FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jensonb]

How did that make the car better if it had to have 5kg of fuel in it

The idea behind the FiA ruling was that the 5KG of fuel in the car when it was in scrutineering was the only reason it met the minimum weight limit. They stipulated that this was improper on BAR's part, and argued that it was done to foster a competitive advantage because, in the run up to a fuel stop, the team would be able to run the car down from above the 605KG minimum weight to as little as 600KG, thereby gaining an advantage in terms of speed.

Quite how that would work considering BAR had already explained it needed to have the fuel in the pressurising chamber to function however, is beyond my comprehension. But then I'm not an engineer.

[Jabberwocky]

yep the need for 5kg is what confused me about it

[darwin dali]

How did that make the car better if it had to have 5kg of fuel in it

The idea behind the FiA ruling was that the 5KG of fuel in the car when it was in scrutineering was the only reason it met the minimum weight limit. They stipulated that this was improper on BAR's part, and argued that it was done to foster a competitive advantage because, in the run up to a fuel stop, the team would be able to run the car down from above the 605KG minimum weight to as little as 600KG, thereby gaining an advantage in terms of speed.

Quite how that would work considering BAR had already explained it needed to have the fuel in the pressurising chamber to function however, is beyond my comprehension. But then I'm not an engineer.

I think the FIA believed that the 5kg requirement was just a cop out. BAR could NOT prove with their data that the car at no point during the weekend was underweight. The potential of running underweight and the surreptitiousness of the entire design aimed at concealing those 5kg from the scrutineers was enough to get banned.

[Jensonb]

yep the need for 5kg is what confused me about it

Yeah, I dunno. They didn't exactly ever explain it in plain english.

What I do know is this:

The system was not unique.

[bud]

4.2 Ballast :
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.

thats from the tech regs on the FIA site.

But teams do already have a bladder fuel cell where as the fuel gets used the bladder decreases in size so the fuel does not move and splash about and alter the cars handling.

[f1usa]

4.2 Ballast :
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.

thats from the tech regs on the FIA site.

But teams do already have a bladder fuel cell where as the fuel gets used the bladder decreases in size so the fuel does not move and splash about and alter the cars handling.

Look at another way of raising and lowering rear suspension. A two-stage gas/fluid damper which works like a force multiplier. At start of race when car is heavy with fuel, the gas stage of damper is compressed exerting more force on fluid damper raising rear or equalizing ride height. I too have thought about seals that are engineered to leak at a designed rate. Does the ducting of Red Bull exhaust and higher temperatures near damper play a part in controlling height of rear suspension. I did not record Bahrain GP but could some forum members view and comment on the ride height of Vettel's car a few laps before he lost lead and when his car started to misfire and lost positions.

[Poker]

Regards RBR Ride Height.
Steve Matchett suggested last night (early this morning) on SpeedTV that they were using Halon gas in the dampers/suspension that was chilled for Qualy, keeping the car lowered ... as it warmed up sitting in parc fermee, the Halon escaped, and the car raised up the millimeters it needed to to accept the extra fuel weight.

[darwin dali]

Regards RBR Ride Height.
Steve Matchett suggested last night (early this morning) on SpeedTV that they were using Halon gas in the dampers/suspension that was chilled for Qualy, keeping the car lowered ... as it warmed up sitting in parc fermee, the Halon escaped, and the car raised up the millimeters it needed to to accept the extra fuel weight.

He didn't exactly suggest they'd use such a system, he only voiced his opinion that something like this could be a possibility.

[Poker]

Regards RBR Ride Height.
Steve Matchett suggested last night (early this morning) on SpeedTV that they were using Halon gas in the dampers/suspension that was chilled for Qualy, keeping the car lowered ... as it warmed up sitting in parc ferme, the Halon escaped, and the car raised up the millimeters it needed to to accept the extra fuel weight.

He didn't exactly suggest they'd use such a system, he only voiced his opinion that something like this could be a possibility.

Sorry .. you are correct .. he expressed that this had been voiced as a possibility.

[What's Burning?]

An article on Speedtv that will likely continue to fan the flames of this issue. if Red Bull does have a mechanism in place to adjust their height, their domination on pole position is over for the short term.

FIA Says Adjustable Ride Height Systems Illegal

"Adjusting the ride-height of a Formula One car's suspension system during parc ferme is illegal, the FIA has clarified.

The news comes amid continuing suspicion about the dominant Red Bull RB6 single seater after McLaren accused the energy drinks-owned team of running such a system.

Red Bull, however, has vehemently denied the charge with boss Christian Horner warning that he will protest any team he suspects is altering its cars' ride-heights after qualifying or before the start of races.

The BBC and Reuters report that a letter has been sent to the teams about the issue by the FIA this week.

It says adjusting ride-height with "any system, device or procedure" contravenes up to two regulations.

There has been speculation that Red Bull had found a way to adjust the ride-height by the allowing the drainage of compressed gas, but the FIA letter adds that "any self-leveling damper system is likely" to also break the rules."

[MAD MAX]

There is too much suspicion going on with this issue. The FIA need to urgently establish with RBR what exactly they have done (or not). Then to put this to bed by issuing a statement that either RBR have acted with the rules (or not)

[Jamie]

I wonder if they dominate next race. I have my doubts people?

[What's Burning?]

I wonder if they dominate next race. I have my doubts people?

China is going to be very interesting!

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Adjusting suspension while in parc ferme isn't provided for by the sporting regulations, which is a very different matter from it being illegal.

34.1 of the SR lists the things that may be done in parc ferme. There are 24 separate clauses and the words "no" and "not" only appear within them twice. Adjusting suspension isn't forbidden, it just isn't provided for. So if you can adjust suspension by means of one of the acts that is provided for, it's legal.

The tenth clause reads, in its entirety, "- compressed gases may be drained or added ;"

[stonemonkey]

Adjusting suspension while in parc ferme isn't provided for by the sporting regulations, which is a very different matter from it being illegal.

34.1 of the SR lists the things that may be done in parc ferme. There are 24 separate clauses and the words "no" and "not" only appear within them twice. Adjusting suspension isn't forbidden, it just isn't provided for. So if you can adjust suspension by means of one of the acts that is provided for, it's legal.

The tenth clause reads, in its entirety, "- compressed gases may be drained or added ;"

Except for 34.8 which states that scrutineers must be completely satisfied that no changes can be made to the suspension or aero (except front wing) configuration without the aid of tools.