|
|
F1 Technical Specification Discussion Centre
[Copy link]
|
|
|
FIA warns teams on height rules
Reuters - Wed, 07 Apr 18:06:00 2010
FIA have written to teams warning them any system that adjusts a car's suspension and ride height between qualifying and the race is illegal.
The move follows speculation some teams have been using devices or systems that give cars an aerodynamic advantage when qualifying light on fuel and then ensure the car has sufficient ground clearance when the tank is subsequently filled for the race distance.
A spokesman said on Wednesday that the International Automobile Federation (FIA) had written to the teams to clarify the rules.
"Any system, device or procedure, the purpose and /or the effect of which is to change the set up of the suspension whilst the car is under parc ferme conditions will be deemed to contravene Article 34.5 of the F1 Sporting Regulations," he said.
The letter to teams added that the FIA believed "any self levelling damper system is likely to contravene (article) 3.15 of the technical regulations."
Parc ferme refers to the period after qualifying and before a race when the cars are effectively off-limits to mechanics.
Article 34.5 states that a driver must start the race from the pit lane if any changes are made to the suspension of his car while it is held under parc ferme. Article 3.15 refers to aerodynamics.
McLaren suggested at the Australian Grand Prix last month that Red Bull, one-two winners in Malaysia last weekend, were using some sort of ride height control system. Red Bull have denied the accusation.
McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh also said in Melbourne that his engineers were racing to develop a system of their own and hoped to have it ready by next week's race in China.
"I think it looks like Red Bull and some other cars are able to run lower in qualifying than you would expect if they are then going to fill the car with fuel afterwards," said Whitmarsh.
"Frankly a few months ago if the engineers had come to me and said: 'We're going to design this system,' I would have said: 'Actually, I don't think it's permissible'.
"There's some evidence that perhaps such systems are considered legal and if they are then we're going to get one as quick as we can," he added.
Red Bull team boss Christian Horner said at Sepang that his team would protest any rival using such a system.
Active ride systems, pioneered by the original Lotus team and then used to great effect by Williams, have been banned under regulations since 1993.
Reuters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eawh, sedap mulutnya mclaren kata kat orang nih, ada bukti ke |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aku pikir mclaren silap faham
redbull tak buat ape2 yg menyalahi peraturan FIA.
Ferrari pun ada ride height adjusters ni cuma Ferrari lebih obvious dan sistem tu lebih manual.Cuma redbull sistem agak kompleks jd tu lah nampak macam ada sistem/alat yg menyalahi peraturan
senang cerita mclaren tak reti adjust sendiri..pastu salahkan org lain pulak atas kelemahan diri sendiri |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
konsep redbull tu kira macam ni
time qualify=team dah set ketinggian kereta bila minyak skit supaya dapat downforce yg tinggi
start race=minyak byk tapi tak boleh adjust ketinggian kereta jadi ada downforce jugak
bila race=minyak makin skit.jadi ketinggian kereta makin tinggi.Kereta pulak less downforce.Td redbull plak dgn magik yg ade boleh pulak kekalkan kereta berada dalam keadaan rendah dan mempunyai downforce yg tinggi sampai abis race |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rattling the regulations
Tue Apr 13 05:52PM
This season has seen several key regulation clarifications, with the FIA seemingly taking a more flexible approach to the threat of protests – but how have they been able to make these 'ballpark' changes?
The challenge of creating a set of strict watertight rules for Formula One has always been a tough one, but for many years the system of 'pre-vetting' designs has been pushed harder and harder in a bid to prevent teams getting to the grid with controversial solutions that take the rules and bend them to the maximum.
The problem is, there are so many different interpretations of the wording in the regulations that the technical battlefield becomes a legal-style challenge of wits between the inventors and defendants of the unique ideas, the ‘judicial’ investigators at the FIA and the opposition teams. And unfortunately, the first chance the opposition teams get to have a say is when the design arrives at the racetrack.
Last season the double diffuser sat within the letter of the law but not the spirit. One of its creators, Ross Brawn, had suggested banning the idea before it even reached the track, for the exact point that it contravened the spirit of the law, but he failed and it has now grown to huge extremes.
This year, there have been several similarly innovative approaches – McLaren’s F-duct, the new double diffuser loophole, alleged automatic altering suspension systems and extreme outboard mirrors – but in contrast to previous years, and despite a lack of formal protests, the FIA has been able to act on the situation, clarify expectations and see some designs altered.
F-duct
This unique idea has been given equal praise, for its innovation, and criticism, for its supposed safety and cost implications. It certainly gives originators McLaren a performance boost – their cars are by far the fastest on the straits – but arguments that it should be banned on danger grounds as it gives drivers control of a significant performance tool were unfounded, given the amount of other buttons, knobs and dials that drivers have to change on every lap.
The fact that it will cost teams time and money to modify their cars to ultimately just match the pace of their rivals was perhaps an argument for its ban, but that is not official cause for it to be thrown out, unless all teams vote against it. And indeed, as Sauber’s less successful attempts at implementing it show, it is not as easy as it seems, so McLaren should perhaps be praised for their ingenuity.
Double diffuser
Teams took the double diffuser interpretation to the extremes this year, but the FIA finally said enough was enough.
This was a case of a lack of clarity in the rules, in which article 3.12.7 states: "A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the (starter motor)." There is clearly ambiguity in what 'minimum required access' actually means, and some teams designed particularly large starter motors to increase the size of the gap, which adds energised flow into the diffuser to make it work harder.
If the innovators had, indeed, shown the FIA their plans ahead of the season, they clearly did not do so openly, as once the governing body realised the gaping hole (pardon the pun) in the regulations they were quick to say no.
A clarification on what is a maximum size of access hole was all that was needed, given that it was simply an additional definition of an item already in the rules, for the FIA to introduce this ‘change’ without unanimous voting from the teams.
Ride height systems
Red Bull was hit with claims they were running an innovative automatic system to alter ride height between qualifying and the race, improving low fuel pace but then altering to improve heavy tank running. Although McLaren certainly thought there was something amiss but never protested it and Ross Brawn equally said something "could be" being done to alter ride heights but never pointed a finger. Instead, they both simply suggested the FIA should refresh the rules in that area.
Red Bull has qualified on pole in every race, which is why the accusations began. The car was given the all-clear after an inspection at the last race showed they had no mechanical system to achieve this, but there was still suggestions that they had something automated instead - and the FIA found it necessary to clarify the situation.
The original rule, Article 34.5, stated: "If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane..."
The clarification simply explained: “Any system device or procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is to change the set-up of the suspension, while the car is under parc ferme conditions will be deemed to contravene art 34.5 of the sporting regulations." On top of that, any self-levelling system (that did not involve a device or procedure) was outlawed in an additional clarification.
Again, being a clarification and not a specific rule change, the FIA was allowed to introduce this without question.
Outboard mirrors
By positioning the mirrors on turning vanes or on the front of the sidepod, teams were again pushing the rule boundaries, giving their cars mirrors but making them relatively useless due to not only their position, which meant drivers had to turn their heads to see them, but their vibration, which made them completely unusable.
In most cases, the mirrors were mounted outboard to improve aerodynamic performance, but this only gained around 0.1s per lap. Even so, every little helps, which is why many teams made the most of this loophole. This time, the FIA got their change through on safety grounds, claiming that the outboard mirrors did not provide effective rear visibility.
But while the FIA were able to make these changes by clarifying elements of the loopholes, last year's double diffuser concept was based on a large loophole that could not be clarified. And all this goes to show how complicated the legalese in the regulations is. Every I must be dotted and t crossed, but unfortunately that will always be an impossible task. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304# weta_studio
mclaren je yang tak pandai ajest....
lepas tu salahkan red bull
aku sokong dengan pendapat kau tu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tapi bantak faktor jugak kena tengok...
kalau tersalah buat perkiraan down force tu yang menyebabkan kereta jadi berat coz berat kereta akn bertambah. dengan itu daya geseran juga bertambah. Jadi kereta bayak guna minyak dan tayar cepat haus....
So kalau hari hujan, semua setting tak mengena, apa yang boleh di buat hanya jenis tayar sahaja menjadi perkiraan. Masa hujan ini down force menjadi lebih besar coz kerera basah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red Bull was hit with claims they were running an innovative automatic system to
bijak betul newey ni |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308# satusembilan
ride height adjusters ni rata2 team dalam F1 pun ada buat
tapi lebih kepada manual la |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306# Yo-Ya
mungkin fuel tank dalam kereta redbull tu bukan setakat berfungsi utk menampung minyak yg penuh tapi membantu kereta redbull utk dapat downforce yg baik apabila ambik corner..kira mcm pemberat yg boleh adjust kedepan atau kebelakang atau kekiri dan kekanan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply 311# weta_studio
kira red bull ni paling cerdik la dalam mengambil kira espek down force masa mula, pertengahan dan akhir race.
dia tengok semua aspek, aspek minyak yang berkurangan, berat badan yang berkurang, dan keupayaan tayar mencengkam litar.
aduh... pening aku....
kalau aku dapat practice kat kereta aku, bestnya...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kelisa aku mampu belance kan berat perut aku
tuk dapatkn down force yg terbaik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply 312# Yo-Ya
aku pun pening gak cara redbull ni
mungkin jugak redbull gunakan downforce tu sendiri utk turunkan kereta tanpa perlu ada adjuster tu
tp ni dah melibatkan design wing depan,floor,suspension mcm2 lagi
apepun redbull mmg dah dikira pioneer dalam teknologi F1 skrg..credit utk adrian newey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ni wing webber yang pakai masa test kat cina ari tu..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tapi semua mende adjuster otomatik ni sbenarnya illegal kan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aku rasa FIA mesti pening kepala ngan team2 nie... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derang wat tak tahu je sbenarnya, malas sgt nak layan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
semua sebab peraturan tak boleh isi minyak yg pelik tu
tahun depan plak peraturan baru..mesti ada lg pasal benda2 legal dan illegal ni |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Author
Post time 8-4-2010 03:27 PM
