F1 suspension row brews ahead of 2017 season

Leading Formula 1 teams could be forced to revise their suspension systems on the eve of the 2017 season amid a row brewing following a Ferrari query over trick technology that Mercedes has pioneered.

F1 suspension row brews ahead of 2017 season
Listen to this article

Even though the high-tech FRIC (Front and Rear InterConnected) suspension system was effectively banned in 2014, it has not stopped some outfits finding alternative ways to improve the handling of their cars.

Mercedes in particular has been at the forefront of developing fully-legal hydraulic systems to improve the overall stability of the chassis – which helps in braking and cornering – to assist in drivers’ ability to take more kerb, more aggressive driving lines and look after tyres better.

It has been achieved through the team placing a heave (or third suspension element) behind the rocker assembly to control vertical displacement of the suspension. Such an arrangement is mirrored at the back of the car too.

The benefits of the system were clear in 2016 – as Mercedes was so much better on tyre life – and it is believed that a number of outfits were preparing similar systems that took the technology even further.

Red Bull has made great strides in the past 12 months on understanding the dynamics of its own car too, having managed to exploit once again the radical rake angles that have been so integral to its aerodynamic concept.

Ferrari letter

But the suspension technology being considered has now been thrown into doubt after Ferrari queried the use of such concepts in correspondence with the FIA before Christmas.

As is common practice in F1, teams can write to the FIA to discuss whether or not it believes new ideas are legal – and if the FIA says they are not, then rival teams are informed to help them avoid pursuing the concepts themselves.

This system is also used by teams to try to clarify whether technology used by rival teams is legal too.

In the letter to F1 race director Charlie Whiting, Ferrari’s chief designer Simone Resta said that the team wanted to propose a system that could replicate FRIC without there actually being a physical connection between the front and the rear of the car.

The issue was whether or not 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.

In the letter that Resta wrote, a copy of which was circulated to all teams, he stated: “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.

“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 (Front Rear InterConnected suspension) 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”.

Rules clarification

Resta wanted the FIA to confirm whether suspension systems that had two characteristics were legal. They were concepts 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.

In response to Ferrari, Whiting said that he believed that any suspension system that acted in such a way was not in compliance with the regulations.

Whiting said: “In our view any suspension system which was capable of altering the response of a car's 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.”

Discussions ongoing

Although Whiting’s response would appear to outlaw the use of the trick suspension technology, it is understood that teams running similar systems have now queried the situation – which means discussions are ongoing about what is and is not allowed for 2017.

Any team running a device that could be interpreted as breaching the rules faces a dilemma though on whether to commit to it with its new car – and risk it being outlawed in a final ruling – or pursue an alternative system that may not be as competitive.

F1’s first 2017 test is due to take place at Barcelona in Spain on February 27.

Additional reporting by Franco Nugnes

shares
comments
Reflections on F1 2016 - struggling Sauber scores last-gasp jackpot
Previous article

Reflections on F1 2016 - struggling Sauber scores last-gasp jackpot

Next article

Grosjean: Haas F1 could produce US-built car in future

Grosjean: Haas F1 could produce US-built car in future
The difference between Mercedes’ stumble and the fall of F1 giants Prime

The difference between Mercedes’ stumble and the fall of F1 giants

OPINION: Mercedes endured its worst season of the hybrid Formula 1 era, but was mercifully spared its first winless campaign in over a decade late on. It has owned up to the mistakes it made which led to its troubled W13. And while its task to return to title-challenging contention is not small, its 2022 season seems more like a blip than the beginning of a downward spiral.

The physical focus bringing out the best from Esteban Ocon Prime

The physical focus bringing out the best from Esteban Ocon

Esteban Ocon likes to point out he’s the first driver since Lewis Hamilton to emerge from a spell as Fernando Alonso’s teammate with a superior overall points record. While some may disagree, as LUKE SMITH discovered, the 2021 Hungarian GP winner reckons it’s not just luck which has made him France’s pre-eminent Formula 1 driver of the moment…

Formula 1
Nov 28, 2022
How Red Bull's dynamic leader Mateschitz shaped its F1 philosophy Prime

How Red Bull's dynamic leader Mateschitz shaped its F1 philosophy

The death of Dietrich Mateschitz last month has not only deprived Red Bull of its visionary founder, it has shorn Formula 1 of one of its most influential benefactors. Mateschitz himself was famously media-shy, preferring to let the brand do the talking on his behalf. And, while it’s now normal to speak of Red Bull F1 titles and champions made, Mateschitz never assumed it would be easy or even possible – as ANTHONY ROWLINSON discovered during this previously unpublished interview from 2006…

Formula 1
Nov 27, 2022
Can Mercedes break Formula 1's cycle of doom? Prime

Can Mercedes break Formula 1's cycle of doom?

OPINION: Teams that have dominated for long periods throughout Formula 1's history often take years to get back to the top of the tree once they've slipped down. But it remains to be seen whether the same will happen to Mercedes after a challenging 2022 season

Formula 1
Nov 24, 2022
What hurt Perez most in his ill-fated fight for second in Abu Dhabi Prime

What hurt Perez most in his ill-fated fight for second in Abu Dhabi

Arguably the favourite in the battle to finish second-best in 2022's Formula 1 standings, Sergio Perez's two-stop strategy at Abu Dhabi couldn't take him ahead of Charles Leclerc when the music stopped - and several key factors ultimately precluded him from the much-coveted runner-up spot.

Formula 1
Nov 23, 2022
The Abu Dhabi momentum that can propel Leclerc and Ferrari to F1 2023 success Prime

The Abu Dhabi momentum that can propel Leclerc and Ferrari to F1 2023 success

OPINION: Charles Leclerc achieved his target of sealing runner-up in the 2022 world championship with a masterful drive behind Max Verstappen in Abu Dhabi. And that race contained key elements that may help him, and Ferrari, go one better in Formula 1 2023

Formula 1
Nov 22, 2022
2022 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Driver Ratings Prime

2022 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Driver Ratings

The 2022 Formula 1 season came to a close at the Yas Marina Circuit, where the battle for second in the standings was decided, the wins in a season record extended and a retiring four-time world champion bowed out on a high. Here's how we rated the drivers

Formula 1
Nov 21, 2022
The factors that stopped Perez catching Leclerc in Verstappen's Abu Dhabi triumph Prime

The factors that stopped Perez catching Leclerc in Verstappen's Abu Dhabi triumph

Max Verstappen ended the 2022 Formula 1 season in fitting fashion with a dominant drive to victory in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. But behind him, early season rival Charles Leclerc achieved his target of securing the runner-up spot with a well-executed a one-stop strategy to beat Sergio Perez, whose pursuit on a two-stop strategy was hampered by several critical factors

Formula 1
Nov 21, 2022