teams use it - we only know about one team.That is rational grounds for banning it.
Crafty_ said:
Six years late !
If they are illegal fine, but lets revoke every WDC, WCC and race win since then, as they were gained using illegal machinery.
I tried to explain earlier that I don't think you can just look at FRIC now and say it's the same thing that was on a car 6 years ago. It has probably evolved into something illegal, technologies like this start out simple and grow into complexity so it's plausible it starts out legal and grows illegal.If they are illegal fine, but lets revoke every WDC, WCC and race win since then, as they were gained using illegal machinery.
Anyway your ad extremum counter argument of revoking championships is even more ridiculous than the FIA's decision. All the FIA are saying, effectively, is that this FRIC is growning too big and they want to stop it, now or they don't even mind if it's delayed until 2015. I don't know why everyone sees this as a reason to boil up with rage and spew bile all over the internet.
zac510 said:
wow, I really don't understand all of the FIA/Charlie Whiting hate all of a sudden. He's upholding the regulations, how can we harangue him for that?
F1 technology has always been a massively transient thing, the cars, the rules, engineering philosophies are constantly changing race by race. The teams are so secretive and that extends to hiding from the FIA. CW and his team have to reverse engineer the implementation and intent of the teams technology, it must be massively difficult for them.
In this case he's investigated the FRIC on every single team that's using it, far far more information than we fans have access to. It's not a rash or ignorant decision to ban it, it's calculated from all of the information he's gathered.
There are loads of precedents for the primary effect of technology that controls the aero platform being banned. Enthusiasts like us should be well prepared for technical rule changes like this. The teams certainly sound like they are prepared or knew they were pushing their luck with FRIC as they haven't uttered a single complaint at all and immediately got on with testing without it.
If the teams can't agree amongst themselves to delay the ban until 2015 then that is not CW's fault either, that's their own.
A proper race car should have more power than grip so it should remain a cat and mouse game between car builders and the rule makers.F1 technology has always been a massively transient thing, the cars, the rules, engineering philosophies are constantly changing race by race. The teams are so secretive and that extends to hiding from the FIA. CW and his team have to reverse engineer the implementation and intent of the teams technology, it must be massively difficult for them.
In this case he's investigated the FRIC on every single team that's using it, far far more information than we fans have access to. It's not a rash or ignorant decision to ban it, it's calculated from all of the information he's gathered.
There are loads of precedents for the primary effect of technology that controls the aero platform being banned. Enthusiasts like us should be well prepared for technical rule changes like this. The teams certainly sound like they are prepared or knew they were pushing their luck with FRIC as they haven't uttered a single complaint at all and immediately got on with testing without it.
If the teams can't agree amongst themselves to delay the ban until 2015 then that is not CW's fault either, that's their own.
I just don't like CW response that certain things don't belong/shouldn't be in F1 (multi-deck diffusers, blown diffusers, blown exhausts) without a fuller explanation. It comes across as an abuse of power.
jsf said:
All suspension components stabilise the aero platform, its a by product you cant remove when you have any suspension component on a car.
In this article ( http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2011/6/122... ) Charlie Whiting talks about blown exhausts in terms of primary and secondary effect.He probably sees suspension's effect on aero as a secondary effect and thus legal. If it were the other way around then yes, suspension would be illegal!
You know as well as I that this interpretation is ridiculous Zac. Are they now going to ban FRIC from the WRC, because they have been using that for years, most of Loeb's Citroens used it.
In fact, this will amuse MGJohn, even the Austin's of the 70's used a FRIC system in their hydrolastic suspension. Lets not even get started on Citroen or Rolls Royce suspension, its not a new concept at all.
In fact, this will amuse MGJohn, even the Austin's of the 70's used a FRIC system in their hydrolastic suspension. Lets not even get started on Citroen or Rolls Royce suspension, its not a new concept at all.
zac510 said:
Crafty_ said:
Six years late !
If they are illegal fine, but lets revoke every WDC, WCC and race win since then, as they were gained using illegal machinery.
I tried to explain earlier that I don't think you can just look at FRIC now and say it's the same thing that was on a car 6 years ago. It has probably evolved into something illegal, technologies like this start out simple and grow into complexity so it's plausible it starts out legal and grows illegal.If they are illegal fine, but lets revoke every WDC, WCC and race win since then, as they were gained using illegal machinery.
Anyway your ad extremum counter argument of revoking championships is even more ridiculous than the FIA's decision. All the FIA are saying, effectively, is that this FRIC is growning too big and they want to stop it, now or they don't even mind if it's delayed until 2015. I don't know why everyone sees this as a reason to boil up with rage and spew bile all over the internet.
Even if you ignore that, the systems haven't changed significantly this year, that means they've had 9 scrutineering sessions to check out and understand the systems, so why haven't they raised this before ?
People are upset because the FIA have a long, long history of changing their minds and applying rules inconsistently. Their (mis)management is haphazard and very open to influence from factors other than rules/regulations.
All most fans want is a clear set of rules and consistency.
zac510 said:
He probably sees suspension's effect on aero as a secondary effect and thus legal. If it were the other way around then yes, suspension would be illegal!
Yes, and you could argue the same case for FRIC, given it's controlling roll centres, transient responses, suspension geometery, etc, etcjsf said:
You know as well as I that this interpretation is ridiculous Zac. Are they now going to ban FRIC from the WRC, because they have been using that for years, most of Loeb's Citroens used it.
In fact, this will amuse MGJohn, even the Austin's of the 70's used a FRIC system in their hydrolastic suspension. Lets not even get started on Citroen or Rolls Royce suspension, its not a new concept at all.
Yeah used to own a Morris 1100 myself! I'm only as much defending this decision as trying to understand why people get enraged by these decisions. I'm sure Whiting didn't wake up one morning, step on one of his son's Lego piece and then in a fit of shouting rage and pain decide to ban FRIC. In fact, this will amuse MGJohn, even the Austin's of the 70's used a FRIC system in their hydrolastic suspension. Lets not even get started on Citroen or Rolls Royce suspension, its not a new concept at all.
We the public are always short of information but even in this case there's enough information to understand how the FIA have acted (see the aforelinked Autosport article) and there are enough historical information and precedents for changing definition of rules mid-season that we shouldn't be surprised. We can prefer it be another way but to rage and abuse Whiting and the FIA just seems over the top.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff