Ferrari letter prompts row over 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

Leading Formula 1 teams could be forced to revise their suspension systems on the eve of the 2017 season following a Ferrari query over technology pioneered by Mercedes

Ferrari letter prompts row over 2017 Formula 1 suspension designs

The champion team is among those developing fully-legal hydraulic systems to improve chassis stability following the effective ban on FRIC (Front and Rear InterConnected) suspension in 2014.

Mercedes has placed a heave (or third suspension element) behind the rocker assembly to control vertical displacement of the suspension.

The benefits of the system were clear in 2016, but it is now under the microscope after Ferrari queried the use of such concepts in correspondence with the FIA before Christmas.

Red Bull could also be affected, having managed to exploit once again the radical rake angles integral to its aerodynamic concept.

Writing to the FIA to discuss whether new ideas on other cars are legal is common practice for F1 teams.

FERRARI'S QUERY TO FIA

In a letter to F1 race director Charlie Whiting, circulated to all teams, Ferrari's chief designer Simone Resta said his team was considering a system that could replicate FRIC without a physical connection between the front and the rear of the car.

The issue was whether these systems breached the catch-all article 3.15 of F1's technical regulations that effectively outlaws moveable aerodynamic devices, as they could help the car's aerodynamic characteristics.

"We are considering a family of suspension devices that we believe could offer a performance improvement through a response that is a more complex function of the load at the wheels than would be obtained through a simple combination of springs, dampers and inerters," wrote Resta.

"In all cases they would be installed between some combination of the sprung part of the car and the two suspension rockers on a single axle, and achieve an effect similar to that of a FRIC system without requiring any connection between the front and rear of the car.

"All suspension devices in question feature a moveable spring seat and they use energy recovered from wheel loads and displacements to alter the position of the heave spring.

"Their contribution to the primary purpose of the sprung suspension - the attachment of the wheels to the car in a manner which isolates the sprung part from road disturbances - is small, while their effect on ride height and hence aerodynamic performance is much larger, to the extent that we believe it could justify the additional weight and design complexity.

"We would therefore question the legality of these systems under Art. 3.15 and its interpretation in TD/002-11, discriminating between whether certain details are 'wholly incidental to the main purpose of the suspension system' or 'have been contrived to directly affect the aerodynamic performance of the car'."

Resta specified that Ferrari's concern was over components that exhibited either:

"1) displacement in a direction opposed to the applied load over some or all of its travel, regardless of the source of the stored energy used to achieve this.

"Or

"2) a means by which some of the energy recovered from the forces and displacements at the wheel can be stored for release at a later time to extend a spring seat or other parts of the suspension assembly whose movement is not defined by the principally vertical suspension travel of the two wheels."

WHITING: CONCEPTS 'CONTRAVENE' RULES

Whiting responded that any suspension system that acted in such a way was not in compliance with the regulations.

"In our view any suspension system which was capable of altering the response of a cars' suspension system in the way you describe in paragraphs 1) and 2) would be likely to contravene article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations," he wrote.

Although Whiting's response would appear to outlaw the use of the trick suspension technology, it is understood teams affected have queried the situation.

As talks continue, any team running a device that could be interpreted as breaching the rules now faces a dilemma over whether to commit to it in its 2017 design but risk a final ruling outlawing the concept, or pursue an alternative system that may not be as competitive.

Additional reporting by Franco Nugnes

shares
comments
Ricciardo: Red Bull best long-term F1 bet despite Mercedes opening

Previous article

Ricciardo: Red Bull best long-term F1 bet despite Mercedes opening

Next article

Haas F1 team could now build its own car - Romain Grosjean

Haas F1 team could now build its own car - Romain Grosjean
Load comments

About this article

Series Formula 1
Teams Ferrari
Author Jonathan Noble
The delay that quashed Aston Martin’s last F1 venture Plus

The delay that quashed Aston Martin’s last F1 venture

Aston Martin’s only previous foray into Formula 1 in the late 1950s was a short-lived and unsuccessful affair. But it could have been so different, says NIGEL ROEBUCK

Formula 1
Apr 10, 2021
Verstappen exclusive: Why lack of car-racing titles won't hurt Red Bull's ace Plus

Verstappen exclusive: Why lack of car-racing titles won't hurt Red Bull's ace

Max Verstappen’s star quality in Formula 1 is clear. Now equipped with a Red Bull car that is, right now, the world title favourite and the experience to support his talent, could 2021 be the Dutchman’s year to topple the dominant force of Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes?

Formula 1
Apr 9, 2021
Are we at peak F1 right now? Plus

Are we at peak F1 right now?

For many, many years Formula 1 has strived to do and to be better on all fronts. With close competition, a growing fanbase, a stable political landscape and rules in place to encourage sustainability, 2021 is on course to provide an unexpected peak

Formula 1
Apr 8, 2021
How crucial marginal calls will decide the Red Bull vs Mercedes battle in F1 2021 Plus

How crucial marginal calls will decide the Red Bull vs Mercedes battle in F1 2021

The longer Red Bull can maintain a performance edge over Mercedes, the better the odds will be in the team’s favour against the defending world champions. But as the Bahrain Grand Prix showed, many more factors will be critical in the outcome of the 2021 Formula 1 World Championship

Formula 1
Apr 7, 2021
How Williams’ new structure adheres to a growing F1 trend Plus

How Williams’ new structure adheres to a growing F1 trend

Williams held out against the tide for many years but, as MARK GALLAGHER explains, the age of the owner-manager is long gone

Formula 1
Apr 6, 2021
When a journeyman driver's F1 career lasted just 800m Plus

When a journeyman driver's F1 career lasted just 800m

Nikita Mazepin’s Formula 1 debut at the Bahrain Grand Prix lasted mere corners before he wiped himself out in a shunt, but his financial backing affords him a full season. Back in 1993 though, Marco Apicella was an F1 driver for just 800m before a first corner fracas ended his career. Here’s the story of his very short time at motorsport’s pinnacle

Formula 1
Apr 4, 2021
The nightmare timing that now hinders Mercedes Plus

The nightmare timing that now hinders Mercedes

Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton took victory at the Bahrain Grand Prix despite, for a change, not having the quickest car. But any hopes of developing its W12 to surpass Red Bull's RB16B in terms of outright speed could not have come at a worse time.

Formula 1
Apr 2, 2021
How Raikkonen's rapid rise stalled his team-mate's F1 career climb Plus

How Raikkonen's rapid rise stalled his team-mate's F1 career climb

Kimi Raikkonen’s emergence as a Formula 1 star in his rookie campaign remains one of the legendary storylines from 2001, but his exploits had an unwanted impact on his Sauber team-mate’s own prospects. Twenty years on from his first F1 podium at the Brazilian GP, here’s how Nick Heidfeld’s career was chilled by the Iceman

Formula 1
Apr 1, 2021