FIA “aiming to ban” reactive ride height adjustment

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Williams’ Mark Gillan says the FIA has issued a technical directive aimed at banning reactive ride height systems of the kind developed by Lotus.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

The Flying Lap With Peter Windsor (Speed)

Williams chief operating officer Mark Gillan on reactive ride height systems: “The FIA have just banned that particular type of system. […] From a cursory look it looks as though they are aiming to ban that type of system.”

F1 Fanatic via Twitter

Lotus’s new F1 site says their car will be launched on February 5th. Added to the F1 Fanatic calendar.”

F1 2012: Rules, Designs and Trends (ScarbsF1)

“With so much of the car fixed within the regulation, it’s becoming the sidepods that are the main area of freedom for the designers. Last year we saw four main sidepod concepts; conventional, Red Bull low\tapered, McLaren U-shape and Toro Rosso’s undercut.”

Technical analysis – 2012 exhaust restrictions (F1)

“For 2012 the FIA has effectively banned blown diffusers by placing new restrictions on the positioning of exhaust exits.”

Reactive Ride Height and J Dampers Explained (Will Buxton)

“J-damper: one bouncy thing offsets another bouncy thing.”

Everything to prove (Sky)

Mike Gascoyne: “It will be a much more current car than the last two cars we’ve been able to design. It’s probably a bigger step forward compared to the 2011 car. In 2010 our car was obviously very basic because we didn’t have much time to do it and we always said the 2011 car would be a big step forward. What’s exciting for me is that the 2012 car is probably a bigger step forward in terms of refinement of design than we made in 2011.”

HRT insist they will race despite ‘critical delays’ (BBC)

“Rumours that we will take part in the initial Grands Prix with the 2011 car are not true. The target is to be at the second test with the new car.”

Marussia targets second test for new car (Autosport)

Pat Symonds: “We are aiming for the second. We are going to be at the first test anyway because I think it’s important for Charles [Pic] to get some miles under his belt and it shakes some of the cobwebs off of the team.”

Hamilton to be called to court as star witness in GBH trial of German driver Sutil (Daily Mail)

[Lewis] Hamilton will have to head directly from the trial to attend the launch of the 2012 McLaren car on February 1.”

Interview with PURE’s Craig Pollock

“There has been the news of Peugeot pulling out (of endurance racing) – and we were fairly inside that this might happen. They are around the Paris area with facilities, offices and test benches; not of the quality necessary for a Formula 1 engine, but it wouldn’t take too much to convert it into a Formula 1 test bench. It would potentially be the cheapest way going forward.”

Piecing It All Together: From the White Board to the Dirt Mound (The Austin Grand Prix)

“This is a panoramic photo taken from atop turn one, the most south-eastern point of the circuit, facing west.”

Giedo van der Garde via Twitter

“Guys, everybody asking me about F1 but at the moment I can’t say anything! Please be patient. But thank you very big about the positive messages! It means a lot. Keep following!”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Yesterday’s discussion about which teams will still be in F1 in ten years’ time naturally led to a debate on how to encourage new teams to come into the sport. Here’s Junpei’s thoughts.

I’d rather see a “Tier 2” F1 championship, with same rules as F1. The winner of this replaces the last place runner of the current F1 grid every year, much like in certain football leagues.

This would let teams come in with a lower budget, and learn everything while competing with teams of similar experience/budget. My problem with GP2 is that it’s just too different from F1, and too much like other lower formulas, so all that technical competition is almost non-existent.
Junpei

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

When testing is so tightly restricted today, it’s almost surprising to recall that just a few years ago teams would often test at multiple venues at once.

Ten years ago today McLaren and Sauber were testing in Barcelona and Ferrari had the Valencia circuit to themselves.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

106 comments on “FIA “aiming to ban” reactive ride height adjustment”

  1. I don’t like the way the FIA said the system was OK, and now, within days of the Lotus car presentation, there are rumours about a ban of the system.

    However, at least they might ban it before the first race of the season, unlike the double-diffuser, which was discussed weeks after Brawn scored a 1-2 in Melbourne, and was eventually approved.

    1. It smells like political interference. Reno and Ferrari both had it and so I doubt any of them complained.

      I’m guessing it was the sneaky RBR or McLaren team who made a fuss.

      Its a pitty because there is no way for Reno and Ferrari to get the time spent on the system back.

      1. “Reno”? Is that Jean Reno, the French actor, from such films as Leon, Nikita and Ronin?

        Or perhaps you mean Reno, in Nevada?

    2. I bet that FIA will un-bann it before the first car launch. It will be the same situation as with the banned EBDs back in July.

      1. tEQUILLA sLAMMER
        21st January 2012, 20:04

        ault in French is pronounced “O”…….as in Renault……..follow this arrow ——————————> 3 >–

    3. Rumours… I believe that this means that the system is now completely out of the shelf.

  2. That’s a shame. As soon as anything innovative or interesting comes along that acts within the rules, the FIA seem to to immediately find some way of banning it. It’s almost hypocritical. It’s as if to say ‘Ah yes Lotus, thanks for pointing that out to us. We’ll alter the rulebook accordingly right away…’.

    It doesn’t encourage innovation, or allow these world class engineers to do what they do best, does it? Changing the rules after teams have designed the very foundations of their cars around such a device just seems really stern and rigorous. I’m not saying Lotus have done that, by any means, but hypothetically speaking…

  3. Are they going to ban every innovation just because not everybody has it? This is F1, everybody has to catch up. F-Duct? Could be seen as unsafe. Double diffuser? Burning fuel just for aero, yeah the environment angle I get it. This is just another thing that will everybody will have to integrate, and the people who can use it best will benefit, just like getting the aero right on a car or fuel consumption or power from an engine.

  4. Having a second tier F1 with promotion and relegation would cause big problems with small teams getting sponsorship. Why sponsor a team that could fall into a lesser tier and obscurity?

    A better idea I think would be regional (i.e. Continental) F1. It wouldn’t be important enough for the spending to get out of control and any space in F1 could be filled by a team from one of these series, like for instance how Tyrrell moved up from F3 and F2.

    1. I agree with that notion @icthyes, a regional lower tier competition with close to F1 cars would be better. It would take away a big part of the cost of the travelling circus and if maintained with more rule stability then F1, and maybe a llimit on the amount of development during the season or between years, it might be possible to compete in such a championship for somewhere around 12-15 million EUR.

    2. The only chance it will ever work is to bring back customer cars and even more stabilization of the rules. Otherwise, the lower tier would only show how pathetically slow poorly optimized and poorly funded race cars can be.

  5. I’m getting a little bit tired of this clamping down on innovative ideas. It’s already been said in the comments above me but what’s the point in engineers using their skills only for to have their inventions ruled out.

    And actually, maybe I’m wrong on this, but I think I read somewhere, only a few days back, that the FIA said this new reactive system was legal? What has changed?

    Yet more inconsistency from the FIA. And the season hasn’t even started yet!! Hmm…

    1. It’s already been said in the comments above me but what’s the point in engineers using their skills only for to have their inventions ruled out.

      I think it’s very telling as to what gets developed and what gets banned. A lot of manufacturers talk about how they want Formula 1 to be relevant to their road cars, but how exactly are off-throttle blown diffusers, tuned mass dampers and reactive ride heigh stablisers at all relevant to road cars? On the other hand, you’ve got Williams developing a flywheel-based KERS system that is said to be more efficient than anything that is currently used – and that hasn’t been banned. If the FIA is clamping down on reactive ride-heights, they probably feel that it is the wrong direction for the sport to be going in. And as a fan, I kind of agree with this – I’m all for innovation, but I don’t want to see the kind of innovation that I need a degree in engineering to understand.

      I also think that the FIA might be trying to avoid another arms race. Lotus have been working on this idea since 2010, so it’s taken two years for them to develop it enough that they can debut it. Ferrari already have their own version of it and will run it in the final test, and Mercedes has submitted plans to the FIA for approval. They may forsee a situation where teams get into a spending war – again – which they would be eager to prevent.

      I think I read somewhere, only a few days back, that the FIA said this new reactive system was legal? What has changed?

      They did say it was legal, but I think one of two things has happened:

      1) Someone challenged the legality of it. When news first broke that Lotus was developing it, one of the teams – Ferrari would be my bet – asked for clarification. The system was decalred legal, but teams have the power to appeal decisions.

      2) The FIA feels that the system is only just legal, but any serious development of it will only make it more questionable, and so they’re effectively saying “What you have is okay, but don’t take it any futher because then we’ll have to ban the whole thing”.

      1. but I don’t want to see the kind of innovation that I need a degree in engineering to understand.

        Well, everything in F1 needs a degree in engineering at some point. It might be easy to understand sometimes, but you always need someone to explain it to you, like Scarbs.

        And by the way, developments might not be apparent in terms of their utility in road cars and life in general, but the studies that go along and the research, in the end contribute a lot. I bet no one saw what could be done with the active suspension systems, yet it’s very important, as every car would be safer if they had those systems. Same with traction control.

        What if car manufacturers starts producing cars with f-duct, so drag is lower at high speeds, and consumption goes down?

        It’s hard to see it now… give them time.

        1. I believe the new ford focus has what they called active grills. Which in essence is an fduct

          1. well, you see? that’s a big example there…!

        2. Link the fords version of fduct on road cars.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIixELzJSP0

          1. Thanks, @F1andy83 .

            I’ll also note that reactive ride height adjustment could be useful in road cars too — I would not mind having my car be more stable when braking hard or turning at high speed.

          2. Not quite an f-duct, more like the taping up of sidepods/brake ducts

        3. I guess people always hate what they don’t understand. BAM!

          It’s not good enough to be banning things all the time. The rules in theory should be set some time before the start of the season. If an innovative designer comes up with something that gives them the edge that is within those rules then it is unfair and immoral to ban it really. The only exception should be safety, and any executive power in this regard needs to be used sparingly.

          1. I guess people always hate what they don’t understand. BAM!

            Not at all. I don’t hate the fact that Lotus have come up with this simply because I don’t understand it. I just think that needing to read a thesis in order to understand why they are so quick is asking a bit much.

          2. Well, if it was simple everyone would do it.

            How good an understanding do you think most F1 fans have of aerodynamics, turbulence, or even the fluid dynamics used in shock absorber settings?

            Even the simplest technologies are beyond the understanding of some people. Each fan is able to enjoy the technology to the level of their own technological knowledge. Why should we set the limit of what can and can’t be allowed at your particular level of understanding?

          3. I’m definitely with DVC on this. Why should things be banned for being very clever? There’d be no aerodynamics if that was the case.

          4. Because both the FIA and the teams have repeatedly said they want the sport to be more accessible to fans. That’s what “improving the show” is (supposedly) all about.

          5. Accessible to fans is not the same as simple technology. The sport is based on technical innovation, whether remarkably simply (fan cars, F-duct, which is simple in principle if not execution) or complex (the workings of aerodynamics). Wanting a technology banned simply because it is complicated is against the spirit of F1 and ingenuity. I’m sure there are quite a few fans who couldn’t tell you how aero works, how engines work, how gearboxes work.

            Accessible to fans means that drivers should be approachable in that they do signings in the paddock, lots of interviews etc. It means that technologies are clearly explained- whether they are understood is negligible. It means teams embrace things like twitter, facebook etc. It means more effort is made at GPs to feature interactive things- simulators, hands on pit-experiences. It means it is free-to-air so anybody can see it. It means transparency in stewarding and technical decisions. It does not mean everybody has to understand every small detail of the technical innovations or regulations- just that effort is made to make it as clear as possible.

          6. @DVV and @matt90 spot on. :-)

          7. Whoops I meant @DVC and @Matt90

      2. A lot of manufacturers talk about how they want Formula 1 to be relevant to their road cars, but how exactly are off-throttle blown diffusers, tuned mass dampers and reactive ride heigh stablisers at all relevant to road cars?

        I take your point, but I hold a slightly cynical view of road car manufacturers to be honest. They are only in it really, to promote their product, and that’s perfectly fine, but then when the going gets tough, most of them bail out. I want to see teams that exist to race and to push the boundaries of what’s possible, within the rules of course. I appreciate that may seem slightly naive, and that F1 is a big business where money talks etc. but I don’t care for the profits of some big car company. The fact that I support Lotus F1 team is somewhat ironic, but again, it’s the F1 team I support. I couldn’t care less what the road car part of the company makes.

        On the other hand, you’ve got Williams developing a flywheel-based KERS system that is said to be more efficient than anything that is currently used – and that hasn’t been banned.

        At the risk of sounding like Captain Hindsight, but if that is the case, and it is more efficient than the battery powered version of KERS, the FIA should have commissioned an independent group to maybe test both solutions before writing the rules, to please the car companies. They would have found that the flywheel version is the more efficient method, and they could have decreed that that fly wheel version is the one to be used. That’s all maybe’s if’s and but’s though. It’s too late for that particular system.

        Also, if the FIA are trying to prevent a spending war, hasn’t that already been headed off with the agreement that the teams reduce their spending over a number of years, which was put in place instead of the budget cap?

        I don’t want to see the kind of innovation that I need a degree in engineering to understand.

        Personally, that doesn’t really bother me that much really. If I don’t understand something, which happens *a lot*, I’ve got ScarbsF1 to explain it. He has a knack of explaining complicated things in a simple manner, which suits me fine, just fine. :P In the end though, I just want to see the fastest cars, the best drivers and the best racing there can be….. and some consistency from the rule makers.

      3. I’m not sure but i think it had Charlie’s Approval but FIA never clarified its legality before…

      4. @prisoner-monkeys They wouldn’t have protested against the idea.

        What they most probably did is draw up some sketches of the system; tell the FIA it helps their braking anti-dive; helps braking stability; gives them more setup flexibility; and also the aero benefits; then ask if it was legal. The FIA would then say no; and the message would be relayed to the other teams.

  6. I had to smirk at this headline on Autosport:

    Lotus will reveal Kimi Raikkonen’s Lotus on its new website on February 5

    So, when are they launching Romain Grosjean’s Lotus, then?

    1. @Prisoner Monkeys Didn’t you hear? USF1 have built him a lovely toaster, that should be coming within the year I’m sure.

      1. I’m just being facetious. I’ve noticed that, ever since November 29, Autosport have a decidedly pro-Raikkonen, pro-Lotus bent with all their constant stories about how Raikkonen is fully prepared for his comeback and the way they ignore other opinions (like Gerhard Berger saying he wouldn’t have signed Raikkonen). This just adds to my belief – it’s not the new Lotus F1 car that’s being launched, it’s Kimi Raikkonen’s Lotus. Poor old Grosjean is going to be stuck in his shadow all year long, even if he out-performs Raikkonen.

        1. Grosjean might have had more hope if Renault weren’t so keen to get rid of all of their French heritage.

    2. They have to finish Kimi’s Lotus, launch it, take a picture of it, print that picture out on some cardboard, and then cut it out for Grosjean to drive.

  7. Apparently innovation and creativity are qualities not tolerated in Formula 1.

    1. So teams are allowed to break the rules if they’re innovative and creative about it? The team were concerend that the reactive ride-height system counted as a moving part. The FIA declared the system to be legal – but the teams still have the right of appeal. If one of more of the teams has convinced the FIA that the system involves moving parts and is therefore in violation of the technical regulations and illegal, why should other teams using it be allowed to continue using it?

      1. If the FIA’s been convinced that the system is illegal, why are they “aiming to ban” something that’s already banned within the current regulations?

        I’m having a harder and harder time these days believing that FIA doesn’t stand for Federation of Inconsistent Application.

        1. If the FIA’s been convinced that the system is illegal, why are they “aiming to ban” something that’s already banned within the current regulations?

          Because those were Mark Gillan’s words, not the FIA’s. It was his opinion. No doubt he felt that the team had convicned the FIA that the system was illegal, but because it was late on Friday, the FIA would put off actually banning the system until Monday (it just came a little sooner than expected). In the meantime, he appeared on The Flying Lap. And the FIA probably had to find a way to ban it completely, to prevent people from slipping through a loophole and running the RRH regardless. They don’t just say “okay, it’s banned” – they re-write the technical regulations. And they have to do it very carefully, or else they end up in a situation like the end of the 2010 Monaco Grand Prix, with two different teams making two equally-valid and equally-opposing interpretations of the rulebook – in which case, the FIA would have to decide one way or the other, meaning one team would lose out.

          1. That’s rubbish. If a team finds finds a totally new concept that is well within the rules but gives them 5 seconds above anyone else, all other teams would also lose out. You should not punish creative interpretation, especially not when you (FIA) wrote the rules yourself and happened to leave room for diffierent interpretations.

      2. Moving parts or no moving parts if the suspension is adjusted in motion it is illegal.

        If the suspensions behaviour changes when the brake pedal is pressed the it’s physical properties have changed. If the physical properties have changed this MUST count as adjustment. What other definition of adjustment could you use?

  8. Typical fia flip flop.Im betting the red team are all worried about it.

    1. @ramjet – Good of you to pass judgement on them without knowing the reasons why the FIA has changed their stance on the system.

      1. They can’t really be judged yet but then again, this scenario has happened so many times over the years I don’t blame the fans for becoming a little tired of it. I know a lot has to be done to regulate the cars from a safety stand point (and I wouldn’t have it any other way despite any grumpy whinge I may have from time to time) but there have also been some questionable decisions in this type of situation in the past. We should wait to see what happens, what’s involved and not give the FIA a hard time too soon but I can’t blame anyone for being sceptical.

      2. because its their M.O.
        Past veto power over tech regs!Who knows what they are up to,dont care or trust them.

    2. And why would they be worried since they have their own version?

    3. Actually, the red team is probably saying that now they have something ahead of it’s main rivals, it’s banned. :p

    4. Actually judging by the rumors of who is and who is not developing their version of this system, I would tip Red Bull to actually complain. Then again, they are the ones with advantage to lose. Noble in Autosport said I think on 12th January, that Ferrari already has its own version of the system and awaits approval. Why they would try to ban something they already have?

  9. Ever a thorn in my side, the ever-changing nature of the Formula 1 rulebook. I would ask if there’s anything the FIA could do which could make the entire grid more competitive.

    1. How about transparency? The FIA decalred the RRH system legal. Now Gillan says he thinks they are trying to ban it. The FIA could at least explain why their stance on its legality has suddenly and completely changed. Despite the frequent complaints from fans, they don’t do these things for no reason. If they are attempting to ban reactive ride-heights, then they must have a good reason for it. As Sean Newman pointed out in yesterday’s round-up, the RRH appears to be in violation of Article 10 of the technical regulations, which states that the suspension cannot be adjusted while the car is moving.

      I think part of the problem here – and I’m going to be brutally honest about this – is the fans themselves. Read over every comment in this thread, and most of them are attacking the FIA for a sudden backflip without explanation. Now, go back to the top of the article and read what was actually reported, and pay particular attention to what is in bold:

      Williams chief operating officer Mark Gillan on reactive ride height systems: “The FIA have just banned that particular type of system. […] From a cursory look it looks as though they are aiming to ban that type of system.”

      “From a cursory look” and “it looks as though”. This is by no means confirmation that the FIA have banned RRH, or that they even intend to – it is simply one man’s opinion on the subject. And yet, reading over the comments in this thread, this is what you get:

      As soon as anything innovative or interesting comes along that acts within the rules, the FIA seem to to immediately find some way of banning it.

      Are they going to ban every innovation just because not everybody has it?

      Apparently innovation and creativity are qualities not tolerated in Formula 1.

      If anyone has an innovation they developed privately it must be banned.

      Everybody is acting as if the FIA has already banned it and moved on without saying a word. But that hasn’t happened at all. Based on Mark Gillan’s comments on The Flying Lap, all we can really say for certain is that the FIA might be considering a ban. So everybody in this thread who is criticising the FIA for banning the RRH has collectively jumped the gun.

      It’s a bit like the reinstatement of Bahrain last year. The World Motorsports Council voted to hold the race again, and everybody criticised them for it because they had not consulted the teams until then. But here’s the catch: FOTA could not discuss anything until the WMSC approached them with a proposal. That’s what the WMSC meeting was about – a proposal that would be taken to the teams, who would then discuss it and either approve it or reject it. But before the WMSC could approach FOTA with their proposal, someone accused them of not having gone to FOTA.

      The same thing happened with off-throttle blown diffusers. The FIA wanted to ban them when they realised just how extensively OTBD was being used, which was a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and the ban was something the teams agreed to. But then we had all the nonsense about dispensations to the ban and the way different teams received different exemptions, and the FIA took criticism for it. And maybe they were in the wrong to try and introduce the ban mid-season – but I don’t recall a single piece of criticism being aimed at the teams who agreed to a total OTBD ban in the first place, and then pleaded with the FIA to a) let them keep running their OTBDs and maintain their advantage while b) forcing the other teams to abandon their systems.

      The bottom line is that I think each these episodes highlight a disturbing culture of blame running in the fan communities. It doesn’t matter what the FIA do – they always do the wrong thing, irrespective of what actually transpired. If the FIA issued a press release tonight that said “Upon further examination of the reactive ride-height system proposed by Lotus F1, it was decided that the proposed system was illegal under Article 10 of the techncial regulations for this reason, this reason and this reason”, would anybody notice? Would anybody care if the reasons they gave made perfect sense and could not be argued with? No, they wouldn’t. Because it doesn’t matter what the FIA does – they’re wrong. If the FIA announced that Spa was to stay on the calendar regardless of its financial situation and that if they could not pay the race-sanctioning fees, that was Bernie’s problem, nobody woud applaud it. They’d criticise the FIA for not doing it sooner, or for creating a situation where other circuits had to pay more to make up for Spa’s shortcomings. Because there’s a culture of blame running through the fans.

      1. Or you could take the thread as people criticising the FIA for considering a ban. We could all do exactly what you do and preface all our comments with ‘If the FIA are considering a ban’ and then give our opinion. It wouldn’t change 99% of the debate in the thread though.

        You might consider too that if the FIA gave such a press conference as you describe Lotus would be quite rightly perturbed that a system they’ve been developing for 2 years wasn’t examined carefully enough originally.

        1. You might consider too that if the FIA gave such a press conference as you describe Lotus would be quite rightly perturbed that a system they’ve been developing for 2 years wasn’t examined carefully enough originally.

          We don’t really know the circumstances surrounding the original approval of the system. The FIA could have said “We’re going to need to see more of it before we can say if it is legal or not” just as easily as they could have said “Yes, it is absolutely legal”.

          I think the likely source of a ban will be the teams contending its legality. And they didn’t know – at least, not for sure – what Lotus were up to until the Young Driver Tests. So if the teams protest and get it banned after two years of development, that’s Lotus problem. Spending two years and plenty of money on making the system doesn’t automatically guarantee they will be able to use it.

          1. I agree with that. But on that basis I don’t think the FIA should ever pre-approve anything. The part gets checked the first time you go to pre-scrutineering.

          2. Lotus asked the FIA because they wanted to know whether they could develop it further. If the FIA said no, they would not have poured money into it. If they’re going to spend two years working on something, then they’re going to want to make damn sure it will be with their while.

          3. And if the FIA’s answer is meaningless then what is the point of them giving it?

          4. The FIA simply has to admit it made a mistake in the interpretation of it’s own rules. This is tough on Lotus but absolutely necessary. They should be allowed a dispensation in their budget allowance.

            This has happened many times before. The rules are so complex and at times contradictory the FIA cannot be blamed. We must allow them to change their minds on the interpretation of rules like the gentlemen we are.

            This way they wouldn’t feel the need to behave in the political way they do and just focus on making the right decision even if they get it wrong a few times first!!

            I can live with that though. It’s all good fun!

          5. The FIA simply has to admit it made a mistake in the interpretation of it’s own rules.

            It’s possible that they did. But it’s also possible that Lotus misrepresented things to try and get an advantage. It’s happened before, but a lot of people don’t admit (or don’t realise) just how dirty some of the teams are willing to play.

      2. Banburyhammer1
        21st January 2012, 12:37

        Of course not, if they stated reasons why it was banned under the current regulations. Then there is no debate.

        Safety reasons aside, if a techonolgy has to be excluded by rewriting the regulations, then surely it would need to take effect the next year? Like with the EBD, F-Duct and Double diffuser? At least then its due process, rather than randomly banning something for the sake of banning it.

        I thought the regulations were supposed to be unchanged throughout each season (again, excepting safety). And the regulations are supposed to have been set in stone for this season.

        Its a moot point anyway, the BBC F1 editor is reporting the technology banned on Twitter. Unofficial, but significant.

  10. I am really quite annoyed by this. I know reactive ride height systems may not be useful at all for a road car but it seems the only ideas allowed in are those which were come up with by the FIA or the TWG in conjunction with the FIA. If anyone has an innovation they developed privately it must be banned. I know arms races that cause massive spending are in the long term not positive but for teams who want to compete in fixed spec series there are plenty on offer.

  11. Will we see the Flying Dutchman in a slow boat? I have a feeling we might

    1. I suspect he’s actually already signed a contract, but can’t say anything until an agreed-upon date.

    2. @funkyf1 He certainly sounds more optimistic than your average driver-with-no-idea-about-the-future.

      1. Vitaly Petrov sounds optimistic, too:

        Очень скоро всем все скажем!!! Терпения друзья !!!

        Even if you don’t read Russian*, that’s a lot of exclamation marks.

        *He says “Have patience – all will be revealed soon”, or words to that effect.

        1. that’s a lot of exclamation marks.

          Maybe he just sneezed and hit the keyboard.

          1. Twice? In exactly the same way? On a keyboard with no actual exclamation mark, thereby requiring him to use an alt-code every time he wanted to enter one in?

            Must be some sneeze he’s got there …

  12. Plenty on todays round-up!

    A little annoying from the FIA but that’s F1 for you. It would feel like a cold and bitter place without all this wrangling over what constitutes an illegal aero device.

    To be honest, I was surprised when it was announced legal but I think @prisoner-monkeys has a point when he says that it may be legal now, but who knows in a few months time. It will then be harder to ban and will yet again make F1 look like a farce in front of the worlds media.

    Innovation is exciting but arguing legalities gets boring pretty quickly.

  13. “J-damper: one bouncy thing offsets another bouncy thing.”

    finally someone explains things to my level of technical understanding! I’ve always been a fan of ‘bouncy things.’

  14. For all we know the FIA probably wants to look into it’s reliability for safety measures? It is the braking system after all?

  15. FIA aiming to ban? What happened to the good old days when they’d decide something against popular opinion and do it anyway in half a second? Bah, F1 is too soft now ;) Just kidding. This is totally them to see something new, let it be developed for a little while and then try to ban it. It’s not going to change though because they don’t always see the loop holes or what could be done until some new gizmo has actually been created. Maybe this time it’s for safety measures, I don’t know, I don’t know what goes on with them but after so many years of this scenario happening I’ve stopped believing that F1 is about the best designs and the best innovation. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing especially if it’s for safety reasons but F1 still acts like it is the frontier for technology but that’s debatable. Anyway, that was a ramble and a half…

  16. This is just the FIA realising they made a mistake passing this is legal when according to their own existing regulations it is not (Article 10 states the suspension cannot be adjusted whilst the car is in motion) Their current stance is to avoid the embarrassing situation of having to accept they were wrong.

    This device is just the tip of the iceberg if it is allowed. There will be all kinds of reactive ride systems being developed. They won’t have real world applications (electronics is much better at this), they won’t be cheap, they won’t improve the closeness of the racing and they won’t make it any more of a challenge for the drivers.

    I don’t think they are particularly technically interesting as everyone seems to think so I think the FIA back tracking is a good thing.

    Imagine three such devices on a car. One that reacts to the brake pedal. One that reacts to the throttle and another that reacts to steering input….MADNESS!!!

  17. What if the Lotus car was optimised arround the new device? If they had it legal at the first place changing the rule will compromise they entire season. I think FIA is acting inconsistantly and very unfairly it really looks to me that if someone cannot develop the same in a short period of time or just doesnt want to bother things are being banned. Ferrari is being saying they have developed similar device but they ware seeking clarification from the FIA. Why they ware concerned if they new that RRH is permitted and if they had it already developed it would be a massive gain in performance.
    It reminds me last years turmoil arround OTBD. From the first minute FIA decided to ban it it was looking dodgy. To me that was the private testing sessions at Silverstone that reveled who is standing ware and who would participate the most on that BAN. Thanks to great opposition from majority of teams they ware forced to let them using OTBD until the end of season.
    This time I just guess that RRH is not to be ‘cos someone realized how hard it would be to properly develop it and lacking such a device will leave someone behind right on the begining of 2012 season.
    We don’t really know the circumstances surrounding the original approval of the system. The FIA could have said “We’re going to need to see more of it before we can say if it is legal or not” just as easily as they could have said “Yes, it is absolutely legal”

    The FIA had 2 years to look at it and they still didn’t have enough?

    I think the likely source of a ban will be the teams contending its legality. And they didn’t know – at least, not for sure – what Lotus were up to until the Young Driver Tests. So if the teams protest and get it banned after two years of development, that’s Lotus problem. Spending two years and plenty of money on making the system doesn’t automatically guarantee they will be able to use it.

    My question is what other guarantees you need but FIA’s approval?

    Thanks for reading

    1. The FIA had 2 years to look at it and they still didn’t have enough?
      Hang on a second – you’re assuing that Lotus was being completely open and honest here. As we saw with the off-throttle blown diffuser ban, they have a tendency to misrepresent things in order to try and get (or retain) and advantage. During the OTBD saga, all of the teams agreed to the full ban, and then all of them asked for dispensations, claiming that their engines were designed to run with a certain minimum engine map or else risk damaging the engine. Maybe that was true, but what was stopping them from overstating or misrepresenting their figures in order to get a larger dispensation? They do it all the time – they try and find all the little loopholes to squeeze through. Just because Lotus got permission to develop the system, it doesn’t mean they did it honesty. They could have been intentionally vague about it, telling the FIA just enough to get approval, but not so much that they revealed exactly how the system worked (especially if they forecast a two-year development programme). In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if this is exactly what they did.

      1. It was not up to teams to decide on OTBD, decision was already made and they had no choice but to stick to it.
        The ennoying bit is the way FIA plays its game and it is not perfectly clear how they judge whats good and wrong..

        That is the same case with RRH they say yes than no than we may see change of their minds again… very unclear!!!

        1. @Matt if the Lotus car was optimised around the device, which at that point in time had not been approved, and is clearly illegal, (hence the mistake and U-turn by the FIA) they deserve everything they get this season.

          Wouldn’t it be funny if they actually have another innovation and win the championship?

  18. Are the technical questions asked of the FIA by the teams open to all?

    I’d love to see a transcript of the discussion between Lotus and the FIA on this.

    The suspension is obviously illegal and the FIA knows. It can see problems arising if it allows it to continue to be used. It would be really interesting to see how Lotus pulled the wool over the FIA eyes!!!

    1. Are the technical questions asked of the FIA by the teams open to all?

      I’ve never heard of it happening before.

      1. It would be cool though wouldn’t it?

        In my view the whole concept of asking if something is legal in advance is fine provided it is open. Then everyone benefits from exactly the same legal definitions. In this way the FIA might be contradictory but at least it is the same for everyone.

        However if a team wanted a private consultation then the FIA should only give it’s unofficial guidance, nothing binding, at it’s own risk.

        Any other way is asking for trouble.

        1. In my view the whole concept of asking if something is legal in advance is fine provided it is open.

          There are two problems with that:

          First of all, making the process open will deter teams from doing it. As soon as they ask the FIA “would a reactive ride-height system be okay?”, every other team is going to know exactly what they are up to, and will be able to adapt their own version. Thus, any expected advantage – the whole point of developing new systems is to get an advantage in the first place – is lost.

          Secondly, I think it would upset a lot of fans because it would show just how unscrupulous the teams can be, and just how willing they are to play dirty. I think this is how a lot of fans see the FIA and Bernie, and that this is how they see the teams. Making the process of technical enquiries would threaten to upset this ideal. The teams aren’t as righteous as they make themselves out to be – they will happily do or say whatever it takes to keep an advantage. I’d be very surprised if Lotus were compeltely upfront about the RRH when they first asked after it in 2010, and I don’t think the revelation that they intentionally misled the FIA would be taken very well at all.

          1. Yep your right.

            I didn’t expect that teams would be willing to ask these sorts of question in the open and risk giving away secrets but I stand by my idea that this would be the only fair way, even none of the teams did it.

            However I don’t see how this would highlight how unscrupulous teams can be. They would simply not consult the FIA and turn up with something that the scrutineers may or may not deem legal.

            Besides if the teams are as unscrupulous as you say (money does corrupt doesn’t it?) then we as fans should know!

            It could be worse the IOC could be in charge!!!

          2. I suppose that opening up the inquiry process would work if the FIA kept the transcripts in confidence for a set period of time. That way, the teams could approach the FIA for clarification over an idea, and not have to worry about word getting out for six months or so.
            Besides if the teams are as unscrupulous as you say then we as fans should know!
            Oh, they are. Only half of Formula 1 is beating your opponents on the track – the other half is beating them in the stewards’ room, getting your car declared legal and the competition’s car banned.

  19. This is a beautiful gift for Red Bull, now I understand why they were not so interested in this sytem… :(

    Lotus and Mercedes must be worried now, they have spent a lot of time and money in this sistem, I dont understand some decisions reallly…

  20. Hmm, so yesterday, Red Bull come out as the only team to say that they are not bothering to develop an RRH system, and today the FIA ban RRH. Coincidence?

    1. Red Bull come out as the only team to say that they are not bothering to develop an RRH system

      No, Red Bull were the only team to date to dismiss the RRH. Ferrari are known to have submitted plans to the FIA, Mercedes are believed to have, and Williams are known to have toyed with the idea – but no other team has confirmed or denied anything.

      1. Nothing you said there contradicts my statement; Red Bull were the only team to say that they wouldn’t bother with the system, and now it has been banned we will never know if others would have abandoned it.

        1. You implication is that Red Bull either knew about the ban in advance, or that they were the ones to get the system banned.

    2. Maby Red Bull was in possesion of such device for last 2 years and they new what is going to happen…

  21. Great rambling speech, but its been banned.

  22. Yeah, according to Autosport it’s been banned now.

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

    “Odd” is the least offensive word I can think of to describe this.

    If the FIA do not have the in-house know-how to determine whether a system is legal or not from a completely technical point of view in two years, perhaps they should start hiring some engineers. Confirming that something is legal one day and then back-tracking only a couple of days later after rival teams protest or submit designs of their own is just silly. Banning something 3 weeks before the launch of a car designed with it in mind, when you’ve known about it for 2 years prior, reeks of ulterior motives or the desire to steer results, regardless of whether these motives and desires exist or not.

    In case someone is going to say that this is because the FIA want to prevent a spending war: that is irrelevant. If you don’t want a spending war, you make it a one-make format. As it is, there’s an agreement of sorts to keep spending within limits. It should be up to the teams how they spend the funds inside these limits and if in this case Lotus have had the foresight to spend theirs on something they planned on using 2 years down the line, that’s good business sense and they should not be punished for it by making them redesign their car now.

    1. If the FIA do not have the in-house know-how to determine whether a system is legal or not from a completely technical point of view in two years, perhaps they should start hiring some engineers.

      Do you honestly believe that Lotus told the FIA absolutely everything there was to know about the RRH back in January 2010? Particularly when it was in their interests not to tell the FIA everything?

      1. As long as i know Lotus was under constant FIA supervision about RRA and it wasn’t anything new to to them.

      2. I believe they told the FIA as little as they thought they could get away with and still have the resulting judgement be relevant to the design of the system on the car. And there is no doubt in my mind that there are different views possible on whether that last bit is the case or not.

        But I also have no doubt that this u-turn is brought on by input from one or more of the other teams. There are two types of input possible: technical and legalese. If technical, it is entirely possible that someone with more technical know-how explained something of the workings to the FIA that they hadn’t considered before. Hence my assertion that they should hire engineers so they can subsequently stand by the rulings they make on even terms with the teams’ technical objections.

        If the input was of a legal nature, this latest ruling is bullsh**. Two years is more than enough to judge a system on its “legal” and “philosophical” compliance to the rules and a couple of days of to-and-fro-ing with other teams should not be enough to change that.

    2. Agree 100%.
      This all situation just discredit FIA. Keep going guys

  23. So a week ago, the FIA declared the device legal. Now, they’ve declared it illegal… top marks for consistency.

  24. I really wish prisoner monkeys would stop being so defensive against anyone with a different viewpoint to his.

    its a very simple and understandable concept of why everyone is complaining. the FIA are changing the rules when the 2012 cars are already well into its development cycle. What makes it worst is that the teams clarified the rules before embarking on this design direction. No matter the ‘spirit’ of the rules or for any other reason, it would be unfair to change the rules at this point of time as you do not know how much performance loss this RRD will cost. It would be more logical for the rules to be changed for 2013 instead.

    And why should anybody have the power to design which rules should be changed and which should not just because some concepts are harder to understand than others? its ridiculous.

    1. the FIA are changing the rules when the 2012 cars are already well into its development cycle

      They’re doing it because they have rules the systems to be illegal. They can’t just say “Oh, you can keep your RRH because your car is so far along”. If they did, then all the teams would have to do is keep illegal parts from the FIA for as long as possible, and then they would be allowed to run them because the car was already highly-developed.

  25. I don’t see why FIA needs to ban this system.
    They made the rules like they were, lets see where this innovation takes them in a years time.
    I don’t see why they need to restrict innovation like that. They make the rules which restricts the teams, which is reasonable, but why should they even have the ability to ban a system that is effectively legal under current regulations?
    Systems that might be dangerous, fair enough. But lets see what those guys can come up with instead and if they feel the need to ban it they can do it before the 2013 season.
    I don’t think FIA should decide what innovations are right and which are “wrong” for F1.
    Who in the ’60s would have thought that the wings on F1 cars would be used on road cars a few decades later?
    To take another example, who thought that the space race would give human kind one of the recent times most important innovation, the micro processor?
    My point is, innovations comes from all kind of different areas. A lot of it is useless to us, and most of it might seem stupid at first, but then suddenly someone finds an application for it.
    The tech in a F1 car might not even be used on road cars in the future. We might see a component in our ovens that was a result of the development race in F1.
    That is why I don’t think they should restrict innovations after the rules are written.
    They should make the rules, let the teams build and race a car under those regulations for a year and then adjust according to the rules made for the year after that.
    Sometimes that might be bad for the championship and the racing, but at least it remains a sport and we won’t get these stupid situations like when they tried to ban EBD in July last year. It only ended up messy, and raised doubt whether FIA was doing it to make the championship more exciting or not.
    If a system isn’t dangerous i think it should stand, at least until the next year.

    1. because it breaks the current rules, simple. How they made the mistake and claimed it legal is beyond me and a great number of other people.
      So it had to be explained to the FIA how it breaks the current rules, so what, the FIA doe not have engineers of the same calibrate as those in the teams, its no wonder they get things wrong, but they have corrected their mistake now.

      Well done the FIA :-)

  26. Just wondering – Would Colin Chapman wish to be involved in todays F1 ? I think not. Why doesn’t the FIA institute a spec car formula and be done with it. As a technical exercise F1 becomes more of a joke every year.

  27. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97127
    It has happend sistem i banned
    FIA is killing inovations.

  28. What they need to do is raise the suspencion and sofen it so down the straights the downforce decreaces and braking it increaces! !
    :)

  29. I just read on the BBC website that the FIA have definitely banned the system under Article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations which requires that any aerodynamic effect created by the suspension should be incidental to its primary function. Also the cars aerodynamic surfaces “must remain immobile in relation to the spring part of the car”.

    As far as I’m concerned the breach of article 10 would have been enough to ban it. It seems to me there are at least two regulations it breaches now.

    What were Lotus and the FIA thinking? Maybe they should both sit down and read the rules!!!!

    By the way I have nothing against innovation. It’s part of the fascination of Formula 1, but if a rule can be innovated around most likely it’s a bad framed rule rather than a good innovation.

    I can’t wait for the season to start now!

  30. I think something to remember with regard to it been decaled legal but later banned is that these things often happen when a new device becomes public knowledge because its then other teams put forward arguments as to why its not legal.

    For all those saying innovation in F1 is dead, In just the past few years we have had Double diffusers, Blown diffusers, F-Duct’s, Flexible wings which pass every test, forward facing exhust’s, wheel nuts built into the rims for faster stops & some more.

    OK several of those have been banned however the ban on these systems (Double diffusers, blown diffusers, F-duct) was put forward by FOTA (The teams) & not the FIA!

    One more points, the FIA never actualy officially decalred the system legal!

  31. I can’t see why they should ban Reno’s reactive suspension/brakes because it’s been used on motorcycles and speedway cars for years! Bikes use a link from the rear caliper (which pivots) to the frame to counteract the increase of rake when braking, also bikes have used front anti dive controled by the hydraulic pressure that activates the caliper, or the phisical reaction of the caliper to push a lever or a button to alter the bump valving in the forks th reduce dive. And I’m refering to road bikes, not just racing bikes!
    PK.

    1. I can’t see why they should ban Reno’s reactive suspension/brakes

      Because it is illegal under the rules.

      1. Depends on how you interperate them! And that depends on where your biases lie, and where your loyalties are!
        PK.

  32. Im thankful for the blog.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

Comments are closed.