The Axis of Max's

[passmeatissue]

Another dastardly conspiracy item (I expect it's been covered before but I can't find a match on my search)...

Clause 3.15 of the tech regs (http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html) says "... any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

That excludes the wheel trims, then? You would think.

Except that the Ferrari 'front rim shields', according to formula1.com, have this influence on aerodynamic performance..."the hot air accelerates the airflow underneath the car, hence helping with the extraction of air via the diffuser. This provides additional downforce, better stability and an improved aero balance" (http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2007/778/444.html).

One possible explanation is that it's Ferrari International Assistance running the sport; any other offers?

[Tazio]

Another dastardly conspiracy item (I expect it's been covered before but I can't find a match on my search)...

Clause 3.15 of the tech regs (http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html) says "... any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

That excludes the wheel trims, then? You would think.

Except that the Ferrari 'front rim shields', according to formula1.com, have this influence on aerodynamic performance..."the hot air accelerates the airflow underneath the car, hence helping with the extraction of air via the diffuser. This provides additional downforce, better stability and an improved aero balance" (http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2007/778/444.html).

One possible explanation is that it's Ferrari International Assistance running the sport; any other offers?
Ha!

[Sleeper]

Ferrari get around this with a rather intricate way of connecting them to the brake ducts.

[passmeatissue]

Still, that doesn't help in theory, does it? Clause 11.4 covers air duct size and location but nothing there to exempt brake ducts from the provision that "any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance" etc. Same as the wishbones which can't be aerofoils.

[ioan]

Ha ha ha!

:laugh:

:rotflmao:

[Hawkmoon]

Another dastardly conspiracy item (I expect it's been covered before but I can't find a match on my search)...

Clause 3.15 of the tech regs (http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html) says "... any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

That excludes the wheel trims, then? You would think.

Except that the Ferrari 'front rim shields', according to formula1.com, have this influence on aerodynamic performance..."the hot air accelerates the airflow underneath the car, hence helping with the extraction of air via the diffuser. This provides additional downforce, better stability and an improved aero balance" (http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2007/778/444.html).

One possible explanation is that it's Ferrari International Assistance running the sport; any other offers?

Leave it alone mate, we've been here before. The device is legal. Always has been. Other teams have copied it and it wouldn't be surprising to see it become a standard bit of kit on all cars before long.

Nothing to see hear. Go about your business.

[wmcot]

Please show me ANY part on a modern F1 car that is so rigid that it has NO DEGREE OF FREEDOM.

(Did you ever notice airplane wings? They flex in flight - that keeps them from snapping off! The same goes for any part on an F1 car.)

[Dave B]

The assemblies have been declared legal, so there's nothing to talk about.

They're butt ugly, though... :p

[Mark]

Quite, if the other teams want to run them, there is nothing stopping them.

Personally I think they should be banned on aesthetic grounds, just like the Tyrrell X wings :D

[JovialJooles]

They're butt ugly, though... :p

Fits in with the rest of a modern F1 car then... ;)

[passmeatissue]

Leave it alone mate, we've been here before. The device is legal. Always has been. Other teams have copied it and it wouldn't be surprising to see it become a standard bit of kit on all cars before long.

Nothing to see hear. Go about your business.

It's clear in the title what kind of thread this is, not suitable for Ferrari fanboys, so if it's not for you, fair enough, simply dont read it :p .

wmcot, everything has a tolerance yes. It doesn't mean all measurement is futile or there's no difference between sprung and unsprung parts of a car.

The advantage for Ferrari is the time it takes the other teams to catch up. It's an extremely complicated device that is critical in pitstops, probably several months' work. So they get the benefit for half a season.

And, obviously The Axis doesn't care what Toyota has, but what if a front-running team comes up with a better one? Which as a second generation is quite possible. Since it doesn't comply with the written rules, it can be suddenly banned, like the mass damper that Ferrari didn't have time to get working (as I understood it, that was banned partly because the development of it that Ron asked to be allowed to use would have been even more effective). So a team could make a big development effort, design the aero with the wheel trims, then have it taken away part way through the season.

It comes back to the issue that comes up time and again, that the rules are not applied consistently. Or in this case, as far as anyone has found so far, applied at all.

[ioan]

Since it doesn't comply with the written rules, it can be suddenly banned, like the mass damper that Ferrari didn't have time to get working (as I understood it, that was banned partly because the development of it that Ron asked to be allowed to use would have been even more effective).

You got it wrong there, no surprise however. :p :
Ron did simply question the Renault and Ferrari MDS because McLaren couldn't get theirs to work as it should.

[BDunnell]

You got it wrong there, no surprise however. :p :
Ron did simply question the Renault and Ferrari MDS because McLaren couldn't get theirs to work as it should.

And you have seen documentation stating that this was his motivation, have you?

[ArrowsFA1]

You got it wrong there, no surprise however. :p :
Ron did simply question the Renault and Ferrari MDS because McLaren couldn't get theirs to work as it should.
An example of some thing repeated often enough making it true, or do you have a link to back that up?

[Garry Walker]

Always nice to see yet another Ferrari basher come out of the woods and end up getting destroyed and humiliated.

[Robinho]

it struck me that the depsite looking plain ugly, the wheel covers stop us from seeing the glowing brake discs, which i've always thought looked rather fancy, and given that we have a night race coming up i'd hope that the spectacle would be increased further, so i for one hope they are banned, for aesthetic reasons if nothing else.

[BDunnell]

it struck me that the depsite looking plain ugly, the wheel covers stop us from seeing the glowing brake discs, which i've always thought looked rather fancy, and given that we have a night race coming up i'd hope that the spectacle would be increased further, so i for one hope they are banned, for aesthetic reasons if nothing else.

Very good point!

A lot of people wouldn't believe it if it was given as a justification, though, because it seems that taking things in F1 at face value nowadays is increasingly unacceptable... ;)

[Malbec]

The advantage for Ferrari is the time it takes the other teams to catch up. It's an extremely complicated device that is critical in pitstops, probably several months' work. So they get the benefit for half a season.

And, obviously The Axis doesn't care what Toyota has, but what if a front-running team comes up with a better one? Which as a second generation is quite possible. Since it doesn't comply with the written rules, it can be suddenly banned, like the mass damper that Ferrari didn't have time to get working (as I understood it, that was banned partly because the development of it that Ron asked to be allowed to use would have been even more effective). So a team could make a big development effort, design the aero with the wheel trims, then have it taken away part way through the season.

It comes back to the issue that comes up time and again, that the rules are not applied consistently. Or in this case, as far as anyone has found so far, applied at all.

The same could be said of any technical innovation. Honda introduced the seamless shift gearbox three seasons ago, most other teams took a year and a half to get similar devices running and Spyker hasn't managed to at all. The FIA approved that too despite protests from some other teams including IIRC Ferrari.

Ferrari first ran a wheel trim device more than a season ago and IIRC only Toyota has a similar system running. A year is more than enough time for other teams to evaluate their own systems and adopt or discard them as required. If they haven't adopted such a simple device after this amount of time then I think its fair to say that they've decided it isn't going to provide them with an advantage.

I would agree that the technical regulations are not consistently applied and the reasoning behind banning some devices and not others doesn't appear very clear.

[passmeatissue]

Always nice to see yet another Ferrari basher come out of the woods and end up getting destroyed and humiliated.

Not to boast or anything but someone saying "HaHa" in response to my post did not destroy or humiliate me . So far the ferraristi, or even the thinking members :D , have not been able to offer any explanation for the conflict I opened the thread with. A conlict based entirely on reference to documents - one from Max, one from Bernie.

I noticed on another thread you called this one "based on lies". Please read the opening post and tell me where the lie is. Ideally, offer an explanation better than "it's legal so it's legal", which is all we've had so far.

For me the only explanation I can come up with is that a rule was made up on the hoof without reference to the written rules. The decision favoured Ferrari and with no written status the rule can be un-made at any time. That should not be happening in F1 - even from Ferrari fans' point of view, the perception of a helping hand from the FIA diminishes the team's achievements.

[ioan]

Not to boast or anything but someone saying "HaHa" in response to my post did not destroy or humiliate me . So far the ferraristi, or even the thinking members :D , have not been able to offer any explanation for the conflict I opened the thread with. A conlict based entirely on reference to documents - one from Max, one from Bernie.

And how are we suppose to intelligently argue such stupidities as the ones in the latest anti-Ferrari threads?! :rolleyes:

I honestly have some difficulties getting my cognitive processes to such low levels. :s

[janneppi]

This has been done already, and as the norm these days, it's gone downhill pretty fast.

Good show.