[luffyplayaz]

So one week, its allowed and said to be legal and now they have banned it. What is the FIA playing at? Make a decision and stick with it. Was Lotus going to have that much of an edge with the system?

Makes me wonder which team didn't like the idea and has managed to get it banned? All a bit stupid really. The FIA should clarify these rules before other teams start wasting time investing staff and money on developing their own systems.

[amberamuletuk]

I thought it was passive? Thats very dissapointing, the FIA are effectively stopping any clever interpretations within the rules when such innovative ideas should be an integral part of F1 Imo. (within reason of course!)

[DenisMoor]

ridiculous

I'm sure it would not have been banned if Ferrari or mclaren came up with the idea

[adesseridopaw]

ridiculous

I'm sure it would not have been banned if Ferrari or mclaren came up with the idea

As I understand it Ferrari were quite a way into developing this system and rumour suggests they and Lotus pretty much had it nailed. Back to the drawing board for them and hope they hadn't put too much emphasis of their performance on the device.

A ride-height control system being developed by Lotus and Ferrari has been banned by Formula 1's governing body, the FIA. BBC Sport - FIA ban new technical innovation developed by Lotus and Ferrari

[Dertrioz]

Can't say I'm say surprised. I was surprised it was legal in the first place.

F1 doesn't need this sort of technology IMO. Reactive ride height/braking stability whatever it is/does, F1 has too much reliance on aero and certainly F1 cars shouldn't be 'easier' to drive.

[MoreEndotte]

Personally if I was the FIA I'd try to discourage innovations that go against the point of the sport by using loopholes in the technical regulations and reducing downforce for cars following, and this would be an example of it. I think that I probably would do the same as the FIA has done today. But be consistent about it, not like banning Renault's suspension thing and allowing Ferrari's dangerous tyre cover things from a few years ago.

But I don't see why they announced it was legal one week and illegal the next? I get the feeling that there's some lobbying going back a year or so that we're not aware of.

I think this is going to be a big blow for Lotus this year. Possibly for Ferrari too - I was starting to see them as a good slightly outside bet for the title because of this system and the banning of the diffusers that helped Red Bull and McLaren.

[Dertrioz]

Personally if I was the FIA I'd try to discourage innovations that go against the point of the sport by using loopholes in the technical regulations and reducing downforce for cars following, and this would be an example of it. I think that I probably would do the same as the FIA has done today. But be consistent about it, not like banning Renault's suspension thing and allowing Ferrari's dangerous tyre cover things from a few years ago.

But I don't see why they announced it was legal one week and illegal the next? I get the feeling that there's some lobbying going back a year or so that we're not aware of.

I think this is going to be a big blow for Lotus this year. Possibly for Ferrari too - I was starting to see them as a good slightly outside bet for the title because of this system and the banning of the diffusers that helped Red Bull and McLaren.

*Points finger at Charlie Whiting* He's such a numpty on technical matters.

I'd like to see more of how a such innovation develops such as the trick exhausts and multi-deck diffusers. It was getting a bit crazy arms race.

However its quite obvious the anti-dive is a sort of passive variation of active suspension which is why I'm all for having it banned.

It's a tricky conundrum/paradox: innovation but not make the cars easier for the drivers.

[amelveEnromma]

*Points finger at Charlie Whiting* He's such a numpty on technical matters.

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.

Anyway, I don't really know if he has another role other than race director, so feel free to dress me down* if I'm wrong.

* Metaphorically, of course.

[imawlBoli]

my 2 peneth:

Im interested in Red Bull's apparent dis-interest in the system. Could it be a smokescreen for the fact that they already have been running something similar since last season (FIA informed Lotus in January 2011 that ot was legal). Therefore they never had a flexible wing allowing them to get the front wing close to the ground at high speeds, rather they had a system that raised the front under breaking allowing them to run a lower front ride height. No wonder they always passed all the flexibility checks?!
I think them not being bothered by the system has 2 parts - firstly saying don't bother copying it as its not really that good (even though we already have it) and a message to the FIA in please don't bother banning the system, we're not even that bothered about it. Could this actually hurt RBR more than they are letting on. As conspiracy theories go, I've seen crazier

[doogiehoussi]

F1 ruling body bans Lotus's pioneering reactive suspension system | Sport | The Observer

Several other teams, including Williams, were also believed to be looking into similar devices while awaiting an FIA ruling

[luffyplayaz]

Interesting comment about RedBull there....Now I am wondering if they had that system already?

[adesseridopaw]

Although I am glad this aid has be banned, I do think the FIA have treated Renault (Lotus) very badly. Allowing them to waste money developing it is abit of a dirty trick to then ban it.

"AUTOSPORT understands that Lotus has been in liaison with the FIA throughout the development of the brake system, having first been proposed in 2010 and been given an official green light by the governing as long ago as January last year." I think if I was Renault (Lotus) I would be considering legal action against the governing body at this stage.

[clapsoewmred]

As conspiracy theories go, I've seen crazier

Maybe.. but were they true?

[shemadagaswer]

Same old crap from the FIA.
A system is given the green light, the competition tries to copy it and submits plans of their own, much improved and pushed to the extreme - often breaking the rules, version to the FIA.
The FIA instead of out ruling the newly submitted design moves in and out rules the whole concept, job done no more head aches with this concept.

[Hoijdxvh]

I don't think Robs idea is a conspiracy theory at all but a logical guess given the information we have at hand.

The Bull acts in a very strange manner that allows them a performance benefit over the other teams. 3 possible explanations are:

1. Flexible wings. However, the tests were amended to ensure RBR were not circumventing the spirit of the rules and Horner always looked amused and smug when questioned about RBR using this. I suspect this was a red herring.

2. Some sort of pivoting arrangement to keep the nose at an optimum height and therefore enhance grip in the corners and lessen drag at speed. This theory was backed up by the unprecedented wear on the plank under the car.

3. Some sort of active or reactive suspension. I must confess that I never even thought about this because I naturally assumed that it would be banned and would never pass scrutinising.

I now think that Adrian Newey has managed to find a way around this rule as it would explain the strange behaviour of the Bull and also the unusual wear on the plank. It may also be that Sebs style of driving ideally suits this setup and go some way to explaining why Webber has gone from a close (ish) second to being a complete donkey.

If true, this leaves us with 2 possibilities. First is that RBR system is still legal and differs in some way from the Lotus system. If this is the case, RBR will continue to dominate. If not, then the Lotus system is virtually identical to the RBR and although initially deemed legal by the FIA, they now decide to remove it from everyone. Lets not forget that the FIA like to control the power in F1 after all Not long ago they wanted a German champ to capture the support of the lucrative German market and their two motoring bodies. Then we have the grace and favour system that benefited Ferrari for many years. It could be that with the incredible money that Red Bull invest across motorsport they were quite happy to give them a leg up.

[adesseridopaw]

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 suspension systems were banned from Formula 1 once it became clear to the FIA that their principle benefit was aerodynamic, AUTOSPORT has learned.

The governing body wrote to teams on Friday informing them that, in its view, the mechanical concepts pioneered by Lotus and Ferrari and being looked at by other teams would be in contravention of the rules if they were used to help the aerodynamics of the cars. Reactive ride banned because FIA believed it gave an aerodynamic benefit - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

[Dertrioz]

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

[clapsoewmred]

Banning a system after some teams, who were likely assured of its legality previously, had spent months developing is absurd. I am not questioning whether active suspension is good or bad. What's questionable is that this innovation is banned so late. This indeed reminds the situation with blown diffusers in mid 2011.