Printable View
Why they handled the Michelin tires, the Mass dampers and the Ferrari floor as they did:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877
A very interesting part was the one where they name a few of the teams that had to change their floors after Melbourne:
Nice to see McLaren being one of them. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by autosport.com
Never heard Ron Dennis mentioning that when he was throwing mud at Ferrari. :D
I don't think there ought to be any doubt about the legality of the floor at the time of the Australian GP.
mac probably figured their device was sufficiently different therefore legal or perhaps undectable...little did they know they might change the actual test...... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
interesting that the stolen mac stuff had designs for devices that would have the effect of mass dampners........... :confused: and there are those who think mac's speed was merely due to ferrari gas pressure in tires and rpms....... :eek:
There was not in the view of many, but then we had a certain Ron Dennis saying it was "illegal", and many forumers around here supporting that view.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Now I would love to see those persons saying that McLaren's floor at Australia was illegal, but I guess it won't happen ;)
Indeed, and I always felt (and said at the time) that it did his case for the defence down.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
I will be that person, if anyone fancies a civilised debate with reference to the Tech Regs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
McLaren's moveable floors were illegal! I suspect they would come under moveable ballast.
So then you are in possession of McLaren and RedBull documents explaining the flexibility of their floors at Melbourne? You can verify that they met the tests that you complain that Ferrari did not meet?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Maybe they met the tests at the time because there were no tests at the time. Maybe the Ferrari floor moved backwards and forwards as well as up and down. I don't know!! Does anyone here know?Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
Of course not. But we know that uncle Ron said that it was illegal in Melbourne. He just forgot to mention that they also had to change theirs. But no, of course, theirs was not illegal :rolleyes: ;) :D
McLaren went on to argue that this was something they had 'thought of themselves'. ho hum.....
Can you say any more about the McLaren floor design? I have never seen anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
My understanding of the Ferrari floor is that it was fixed at the rear edge, though able to hinge, and at the front edge was fixed by springs with preload. At speed the front of the floor would be pulled down by the airstream, and run closer to the track surface. Any more to add, anyone?
No, I have not seen any diagrams or photos of any of the devices, just various descriptions of how it might work, but it would seem to me that there would be a number of different ways to accomplish the same thing, such that the ferrari "device" and the mac "device" would be completely different in design and operation, yet produce the same result of the floor moving down at speedQuote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
hence the mac hope might have well been to have the FIA rule the ferrari device to be outside the rules, but in the absence of knowledge as to the mac device and how it worked, would not have bothered with the mac device.
However, when the test was changed, must be that mac, red bull and ferrari "got caught with their floors down" and so changes to all three cars were made..................as basically the ferrari design managed to pass the original test without a problem, but the new test/specification in the regs would not permit it to pass, and probably the same was true of the red bull and mac floors as well in that they could also pass the old test but not the new one......
Will wonders never cease. I agree with markabilly on something!
Sorry I will be more careful in the future......Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:
1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing
because previous attempts showed that many don't understand this.
PS: =/= means "different".
OK that is a good start. I hope a lot of people will take part, to help agree the meaning of the key words. Could I beg you to read this post thoroughly if you are going to reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The regs are here... http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html
Each year's regs are in a separate file, and the changes are highlighted.
There are three clauses that apply, unless anyone knows different...
I have bolded the key words.
2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- 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.
3.17 Bodywork flexibility:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when etc etc. The details of the load/deflection tests are not important.
3.17.6 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are
respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further
oad/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
This clause was added between 2005 and 2007, I am not sure exactly when.
I will do a new post with my interpretation of these regs.
So, for me...
2.4 means cars must comply with all clauses, ie. both 3.15 and 3.17, in parc ferme and at speed on the track.
3.15 means the floor must be "rigidly mounted" to the chassis.
and must "remain immobile" in relation to it.
3.17.6 refers back to 3.15, but it is a test of "bodywork flexibility" - bending of the part itself - not of the mounting rigidity. (Even if this clause applied at Melbourne 07, which I am not quite sure about).
The spring mounting cannot be considered "rigid" or "immobile". Movement is intrinsic to a spring, and you would only use one in order to allow movement. Otherwise you would use a bolt or bonding. The floor was designed to move, and therefore deliberately contravened the regs.
The springs were visible, at least from the side or below, so a car with a sprung floor should have failed scrutineering.
Spanner, works and in.........Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
What if Ferrari can demonstrate the spring only allowed the floor to move/flex by 5mm?
I still think it was/is illegal, but allaya (abe?) are making some good arguments for each perspective...
We really do not have the deatils to really know how it worked. And Max says similar devices on the other two, but we really do not know what similar actually means. The quote:
"This device fully satisfied the tests which were in place up to and including the Australian Grand Prix. It was therefore completely legal at that event.
"On learning how the device functioned, the FIA concluded that although it complied with the letter of the rules, it was outside the spirit. Ferrari were therefore asked to modify it as were McLaren and Red Bull who were running similar devices."
Now what is similar devices? Similar in terms that they permitted flex or lowering of the floor at speed? Otherwise completely different?
what he says is the test was changed or revised, and as a result, the three teams had a floor problem. The Mac design could have been totally different, may not have lowered as much, may not have relied on springs, the floor and bonding may have used some special composite material that flexed/deflected at speed (just like the wings that were flattening and lowering themselves closer to the ground due to flex and aero loading from speed).......
there has never really been much of an explanation for how the ferrari floor actually operated, and its design details. Same for the Mac and RB floors.
So one can not really say much that really matters as to whetehr the floor was actually sprung or violated some letter of the regulation, until one has far more evdience about all three devices. Otherwise this stuff is just speculation of no meaning....
I would imagine that Ferrari would say that the springs acted as dampers or limiters on the flexing of the floor. From the drawings I have seen, that is entirely plausible since you wouldn't want the floor to deflect too much and dig into the track. I'm not sure if the McLaren or RedBull designs used springs since I haven't heard much about their designs.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
I doubt the scrutineers would fail the car just because it had springs present when it still passed the (then current) prescribed tests. The only basis they would have to disqualify a car is if it failed the test that was used at the time. That would make the device illegal.
And here, ye folks in the FIA is the route of your problems. Until you 'learn' how ALL devices work at the design stage, and work on a sign off basis (yes you may need more staff) you will forever be chasing your tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
What bothers me though about that quote from mad maxy, is that according to NS, the FIA had been alerted to its function and basic design by him, in his role at the time. It seems that Ferraris nonchalent attitude towards the letter and spirit of the rules, and how they ignored NS in all this is likely why he turned to the dark side. (IMHO, of course).
You mean you'll finally understand what you didn't understand a few weeks ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
That a part that is rigidly attached to the car's body at least at one point can't move anymore, just flex?!
As you see I'm doing just that!Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
That's obvious and the deflecting floors were certainly within that, it means that when subjected to the same load as prescribed in the tests the floors were flexing by no more than the prescribed tolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
At higher loads the deflection was of course bigger and at smaller ones was smaller. Elementary my dear Watson.
And the floors were just fine with this, were rigidly secured to the unsprung part of the car, which in turn means they had no degree of freedom = could not move anymore, so they were immobile.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
The details of the tests are important, as there is described the exact way of testing and the loads that are used for testing, loads that would show if the part flexes more than 5 mm. We all know that al the floors passed the tests. So there was no breach of the regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
And so they did change the testing procedures and loads twice this season, because they were being outsmarted by the team's engineers.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Thanks for posting the regs! ;)
Regardless of the relative technical merits of the situations the bit I find interesting is the fact the FIA/Max has felt need to respond in a pretty strong (and personal) way to the recent comments by both Hill and Stewart. It isn't something they typically would have done in the past.
I found a post in the Atlas-F1 forum that reminded me of the cross-examination by Ferrari's lawyer of Paddy Lowe, in the second WMSC hearing, where the McLaren system was described as having a pre-buckled stay (http://press.fiacommunications.com/w...3-09-2007a.pdf).
Ferrari's system is described as having springs, and the poster said it included a mass damper system. However McLaren's system was designed to be rigid up to a threshold, then it would allow the floor to drop.
I don't see that the McLaren system can be "rigidly attached" or "immobile" while at speed on the track. So now I don't think it's a Macca vs. Ferrari issue, but a puzzle why the FIA and/or the teams allowed either of them to get as far as turning up for a race. I thought with this kind of innovation the teams always check it with the FIA first. If they did, I don't see how the FIA could have approved it.
You have not grasped the key aspect. 3.17 is not an exhaustive test of compliance with 3.15. Otherwise 3.15 would not have been written, would it? They had to comply with 3.15 and 3.17.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
You don't understand the words you are using, or you are trying to redefine them to suit your argument. "move" does not mean only to separate itself in its entirely and be free to go off to some other space. It includes going from one position to another. If one end moves, it moves. Flexing is bending, not being hinged. Something attached only at one end by a hinge is not "rigidly" attached, and something rotating about one end is not "immobile".
No, it seems Max is getting (even) more aggressive in his old age. I think he may be in some trouble now, the choice for the FIA between losing Renault and being obviously unfair is the result of Max's vendetta against Ron. The FIA members might finally start to wonder if their strong leader is a bit too strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Spanner
Lets just 'consider the evidence'.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Unless I am very much mistaken, Renault are in the position McLaren were in before the new evidence from the Italian rozzers investigation came to light.
Namely, It would be entirely justified if the verdict against Renault were the same as the original McLaren verdict - that is that yes, they were caught with their pants down, but insufficient evidence would appear to exist to warrant the apportioning of a fiscal penalty.
Of course, if more info comes to light, and the FIA certainly would need to satisfy itself that the 2008 Renault blah blah blah (you get the picture).
So, Renault might just be off the hook.......
Excuse me while I correct myself :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I think Renault are actually in a bit of a pickle, because it CAN be demonstrated that multiple senior employees within the Regie were party to viewing of the data, and it DID exist on their IT system.
Oops. Now get out of that Max. Talk about making your bed, then having to go sleep in it. This could potentially spell the end for Max if he cannot play fair with the verdict - because........
If he does, and the Reggie are out of the '07 constructors, and get a (proportionate to wealth) fine, I cannot see them sticking around.
If he does not do the above (assume it is the only equitable solution), his position as head of the FIA will likely be untenable.
Thanks for proving that I was right no to debate this from the beginning, and I will not debate with you any further because as I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Have a nice "debate".Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Max's performance is going to be well worth watching! Better than some of the races...Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Renault also claim that they notified the FIA, something which Mclaren did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
That alone might well result in a less harsh verdict.
At the moment, my personal take on this is that Renault will get the same verdict as Mclaren got first time round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Originally Posted by ioan http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...s/viewpost.gif
Good to see a "technical" debate on the forum again.
I will however take part in it only when those willing to discuss it will know that:
1. rigidly fixed =/= hinged
2. moving =/= flexing
But ioan, we agree...
Something that is hinged is not rigidly fixed
A test of flexion is not necessarily a test of movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Who gives a flex! :p :
So, you would agree that the front and rear wings also flex/bend and are therefore not immobile? Are they then illegal devices? What about barge boards, winglets, etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
Wing flexion is specified explicitly in 3.17. The point about the floor is the mounting, rather than flexion of the floor itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
This is the thing. 3.15 is about the mounting, 3.17 is about flexion of the body part itself.
Well yes, fair comment in a sense, but the issue is whether the FIA applies its written set of rules, or alters and ignores them for expediency or to suit its favourites as it goes along.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I'm not 100% sure, but the way I understand the construction of the flexible part of the floor is that it is an extension of the main monocoque floor with the rear of the flexible part being and integral part of the main floor. The springs are located near the front of the flexible section to damp/limit the flexing to be within the limits of flex at the original prescribed test weight. That would make the floor rigidly mounted at the rear. Only the frontmost part of the floor would flex. The design is much like a diving board where the rear is rigidly attached, but the extended end flexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeatissue
If anyone has more precise data on the actual configuration of the design, please share it with us all.
You are right on there. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Some people around here are still insisting, for whatever reasons they might have, about it being hinged and so on.
I think that they should take a look at how the under-body of an F1 car actually looks, before posting.
How was the spring mounted system on the floor extension or the chassis?
Does anyone know?
IMO if it's somehow rigidly attached at the ends to the extension/chassis, I would call it legal, but if it uses pivots at either end of the spring it could be considered illegal.