2012 F1 Mechanics: designs and pieces that will win WDC & WCC

[prisonermonkeys]

Ferrari already have a reactive ride-height system (RRH) for their 2012 car:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96971

But they failed their first crash tests (and will try again next week):

http://www.f1reports.com/f1/article/13894/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Meanwhile, Stefano Domenicali says the 2012 is not pretty:

http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/67736.html

 

[RodrigoDLL]

That's kind of my point - how long do you think it would take someone like Adrian Newey to see the idea, understand the way it works, adapt his own version of it and get it onto the Red Bull RB8? When double-deck diffusers were introduced in 2009, Newey was able to redesign the RB5 to accomodate a DDD in the space of two months - the diffusers were declared legal in Australia, and Red Bull had one at Monaco without losing a shred of speed, which is no mean feat considering that the entire car is built around the diffuser and Newey had to reconfigure the entire rear suspension assembly and gearbox to accomodate it.

And even so, they lost the championship baiscally because of that technology... event copying it by Monaco, they were already miles behind Brawn.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

The difference is between having the technology, and understanding it... The other teams can integrate the technology before the season starts now, but if Lotus have been developing and testing the system as early as January 2011 then they are a year ahead still. Plus they have run the system on track once already so have real data that the other teams will be missing until February.

Come March, this independent system will be bested by Lotus but if the other teams have lesser versions of it on their cars also it will certainly peg back the overall gain Lotus hoped. A few more races down the line and you can start to imagine other teams taking a lead on these systems, and before the season is over the system will be illegal.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And even so, they lost the championship baiscally because of that technology... event copying it by Monaco, they were already miles behind Brawn.

I'd argue that they lost the championship because Webber and Vettel were too busy taking points off one another. Jenson Button could have been caught with ease in 2009, because Brawn introduced a bad upgrade after Turkey and then basically ran out of money. If Red Bull had backed on of their drivers to win, they could have easily taken both titles.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Actually as I recall there were a string of bad pit calls in 2009 that hurt red bull at the end of the day along with certain technical problems.

Thanks PM for updating the thread.

Also a noted mention that Ferrari have hired a tire engineer. Which will probably help them with the ride height device this year and the tire wear issues they had last year.

 

[F1 fan]

Also a noted mention that Ferrari have hired a tire engineer. Which will probably help them with the ride height device this year and the tire wear issues they had last year.

Not just any tire engineer. They hired former Bridgestone director Hirohide Hamashima. Very bold move from Ferrari there. May cause the other teams to kick themselves.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not just any tire engineer. They hired former Bridgestone director Hirohide Hamashima. Very bold move from Ferrari there. May cause the other teams to kick themselves.

You're right it isn't just any Tire Engineer, and I have to say this is one of the smartest moves I've seen Ferrari make in a long time. Next to picking up Alonso.

 

[gorsad]

(Second Link)I've seen that front nose hole on the front of the ferrari too, I doubt it does the same thing though.

 

[Owen.C93]

(Second Link)I've seen that front nose hole on the front of the ferrari too, I doubt it does the same thing though.

All cars have a cooling hole on the nose.

 

[gorsad]

Shows you how much of an idiot I am.

 

[Seismica]

The FIA have banned the device pioneered by Lotus that stabilises the ride height under braking:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97127

Come on... I was against it but if you've already deemed it legal don't go and change your mind after every team has assigned resources to develop it, they should have deemed it illegal from day one or let it stand.

Now Lotus will have designed the aerodynamics based on the ability to maintain a stable front end under braking, so now their entire design and car balance is compromised because they won't have time to change it now intime for testing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The FIA have banned the device pioneered by Lotus that stabilises the ride height under braking:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97127

Come on... I was against it but if you've already deemed it legal don't go and change your mind after every team has assigned resources to develop it, they should have deemed it illegal from day one or let it stand.

Now Lotus will have designed the aerodynamics based on the ability to maintain a stable front end under braking, so now their entire design and car balance is compromised because they won't have time to change it now intime for testing.

That was quite stupid of the FIA, it wasn't active it was reactive their rule states that no active aerodynamic parts should be used.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Just read about it as well. The guys at the FIA sure need more consistency in their decisions. In a time of cost savings, giving the green light for one device (or kind of device) only to switch to red when the teams are already working on it or at least studying it is unwise.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just read about it as well. The guys at the FIA sure need more consistency in their decisions. In a time of cost savings, giving the green light for one device (or kind of device) only to switch to red when the teams are already working on it or at least studying it is unwise.

My bigger question is, why do they limit new devices. You're right, they're in a cost saving situation and rather than allow for advancements or innovation like F1 is known for they strictly limit them. Double Decker Diffuser, Shark Fin, F-Duct, off throttle, etc. and now reactive ride height all banned and just in the past three years. Then you have no freedom of engine development or anything else now really, so why not make F1 a one make.

 

[Ardius]

Now Lotus will have designed the aerodynamics based on the ability to maintain a stable front end under braking, so now their entire design and car balance is compromised because they won't have time to change it now intime for testing.

I'm not an aerodynamcist, but I don't think it requires that much adjustment that it would change the aerodynamic design drastically. Maybe I'm completely wrong but lets put it this way - do they design the aerodynamics around the car's movement under braking? I don't think so.

Just read about it as well. The guys at the FIA sure need more consistency in their decisions. In a time of cost savings, giving the green light for one device (or kind of device) only to switch to red when the teams are already working on it or at least studying it is unwise.

More like the FIA gave "initial approval". But then a team (considered to be Williams) read the regulations more thoroughly and noted that it contravened with the regulation about no suspension adjustment while moving.

This is not the FIA banning it. This is a rival team complaining because it doesn't meet the rule book.

You could say Lotus and Ferrari were foolish for either not reading the rules carefully enough or for assuming that their device would pass.

My bigger question is, why do they limit new devices. You're right, they're in a cost saving situation and rather than allow for advancements or innovation like F1 is known for they strictly limit them. Double Decker Diffuser, Shark Fin, F-Duct, off throttle, etc. and now reactive ride height all banned and just in the past three years. Then you have no freedom of engine development or anything else now really, so why not make F1 a one make.

Double Diffusers = banned because they were an un-intentional loophole in the regulations. They weren't really "innovative" anyway seeing as they'd been around a decade before in sportscars.
Shark Fin = banned presumably for aesthetic reasons.
F-Duct = banned partly because it was a driver-adjusted device and it was getting out of control (watch Alonso driving one handed!) but also because DRS was introduced which is the same effect.
Off throttle = banned because it was difficult and expensive for some teams to develop. Maybe banned due to the horrible noise it made too.

I don't think any of these were unreasonable, Shark fins weren't really anything particularly innovate or amazing.

The problem with allowing innovation and open-regulation is that costs spiral out of control and you can inevitably end up with one team dominating. But at the same time, what makes F1 what it is, is that innovation, technology and the whole idea that each team has design and build their own car.
I think the FIA could do a better job at keeping costs in control while keeping more open regulations but I can understand that its a difficult if not impossible job.

 

[RTSolvalou]

<removed>

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You could say Lotus and Ferrari were foolish for either not reading the rules carefully enough or for assuming that their device would pass.

And let's be brutally honest on this one - does anybody really believe that Lotus were up-front about it when they first asked the FIA about it in 2010? I know there's a culture of blame going on that makes it seem like the FIA always make the wrong decision, but let's just step back for a minute here:

Last year, the big technical issue was the use of off-throttle blown diffusers. The FIA wanted to ban them, and they needed the teams' agreement on the subject. Which they got, because extreme qualifying engine maps were banned in Valencia, and a total ban was introduced for Silverstone. But then the British Grand Prix weekend saw furore over all the dispensations and exemptions that teams had been given. They all claimed that their engines needed to run at certain levels, or else they would risk damaging them and nobody would have any engines left by the end of the season. The FIA took criticism for trying to intorduce a mid-season ban and then giving those dispensations, but I think we all know that the first thing every team did after agreeing to the ban was the plough through the rule book and the proposed amendments and their engine data, looking for a way to retain as much of an advantage as they possibly could. They had no intentions of observing the OTBD ban - they just wanted everyone else to lose an advantage.

I suspect that what has happened here is that Lotus approached the FIA about a reactive ride-height stabiliser two years ago, and originally intended to run it in 2011. But then Robert Kubica had his accident and the team was without their star player, so they decided to push it back until 2012 in the hopes that Kubica might be ready, but then they got Raikkonen and figured he was just as good. I can't help but think that they felt they were onto something, and so didn't tell the FIA up-front what they were intending - but rather, they gave the FIA just enough information to satisfy them, but not so much that they spared no gory detail.

 

[Blaze_409]

This is the second year in a row that Lotus Renault gets absolutely screwed over by an indecisive FIA. This is getting ridiculous. REAL Money is at stake here so I dont think the FIA should lolly about jeopardizing a teams entire season. The FIA(and Kubica) as a combo effectively destroyed Lotus Renault's chances of being competitive last year....Now this.I hope that they can recover..When will the FIA learn? Renault used to be a team that was running in front of Mercedes then they introduced the rule change after allowing it and suddenly the next year they where mid to rear pack and struggling. Those postions in the WCC are costly for year end payout.

 

[gorsad]

My bigger question is, why do they limit new devices. You're right, they're in a cost saving situation and rather than allow for advancements or innovation like F1 is known for they strictly limit them. Double Decker Diffuser, Shark Fin, F-Duct, off throttle, etc. and now reactive ride height all banned and just in the past three years. Then you have no freedom of engine development or anything else now really, so why not make F1 a one make.

I kinda agree with this, F1 is about constructing cars and every time someone comes up with something innovative (in my opinion) it gets shot down. But like prisonermonkeys said, you'd end up with one team dominating.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is the second year in a row that Lotus Renault gets absolutely screwed over by an indecisive FIA.

As Ardius points out, this does not appear to be an FIA backflip. Rather, it seems that some of the teams have started investigating the RRH and found that it is in violation of the technical regulations, and demonstrated it to the FIA. In which case, it's Lotus' problem, not the FIA;s.

 

[Ardius]

And let's be brutally honest on this one - does anybody really believe that Lotus were up-front about it when they first asked the FIA about it in 2010?

Indeed, the teams always try to bend the rules or ignore them altogether where possible. I think this is a pretty straight-forward case of Lotus simply not sticking to the rules. How anyone can bemoan the FIA for enforcing their own regulations I don't know, though people have a point about perhaps the regulations being a little too strict at times.

I think I'll just blame Autosport for running the misleading headline (or at least, a headline which inevitably leads to "OMG FIA ban everything" type comments.).
That said, the BBC article is even worse:
"Lotus & Ferrari innovation banned

Formula 1 teams Ferrari and Lotus have their new ride-height control system banned by the FIA because it improves aerodynamics. "
No Mr Benson, its not "because it improves aerodynamics".

All this demonstates quite well that the technical side of the sport is woefully covered by popular media.

 

[Seismica]

I'm not an aerodynamcist, but I don't think it requires that much adjustment that it would change the aerodynamic design drastically. Maybe I'm completely wrong but lets put it this way - do they design the aerodynamics around the car's movement under braking? I don't think so.

Whilst it won't have a huge effect, the car will have been designed around a different front ride height. As the ride height at the front remains stable, there is less weight transfer which means they can afford to run it lower without stiffening the suspension setup which would negatively effect their handling in the high speed corners, or at least that is one possibility. When the car breaks and the angle of attack of the front wing changes, the air becomes turbulent sooner which affects the downforce that the car produces at the front end and possibly on all parts of the car; teams will have designed their cars to minimise this effect under braking as much as possible without hurting the car's aerodynamics when not under braking (Though I agree, they certainly don't design the car around this aspect, but it is a factor, if only a small one - which Lotus won't have considered).

Now that I think about it, some small tweaks to the front wing could be enough to offset the loss in performance from losing this system, and testing hasn't even started yet so the only data they have really is from the young drivers test, to at least the FIA didn't wait until halfway through the season to ban it, they have some sense.

And let's be brutally honest on this one - does anybody really believe that Lotus were up-front about it when they first asked the FIA about it in 2010? I know there's a culture of blame going on that makes it seem like the FIA always make the wrong decision, but let's just step back for a minute here:

You would have thought that the people at the FIA would have the technical expertise to deduce what such a system would be used for. But I guess if the people at the FIA were that smart they would be designing cars themselves

As Ardius points out, this does not appear to be an FIA backflip. Rather, it seems that some of the teams have started investigating the RRH and found that it is in violation of the technical regulations, and demonstrated it to the FIA. In which case, it's Lotus' problem, not the FIA;s.

I hear it broke the regulations because it was a system that changed ride height... but I believe it's purpose was to maintain the ride height rather than change it, hence why it was deemed legal in the first place.

That said, the BBC article is even worse:
"Lotus & Ferrari innovation banned

Formula 1 teams Ferrari and Lotus have their new ride-height control system banned by the FIA because it improves aerodynamics. "
No Mr Benson, its not "because it improves aerodynamics".

I don't even bother with the BBC F1 site anymore. They're always late with announcements, they're partial and there is very little substance in the news stories past the first line. That said, the gossip column there is good, but that's because it links to other sites.

I don't believe the primary function of this device is aerodynamic performance. Keeping the ride height stable can help limit undesirable weight transfer and I believe this is the primary function; the effect on aerodynamics is just a result of this. I bet we'll see a similar device used in sports car racing in the future, where aerodynamic performance is not as significant. So if that is the reason for the ban (And that is a big if, the BBC isn't a reliable source on technical aspects) then I think the FIA have got it wrong.

 

[Ardius]

No, its been deemed illegal because of this regulation:

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

I also believe that Lotus knew full well of this regulation and were hoping to get it through un-noticed. Apparently the "initial approval" that they were supposedly given was from Mr Charlie Whiting who has demonstrated in the past that he can only give a personal opinion - not a prediction or a authorisation of the FIA. Someone else on another forum put it like going talking to a lawyer - he can give an opinion but its not binding.

Problem is, the other teams started to look at it and the ones that either didn't understand it or didn't wish to spend the money on it simply took one look at the rule book and complained to the FIA.

Whether the FIA needs to be more pro-active in enforcing the regulations is a valid argument. But so far the FIA has been relatively consistent in this area in that they have maintained a "only ban it if other teams complain" attitude. The same happened with double diffusers and the blown diffusers, FIA ok'd it and then other teams complained, prompting them to then consider banning it and then eventually banning it in future regulations.

Its just this time its all happened way before the season has started, presumably because the other teams caught wind of it much earlier.

 

[Seismica]

No, its been deemed illegal because of this regulation:

10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.

I also believe that Lotus knew full well of this regulation and were hoping to get it through un-noticed. Apparently the "initial approval" that they were supposedly given was from Mr Charlie Whiting who has demonstrated in the past that he can only give a personal opinion - not a prediction or a authorisation of the FIA. Someone else on another forum put it like going talking to a lawyer - he can give an opinion but its not binding.

Problem is, the other teams started to look at it and the ones that either didn't understand it or didn't wish to spend the money on it simply took one look at the rule book and complained to the FIA.

Whether the FIA needs to be more pro-active in enforcing the regulations is a valid argument. But so far the FIA has been relatively consistent in this area in that they have maintained a "only ban it if other teams complain" attitude. The same happened with double diffusers and the blown diffusers, FIA ok'd it and then other teams complained, prompting them to then consider banning it and then eventually banning it in future regulations.

Its just this time its all happened way before the season has started, presumably because the other teams caught wind of it much earlier.

I see, well I guess that is pretty conclusive 👍. I think perhaps they tried to pass it off as a new part of the suspension rather than a system designed to adjust the suspension when they got initial approval. I hate it when the FIA stifle innovation, but if it's blatantly against the rules then theres really no other course of action.

 

[Alex.]

God forbid the cars actually go faster, or use some new technology.

 

[hawkeye122]

Exactly. My number one gripe about F1 is that theres still track records from 2001-2004. Its all in the car. Today's cars should be at least as fast as yesterdays, if not faster.

 

[F1 fan]

The FIA(and Kubica) as a combo effectively destroyed Lotus Renault's chances of being competitive last year

Is my mind drawing a blank here? What exactly did the FIA do to "destroy" LRGP's chances last year? From memory, I can't think of anything solely related to their car that was banned. And what's with everyone thinking that losing Kubica was bigger than it was? Sure, Kubica was a great driver on great form at the end of 2010, but this is also the same man who was beaten by Heidfeld in two of their three seasons as teammates.

If anything, he would have been marginally more competitive than Heidfeld, but some people seem to believe that he would have been fighting for race wins in that car. He wouldn't.

Hell, just after his accident, people were claiming it was "his year" before they had even seen the car's race pace.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think I'll just blame Autosport for running the misleading headline (or at least, a headline which inevitably leads to "OMG FIA ban everything" type comments.).

I don't think people are upset that the FIA banned the RRH. Going by some of the comments on blogs like F1 Fanatic, people are upset that the FIA has done a backflip. A little over a week ago, they said they were satisfied with it. Now they've just banned it. No explanation for this ban has been given to the public, and that's why people are upset - they see it as inconsistency within the FIA. I'm pretty sure the FIA has a reason for everything they do (a reason other than "we dropped acid"), but because there's no transparency, it makes every decision look completely arbitrary. If the FIA banned the RRH and said why they were doing it (instead of leaving us to work it out for ourselves), there would probably be a lot less in the way of abuse directed at them.

You would have thought that the people at the FIA would have the technical expertise to deduce what such a system would be used for. But I guess if the people at the FIA were that smart they would be designing cars themselves.

Yes, they would be. There is more money in finding loopholes in the regulations that there is in closing them.

 

[Blaze_409]

Is my mind drawing a blank here? What exactly did the FIA do to "destroy" LRGP's chances last year? From memory, I can't think of anything solely related to their car that was banned. And what's with everyone thinking that losing Kubica was bigger than it was? Sure, Kubica was a great driver on great form at the end of 2010, but this is also the same man who was beaten by Heidfeld in two of their three seasons as teammates.

If anything, he would have been marginally more competitive than Heidfeld, but some people seem to believe that he would have been fighting for race wins in that car. He wouldn't.

Hell, just after his accident, people were claiming it was "his year" before they had even seen the car's race pace.

Yes your hugely underating Robert Kubica....

.Kubica was Not the "same man" that lost to .(why do people think that drivers have no ability to change??????????????????) same ludicrous statements said by PaulDi Resta stating that because he beat vettel prior to F1 he could beat him in the red bull.........

Kubica is miles above heidfeld ever was....this is the Kubica that won the Canadian gp, pole in bahrain, 7th place on debut, podium in 3rd ever F1 race. Dragged the renault to second place at Monaco.......lotus Renault would have been a lot better off if Kubica had raced with them. Kubica is extremely talented, Alonso even said it himself.....you don't really think nick heidfeld is in he same league as Kubica?? Championship tables do not tell the story and thats pretty lame to bring that up.

For example alguersuari beat Buemi in the championship standings but Buemi had way too much bad luck breakdowns etc...

Kubica out qualified heidfeld on a regular basis.....

 

[hawkeye122]

Kubica won Canada because of a fiasco in the pits. I know that because that was the first F1 race I ever watched.

He was good, but look at Massa. Massa was vying for a WDC until he had a crash through no fault of his own. At this point, I think Kubica is a bit of a Liability...