Active suspension now banned.

[zako85]

As conspiracy theories go, I've seen crazier

Maybe.. but were they true?

[ioan]

Same old crap from the FIA.
A system is given the green light, the competition tries to copy it and submits plans of their own, much improved and pushed to the extreme - often breaking the rules, version to the FIA.
The FIA instead of out ruling the newly submitted design moves in and out rules the whole concept, job done no more head aches with this concept.

[Knock-on]

I don't think Robs idea is a conspiracy theory at all but a logical guess given the information we have at hand.

The Bull acts in a very strange manner that allows them a performance benefit over the other teams. 3 possible explanations are:

1. Flexible wings. However, the tests were amended to ensure RBR were not circumventing the spirit of the rules and Horner always looked amused and smug when questioned about RBR using this. I suspect this was a red herring.

2. Some sort of pivoting arrangement to keep the nose at an optimum height and therefore enhance grip in the corners and lessen drag at speed. This theory was backed up by the unprecedented wear on the plank under the car.

3. Some sort of active or reactive suspension. I must confess that I never even thought about this because I naturally assumed that it would be banned and would never pass scrutinising.

I now think that Adrian Newey has managed to find a way around this rule as it would explain the strange behaviour of the Bull and also the unusual wear on the plank. It may also be that Sebs style of driving ideally suits this setup and go some way to explaining why Webber has gone from a close (ish) second to being a complete donkey.

If true, this leaves us with 2 possibilities. First is that RBR system is still legal and differs in some way from the Lotus system. If this is the case, RBR will continue to dominate. If not, then the Lotus system is virtually identical to the RBR and although initially deemed legal by the FIA, they now decide to remove it from everyone. Lets not forget that the FIA like to control the power in F1 after all Not long ago they wanted a German champ to capture the support of the lucrative German market and their two motoring bodies. Then we have the grace and favour system that benefited Ferrari for many years. It could be that with the incredible money that Red Bull invest across motorsport they were quite happy to give them a leg up.

[wedge]

But are you sure that it was his decision? Being a technical matter, I can't see a reason why Whiting would have a say on that.

He's the 'go to' man and it was his fault trying to clumsily ban trick exhausts mid-2011.

I think if I was Renault (Lotus) I would be considering legal action against the governing body at this stage.

Daft. This idea is spreading across forums like wildfire.

It's in the nature of the sport that things will get banned whether you like it or not. In 2009 Ferrari were of the assumption that double decker diffusers would be banned and never developed the idea further but when it became legal they were mocked for behaving like cry babies. Lotus would be no different. Have some respect on the ruling then move on and find the next engineering X factor.

Its pretty obvious this device was in effect a moveable aerodynamic device, but why did they ok it in the first place? Unless the teams involved hid its true potential advantage of course.

Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

It's not any old anti-dive system its a reactive ride height system. Anti-dive slows down the diving process of braking but also it affects ride height. If you can some way control ride height then you have reactive ride height system and therefore influence the aerodynamics.

The FIA believed that because the systems relied on changes being made to the length of the suspension member as well as unusual movement of the brake calipers - and these alterations helped the aerodynamics of the car – that they were in breach of Article 3.15 of F1's Technical Regulations, which effectively bans moveable aerodynamic devices.

The article states that any part that influences aerodynamic performance "must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)" and "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.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.
We have also seen Lotus (nee LRGP) use torque reaction from the front brake callipers to extend the pushrod under braking, creating an anti-dive effect and prevent the nose dipping under braking.



Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1

[zako85]

Banning a system after some teams, who were likely assured of its legality previously, had spent months developing is absurd. I am not questioning whether active suspension is good or bad. What's questionable is that this innovation is banned so late. This indeed reminds the situation with blown diffusers in mid 2011.