Brake pedals and steering wheels do not influence aerodynamic performance and therefore are not effected by this paragraph.
Brake pedals and steering wheels do not influence aerodynamic performance and therefore are not effected by this paragraph.
How don't they? Hitting the brakes will make the nose dive...
That doesn't influence aerodynamic performance it just changes the angle of airflow slightly. The aerodynamic performance isn't changed.
Ferrari are taking the piss here : http://www.motorsport.com/phot ... r/f1-2006-tur-xp-0286.jpg
I haven't read all the FIA rules but I can't believe there isn't a rule stating that wheels must not be covered. Even under BRCA rules for R/C your not allowed to cover up your rear wheels because of the aerodynamic advantage in a straight line. Okay this isn't quite the same as it's not covering the whole tyre but filling the wheel in ... Ferrari claim it's to improve cooling :/ More like improve the aero around the rear of the car. Clean the air flow up a bit.
Renault should cut some out of cardboard and glue them in if Ferrari continue to race them
I haven't read all the FIA rules but I can't believe there isn't a rule stating that wheels must not be covered. Even under BRCA rules for R/C your not allowed to cover up your rear wheels because of the aerodynamic advantage in a straight line. Okay this isn't quite the same as it's not covering the whole tyre but filling the wheel in ... Ferrari claim it's to improve cooling :/ More like improve the aero around the rear of the car. Clean the air flow up a bit.
Renault should cut some out of cardboard and glue them in if Ferrari continue to race them
Sorry, I can't follow you there. Please show me where "aerodynamic performance" is defined.
The brake pedal is not exposed (nor is it a part of an aerodynamic system or component), therfore it can not influence aerodynamic performance. If the car brakes and the nose dips, the brake pedal still isn't effecting aerodynamic performance, it isn't offering any resistance or aerodynamic friction, neither is the entire braking system. The brake pedal can not effect aerodynamic performance. You may be thinking that the aerodynamic downforce changes slightly if the front of the car dips, but this is not aerodynamic performance, rather it is a result of aerodynamic performance. No matter how much or little downforce is generated, the aerodynamic performance of the car doesn't get any better or worse. To improve or degrade aerodynamic performance you would need to change the shape or behaviour of the parts of the car that effect how the car moves through the air, how much resistance the object offers.
Makes sense. In fact I can't see how a TMD can be classified as an aerodynamic performance affecting device using your explanation. It doesn't effect how the car moves through the air any more directly than the brake pedal does:
1) hit brake --> weight shift --> nose dive --> airflow at front wing affected
2) use TMD --> reduce tyre load variation --> nose movements affected --> airflow at front wing affected
Both primarily affect the tyre loads, the brake system more than the TMD system. The only difference I can see is that one system is controlled by the driver and the other system has no outside inputs.
At the end of the day, for bods like us, does it make any difference why it was banned? I don't think it does, and I think the cars looked better bouncing around and looking alive.
But I'm just waiting patiently for driver aids to be banned from all forms of motorsport. Including, I wish, flappy paddle gearboxes.
But I'm just waiting patiently for driver aids to be banned from all forms of motorsport. Including, I wish, flappy paddle gearboxes.
It does make a difference because of the timing of the ban. The FIA have had 12 months (ish) to ban the device but they chose to wait until now. It seems too similar to the Michelin tyre controversy at Monza a few years ago. Then Ferrari turn up to Turkey with those aerodynamic wheel covers and nothing is said. Sorry, I meant to call them 'brake cooling ducts'.
I desperately want to believe that the FIA run things fairly but they make it so difficult for themselves.
Aside from the gearboxes, I agree.
As for the wheel covers:
I'm not a lawyer, but Article 3 (which was partly quoted here) is called "Bodywork and dimensions", where bodywork is defined in Article 1.4 as "all entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream except [..]"
Also Article 1.6 says about Wheels: "Complete wheel :
Wheel [previously defined as "flange and rim"] and inflated tyre. The complete wheel is considered part of the suspension system."
[Which would mean Article 3 would not apply]
However Article 10.3.3 says: "Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork."
[Which would mean it would apply?]
Article 12 ("Wheels and Tyres") doesn't help to clarify.
Thus I guess Ferrari can really only justify it, if they refer to Article 11.4:
Although that doesn't seem to make much sense, I think it DOES say that those ducts should not be IN the wheel?
I'm not a lawyer, but Article 3 (which was partly quoted here) is called "Bodywork and dimensions", where bodywork is defined in Article 1.4 as "all entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream except [..]"
Also Article 1.6 says about Wheels: "Complete wheel :
Wheel [previously defined as "flange and rim"] and inflated tyre. The complete wheel is considered part of the suspension system."
[Which would mean Article 3 would not apply]
However Article 10.3.3 says: "Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork."
[Which would mean it would apply?]
Article 12 ("Wheels and Tyres") doesn't help to clarify.
Thus I guess Ferrari can really only justify it, if they refer to Article 11.4:
Although that doesn't seem to make much sense, I think it DOES say that those ducts should not be IN the wheel?
Well, you are correct, it isn't an aerodynamic device (which is why the FIA needed to clarify that point). It isn't a suspension component either. It doesn't meet regulations for either which is partly why it isn't allowed. If you want to know more about the technical side of the decision you will have to ask the FIA. The main point to remember here is that Renault agreed with the inquiry and the process used to arrive at the final decision. It isn't like the FIA have back-stabbed anyone (like many people want to believe they do).
There are two methods that teams use when wanting to try out a new piece of kit:
1. Put the device on the car and cross your fingers that it doesn't get noticed for what it really is, if it does get noticed, hope that the rules can be stretched to cover the device as legal.
2. Present the device to the FIA for scrutiny prior to using it on the car and state your case as to why it complies with the regs.
Method 1 is common. Remember Toyota's fuel tank ballist? Until it was uncovered nobody suspected any wrong doing. Toyota believed they were within the rules, or at least that they could make a strong case in favour of their modification (worth the risk), but they hadn't presented the new technology to the FIA for approval. When they were finally penalised they took it on the chin without a big fuss.
Just a slight correction: BAR-Honda was using the "large" fuel tank.
Yes, this an issue I'm not too informed about myself. It seems Renault did collaborate with Mr. Whiting in early 2005 and the FIA is now saying they were at the time unaware of the true (aerodynamic) purpose of the device. Sounds more like politics to me.
I used to think that people who said the FIA were Ferarri biased were all tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists but my opinion is beginning to change.
mass dampers
(63 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG