Technical Lotus ride-height system banned

Chad Stewarthill

Champion Elect
Contributor
The moveable aero rationale is a red herring. The Lotus system was never anything but an antidive. It's purpose was to prevent an aero device moving, not to cause it to move.
That's sort of what I've been thinking. In which case would it be possible for Lotus, if they were so inclined, to challenge the FIA decision, or is there no appeal?
 

Josephiah

Podium Finisher
Yes, surely the point of a suspension device is to control how the whole car moves (relative to the positions of the wheels, and thus the road).

Unless of course they're counting the whole car as a movable aerodynamic device? :whistle: Technically, I suppose that's actually not a bad description of an F1 car, but by that rationale you'd have to also outlaw steering, suspension and engines...
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
The moveable aero rationale is a red herring. The Lotus system was never anything but an antidive. It's purpose was to prevent an aero device moving, not to cause it to move.

The FIA are Luddites.

I agree.What I can't quite get my head around is the fact that if the front of the car dips under braking the front wing will inevitably move downwards.That then means the it becomes a movable aerodynaic part of the car.
If however the car is fitted with an anti dive system and the wing height remains static it then becomes a movable aerodynamic device.
Yet this system is legal.Some odd logic at work somewhere.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/ Last year we saw two additional solutions, interlinked suspension, where hydraulic suspension elements prevent nose dive under braking by displacing fluid in a hydraulic circuit one end of the car to the other end, creating a stiffer front suspension set up. This prevents dive under braking, while keeping a normally soft suspension for better grip.
 

Blog Zbod

Podium Finisher
The FIA can have no excuse for not also banning Mercedes' "front F-Duct." The front F-Duct redirects incoming air for the purpose of controlling the wing's natural increase in downforce as wind velocity over it increases. This allows running the wing at an angle of attack better suited to low speed corners without it generating so much downforce at high speed to cause grounding of the wing.

Both seek to employ the car's changing dynamics to maintain the front wing at the optimal height for the generation of ground effect. One does it by means of a hydraulic pressure the driver controls with his left foot. The other does it with an aerodynamic pressure the driver controls with his right foot.
 

Mephistopheles

Banned
Contributor
Here is something written about about the banned Renault mass damper

For large mechanical grip you need a soft suspension with big movements in the vertical plane.

However, you need to control the riding height of the front wing, which means you\'d wish hard springs.

There you have conflicting goals. What you would like is a suspension that stiffens under load (on a side note, the magnetic-rheological suspension could be used theoretically to achieve this).

When under large aerodynamic loads, the springs compress so much that you only have the tire sidewalls working as springs (and they are non-damped). The mass damper can help you amortiguate the load oscillations you get when running over a kerb or in the transitional phase of cornering. It is sort of a \"mechanical emergency patch\" for a car in which the riding height influences enormously the aerodynamic behaviour.

There are some key elliments here not least of which is the ride height and its effect on aerodynamics, also having a reactive suspension could allow for softer springs which in turn gives more mechanical grip.

It is not surprising that other teams have complained and it is also clear they have a point which makes the decision to ban it the only possible outcome..

I don't know all or indeed any of the facts I'm just putting the other side of the argument...
 

Slyboogy

World Champion
Contributor
With Ferrari and Mercedes making their own systems, it only leaves two big teams, McLaren and Red Bull.

Could be either of the latter two, but Ref Bull stating just a day or two earlier "we don't need the system" (something like that, I can't remember exactly) it is kind of fishy...like a salmon or a trout.
 

canis

Race Winner
Valued Member
Interesting comment has come out of the McLaren launch today, Ted Kravitz has tweeted that McLaren are saying that they never considered the Lotus Ride Height system to be legal and so put no resource into developing their own version. May explain why the FIA had another look at it after already approving the system in principle...
 

RasputinLives

Leave me alone I'm on Smoko
Contributor
Interesting comment has come out of the McLaren launch today, Ted Kravitz has tweeted that McLaren are saying that they never considered the Lotus Ride Height system to be legal and so put no resource into developing their own version. May explain why the FIA had another look at it after already approving the system in principle...

Possibley - I wonder if it was Mclaren who stuck in a sneaky protest. If Ferrari had not come up with their I wonder if they'd have bothered. If it was Mclaren's doing though they've struck a considerable blow for 2 of its rivals who will be forced to redesign very late on.

Now if only the could noble the Red Bull design they'd be away!
 
Top Bottom