renault say they didnt use it!
Discussion
johnfelstead said:
It's interesting that Renault used some of the info on those floppy's to clarify the legality of a damper system with the FIA, and the FIA decided that it was an illegal device. So just as with the McLaren-Ferrari issue, the FIA has deamed a part to be illegal as a result of inapropriately received data from another team.
From what is publicly available so far, it is not clear whether:- McLaren were actually using the "illegal" device, and
- the device was "illegal" in the sense that Renault's was illegal, that is, it was actually legal and the FIA had been aware of its usage for more than a year, but when Ferrari couldn't get one to work for themselves they protested it, and it was banned.
This would be in contrast to Ferrari's illegal floor, which was always in contravention of the FIA's 5mm limit on aero movement.
Hmm.
Let's see, which other team needs to be destabilised to guarantee Ferrari a head start and probably a free run at both championships for the next two years or so?
Next closest in performance in recent years would, I guess, be BMW. So what have they got on BMW?
Of course next year is all change on the regs again which means anything could happen - maybe even Honda could make a comeback.
The same thought also makes me wonder if there would be a large volume of redundant IP but, possibly, many similar new 'ideas' to address the changes even if the ideas have been developed independently. Quick and obvious solutions to start with. They may then diverge once more over time.
On the other hand right now I'm not sure I care.
Let's see, which other team needs to be destabilised to guarantee Ferrari a head start and probably a free run at both championships for the next two years or so?
Next closest in performance in recent years would, I guess, be BMW. So what have they got on BMW?
Of course next year is all change on the regs again which means anything could happen - maybe even Honda could make a comeback.
The same thought also makes me wonder if there would be a large volume of redundant IP but, possibly, many similar new 'ideas' to address the changes even if the ideas have been developed independently. Quick and obvious solutions to start with. They may then diverge once more over time.
On the other hand right now I'm not sure I care.
From F1-live.com
Bernie Ecclestone, F1's chief executive, called a crisis meeting on Friday as a new spying scandal broke out.
The 76-year-old, who is a close business partner and friend of Flavio Briatore, summoned key members of the Formula One fraternity to his London office as Renault admitted to recently possessing secret information belonging to McLaren.
The Daily Telegraph reported that each team except Renault, Ferrari and McLaren - the three involved in spying scandals - attended Ecclestone's meeting, to 'establish the nature and full extent of espionage within F1 and cut out the cancer at source.'
At first glance, the new Renault case appears potentially worse than 'Stepneygate', due to the length of the possession and the detailed nature of the secrets.
In a press statement issued on Friday, Renault said the rogue engineer in question - former McLaren employee Phil Mackereth who took floppy disks of information to his new team - has been suspended.
Renault said the information had been loaded onto the team's computer system 'without the knowledge of anyone in authority,' but that Mackereth made 'some of our engineers aware' of the secrets.
The Telegraph claims that officials even as high-ranking as 'the chief designer, deputy chief designer, deputy technical director, head of research and development and the head of vehicle performance' saw them.
Renault, however, insists that although some engineers were 'briefly shown' the drawings, the McLaren information were not 'used to influence design decisions relating to the Renault car.'
!!
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
[
This would be in contrast to Ferrari's illegal floor, which was always in contravention of the FIA's 5mm limit on aero movement.
neither "limit" nor "maximum" are contained within the wording of the rule.This would be in contrast to Ferrari's illegal floor, which was always in contravention of the FIA's 5mm limit on aero movement.
Come on, man, be serious.
"3.15: Aerodynamic influence:...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
...
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)...
"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."
Can you point us to anywhere at all in the regs which allowed an exception to 3.15 as it related to a flexible floor, with the single exception of what you were allowed to do at 500N?
3.17 is poorly written and could have stated its intentions explicitly. If they meant it, they could've written "...floor can move no more than 5mm." That would've covered all the situations. But it doesn't, so there is a loop-hole. In no way does 3.17 state that after 5mm of travel the floor must revert back to having no degree of freedom.
I think, originally, they were just trying to characterize the general stiffness of the floor, not it's dynamic range. A material will have a stiffness 'k' whose units are in newtons/meter. An argument could be made that the floor was, technically, rigidly secured to the car by way of screws underneath the car. But because all of the cars have raised noses, the "flat floor" extends past the splitter and the FIA needs a way to control the flat floor. Instead of saying the material used must have a stiffness of xxxx N/M, they just separated out the movement from the force hoping to achieve the same result. They didn't. They said the bodywork shouldn't deflect when said force is applied. It didn't say that it must not deflect based on the property of its own stiffness. In fact, a lot of trouble could've been saved if they used the phrase "bodywork stiffness" because stiffness contains the deflection component by definition and has a specific connotation in materials science. Flexibility on the other hand is not as well defined and more ambiguous. In fact, flexibility is often used in association with engineering systems and not material science (they use other words). The wording allowed the deflection of the bodywork, at that point, to be controlled by a spring, much like the deflection of the wheel is controlled by a spring and damper.
The teams exploited what was written. Typically (not cynically) F1.
I think, originally, they were just trying to characterize the general stiffness of the floor, not it's dynamic range. A material will have a stiffness 'k' whose units are in newtons/meter. An argument could be made that the floor was, technically, rigidly secured to the car by way of screws underneath the car. But because all of the cars have raised noses, the "flat floor" extends past the splitter and the FIA needs a way to control the flat floor. Instead of saying the material used must have a stiffness of xxxx N/M, they just separated out the movement from the force hoping to achieve the same result. They didn't. They said the bodywork shouldn't deflect when said force is applied. It didn't say that it must not deflect based on the property of its own stiffness. In fact, a lot of trouble could've been saved if they used the phrase "bodywork stiffness" because stiffness contains the deflection component by definition and has a specific connotation in materials science. Flexibility on the other hand is not as well defined and more ambiguous. In fact, flexibility is often used in association with engineering systems and not material science (they use other words). The wording allowed the deflection of the bodywork, at that point, to be controlled by a spring, much like the deflection of the wheel is controlled by a spring and damper.
The teams exploited what was written. Typically (not cynically) F1.
35secToNuvolari said:
3.17 is poorly written and could have stated its intentions explicitly. If they meant it, they could've written "...floor can move no more than 5mm." That would've covered all the situations. But it doesn't, so there is a loop-hole. In no way does 3.17 state that after 5mm of travel the floor must revert back to having no degree of freedom.
I think, originally, they were just trying to characterize the general stiffness of the floor, not it's dynamic range. A material will have a stiffness 'k' whose units are in newtons/meter. An argument could be made that the floor was, technically, rigidly secured to the car by way of screws underneath the car. But because all of the cars have raised noses, the "flat floor" extends past the splitter and the FIA needs a way to control the flat floor. Instead of saying the material used must have a stiffness of xxxx N/M, they just separated out the movement from the force hoping to achieve the same result. They didn't. They said the bodywork shouldn't deflect when said force is applied. It didn't say that it must not deflect based on the property of its own stiffness. In fact, a lot of trouble could've been saved if they used the phrase "bodywork stiffness" because stiffness contains the deflection component by definition and has a specific connotation in materials science. Flexibility on the other hand is not as well defined and more ambiguous. In fact, flexibility is often used in association with engineering systems and not material science (they use other words). The wording allowed the deflection of the bodywork, at that point, to be controlled by a spring, much like the deflection of the wheel is controlled by a spring and damper.
The teams exploited what was written. Typically (not cynically) F1.
If there were no rule 3.17, how much could the underside bodywork deflect?I think, originally, they were just trying to characterize the general stiffness of the floor, not it's dynamic range. A material will have a stiffness 'k' whose units are in newtons/meter. An argument could be made that the floor was, technically, rigidly secured to the car by way of screws underneath the car. But because all of the cars have raised noses, the "flat floor" extends past the splitter and the FIA needs a way to control the flat floor. Instead of saying the material used must have a stiffness of xxxx N/M, they just separated out the movement from the force hoping to achieve the same result. They didn't. They said the bodywork shouldn't deflect when said force is applied. It didn't say that it must not deflect based on the property of its own stiffness. In fact, a lot of trouble could've been saved if they used the phrase "bodywork stiffness" because stiffness contains the deflection component by definition and has a specific connotation in materials science. Flexibility on the other hand is not as well defined and more ambiguous. In fact, flexibility is often used in association with engineering systems and not material science (they use other words). The wording allowed the deflection of the bodywork, at that point, to be controlled by a spring, much like the deflection of the wheel is controlled by a spring and damper.
The teams exploited what was written. Typically (not cynically) F1.
PW said:
35secToNuvolari said:
3.17 is poorly written and could have stated its intentions explicitly.
Article 3.15 says there are to be no moveable aerodynamic devices.However, no material or structure is infinitely rigid, so some amount of movement has to be permitted.
That small amount of movement is described in 3.17.
That there is only one stipulation in 3.17 does not mean that 3.15 can be ignored, and moveable aerodynamic devices used that superficially meet 3.17.
That is why Ferrari and BMW had to remove their floors - because they did not adhere to article 3.15.
Thank you.
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
flemke said:
[
This would be in contrast to Ferrari's illegal floor, which was always in contravention of the FIA's 5mm limit on aero movement.
neither "limit" nor "maximum" are contained within the wording of the rule.This would be in contrast to Ferrari's illegal floor, which was always in contravention of the FIA's 5mm limit on aero movement.
Come on, man, be serious.
"3.15: Aerodynamic influence:...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
...
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)...
"3.17.4: Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centreline and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram..."
Can you point us to anywhere at all in the regs which allowed an exception to 3.15 as it related to a flexible floor, with the single exception of what you were allowed to do at 500N?
Tony
Tony 1234 said:
You certainly seem to be in the *know* Flemke do you work for Mc ? good on you if you do.
Tony
I'm afraid not, Tony. I'm just another motorsports fan who is sometimes disgusted by what goes on.Tony
In this case, you don't need to be an insider at or supporter of any team to be able to read the Technical Regs and understand what they say.
Cheers.
flemke said:
If there were no rule 3.17, how much could the underside bodywork deflect?
I believe that it was intended for the maximum amount of deflection to be governed by the material's force/deflection curve. Most materials deflect linearly with increasing force until failure. In the most conservative interpretation of the rule, one would use a floor with a stiffness of k=100,000, with no stay or spring. If the deflection curve was 1/1, its deflection would double with the force. Even when hitting a curb, one wouldn't expect much more than a 3cm movement on track.
The rules are treating the forward part of the floor like the outer edges of the front wing. The front wing is no doubt rigidly secured and allowed to flex in relation to the sprung part of the car. Both are allowed to move, with the best of intentions, at a linear rate. But the rules don't state the mode of control or anything about the bodywork responding linearly to a stress.
Ferrari's and BMW's designs were thrown out because one thought they permitted too much flexibility, based on a non-linear control system. One does not need to use a spring to fall foul of that ruling. Because the test is conducted in a well defined place, one could use a more flexible floor and place a strut at the point of stress. The floor would pass the test, while letting the leading edge flex more than the rule ever intended.
It is revealing that the floor test is now done with the devices removed from car, therefore testing the actual stiffness of the bodywork.
35secToNuvolari said:
It is revealing that the floor test is now done with the devices removed from car, therefore testing the actual stiffness of the bodywork.
Which surely is what it should do. I think it is pretty clear that an item mounted on a spring becomes moveable and further that if a component affects the airflow over or under the car it is an aerodynamic device. Therefore by mounting the floor, which affects the aerodynamics, on a spring the rule was being broken.
flemke said:
Yes, but the honourable gentlemen at the FIA live to meet such challenges!
A riposte which is hilarious on several levels - well said, sir...I'm almost looking forward to seeing how this next episode of spygate plays out. Is that wrong? I can't help wondering exactly how the FIA will slither out of applying the same ruling and penalties to Renault as they did to McLaren.
andyps said:
Therefore by mounting the floor, which affects the aerodynamics, on a spring the rule was being broken.
Agreed. But only if the spring is necessary to mount the floor to the car. Is the spring necessary to rigidly mount the floor to the car? One could argue that it is not. Remove the spring and the floor is still rigidly attached to the tub by way of the fasteners underneath.So are you allowed to use a spring washer to mount the floor? Don't want it falling off and all that!
In all of these flexing cases the FIA have used a modest value for the forces experienced by the car. I believe they have good intentions in doing that - it would be even more ridiculous to specify 5000 instead of 500 as they did.
In all of these flexing cases the FIA have used a modest value for the forces experienced by the car. I believe they have good intentions in doing that - it would be even more ridiculous to specify 5000 instead of 500 as they did.
flemke said:
If there were no rule 3.17, how much could the underside bodywork deflect?
Let's revisit this one. With no 3.17, then any aerodynamic part must remain immobile with relation to the sprung part of the car. But 3.17 is there, and it is there to either define 3.15 or to be an exception, and therefore, exempt from 3.15. 3.15 and 3.17 cannot apply simultaneously, otherwise the rules would be in contradiction and any car following 3.17 would be illegal. Your interpretation of the rule makes Ferrari's and BMW's floor illegal only if 3.17 expires, and there is no word in 3.17 that states or implies its expiration. As long as the car behaves as 3.17 is written, it is protected by the exemption. How can the part comply with 3.17 AND be in violation of 3.15, simultaneously? It is also not unreasonable to expect a car to comply with the conditions written in 3.17 and operate outside both the written force and deflection values based on well established material principles; thus making it unreasonable to expect 3.17 to expire if the floor is found to operate outside of the force/deflection values listed, and therefore, to be in violation of 3.15.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff