Gary Anderson: Why FRIC was banned

Do you agree that FRIC is illegal and, if so, why has it taken so long for action to be taken?
Ben Smith, via email

It's not really for me to judge if something is legal or illegal. The FIA has all the information it needs on how each individual team operates the system and has decided that the time is right to step in.

Systems that link the front and rear suspension, even diagonally, have been around since I started in Formula 1 over 40 years ago. Then, they were basically mechanical cables that, when the front of the car dived under braking, pulled the rear down as well to reduce the change in car attitude created by the weight transfer.

I suspect the reason it has taken so long for the FIA to take action is that the systems have become more and more complicated over the years. Now, FRIC allows teams to create underbody and front wing aerodynamic characteristics that would otherwise be far too pitch sensitive.

If that is the case, FRIC does have an aerodynamic influence so it is correct to ban it. Otherwise, you might as well go the whole hog and permit active suspension.

Hang on minute, isn't that what the FIA is proposing anyway? Confused? So am I.

Besides FRIC, what other suspension system is available to teams? Are they forced to go back to separate subsystems front and rear?
Silviu Jr, via Twitter

Within the regulations, it's difficult to see what else can be done. The car has to have an independent sprung suspension, but it can also have front and rear antiroll bars connecting the two sides. These are mechanical, so I suppose a mechanically linked front-to-rear system would be within the letter of the law.

Taking that a little further, the dampers mounted on each corner of the car have an expansion reservoir and there is nothing to stop one reservoir serving two or even four dampers.

I think what the FIA is trying to do is just cut back these systems. FRIC has become incredibly complicated lately and it does change the attitude of the inherent load-induced car platform.

This, in turn, alters how the car distributes its aerodynamic load. So as the teams can tune this and alter when and at what rideheight or load it operates, it is a movable aerodynamic device.

I had a good look at the Jordan 191 at the Goodwood Festival of Speed & noticed the exhaust outlets. Was that meant as a "blown diffuser"?
Karun Chandhok, via Twitter

Karun, good to hear from you! Yes, it was a fully-blown diffuser.

One of the things we concentrated on with that car was making it driver-friendly. At Jordan, we were heading into F1 for our first season and we had pre-qualifying at eight o'clock on a Friday morning. There were eight cars fighting for four places in qualifying proper and if you didn't get through, you went home.

And after that, it was 30 cars fighting for 26 places, which meant you could also go home on Saturday evening.

So the last thing we needed was a car that was too complicated to get the best out of. So we focused on minimising aerodynamic sensitivity.

Basically, when the car was braking, because of the weight transfer onto the front axle the front ride height would reduce and the rear would increase. So when the car attitude was like this, we concentrated on moving the aerodynamic forces rearward. This was controlled by the diffuser shape and the front wing style.

When accelerating, the opposite would happen. The rear would get lower and the front would get higher. So with the same aerodynamic characteristics, that meant that we gained front downforce and lost rear downforce.

But with the exhaust blown diffuser, the rear downforce increased helping the traction out of the corners.

This all goes to show that nothing is new, not even blown diffusers!

Why haven't F1 cars been running 18-inch wheels already? Every other series has bigger wheels.
Mack Murphy, via Twitter

It has been talked about for many years and the same old delaying tactics from the teams hinders progress.

It will change the characteristics of the car, with much sharper response to steering, braking and traction inputs. But as World Endurance championship cars have shown us, nothing is insurmountable.

Personally I like the look of them. As far as aesthetics and car requirements are concerned, I might suggest 19" fronts and 18" rears.

I would also suggest a wider rear tyre at the same time, an increase of something like 3". Along with that, introduce a set of regulations that reduced overall downforce by something like 50 per cent, remove DRS and then we would definitely see some real racing.

Please don't think I'm criticising the current racing. I think it is great but we need to look forward and plan for the future.

So reducing the aerodynamic influence and increasing the tyre grip is the way to go. All the teams can then benefit from that extra tyre grip they get out of the back of the Pirelli truck and not just the teams with the extra tens of millions to spend on aerodynamic development.

What is stopping F1 teams from using the MGU-K as a starter motor so the cars can become self-starting and potentially operate in the pitlane without the gas engine?
Matt Clark, via Facebook

That was one of the original ideas when the regulations were being written. That, along with the cars having to use only electrical power in the pits, was dropped for some reason.

The starting of an F1 car is not just as simple as hitting the starter button, so I am sure that due consideration was given to the pros and cons of both and a practical decision was taken. But in time we may see it coming back and I do think it wouldn't be a bad idea as long as it works - and works consistently.

As for using electrical power only in the pitlane, I can accept it being dropped having been almost run down by a Toyota Prius in a filling station forecourt. Imagine an F1 car at pit-limiter speed with no noise worth talking about, it might just be a little dangerous at times.

Why are the new engine rules so prescribed and defined? Why did they not just say to the manufacturers the engine size is 1.6-litre, fuel capacity 100kg, max fuel flow 100 kg/h, and leave the rest to them to decide? You only have to look at LMP1 to see all the different solutions we could have had... We all know they have spent just as much developing the current engines as they would have whatever the rules!
Simon Roffey, via email

A lot of people have asked the same question but the reason is that the regulations attempt to control costs by reducing the risk of someone getting a big advantage and the others having to re-design their units to try to catch up.

But wait a minute, isn't that exactly what has just happened within these new regulations? This shows that no matter how the regulations are written, if you screw things up, it will cost you money to get out of it.

If you look at the LMP1 rules, there are quite a lot of differences depending on whether it's petrol or diesel, how many driven wheels you have and how much power you are harvesting.

With different cars having different weights and fuel capacity and such like to equalise performance, I think it's a little too complicated but it does bring good racing.

Given the homologation rules for power units, do you think it's possible for Ferrari and Renault to achieve parity or even overtake Mercedes in terms of overall performance in the coming years? Also, how did Renault in particular manage to improve performance in the past with changes that were allowed on reliability grounds, and why are they and Ferrari talking like that's not possible now?
Amedeo Ramone Felix, via Facebook

The regulations for the V8 engines were that a freeze was put on development of the main engine structure. If an engine manufacturer had a reliability problem and they could convince the FIA that is was purely on reliability grounds then they would be allowed to re-design, re-engineer and fit a new component.

Sometimes, there's a fine line to draw between reliability and performance but I think that from 2010 to the end of 2013 we saw reliable engines that were all much of a muchness. And we saw a formula that was all about the teams and performance and not an engine formula like it is currently.

The current regulations mean that at the start of the season, the engines were homologated. That means that the hardware for 2014 is frozen and only external developments are allowed, plus how the engines are controlled and the different power inputs and outputs used.

For 2015, every team has the same opportunity to develop or change components within the power unit. The regulations allow for change by listing all of the influential components and allowing each manufacturer to change a certain percentage of these components.

This percentage reduces year by year, so for 2015 there is no reason why Ferrari and Renault won't be able to catch up and indeed move ahead.