DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Dertrioz** · 01-24-2012, 05:48 AM

But are you sure that it was his decision? Being a technical matter, I can't see a reason why Whiting would have a say on that.

He's the 'go to' man and it was his fault trying to clumsily ban trick exhausts mid-2011.

I think if I was Renault (Lotus) I would be considering legal action against the governing body at this stage.

Daft. This idea is spreading across forums like wildfire.

It's in the nature of the sport that things will get banned whether you like it or not. In 2009 Ferrari were of the assumption that double decker diffusers would be banned and never developed the idea further but when it became legal they were mocked for behaving like cry babies. Lotus would be no different. Have some respect on the ruling then move on and find the next engineering X factor.

Its pretty obvious this device was in effect a moveable aerodynamic device, but why did they ok it in the first place? Unless the teams involved hid its true potential advantage of course.

Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

It's not any old anti-dive system its a reactive ride height system. Anti-dive slows down the diving process of braking but also it affects ride height. If you can some way control ride height then you have reactive ride height system and therefore influence the aerodynamics.

The FIA believed that because the systems relied on changes being made to the length of the suspension member as well as unusual movement of the brake calipers - and these alterations helped the aerodynamics of the car – that they were in breach of Article 3.15 of F1's Technical Regulations, which effectively bans moveable aerodynamic devices.

The article states that any part that influences aerodynamic performance "must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)" and "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com Last year we saw two additional solutions, interlinked suspension, where hydraulic suspension elements prevent nose dive under braking by displacing fluid in a hydraulic circuit one end of the car to the other end, creating a stiffer front suspension set up. This prevents dive under braking, while keeping a normally soft suspension for better grip.
We have also seen Lotus (nee LRGP) use torque reaction from the front brake callipers to extend the pushrod under braking, creating an anti-dive effect and prevent the nose dipping under braking.

Scarbsf1's Blog | Everything technical in F1

01-24-2012, 05:48 AM	#17
Dertrioz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	But are you sure that it was his decision? Being a technical matter, I can't see a reason why Whiting would have a say on that. He's the 'go to' man and it was his fault trying to clumsily ban trick exhausts mid-2011. I think if I was Renault (Lotus) I would be considering legal action against the governing body at this stage. Daft. This idea is spreading across forums like wildfire. It's in the nature of the sport that things will get banned whether you like it or not. In 2009 Ferrari were of the assumption that double decker diffusers would be banned and never developed the idea further but when it became legal they were mocked for behaving like cry babies. Lotus would be no different. Have some respect on the ruling then move on and find the next engineering X factor. Its pretty obvious this device was in effect a moveable aerodynamic device, but why did they ok it in the first place? Unless the teams involved hid its true potential advantage of course. Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com It's not any old anti-dive system its a reactive ride height system. Anti-dive slows down the diving process of braking but also it affects ride height. If you can some way control ride height then you have reactive ride height system and therefore influence the aerodynamics. The FIA believed that because the systems relied on changes being made to the length of the suspension member as well as unusual movement of the brake calipers - and these alterations helped the aerodynamics of the car – that they were in breach of Article 3.15 of F1's Technical Regulations, which effectively bans moveable aerodynamic devices. The article states that any part that influences aerodynamic performance "must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)" and "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com Last year we saw two additional solutions, interlinked suspension, where hydraulic suspension elements prevent nose dive under braking by displacing fluid in a hydraulic circuit one end of the car to the other end, creating a stiffer front suspension set up. This prevents dive under braking, while keeping a normally soft suspension for better grip. We have also seen Lotus (nee LRGP) use torque reaction from the front brake callipers to extend the pushrod under braking, creating an anti-dive effect and prevent the nose dipping under braking. Scarbsf1's Blog \| Everything technical in F1
	Quote