McLaren's HQ Investigated / Renault to answer spying charge

[Scaff]

I was looking for something like that, explaining the actual mechanics and covering technical stuff more than F1.com's Technical Analysis.

When the new paycheck arrives then

It will certainly do that, and more. The design of brake caliper's using FEA methodology and a clean-sheet (from AP Racing) may not be everyone's idea of a great read, but you will not find detail of this level in any other publication.

So basically, it's designed to flex as soon as the loads are above the limits set by the rules?

In a word, yes.

Despite the regulations clearly banning flexible aero components, the Ferrari front splitter stay was designed to pass scrutineers tests, but flex just over those limits. It allowed the car to run both lower at the front (providing a mini-ground effect) and also run curbs more aggressively with a much lower risk of damage. Now normally the 'plank' would suffer increased wear from these kinds of actions, but the stay was also designed to move the front of the plank as well.

This was a clear breach of the technical regs, yet no action was taken other than a change to the tech regs.


Regards

Scaff

 

[jammyozzy]

I would strongly recommend subscribing to Racecar Engineering, while it is a very tech heavy publication (part of the appeal for me) it looks at motorsport in more detail that any other publication.

Hey, another subscriber - I feel a little more normal now.

That Ferrari article is fascinating, I was amazed at some of the things Ferrari have come up with.

 

[Blake]

I would strongly recommend subscribing to Racecar Engineering, while it is a very tech heavy publication (part of the appeal for me) it looks at motorsport in more detail that any other publication.

I’d only heard of it last night when Metar linked me to that article. 20 minutes later I was subscribed!

Good to hear from a member that I respect that it was worth the rather heavy 2 year subscription fee.

 

[Scaff]

I’d only heard of it last night when Metar linked me to that article. 20 minutes later I was subscribed!

Good to hear from a member that I respect that it was worth the rather heavy 2 year subscription fee.

For me its worth every penny of the subscription, the Mark Ortiz chassis/suspension Q&A each month is excellent, as is the depth on aerodynamics. That it also looks at race series from all over the world is also a bonus, but most months they look at a specific car in as much technical detail as they can (just about the only limits are those imposed by confidentiality agreements), just to give you a taste, cars covered this year have been...

Lola B06/51
Reynard 02i
Jaguar GT3
Handa RA106
Epsilon EE-LMP1-07
Ford F3l
Aquila Formula Ford
Peugeot 908 HDI FAP
Milliken MX-1
Morgan Aero 8 GT3
Subaru Impreza WRC S12B
Creation CA07
Cadillac CTS-V
Dallara GP2/08
Matech Ford GT
DHG Ford GT
McRae R4
Swift 017.N
McRae Enduro
Panoz DP09 'Super League'
Multimatic Mustang FR500C
Ferrari F2007
Tatuus NT S2000

This month also has a 30-odd page piece on the F3 technical cycle 2005 - 2007, with all major cars covered, truly you will turn into a sad tech-geek like me.

Sorry for the total off-topic

Scaff

 

[Eagle]

I don't think any team's technical department could consider themselves to be doing their job if they didn't exploit the regulations to the full extent possible. We've managed to completely veer away from the discussion of McLaren and Renault and their various espionage sagas into bashing Ferrari for breaching the spirit but not the letter of the rules, since the rules can only be applied so far as can be reliably tested, which I'm fairly certain is the basis for inclusion of 'reasonable doubt' in regular criminal law in most democratic countries.

From skirts to active suspension to traction control teams have been coming up with ideas and innovations that pass the regulations at the time they are employed, and whose effect subsequently prompts the FIA to revise the rules for the sport to more stringently control the use of such devices. No one jumped up and down about Renault's launch control in 2004, which was good for about 4-5 places off the grid, probably because it didn't actually win them a race except for Monaco. How was software that preloaded clutch settings within the spirit of the revised rules mandating manual clutches to ban launch control?

In the end it's all armchair academia. All we can do is wait for some actual solid details to come to light, or moreover, wait for Flavio Briatore to stop contradicting everything that's said, and look forward to the Brazil GP appeal tomorrow.

 

[peterjford]

From skirts to active suspension to traction control teams have been coming up with ideas and innovations that pass the regulations at the time they are employed, and whose effect subsequently prompts the FIA to revise the rules for the sport to more stringently control the use of such devices. No one jumped up and down about Renault's launch control in 2004, which was good for about 4-5 places off the grid, probably because it didn't actually win them a race except for Monaco. How was software that preloaded clutch settings within the spirit of the revised rules mandating manual clutches to ban launch control?

The probably belongs in its own thread, but it seems like there should be a series that allows these types of technological advances to be fully developed so that they can make their way into the cars we drive. I am still waiting for active suspension. I know there have been some cars with "semi-active" or "adaptive" suspensions but it seems that without the huge resources available to racing teams they can't be fully developed to where they can be applied to passenger cars.

Then again with all the advances that have made their way into todays cars, its almost like you are mostly along for the ride, not controlling a machine... ABS, ESC, Automatic transmission, drive by wire throttles, electronic power steering. Sure it helps the average driver be better, but it dumbs down the experience for those that love to drive.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think any team's technical department could consider themselves to be doing their job if they didn't exploit the regulations to the full extent possible. We've managed to completely veer away from the discussion of McLaren and Renault and their various espionage sagas into bashing Ferrari for breaching the spirit but not the letter of the rules, since the rules can only be applied so far as can be reliably tested, which I'm fairly certain is the basis for inclusion of 'reasonable doubt' in regular criminal law in most democratic countries.

I actually find that mildly amusing, you mention the basis of reasonable doubt regarding the application of technical regulations, yet the FIA completely ignore that (and quite clearly say they are ignoring it) when applying the sporting regulations in the McLaren case.

You see you can't have it working one way and not the other, if you are arguing that the benefit of the doubt should be given in regard technical infringements then please explain why the same should not be applied in regard to the sporting regulations?

The FIA have said that McLaren should be punished because they had Ferrari data (which McLaren do not deny) and that they may, according to the FIA, have used it (which McLaren deny and the FIA can not prove).


It should also be remembered that the flexible stay is breaching the letter of the regulations - Article 3.15

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts
described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

The flexible stay allows the front splitter to move under high loads, as the front splitter is clearly an aerodynamic component, I would love to know how this was not a clear breach of the technical regulations.

So you see this does have direct relevance to the topic of the thread, the technical regulation are not being subjected to the same 'test of proof' that is applied to the sporting regulations. That this came up most clearly during the hearing regarding the McLaren sporting regulations hearing is quite another matter. A breach of the technical regulations was openly discussed during a meeting that resulted in the single largest fine for a sporting regulations breach, yet no action was taken in regard to the technical regulation breach (other than the scrutineers test was tightened and teams were asked not to do this).

This is not a case of Ferrari bashing, its a discrepancy in how sporting and technical regulations are enforced and the 'burden of proof' that each are subject to, areas that are directly relevant to this discussion.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Blake]

I agree with you that it is a double standard, but I also strongly believe that McLaren should not have been punished to the extent that they were. But I also believe Renault should be punished to the extent that McLaren was, because what they’ve done is just as bad.

The best solution IMO would be for the FIA to admit that they were wrong in the decision they made regarding the McLaren case and reduce the penalty. They’ve set an incredible precedent that they can’t live up to and the Renault case is just the start of the ramifications.

 

[Sureboss]

I'd be pleasantly surprised if Renault receive the same punishment as McLaren, I just can't see the FIA being consistent.

 

[Alfaholic]

Didn't a certain Brabham engineer with the idea of a slanted BMW Turbo-4 to get better airflow get to test this out with a certain Woking-based outfit on their lower-height and more-reliable Honda V6?

Gordon Murray has made no secret of the fact that the engineering philosophy of a low centre of gravity and low overall height (to improve roadholding and reduce frontal area), most obvious in his 1986 Brabham BT55, was also the basis of his 1988 McLaren - Honda MP 4-4 which won 15 out of 16 races. He tried the idea with the Brabham, which was slow and unreliable, then revisited it with the McLaren, where the design was successful.

Basically, his idea seemed to be to make the car as flat as possible, which reduced drag, improved CoG and improved the efficiency of the rear wing by reducing the amount of disturbed airflow reaching it.

 

[Metar]

Gordon Murray has made no secret of the fact that the engineering philosophy of a low centre of gravity and low overall height (to improve roadholding and reduce frontal area), most obvious in his 1986 Brabham BT55, was also the basis of his 1988 McLaren - Honda MP 4-4 which won 15 out of 16 races. He tried the idea with the Brabham, which was slow and unreliable, then revisited it with the McLaren, where the design was successful.

Basically, his idea seemed to be to make the car as flat as possible, which reduced drag, improved CoG and improved the efficiency of the rear wing by reducing the amount of disturbed airflow reaching it.

I know why, I know he stated it. But that's just a case of an engineer taking the knowledge he gained at one team and continuing it on the second team.

I am still waiting for active suspension. I know there have been some cars with "semi-active" or "adaptive" suspensions but it seems that without the huge resources available to racing teams they can't be fully developed to where they can be applied to passenger cars.

The fact that Citroen developed active pneumatic/hydraulic suspensions for over 30 years doesn't matter, huh?

 

[Alfaholic]

I know why, I know he stated it. But that's just a case of an engineer taking the knowledge he gained at one team and continuing it on the second team.

so why did you ask?

 

[Metar]

so why did you ask?

It wasn't really a question, y'know. I know Murray's work, I just stated it in a question-format.


Case closed?

 

[peterjford]

The fact that Citroen developed active pneumatic/hydraulic suspensions for over 30 years doesn't matter, huh?

And I can buy one?

 

[Greycap]

Yep, how about a ZX (or what was that coupe looking bic Citroen), Xantia or C5?

 

[peterjford]

Yep, how about a ZX (or what was that coupe looking bic Citroen), Xantia or C5?

Well that sucks! Supposedly the US is the worlds largest car market but we never get the really cool stuff. How hard is it to immigrate to the UK, or France or Germany?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sorry for the OT but - to peterjford - here you have a 70's commercial of a Citroen with hydropneumatic suspensions (I just found the spanish version, but the text in it says that what you see was testified by a public authority)

 

[RACECAR]

Say, what is Renault's Budget in comparison to say the likes of Ferrari or Mclaren Mercedes? I hear they don't have as much money as the big teams so I'm wondering just how much.

For me its worth every penny of the subscription, the Mark Ortiz chassis/suspension Q&A each month is excellent, as is the depth on aerodynamics. That it also looks at race series from all over the world is also a bonus, but most months they look at a specific car in as much technical detail as they can (just about the only limits are those imposed by confidentiality agreements), just to give you a taste, cars covered this year have been...

Lola B06/51
Reynard 02i
Jaguar GT3
Handa RA106
Epsilon EE-LMP1-07
Ford F3l
Aquila Formula Ford
Peugeot 908 HDI FAP
Milliken MX-1
Morgan Aero 8 GT3
Subaru Impreza WRC S12B
Creation CA07
Cadillac CTS-V
Dallara GP2/08
Matech Ford GT
DHG Ford GT
McRae R4
Swift 017.N
McRae Enduro
Panoz DP09 'Super League'
Multimatic Mustang FR500C
Ferrari F2007
Tatuus NT S2000

This month also has a 30-odd page piece on the F3 technical cycle 2005 - 2007, with all major cars covered, truly you will turn into a sad tech-geek like me.

Scaff

I'm a huge car nut so I absolutely like what I'm seeing. I find the car in bold the most interesting that they've covered considering the effort to keep that car's internals as secret as possible. Only thing I'm a little concerned about is how much for Subscription.

 

[Blake]

Say, what is Renault's Budget in comparison to say the likes of Ferrari or Mclaren Mercedes? I hear they don't have as much money as the big teams so I'm wondering just how much.

Renault’s budget was less than $400 million in 2007. In 2003 I think Ferrari were spending $443 million.

In 2005 McLaren spent $400 million and were the biggest spender (ahead of Toyota at $393 million). When compared to Renault’s $300 million at the time it’s quite impressive that Renault were able to build a more reliable car and win the championship over McLaren.

 

[Eagle]

I guess I managed to skip over making clear that I think the McLaren verdict makes the term 'overkill' insufficient and that as GP.com suggested, I'd be happy to see the FIA pull their heads out, at the least with respect to the fine aspect of the penalty.

 

[Milliethemutt]

Mclaren say Renault possessed full tech data of their 2006 and 2007 cars since September 2006 and that Renault have used it to their advantage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7108758.stm

 

[darkfinal]

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/depo...a/Renault/elpepudep/20071206elpepudep_12/Tes/

More Spanish news. Renault has been found innocent of all charges, and won't be fined.

 

[Famine]

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/depo...a/Renault/elpepudep/20071206elpepudep_12/Tes/

More Spanish news. Renault has been found innocent of all charges, and won't be fined.

Meanwhile the World Motor Sports Council say that they have found Renault guilty of a breach of Article 151c - the same one McLaren were found to be in breach of - but will not impose any penalty...

Make of this what you will.

 

[daan]

Make of this what you will.

I admire the consistency of their inconsistentness once again.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm more interested in why the data was on Floppy Disks


But another really weird decision.

 

[livemusic]

So I guess Alonso is going to Renault after all.

 

[MagpieRacer]

The FIA will have a lot to answer for when Mclaren complain.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Maybe I'm wrong (and if I am, I'm sorry) , but I think you're all forgeting that this was exactly what they decided in the Mclaren's case FIRST decision ...

 

[mipuumal]

Maybe I'm wrong (and if I am, I'm sorry) , but I think you're all forgeting that this was exactly what they decided in the Mclaren's case FIRST decision ...

You are correct sir!

Personally I think McLaren are being hypocritical, they said that they did nothing wrong in the whole Stepneygate mess and now they say that Renault must've used the data since they had it in their possession.

It would be another thing if McLaren just admitted that they used the Ferrari data in testing and for ideas and such, and then accused Renault.

I haven't bothered to follow this case (not as exciting as the Stepneygate), but if Renault are guilty then they should clearly get the same penalty as McLaren.

 

[Scaff]

You are correct sir!

Personally I think McLaren are being hypocritical, they said that they did nothing wrong in the whole Stepneygate mess and now they say that Renault must've used the data since they had it in their possession.

It would be another thing if McLaren just admitted that they used the Ferrari data in testing and for ideas and such, and then accused Renault.

I haven't bothered to follow this case (not as exciting as the Stepneygate), but if Renault are guilty then they should clearly get the same penalty as McLaren.

I don't agree that McLaren are being hypocritical at all, the WMSC found Renault guilty of exactly the same charge as McLaren (and the FIA said in that case that they could not prove use of the data), yet one receives the largest fine ever handed out in motorsport and the other receives no penalty at all.

I'm not saying that the fines should be identical, but I see no consistency here at all. I await the full transcript with interest.


Scaff