Engineered rule bending

Engineered rule bending

Author
Discussion

skeggysteve

5,706 posts

201 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
Few years ago we got excluded from a race (after the race had finished!) because we didn't have a silencer fitted.

Car had passed scrutineering but the boy in blazers (sp) decided to exclude us and a few more cars.

Unfortunately for them I could read the Blue Book.

The BB at the time did not define what a silencer should be so the exhaust pipes on the F5000 Lola was a silencer.
Lots of red faces and apologise!

slinky

15,704 posts

233 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
TheAllSeeingPie said:
TobyLaRohne said:
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...

Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.

Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
That's an oddly specific example. Are you worried you are cheating?
I'd say that this scenario exists in most limited power output clubman environments..

gowmonster

2,471 posts

151 months

Saturday 26th March 2016
quotequote all
any more? just spent the morning reading this!

anonymous-user

38 months

Saturday 26th March 2016
quotequote all
Nick M said:
flemke said:
Another trick that Penske/Donohue employed in Trans-Am was with their fuel rig.
The rules stated that the refueling rate during a pit-stop could not be artificially aided - gravity only.
In their pit area, the Penske team erected a frame that held the fuel drum 20' above the ground, to increase the flow rate.
Reminds me of something I read recently in a magazine about Lotus competing at the Indy 500.

They employed the Wood Brothers team to run the car at Indy, and they came up with an ingenius system to funnel the fuel into the car quicker during pitstops - something to do with some baffling or syphoning system in the fuel tank so the fuel flowed in and the air it was displacing could escape much quicker.

They kept it very quiet throughout practice and qualifying but come the race they were saving whole truck-loads of time every time they pitted for fuel.

Wasn't illegal, just a clever way to maximise their advantage.
Again not cheating but very clever. Donohue and Penske also used to use a chilled fuel system (not sure if this was before or after the very high fuel drum) so the fuel was much more dense when it went in. There's photos of the fuel drums with frost formed on them!

I might be making it up (don't have the book with me) but I'm sure in The Unfair Advantage Donohue recalls that they stopped using the chilled fuel after an incident when they brimmed the tank using the chilling system on a very very hot day when the safety car came out immediately after the stop.

Behind the safety car the car was burning a lot less fuel and the hot day meant it was expanding quickly and Donohue wasn't sure whether the fuel was expanding too quickly and if it was what the fuel tank would do!

mat205125

17,055 posts

197 months

Tuesday 29th March 2016
quotequote all
spikey78 said:
TobyLaRohne said:
Interesting you say this, would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this...

Imagine a series is using a datalogger to govern power to weight ratios and the scrutineers are using a flawed procedure that goes against the advice of the manufacturer... further to that some of the competitors have fallen foul of the regulations because when presenting their data from a race, they've been deemed to have an excessive power to weight.

Now imagine, a particular competitor in the series was not using his knowledge of the flawed procedure to his advantage to artificially lower the readings but was failing to point out his fellow competitors flawed datalogger installations and after attempting to point out flaws in the procedures to said scrutineers only to be told effectively to "do one"...would that be cheating?
As long as you're happy that what you're doing is ok and would stand up to any investigation, what the other competitors are or aren't doing isn't your concern IMO
.... unless they are gaining an unfair advantage from something that they shouldn't be doing.

Mansells Tash

5,677 posts

190 months

Tuesday 29th March 2016
quotequote all
Its all moot now anyway, the dataloggers have been omitted from the championship.


Edited by Mansells Tash on Tuesday 29th March 13:04

AW111

8,159 posts

117 months

Tuesday 29th March 2016
quotequote all
Mansells Tash said:
Its all mute now anyway, the dataloggers have been omitted from the championship.
Moot, dammit!
Unless you are twisting the expression to mean it's all gone quiet wink.

gowmonster

2,471 posts

151 months

Tuesday 29th March 2016
quotequote all
AW111 said:
Mansells Tash said:
Its all mute now anyway, the dataloggers have been omitted from the championship.
Moot, dammit!
Unless you are twisting the expression to mean it's all gone quiet wink.
I thought it was a moo point, ie the opinion of cows, it doesn't matter so why argue about it </friends>

gowmonster

2,471 posts

151 months

Tuesday 29th March 2016
quotequote all
have been searching elsewhere for stories, here's an interesting one from indycar

http://jalopnik.com/5977371/racing-is-full-of-lanc...

IndyCar was over push back brake systems, which pull the pads back from the brake discs on ovals to increase speed. This has always been done legally in qualifying, but in the race, it was extremely illegal — for obvious reason such as having to spend over a second pumping the brakes before the driver had any stopping power whatsoever. Not ideal when there is a wreck occurring in front.

gowmonster

2,471 posts

151 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
was also reading on mclarens rear brake pedal which i don't recall reading here.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/05/24/banned-mclar...

McLaren’s independent rear brake pedal had been rumbled mere weeks after it had first been pressed into service. The team had used it one week before the Nurburgring, at the A1-Ring, where sharp-eyed onlookers wondered why their cars’ rear brakes were glowing on the exit of some corners.

The pedal allowed the drivers to operate either of the rear brakes independently of the others. This gave them two additional means of controlling the car and improving the performance – by reducing either understeer or wheelspin depending on which wheel was braked and when.

bucksmanuk

2,171 posts

154 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
A Formula 1 team which will remain nameless was running a GPS based fuel load distribution system. The GPS knew where the car was on the circuit and would distribute the fuel from tank to tank (5 were rumoured to be in use) between the corners for optimum weight distribution. No driver input required. Some very small high power fuel pumps had been designed and developed for this task.

A VERY senior engineer at said F1 company told his friend (also my work boss) as to how clever they were at developing this system. My boss told me, and me being a scrutineer told an FIA technical official that I know. Result - no more GPS based fuel distribution system– how we laughed….

Tonsko

6,299 posts

199 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
Surely they must have seen a benefit for all that money invested?

Tonsko

6,299 posts

199 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
Heh, like a barium meal.

Thundersports

571 posts

129 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
Anyone else know the way to cheat the Monk limiter in Formula 3000 during the early 90s?

Some Gump

12,164 posts

170 months

Wednesday 30th March 2016
quotequote all
bucksmanuk said:
A Formula 1 team which will remain nameless was running a GPS based fuel load distribution system. The GPS knew where the car was on the circuit and would distribute the fuel from tank to tank (5 were rumoured to be in use) between the corners for optimum weight distribution. No driver input required. Some very small high power fuel pumps had been designed and developed for this task.

A VERY senior engineer at said F1 company told his friend (also my work boss) as to how clever they were at developing this system. My boss told me, and me being a scrutineer told an FIA technical official that I know. Result - no more GPS based fuel distribution system– how we laughed….
Hate to sY it, but [citation needed]. The FIA aren't daft. If there were multiple discrete tanks and clever pumps to connect them, surely they'd notice? You'd also need the silence of everyone who works for ATL or similar, to cover up why each tank needed 2 outs and 1 in..

bucksmanuk

2,171 posts

154 months

Thursday 31st March 2016
quotequote all
I was told much money was spent on the system, whether it was used in anger/or worked is another matter.
the issue is- it was illegal....

Silent1

19,760 posts

219 months

Friday 1st April 2016
quotequote all
bucksmanuk said:
I was told much money was spent on the system, whether it was used in anger/or worked is another matter.
the issue is- it was illegal....
It didn't happen.

gowmonster

2,471 posts

151 months

Thursday 10th November
quotequote all
holy thread resurrection Batman!

https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-key-details-of-...

Jul 7 2022
By Scott Mitchell-Malm

Red Bull’s firm stance against the FIA’s intervention in the porpoising and grounding of Formula 1’s 2022 cars is rooted in proposed in-season changes to the technical regulations.

The FIA is intervening on safety grounds after several drivers from different teams complained about back pain and raised concerns over potential long-term consequences of driving such cars.

While this has been primarily referred to as a porpoising issue, it also relates to the new ground-effect cars being run so low and stiff they have poor ride quality. That is why the FIA refers to the matter as aerodynamic oscillations (porpoising) and grounding (cars repeatedly smashing into the track surface).



To deal with this the FIA intends to set a limit for the vertical oscillations drivers can be subjected to.

A complicated metric has been established to measure and police this but at the same time the FIA has been focusing on “central floor flexibility, skid deflection, and skid wear measurement” – as communicated to teams in a recent, updated technical directive.

The FIA says these are “inherently related to the same issue, and go hand-in-hand with the metric”, because in order for that metric to be equally relevant amongst all the cars the stiffness of the floor has to be equal as well.

Motor Racing Formula One World Championship Spanish Grand Prix Practice Day Barcelona, Spain

And in the FIA’s analysis of each team’s planks and skid blocks in recent weeks it has discovered significant deformations over and above what the technical regulations were intended to allow.

In technical meetings between teams and the FIA last year the FIA stipulated that the plank should be solid, with a 2mm tolerance, and the way in which the plank and the skid blocks were mounted should reflect that.

But the regulations did not include the specific wording of that original guidance and the rules only specify no deflection greater than 2mm around two holes at the leading edge of the plank and 2mm at a hole positioned slightly further back.

Motor Racing Formula One World Championship Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Qualifying Day Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

There are no measurements taken further to the rear, around where the driver sits, and some teams are believed to have engineered the mounting of the plank and skid blocks in a way that gives a degree of cushioning.

In this case the plank is believed to be flexing more than the intended amount and therefore can be used more aggressively – which means running the car lower – without wearing away.

The FIA believes this non-uniform stiffness of the plank is being done deliberately to circumvent the intention of the technical regulations and allows significantly lower ride heights, leading to an indirect aerodynamic gain.

marine boy

655 posts

162 months

Saturday 12th November
quotequote all
Silent1 said:
It didn't happen.
Holy thread resurrection...

Sorry, don't believe any team ran a GPS activated fuel tank as working in F1 I proposed the same idea of moving fuel around, think it must have been before 2010 but I'm sure I wouldn't have been the first to think of it. I modelled on CAD a fuel cell with fuel divided up to upper and lower quadrants. The simulation group did the analysis but it proved to have bugger all affect on lap time. F1 fuel cell is very near the centre of gravity of the car, the additional weight of extra lift pumps and fuel cells within the fuel cell was a negative towards performance so the idea was binned

Lucky enough to have had the opportunity to do my fair share of engineered rule pushing, not rules were bent but some were pushed beyond their intended limit

In the late 90's I helped design the 1st qualifying only F1 car, basically the car had to survive 12 laps, we took F1 extremes to the limit on as much as we could. Simple stuff like a bespoke wiring loom with no telemetry boxes and only the sensors needed for the car to run, small fuel tank and no 1st gear. Other easier to make parts like minimum thickness brake pads/disc's, plank. Medium difficult parts like 1.9mm thick rim sections on the wheels, bodywork where a 3rd of the weight was paint, aluminium oil tank acid etch/chemi-milled pockets to 0.6mm thick. At the far end of really pushing the limits we ran magnesium engine heads that would warp and 0.4mm thick inconel exhaust headers that would crack, both were scrap after only one qualifying session. We were a back of the midfield qualifying team but it improved performance by around 0.3secs. Only had enough resource to convert one car to quali-only spec. but this car would reqularly qualify at the front of the mid-field a good 4-6 pos'n improvement. FIA shut this loophole down for the following season but it was fun while it lasted

Designed a 5kg plank fastener top hat, no rule for maximum area so the fixing top hats for mounting the plank to the car were turned into ballast using tungsten (70% denser than lead), can't claim to be the first to take this approach as Williams were already a step ahead of us. For the following season the FIA specified a max. area for plank fasteners which closed off that loop hole

Also designed what I believe was the first F1 rear wing upper flexi-flap to close up the slot gap which stalled the rear wing to drop drag on the straights, that worked extremely well . We were getting an extra 15kph and the rear wing could be switched off within a 5-10kph trigger target speed. We did different stiffness flaps for different tracks for the various top speeds. Other teams followed and then the FIA created an additional rule to prevent it for the following year

Was also part of a small group with in team that introduced lights into F1 pit stops, the wheel gun would trigger a light when done, then the last jack man's light was triggered the light to release the car was triggered. The idea saved mechanic reaction times during the pitstop sequence. We went from 4.2secs for a pit stop with fuel down to 2.7secs without fuel, our team wasn't the fastest but we were consistently in the top 3 fastest pitstops during each race

The one rule exploitation I'm most proud of was a clutch release design I did on the steering wheel, this combined with a driver training programme achieve an extra 10mtrs/2 car lengths jump up the grid by the first corner. Red Bull issued a technical clarification to the FIA which is the round about way teams use to stop other teams doing technical stuff they hadn't thought of. RB's clarification annoyed me at first as I'd put a lot of work into it but after a redesign to the new clarified rules I improved it so it was even quicker

My favourite outside of F1 was working in a very small group we broke the F3 European championship attacking it as we would do if it were F1, ie full wind tunnel programme, full simulator programme, F1 levels of weight saving on the few non-homologated car parts (very difficult as it was like fighting an F1 design war with your hands tied behind your back), even flying parts out to circuits by helicopter to eek out every last minute of wind tunnel development time






EmailAddress

9,079 posts

202 months

Sunday 13th November
quotequote all
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing!