Technical What the fric are the FIA up to now?

[Fenderman]

In answer to your question Incubus , Article 3.15 says all parts that have a specific aerodynamic influence must be rigidly secured on the "entirely sprung part of the car", which is the chassis and bodywork, including wings, power unit, etc. The prop shafts, wheels, brakes and suspension components (from their mounting points on the gearbox and chassis to the hubs) are deemed to be "unsprung", and are therefore not dictated by this regulation (but obviously covered in other regulations specific to suspension, brakes and wheels).

Scarbs explains how FRICs works in this article on the Mercedes system from 2011, which is the clearest I have found on the technology:

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2011/10/17/mercedes-innovative-linked-rear-suspension/

I'm still at a loss as to where the technical infringement actually is. Hopefully, we will get a proper technical report from Charlie which sets out the precise nature of the objections, with diagrams of the part/s that make it illegal. I've read a lot of stuff and there are certainly active systems and systems utilising a device called an "inerta" (not to be confused with inertia) that are clearly illegal. However, it's not clear to me if the current systems are not passive in nature. Personally I think this is one technical ban too far.

 

[Incubus]

It does answer my question Fenderman , but your last paragraph also graphically demonstrate how badly-worded so many rules are, and the subsequent room for interpretation they create!

 

[Fenderman]

Just realised I left out a praragraph to explain that

Scarbs describes how the linked rear suspension works. FRIC's is in effect of an extension of the system to all four "corners". As well as controlling roll and heave, FRIC's minimises pitch (front end dive and lifting on braking and accelerating respectively).

I've I got a long convoluted version in my draft but found using Scarb's piece was easier and he's got better drawings!

 

[siffert_fan]

What is the rule regarding engine suppliers? By that I mean do the rules stipulate that each manufacturer must supply the power trains to at least X other teams? If so, I doubt that Mercedes will have enough (any) takers next year since it is obvious that the customer power trains in no way measure up to that of the factory team.

 

[Fenderman]

The reg's only prescribe a maximum number of teams that can be supplied by one manufacturer. This is from the current draft* of the FIA F1 2015 Technical Regulations:

13.3
A competitor may change the make of engine at any time during the Championship. All points scored with an engine of different make to that which was first entered in the Championship may count (and will be aggregated) for the assessment of a commercial benefit, however such
points will not count towards (nor be aggregated for) the FIA Formula One Constructors Championship.

A major car manufacturer may not directly or indirectly supply engines for more than three teams of two cars each without the consent of the FIA. For the purposes of this Article 13.3, a major car manufacturer is a company whose shares are quoted on a recognised stock exchange or the subsidiary of such a company.
​

*This article (13.3) is the same as for this season

 

[Incubus]

'such a thing as overworking oneself Fenderman y' know?...

 

[Mephistopheles]

An F1 car is in effect an aerodynamic device, true / false

An F1 car moves, true / false

If the answer to both the above is true then.

All F1 cars should be banned because they in effect break the rules just by existing, unless you just sit them on the grid not moving for an hour and a half...

 

[Incubus]

Strictly speaking the earth rotates, and moves through space in orbit around the sun. . Combine these two effects and you'll find the entire ground and everything on it including F1 cars and all their components aerodynamically "move" at bloody squillions miles per hour.
Logically speaking EVERYTHING should be banned, according to the FIA's ittle rule book.

 

[Mephistopheles]

 

[Fenderman]

I second that " "

Edit: I will add this: It is often said that "the law is an ass", I also say "a lot of the time the law is administered by asses." ...

 

[Brogan]

I feel my original comment is still relevant.

What a load of total ****ing bullshit from the FIA once again.

 

[KekeTheKing]

I doubt that Mercedes will have enough (any) takers next year since it is obvious that the customer power trains in no way measure up to that of the factory team.

Not quite. Lotus just switched to Merc for next year because in addition to being the best unit, it's the cheapest. Also, I haven't heard a single person in the paddock suggest that the customer teams are not receiving identical units to the factory team, and I think the FIA might be interested in that if it were the case as well.

Here's a nice summary of engine costs for anyone interested,

The price tag I hear for Renault is, ahem, $28.5 million for the engine. To this one must add the transmission (which Red Bull will do for you if you write them a cheque for $9 million) and you need to purchase the right lubricants for the engine from Total ($2 million more). Thus, without needing a pocket calculator, one can surmise that a Renault deal engine will cost you the best part of $40 million. Geez!

Ferrari seems to be the next best/worst offer with the suggestion being that you get the back end of the current prancing horse for a sniff under $30 million, when one adds in the transmission, service and yadda yadda.

Up in Brixworth, however, you can order the Menu du Jour, service included, for $24.4 million. That will include a little supplement for Petronas but from what I hear this is simply a deal to run Malaysian Jazeman Jaafar in a limited number of free practice sessions on Fridays. All in, the figure is believed to be around $26 million.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-onomatopoeia-of-f1-engines/


I think most teams would take their chances with "customer" Mercedes powerplants at this point anyway.

@ Bro - if the teams had their act together and operated as a united bloc, then everything would be business as usual heading to Hockenheim. One or more teams have decided its worth throwing the sport into upheaval momentarily in attempt to shake up the running order. Only time will tell if it works.

 

[RasputinLives]

KekeTheKing in the history of the sport the teams have never acted as a united block. Its not in their interest too. The FIA know that(especially Todt) so by saying "if you all agree we can keep it" they have convieniently made it look like this big mid season rule change is because those silly squabbling teams can't agree when in actual fact its down to them pushing an agenda.

Why are they pushing this agenda mid-season and not waiting for the end of year when it would be more ideal? TV ratings. The pattern of the season is set by this point so they put a big change in to hopefully shake it up and everyone talks about it and tunes in more to see exactly how its going to work.

Lets not lay this at the teams door.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Just read this on Autosport which is quite interesting,

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114922

especially this bit:

BAN FIRST PROPOSED IN MONACO
The first discussions about outlawing FRIC for 2015 came up at the Monaco Grand Prix as part of wider cost-cutting discussions, but teams rejected the idea then as they suggested they would prefer to keep them until the possible return of active suspension in 2017.

Perhaps it's not all down to the FIA.

 

[downforce]

An F1 car is in effect an aerodynamic device, true / false

An F1 car moves, true / false

If the answer to both the above is true then.

All F1 cars should be banned because they in effect break the rules just by existing, unless you just sit them on the grid not moving for an hour and a half...

but but but.......then qualifying would decide the result!!

 

[Fenderman]

Nothing new there then

 

[KekeTheKing]

So it's clear now that the FIA wants absolutely nothing to do with this row. If they are forced to make a decision they will do it apparently, but that appears to be a last resort.

with the FIA indicating that it will likely take a 'hands off' approach and not step in to report any outfit running FRIC, the situation will come down to whether or not any team will be willing to protest one of its rivals.

The only thing stopping a team from running FRIC is the threat of protest from another team. And there's nothing stopping a team from announcing that they'll be running FRIC-less, only to proceed with running their FRIC enabled chassis. Hopefully somebody just lodges an official protest on Thursday and we can end these shenanigans one way or the other.

 

[Incubus]

Absolutely, which is why I found McLaren's wording to their statement on monday quite telling:

"McLaren does [sic] not CURRENTLY intend to run a FRIC suspension system at the German Grand Prix,"

 

[F1Yorkshire]

The worst part of this is the threat of protest. FIA have given their view. What they should also do is ask all the teams to state if they have a problem with it or not.

Give them a fixed deadline, like before the 1st practise session. If they don't make a protest against the system by then they will have to keep quiet about it for the rest of the season.

The last thing we want is a team protesting the use of FRIC after a race when the disqualification of other teams would suit their own results.

 

[FB]

For maximum impact you protest after the race. The risk here is that the FIA say "Yes, we agree, it's illegal. No one can use it from the next GP but this results stands", making the whole exercise pointless. I'm sure this has happened in the past.