Formula 1 Pre-season Testing February 2020
Discussion
ash73 said:
Suspension geometry is the geometric arrangement of the parts of a suspension system, and the value of the lengths and angles within it. Changing toe-out is an adjustment to the suspension geometry; it changes the angle at which the wheel is suspended. 10.2.3 says they can't do that while the car is moving...?
I'm sure Ferrari will soon be asking for one of their legendary 'rules clarifications' soon, as they have done so many times in the past when someone has had an idea that they didn't think of. The Penguin will probably be delighted to help.
Here's the point though - the length of the suspension components including the track rods is fixed when the car leaves parc ferme. Track rods are part of the suspension because without them the wheel would not be fixed in position. That the track rods can be used to control a pivot to steer is obvious. That the lengths of them can be altered while the car is in motion for reasons other than steering is the grey area.
We are not talking about movement of the whole system. We are talking about a component changing characteristics.
As I said - the kite is in the air!
I admit it is wonderful debating fodder, but the deciding factor will be how much of an edge it offers. Too much and it is in the bin (and I despair of the FIA that if they knew this was in the pipeline that they countenanced it. It does nothing to promote driver skill and only plays into the hands of those who say F1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Huge publicity, but ultimately a publicity stunt).
We are not talking about movement of the whole system. We are talking about a component changing characteristics.
As I said - the kite is in the air!
I admit it is wonderful debating fodder, but the deciding factor will be how much of an edge it offers. Too much and it is in the bin (and I despair of the FIA that if they knew this was in the pipeline that they countenanced it. It does nothing to promote driver skill and only plays into the hands of those who say F1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Huge publicity, but ultimately a publicity stunt).
Edited by Evercross on Thursday 20th February 22:42
ash73 said:
TheDeuce said:
What you're missing is that toe is adjusted by moving the tracking rod. Steering of the wheels is also achieved by moving the tracking rod. It's the same process.
I don't think they are the same. One is the physical configuration of the suspension geometry, i.e. setting the track rod lengths and the gearing, the other is the operation of the steering rack using that fixed configuration.Yes there is a difference is effect, but a 2 degree toe out achieved by lengthening the track rod on one side (as an example), is exactly the same as turning the steering the same side by 2 degrees. The wheel will end up in the same position and the suspension will subsequently react the same way as a result of that angle.
The difference is that this applies the same (legal) level of steering input in an opposing direction on both sides at once, and subsequently achieves 'toe out'. But it's not creating a movement or scenario which the steering on any other car could achieve - given that all the other teams will apply toe adjustment ahead of each race in any case - it's just doing it dynamically under the control of the driver.
Bottom line: Does moving the tracking rod = an adjustment of the suspension system? No. If the suspension was adjusted during the race it would react to the same track rod inputs in different ways. The suspension on the merc will react in the same way to the position of the track rods for the entire race, and the track rods will not move any more than on any other car.
Literally all they have done is add another dimension which gives them more control over the position of the track rods than anyone else, but they aren't influencing the suspension anymore than anyone else as a result. They found an area that the rules don't cover, and they went with it. That should be applauded, this isn't cheating, it's innovation. It's genius in it's simplicity.
Evercross said:
Here's the point though - the length of the suspension components including the track rods is fixed when the car leaves parc ferme. Track rods are part of the suspension because without them the wheel would not be fixed in position. That the track rods can be used to control a pivot to steer is obvious. That the lengths of them can be altered while the car is in motion for reasons other than steering is the grey area.
We are not talking about movement of the whole system. We are talking about a component changing characteristics.
As I said - the kite is in the air!
I admit it is wonderful debating fodder, but the deciding factor will be how much of an edge it offers. Too much and it is in the bin (and I despair of the FIA that if they knew this was in the pipeline that they countenanced it. It does nothing to promote driver skill and only plays into the hands of those who say F1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant).
It's not grey area, it's a white area - the regs simply don't cover it. The track rods aren't part of the suspension at all, the suspension would work just fine without them - albeit the wheels would flap around and the car would crash... Proof that they are in fact a steering component. The only effect the system has is an improvement in steering through the turns without the unwanted 'steering' as the car goes down the straights. The suspension remains solely reactive as before.We are not talking about movement of the whole system. We are talking about a component changing characteristics.
As I said - the kite is in the air!
I admit it is wonderful debating fodder, but the deciding factor will be how much of an edge it offers. Too much and it is in the bin (and I despair of the FIA that if they knew this was in the pipeline that they countenanced it. It does nothing to promote driver skill and only plays into the hands of those who say F1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant).
Edited by Evercross on Thursday 20th February 22:41
you're not 'wrong' in anything you have said technically by the way, you're spot on (other than track rods being suspension). It's just that the regs don't cover this area so Mercedes went there and did it.
TheDeuce said:
It's not grey area, it's a white area - the regs simply don't cover it. The track rods aren't part of the suspension at all, the suspension would work just fine without them - albeit the wheels would flap around and the car would crash... Proof that they are in fact a steering component. The only effect the system has is an improvement in steering through the turns without the unwanted 'steering' as the car goes down the straights. The suspension remains solely reactive as before.
FIA spokesman is quoted by racefans as saying "They believe the steering device complies with the regulations," "With the steering wheel fixed" is the pertinent phrase here. This effectively bans any change to steering angle without input from the driver, i.e. active steering.
However, the steering wheel obviously isn't fixed while the driver pulls it towards themselves. There's no rule banning fore-aft movement of the steering wheel and no rule that says that the front wheels can only turn by the same amount (in fact, Ackerman geometry means that they don't).
To ban Mercedes' new system, a new rule would need to be introduced. Whether that is an explicit rule along the lines of "the driver must not be able to alter the toe angle of the front wheels using a control that is independent of the steering wheel angle" or, as the FIA normally prefers, one or several more general rules, such as "the distance from the steering wheel to the bulkhead must remain fixed when the steering wheel is installed", "contra-rotation of the front wheel steering angles is not allowed" etc.
Oh and to state the obvious, steering isn't suspension. You can have one without the other (go karts anyone?)
I can't see anything in the rules that would ban this. Though not a fan of the team, I respect that they're still innovating like this and surprised that nobody else has ever thought of it. I mean, it just seems so obvious now...!
However, the steering wheel obviously isn't fixed while the driver pulls it towards themselves. There's no rule banning fore-aft movement of the steering wheel and no rule that says that the front wheels can only turn by the same amount (in fact, Ackerman geometry means that they don't).
To ban Mercedes' new system, a new rule would need to be introduced. Whether that is an explicit rule along the lines of "the driver must not be able to alter the toe angle of the front wheels using a control that is independent of the steering wheel angle" or, as the FIA normally prefers, one or several more general rules, such as "the distance from the steering wheel to the bulkhead must remain fixed when the steering wheel is installed", "contra-rotation of the front wheel steering angles is not allowed" etc.
Oh and to state the obvious, steering isn't suspension. You can have one without the other (go karts anyone?)
I can't see anything in the rules that would ban this. Though not a fan of the team, I respect that they're still innovating like this and surprised that nobody else has ever thought of it. I mean, it just seems so obvious now...!
TheDeuce said:
It's not grey area, it's a white area - the regs simply don't cover it. The track rods aren't part of the suspension at all, the suspension would work just fine without them - albeit the wheels would flap around and the car would crash.
The dictionary definition of suspension is holding something in a fixed position.It's a dichotomy - isn't it!
Establish that track rods are part of the suspension system and the rules cover this - ban!
Evercross said:
The dictionary definition of suspension is holding something in a fixed position.
It's a dichotomy - isn't it!
Establish that track rods are part of the suspension system and the rules cover this - ban!
Ahh... And the suspension does hold something in a fixed position irrespective of the angle of the wheels or the position/existence of the track rod.It's a dichotomy - isn't it!
Establish that track rods are part of the suspension system and the rules cover this - ban!
What is the suspension suspending? It's not the wheel, is it?
(although that is a common mistake people make when understanding what is sprung and what is not)
ash73 said:
They ARE part of the suspension geometry, obviously.
People are hypothesising the system works by dragging the steering rack fore and aft, with the rack being linked to the track rods by control rods; so it doesn't physically change the length of the track rods, but it does change the suspension geometry. The regs say the geometry can't be changed while the car is moving (10.2.3 is a sub-section of 10.2).
Merc will argue moving the steering wheel is operating the steering, while others will argue it's changing the geometry. Maybe they've found a loophole, time will tell.
Of course they've found a loophole because it has been approved already by the FIA. You haven't been re-reading the wording of 10.2.1, which packages it quite neatly and shows that it complies with the regulations. It is classed as steering and is therefore separate from suspension within the definitions of the regulations. Your interpretation is incorrect.People are hypothesising the system works by dragging the steering rack fore and aft, with the rack being linked to the track rods by control rods; so it doesn't physically change the length of the track rods, but it does change the suspension geometry. The regs say the geometry can't be changed while the car is moving (10.2.3 is a sub-section of 10.2).
Merc will argue moving the steering wheel is operating the steering, while others will argue it's changing the geometry. Maybe they've found a loophole, time will tell.
Looks extremely smart and fully within the rules. The “with the steering wheel fixed” bit makes fabulous reading as no way will the rule makers have ever thought of introducing another axis of steering wheel movement.... brilliant.
Is clutching at straws to claim that the driver changing the direction a wheel is pointing is anything other than steering.
Is clutching at straws to claim that the driver changing the direction a wheel is pointing is anything other than steering.
ash73 said:
They ARE part of the suspension geometry, obviously.
People are hypothesising the system works by dragging the steering rack fore and aft, with the rack being linked to the track rods by control rods; so it doesn't physically change the length of the track rods, but it does change the suspension geometry. The regs say the geometry can't be changed while the car is moving (10.2.3 is a sub-section of 10.2).
Merc will argue moving the steering wheel is operating the steering, while others will argue it's changing the geometry. Maybe they've found a loophole, time will tell.
Suspension geometry, strictly speaking is the movement profile and characteristic of the assembly with/without a pivoting wheel assembly attached. Anyway, the rules already isolate the components in question as steering components - so whatever the technical interpretation (and I believe most sources are incorrect when it comes to what equates to suspension geometry) the definition is already established in the rules.People are hypothesising the system works by dragging the steering rack fore and aft, with the rack being linked to the track rods by control rods; so it doesn't physically change the length of the track rods, but it does change the suspension geometry. The regs say the geometry can't be changed while the car is moving (10.2.3 is a sub-section of 10.2).
Merc will argue moving the steering wheel is operating the steering, while others will argue it's changing the geometry. Maybe they've found a loophole, time will tell.
If this is illegal due to 'altering the suspension geometry', so must steering itself be illegal.
ash73 said:
Ahonen said:
...You haven't been re-reading the wording of 10.2.1, which packages it quite neatly and shows that it complies with the regulations. It is classed as steering and is therefore separate from suspension within the definitions of the regulations. Your interpretation is incorrect.
They are moving the steering wheel to operate the system. 10.2.1 defines the suspension geometry requirements when the steering wheel is not moved.In the end, unless you give up, you will kick yourself.
Merc have definitely spotted an area within the regs that nobody else has considered. Fair play, it's this sort of thinking that makes f1 so enjoyable.
It's obvious after the event but only once it's been highlighted by someone far cleverer than me.!
I'm confused how people are still suggesting this isn't allowed. Turning the steering wheel changes the toe of the front wheels. Any incidental suspension geometry changes are secondary. The regulations obviously allow the toe to be changed, otherwise the going round corners bit doesn't work so well
All the are doing is changing the toe by moving the steering wheel. Genius.
It's obvious after the event but only once it's been highlighted by someone far cleverer than me.!
I'm confused how people are still suggesting this isn't allowed. Turning the steering wheel changes the toe of the front wheels. Any incidental suspension geometry changes are secondary. The regulations obviously allow the toe to be changed, otherwise the going round corners bit doesn't work so well
All the are doing is changing the toe by moving the steering wheel. Genius.
Wh00sher said:
All the are doing is changing the toe by moving the steering wheel. Genius.
Exactly.Now, next year's regulations might be tweaked to say that the steering wheel may only move in one axis, to compliment the regulation that says the steering may only affect 2 wheels, but for this year I can't see how they are breaking any regulations.
It's stuff like this that I love about F1
ash73 said:
We'll see.
I think it'll be banned as controllable aero anyhow, but I'll be glad to be proved wrong.
I think it could be banned for political reasons more than anything else - whatever the final justification is given officially.I think it'll be banned as controllable aero anyhow, but I'll be glad to be proved wrong.
Luckily, the politics on this occasion are not clean cut at all. Ferrari, probably Red Bull will want it gone unless they think they can copy it. On the other hand, it's exciting and it shows that innovation remains in F1. There are people with a lot invested in the sport that would want innovation to be allowed to shine and provoke debate.
I'd say overall, there's a better than 50% chance this will be allowed and remain for this season at least, partly because of conflicting political views as to whether or not it's a welcome innovation, and partly because technically it's a big stretch to claim it's illegal - whatever argument the other teams use to claim it is.
We'll see indeed. For today, I'm happy they innovated no matter what.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff