planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:17 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-te ... rn-874491/

Seems that they feel a return to active suspension would actually be a cost saving measure and would remove any ambiguity to boot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:45 pm
Posts: 77
An anti-roll bar affects aerodynamics as well. It is helping to control the height of the wings above the ground, which influences aerodynamics. Let's ban those too.
Who cares if there's a roll bar (mechanical or hydraulic) going from front to back? Darn near nobody.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:43 pm
Posts: 73
Well, this is a perfect example of what is wrong, and has for a long time been wrong, with F1's rule making mentality. Active suspension gets banned on the grounds that it is too expensive, engineers then spend huge amounts of time, effort, and money trying to find clever ways to get the same effect within the confines of the rules, and voila, it turns out that it would have been cheaper to not have regulated the area in the first place.

The problem with more regulation is, other than resulting in the relatively generic cars we have now, that the diminishing returns available from the few areas of innovation still allowed cost more and more to uncover. Costs spiral, and the big teams will always beat the little ones. The glorious past history of F1 shows us that less regulation is much better. Colin Chapman at Lotus was able to beat the big manufacturers because he had the flexibility to do more with less. he brought aerospace technology to F1. He innovated with aerodynamics because the rules allowed him the freedom to do so. He did it on a comparative shoestring. When was the last time we had a middling to back marker team suddenly just dominate because of engineering excellence? Other than Brawn GP, I think you have to go all the way back to Patrick Head's FW07 of 1979!

Aero is another example of terrible rule making. Look at how complicated things are today. The front wings have literally dozens of elements. There are curves, turning vanes, vortex generators, barge boards, etc., all of which are the products of enormous engineering resources. Consequently, the cars are so aerodynamically sensitive that they have trouble following each other, resulting in even more rules like DRS just to keep the show alive. The lift to drag ratio of a modern F1 car is a fraction of what it was before that "flat bottom" rule in 1983, and the budgets back then were tiny by today's standards.

If the rules just provided maximum width, length, and height dimensions and required crash testing for safety, the cars would be cheaper, start to look different from one another, go faster, follow each other better, and we would finally have an end to a single team dominating a season (or two, or three, or four...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
It doesn't help matters when F1's answer to anything innovative seems to be to ban it. F-Ducts, EBDs and FRIC suspension just being 3 recent examples I can think of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

I agree it appears to be driven by Ferrari, but the article mentions the majority of teams being in favour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

I agree it appears to be driven by Ferrari, but the article mentions the majority of teams being in favour.


But it does not name any or have any "quotes" :D
Its a small article and I am sure it would be padded wit any they had.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6752
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

Seems it's from McLaren, from the article:
Quote:
As a result, four options, one of which is the reintroduction of active suspension for the first time since it was outlawed ahead of the 1994 season, are being considered based on a document drawn up by McLaren.


The 4 options that McLaren have presented in the article are:
1. Return of full active suspension
2. Tighten up regulations to prevent passive systems designed to influence aero
3. Exempt suspension systems from the rules about passive systems (allowing this but not going as far as allowing FRIC)
4. Carry on as we are but FIA monitor it more closely and teams may have to submit documents explaining their suspension systems to the FIA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

Seems it's from McLaren, from the article:
Quote:
As a result, four options, one of which is the reintroduction of active suspension for the first time since it was outlawed ahead of the 1994 season, are being considered based on a document drawn up by McLaren.


The 4 options that McLaren have presented in the article are:
1. Return of full active suspension
2. Tighten up regulations to prevent passive systems designed to influence aero
3. Exempt suspension systems from the rules about passive systems (allowing this but not going as far as allowing FRIC)
4. Carry on as we are but FIA monitor it more closely and teams may have to submit documents explaining their suspension systems to the FIA.

yeah, from what I read on another site it seems Ferrari favour option 2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Zoue wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

Seems it's from McLaren, from the article:
Quote:
As a result, four options, one of which is the reintroduction of active suspension for the first time since it was outlawed ahead of the 1994 season, are being considered based on a document drawn up by McLaren.


The 4 options that McLaren have presented in the article are:
1. Return of full active suspension
2. Tighten up regulations to prevent passive systems designed to influence aero
3. Exempt suspension systems from the rules about passive systems (allowing this but not going as far as allowing FRIC)
4. Carry on as we are but FIA monitor it more closely and teams may have to submit documents explaining their suspension systems to the FIA.

yeah, from what I read on another site it seems Ferrari favour option 2


after a few min googling the only name I can see linked with any sort of quote is Boullier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
moby wrote:
By "Teams proposing return of Active Suspension" I read it to mean "Ferrari proposing return of Active Suspension because they can not sort it out"

Are there any links to any team boss actually saying this?

Seems it's from McLaren, from the article:
Quote:
As a result, four options, one of which is the reintroduction of active suspension for the first time since it was outlawed ahead of the 1994 season, are being considered based on a document drawn up by McLaren.


The 4 options that McLaren have presented in the article are:
1. Return of full active suspension
2. Tighten up regulations to prevent passive systems designed to influence aero
3. Exempt suspension systems from the rules about passive systems (allowing this but not going as far as allowing FRIC)
4. Carry on as we are but FIA monitor it more closely and teams may have to submit documents explaining their suspension systems to the FIA.



Sorry BF, posted before reading this


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group