FRIC suspensions to be banned. Merc domination in danger?

[Hun200kmh]

According to autosport, the FIA sent a notification to all teams in which it says the suspension systems currently in use (commonly called FRIC systems) are in contravention of the rules.

Again, according to autosport, it is believed the most advanced of these systems is the one used by the Mercedes team, and is considered to be one of their main advantages (being the engine, pardon, Power Unit, the biggest of them all)

So, now, teams are faced with the imminent ban of their suspension systems - as early as Hockenheim - unless they UNANIMOUSLY agree to delay the ban until the 2015 season.


Time for Kolles to cash in? Will this upset the entire championship? This could be big I say

 

[mikeerfol]

Ι agree, it's going to be huge. Although I don't think FRIC is the only reason Merc are dominating, who knows how that will change the pecking order...

 

[Peasantslayer]

A major ban mid-season... The FIA are probably afraid of another drop in viewing figures. Having said that everyone has known about the Mercedes FRIC system for at least 2 years and I imagine it has been closely looked at by the FIA and the other teams so surely the infringements are coming from other teams, it does say "most of them are illegal".

 

[DaxCobra]

God damn this sport is so artificial. I love it so much but this sort of thing really 🤬 me off.

 

[Hun200kmh]

A major ban mid-season... The FIA are probably afraid of another drop in viewing figures. Having said that everyone has knew about the Mercedes FRIC system for at least 2 years and I imagine it has been closely looked at by the FIA and the other teams so surely the infringements are coming from other teams, it does say "most of them are illegal".

It is hard to say who will gain, but the general consensus is that Mercedes is the biggest loser. Reading here and there the picture doesn't get any clearer, but apparently Ferrari, Red Bull and Lotus all have their own FRIC systems in place. No word about Williams and McLaren. Force India, it seems, doesn't use a FRIC system (never got it to work). But to vote against their engine supplier (and what an engine it is) might prove a bad decision in the long run.

Again, I guess it'll all come down to Kolles

 

[Peasantslayer]

It should be 2015 at the earliest, some teams will have built their cars around such a system believing it was legal and then half way through the season an immediate ban.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Again, according to autosport, it is believed the most advanced of these systems is the one used by the Mercedes team, and is considered to be one of their main advantages (being the engine, pardon, Power Unit, the biggest of them all)

And according to the same article, almost all of the teams use some variation of FRIC, and every variation would be considered illegal.

 

[Hun200kmh]

And according to the same article, almost all of the teams use some variation of FRIC, and every variation would be considered illegal.

Yes, that's why almost all will lose something but what matters is that the team with the best system is the one that loses more if it gets banned.

As I said, from the midfield up the only team that apparently isn't using a FRIC suspension is Force India. Would they risk their relationship with Mercedes by voting against a delay in this ban?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I thunk you're reading way too much into it.

 

[mikeerfol]

Every team has FRIC (Even Force India but they use it on-off) but there are some teams (i.e. McLaren and Ferrari) that are really struggling with setting it up, unlike Mercedes or RBR.

@Hun200kmh I can think of a team using Mercedes power that could vote against a delay...

 

[Imari]

I'll hold judgement until they reveal exactly how they believe the suspensions are illegal, but this seems retarded. Suspension as a movable aerodynamic device? Next they'll be claiming that the accelerator is a movable aerodynamic device because although it's rigidly mounted to the chassis it still has a degree of freedom, and pressing it affects the amount of aerodynamic downforce that the car experiences.

Is anyone really going to want to race in a league in which tall poppy syndrome kicks in every time someone succeeds?

I doubt this will seriously shake up matters though, this season anyway. Mercedes have a dominant lead, even if everyone were in equal machinery for the rest of the season it would take a small miracle for anyone else to catch them.

Ironic also, that after all their talk of wanting to encourage technology that would make it onto road cars, they're looking at banning one that legitimately could make it's way onto road cars. Sports cars at the very least, and potentially luxury cars where not wallowing all over the place is desirable.

 

[hawkeye122]

If they successfully ban this, I think we'll see teams with good drivers come back to the front. McLaren have the most to gain since they have the correct engine and a good driver in Magnussen.

 

[Blitz24]

Ban it next year then, not this season.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'll hold judgement until they reveal exactly how they believe the suspensions are illegal, but this seems retarded. Suspension as a movable aerodynamic device?

The argument is that FRIC is a movable aero device because the front and rear suspension work in unison to maintain the car's ride height. It negates the effect of inertia moving the car's weight around under braking and acceleration and cornering.

I think you will find that the FIA are mostly concerned about the potential for abuse. Remember Lotus' Reactive Ride Height system? They claimed that it was just there to promote stability under braking, and that any aerodynamic gain was only a by-product of the system. The FIA found that Lotus had understated the gains, and banned it. They are probably concerned that teams will continue to develop FRIC, get massive aero gains from it, and get away with it by claiming that it is a legitimate suspension system.

 

[Blitz24]

The argument is that FRIC is a movable aero device because the front and rear suspension work in unison to maintain the car's ride height. It negates the effect of inertia moving the car's weight around under braking and acceleration and cornering.

I think you will find that the FIA are mostly concerned about the potential for abuse. Remember Lotus' Reactive Ride Height system? They claimed that it was just there to promote stability under braking, and that any aerodynamic gain was only a by-product of the system. The FIA found that Lotus had understated the gains, and banned it. They are probably concerned that teams will continue to develop FRIC, get massive aero gains from it, and get away with it by claiming that it is a legitimate suspension system.

But if everyone is using it....

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But if everyone is using it....

That's beside the point. The FIA won't want development to continue such that teams start getting massive aerodynamic gains. Everyone was using off-throttle blown diffusers, but that did not stop the FIA from banning them because of the way development was going.

 

[Blitz24]

That's beside the point. The FIA won't want development to continue such that teams start getting massive aerodynamic gains. Everyone was using off-throttle blown diffusers, but that did not stop the FIA from banning them because of the way development was going.

The issue I have with this is that it nearly sounds like a backmarker team is complaining that other teams are doing better than them and by rubbing the palms with grease, have gotten F1 to make a change to the season due to "politics".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You know we have a thread specifically for this stuff at @Hun200kmh?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...ns-to-win-the-wcc-wdc-read-first-post.291499/

 

[ShiftingGears]

If they successfully ban this, I think we'll see teams with good drivers come back to the front. McLaren have the most to gain since they have the correct engine and a good driver in Magnussen.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The issue I have with this is that it nearly sounds like a backmarker team is complaining that other teams are doing better than them and by rubbing the palms with grease, have gotten F1 to make a change to the season due to "politics".

Hi, welcome to Formula 1. We hope you enjoy your stay.

Even if a smaller team is behind this, it's unlikely that the pecking order will change much, if at all. At most, the teams might be closer together.

The FIA do investigate these claims pretty thoroughly. The memo from Charlie Whiting quoted by Autosport makes it pretty clear that they have been looking at this for quite some time now, testing every conceivable FRIC variation, and they are satisfied that it fits the definition of a movable aerodynamic device, so I think we can be confident that whoever raised the initial objection and whatever their reasons for doing so, there is at the very least a case to answer for.

 

[Imari]

The argument is that FRIC is a movable aero device because the front and rear suspension work in unison to maintain the car's ride height. It negates the effect of inertia moving the car's weight around under braking and acceleration and cornering.

Which I can understand. The thing that gets me a bit confused however, that that maintaining the ride height is kind of one of the basic functions of a suspension system. Keeping the car off the ground and stopping it from flopping around all over the place is the suspension's job.

It strikes me as entirely arbitrary to say that the suspension can do this job, and you can have the left/right sides of the suspension interacting to prevent roll, but you can't have the front/rear suspension interacting to prevent pitch.

I think you will find that the FIA are mostly concerned about the potential for abuse. Remember Lotus' Reactive Ride Height system? They claimed that it was just there to promote stability under braking, and that any aerodynamic gain was only a by-product of the system. The FIA found that Lotus had understated the gains, and banned it. They are probably concerned that teams will continue to develop FRIC, get massive aero gains from it, and get away with it by claiming that it is a legitimate suspension system.

It's a good point.

I did and do think that the banning of the reactive ride height was also arbitrary and stupid. It was a technology that followed the letter of the law whilst flagrantly violating the spirit of it, as all the best technologies do. But the logic for that decision is almost identical to the logic being put forth for the FRIC banning, so I guess it's likely to go through.

I don't think "potential for abuse" should be something taken into account for banning. The whole point of the sport is to "abuse" technology to it's utmost. I honestly don't see why it isn't a legitimate suspension system. It's an extension of a technology that has existed for decades (anti-roll bars) that they've only recently developed the ability to apply in a longitudinal fashion, in a way that is both passive and functional anyway.

Teams should continue to develop FRIC, they should get massive aero gains from it, and they should get away from claiming that it is a legitimate suspension system because it is. If the FIA wants to remove aero, they should do it by removing aero directly, not by picking off secondary systems that happen to make aero more effective as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The thing that gets me a bit confused however, that that maintaining the ride height is kind of one of the basic functions of a suspension system. Keeping the car off the ground and stopping it from flopping around all over the place is the suspension's job.

Evidently, FRIC takes that concept much further that the FIA is willing to allow. Providing stability is one thing; working to offset the natural forces of inertia is another thing entirely. It's a step short of active suspension.

I did and do think that the banning of the reactive ride height was also arbitrary and stupid. It was a technology that followed the letter of the law whilst flagrantly violating the spirit of it, as all the best technologies do.

But it wasn't a direction that the FIA wanted development to go.

Perhaps if Lotus had been much more up-front about the benefits of the RRH system, the FIA would have been much more agreeable. But what they did was, quite frankly, deception.

The whole point of the sport is to "abuse" technology to it's utmost. I honestly don't see why it isn't a legitimate suspension system.

I just explained that to you.

If the FIA wants to remove aero, they should do it by removing aero directly, not by picking off secondary systems that happen to make aero more effective as well.

But is it a secondary system? The FIA are evidently concerned that aerodynamic gain will become its primary function, and that providing stability will only be a by-product.

 

[ShiftingGears]

The FIA also banned Renault's mass dampers in 2006 as they were deemed as movable aero devices. So this suspension ban on aero grounds isn't unprecedented.

 

[Imari]

But is it a secondary system? The FIA are evidently concerned that aerodynamic gain will become its primary function, and that providing stability will only be a by-product.

Well, something has to hold the car off the ground, unless the FIA are mandating permanent road contact for their new titanium spark thrower blocks. I'm pretty sure that's always going to be the suspension's primary function, with any aero benefits derived from how stable a platform the suspension can provide being secondary.

Here's something I've been trying to think through. If you had a car with zero aero on it (as far as such a thing exists), would it still benefit from having a FRIC type suspension system? I'm not entirely sure, because it would probably feel fairly radically different to a normal car, but I'd imagine that the ability to limit and control weight transfer would have benefits all on it's own. It's an extra dimension of setup that is completely unavailable if you don't have the system. If you tune it correctly you can make the car better, and if you tune it wrong you can make it worse.


But your initial comments make the point that concerns me, it's more about what the FIA is willing to allow in terms of development than anything else. They're OK with development in certain directions, but if anything makes major step changes it's likely to be banned.

Evolution is OK, but revolution is apparently not. I find that to be somewhat at odds with their stated goal of progressing road car technology.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I find that to be somewhat at odds with their stated goal of progressing road car technology.

Because the teams couldn't care less about road car technology. They will develop whatever gives them an advantage, and if it can be applied to road cars, then that's great - but if not, they won't lose a moment's sleep over it. In its current form, FRIC might have some practical application for road cars, but sooner rather than later it will cross over to become like off-throttle blown diffusers.

 

[niky]

The argument is that FRIC is a movable aero device because the front and rear suspension work in unison to maintain the car's ride height. It negates the effect of inertia moving the car's weight around under braking and acceleration and cornering.

This is, unfortunately, also what anti-roll bars do in cornering, and what anti-dive/anti-squat geometry does. All these systems keep a car stable. The FRIC isn't an active system, it's a reactive system, much like the aforementioned... which is why the FIA haven't been able to ban it until now. (and even now, they're on shaky ground)

You can't totally ban linking remote hydraulic reservoirs on the basis of aero. Perhaps you can ban any device that switches the reservoirs from anti-roll to anti-squat/dive mode, but this is just plain ridiculous. A suspension is a suspension, and it's a slippery slope they're on trying to claim any part of the suspension is a moveable aerodynamic device. Because the entire suspension is a moveable aerodynamic device.

The FIA also banned Renault's mass dampers in 2006 as they were deemed as movable aero devices. So this suspension ban on aero grounds isn't unprecedented.

The Mass Damper is a bit understandable. Since it's a free-standing device that does not connect to the wheels and serves no suspension purposes, it's flexible aerodynamics. There are arguments that Red Bull achieves the same effect with some of their flexible body work, but it hasn't bee proven.

-

I didn't agree with the Mass Damper banning, either, but at least there, they had a good case.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is, unfortunately, also what anti-roll bars do in cornering, and what anti-dive/anti-squat geometry does. All these systems keep a car stable. The FRIC isn't an active system, it's a reactive system, much like the aforementioned.

And it seems to me that the FIA is concerned that it won't be a reactive system for much longer. They said they have been at it for a while, looking at as many development paths as possible. I suspect that they think it is going the same way as off-throttle blown diffusers, and that the best way forward is to ban it completely, rather than taking it on a case-by-case basis. After all, nobody wants a repeat of the nonsense that followed the OTBD ban, with Renault and Mercedes trying to coax as many concessions out of the FIA, and then hammering the other for doing the exact same thing.

 

[niky]

And it seems to me that the FIA is concerned that it won't be a reactive system for much longer. They said they have been at it for a while, looking at as many development paths as possible. I suspect that they think it is going the same way as off-throttle blown diffusers, and that the best way forward is to ban it completely, rather than taking it on a case-by-case basis. After all, nobody wants a repeat of the nonsense that followed the OTBD ban, with Renault and Mercedes trying to coax as many concessions out of the FIA, and then hammering the other for doing the exact same thing.

Then they have to write a regulation that clearly bans the systems, to be applied over the next season. Mandate that all suspension dampers have to have individual reservoirs. Or that valving cannot be altered through any means, active or reactive during the race itself. Lots of ways to do that.

Arbitrarily applying a rule that doesn't cover the said item (especially as it requires the offending piece to not be fixed solidly to the car) is complete nonsense, and is a big turn-off for the fans.

-

Mind you, I don't disagree that active suspension should be avoided, but, pending a perusal of the full ruling, I doubt the argument would hold water in any court of law. (lucky for the FIA, they get to make their own rules, so that's not an issue for them... )

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Oh, no doubt they will come up with a means to do it so comprehensively (and in a better way than they did the original OTBD ban). All we know at the moment is that they want to ban it - exactly how they are going to do it remains to be seen

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is a big reason why I will never understand the FIA.