Mass dampers, now it's movable floors!

There's an article on the Speed site about a certain team's car possibly having a movable floor to aid aero. Perposterous! This team would never sort to anything so devious!:rofl:

There's an article on the Speed site about a certain team's car possibly having a movable floor to aid aero. Perposterous! This team would never sort to anything so devious!:rofl:

Link please.:)

We've already had one poster enthuse about Ferrari's "floorless" drive.Maybe he knows something we don't. ;)

It's here. (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36099/) Now I guess I'd better read it. :D

I only guessed that it was Ferrari.:)

Well,we've had moveable wings,so it was only a matter of time before something else started to move.

LOL...I mean come on guys give it a rest:rolleyes:

LOL...I mean come on guys give it a rest:rolleyes:

Who, us or Ron Dennis?

The Ronster...

I don't really see what the problem is, if a team feels they have a legitimate complaint against a rival, then it should be aired and pursued.
I'm sure Ferrari would do the same if another team had possibily suspect designs on their cars, and they have done in the past.

I'd heard there was some innovation to do with the Ferrari rear end, reason for why they only showed front-on shots at the launch, but i thought it was only some sort of air intake behind the front suspension feeding more air into the diffuser...

I'd heard there was some innovation to do with the Ferrari rear end, reason for why they only showed front-on shots at the launch, but i thought it was only some sort of air intake behind the front suspension feeding more air into the diffuser...

I think that it's more to do with the front of the floor bending down as the car goes faster.How on earth anyone can know that this is happening is beyond me.

For anyone that can be bothered to read into this RD is saying that this time of year is characterised by teams drawing the FIA's attention to rivals' cars and thrashing out what's legal and what's not. No doubt there are features on the McLaren which in their own turn will be criticised.

Exactly, this is par for the course and could be considered as self-regulation.

With all the moaning you get it is nice if things are questioned and considered without protests left right and centre.

What's the point of having a movable floor when you have to have that flat lump of wood underneath the driver? Ground effect?

The team/teams that are bending the rules and objecting to teams doing so,might like to take the whole of the period of the next GP to sort it out.:)

What's the point of having a movable floor when you have to have that flat lump of wood underneath the driver? Ground effect?

The "flat lump of wood" only covers a relatively small area of the floor.So plenty of scope for rule bending is still available.:)

You could alter the angle of the floor, so that the leading edge is closer to the ground. The plank is farther back. It seems Ferrari say the floor front is on springs so that it can bounce out of the way when running over big bumps - a safety feature in other words. Apparently other teams have other methods to do the same thing. As soon as you agree that a moving floor might under certain conditions be acceptable the floodgates for innovation are open! Same with wings - a certain amount of flex is always going to happen - as soon as you know that you design the wing to flex to that level, plus any margin for error allowed.

There was a report on Autosport earlier that seems to have vanished into thin air that was talking about this - it seems that Ferrari have had the device approved since Brazil last year, and I remember something about it to do with stalling the diffuser to reduce drag at high speeds, thus giving them the ability to run more wing without so much of a top speed penalty.

I was a bit tired this morning, so I couldn't really take it in properly!

I read something like that also on Autosport, which they removed after a few days. Ran down where they thought each of the teams strength's and weaknesses lay with the new cars. Probably moved it to one of the parts you have to pay for...

What's the point of having a movable floor when you have to have that flat lump of wood underneath the driver? Ground effect?

It's very complicated. But as much as I've understood, the movable floor wouldn't create extra downforce. It only reduces drag.

A full report from Autosport.:)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57511

Here we go again.

Hopefully, though, this will be clarified rather quicker than the flexi-wings last year and the other teams can incorporate the device (or the other way round, which is probable I suppose). Like, right now.

Like, right now.

Yes,the sooner they start bolting these things together instead of using "springs" the better it'll be for everyone.

The other teams will adopt this "technology", then it will get banned.

Here we go again.

Hopefully, though, this will be clarified rather quicker than the flexi-wings last year and the other teams can incorporate the device (or the other way round, which is probable I suppose). Like, right now.
Agreed, a lot of money was spent last year on something that the FIA eventually ruled as illegal. Fingers also being pointed at BMW (again) do they and the red team go out drinking together or something?

motorsport-network.net (http://motorsport-network.net/formula1/F1-_BMW_also_implicated_in_new_cheating_row.shtml)

They do like to push the envelope, which is great in a way! But it does cause unrest...

to quote a legend, how do you know where the limits are if you don't pass them every so often?

Agreed, a lot of money was spent last year on something that the FIA eventually ruled as illegal. Fingers also being pointed at BMW (again) do they and the red team go out drinking together or something?

i am curious to know who came up with it first, or if it was just a natural evolution of the underside of the car that both came up with independently.

OT, but BMW seem to be able to pick up on what others are doing and getting those parts on their cars for tests and races rather quickly. maybe better spies or something, which begs the question of why Mclaren (if they are the ones that spotted it) are complaing about it first when they should be trying to find out if it will benefit their car.

Perhaps they have and it doesn't, ala mass damper? :rotate:

Perhaps they have and it doesn't, ala mass damper? :rotate:

thats true, i didnt think about that.
well then bring on the lawyers:)

to quote a legend, how do you know where the limits are if you don't pass them every so often?
Indeed Hepatic. Customer cars, engine homologation, control tyres; I find this sprung floor thing quite clever really. Good on 'em for trying it.

Ron's just dishing out dirt. Never like being beaten.

Interviewer: "Are you pleased with 2nd and 3rd"
Ron: "Vodafone-Mclaren-Mercedes and their technological partners are very pleaseedd with the result..."
Interviewer: "thank you..."
Ron: "Don't interupt... but we could have won if not for BMW who ran a light strategy..."
Interviewer: "huh... aren't they allowed to race?"
Ron: "Yes, but not in front of us!.... and then, psst psst..a certain team, i shall not mention *points at the Ferrari pits* uses illegal cars... their floor move! We should have won."
Interviewer: "..................."

See. it's the problems with the competition that Ron didn't win a race for more than a season, and there are just so many reasons. He's just taking a page out of Flavio's book of complaints... "Oooh... BACKMARKERS, you just need a rifle...!!"

Ron is just the same as any other team boss then.

Probably. To compete, you can't love losing.

Ron reminds me alot like Arsene Wenger. Grooming the young (Lewis), very professional with managing his team. I don't think his drivers particularly like him, but he does command the respect (which i think he deserves). And he is protective over his team very much to the extent that he could be in denial that his team even has much mistake or weakness, and getting real grouchy in public.

Regarding the floor, as far as FIA is concerned, they have been cleared for 2 to 3 races. And really, i doubt it's as magical as Ron try to make those floor sound, and it's not the reason why a Ferrari is a second faster than a Mclaren. Like Ferrari have said, there is always the FIA for the teams to lodge complains too, and they will conform to FIA's verdict. Which is fair attitude, and if Mclaren have any doubts, i think it's better to voice it to the authorities than to do a dance in front of the media and create unrest.

With the customer car saga bubbling, we really don't need more finger-pointings to overshadow the start of a new season.

Ron reminds me alot like Arsene Wenger. Grooming the young (Lewis), very professional with managing his team. I don't think his drivers particularly like him, but he does command the respect (which i think he deserves). And he is protective over his team very much to the extent that he could be in denial that his team even has much mistake or weakness, and getting real grouchy in public.


i totally agree with the Wenger comparison, soon we'll have Ron quoted as saying "i deed not see eet" in a french accent like Wenger does whenever asked about an incident.
I think Ron likes the idea of being a mentor, especially if he is looking to take a back seat to running the team in the near future, he can leave his protoge and legacy in place.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57650

McLaren wrote to Charlie Whiting asking about these devices and FIA have looked at them and re-designed the test to try and combat against them.

Yep, it seems as though the FIA has acted swiftly on this one, (thank god) at least now the teams know the score and can take appropriate action.

Yep, that's fair enough. Better than the usual "ignore the situation for ages and then change it at a time that appears conspirational to many" policy.

were bmw and ferrari noticable faster in the timetraps in the last race?

Speedtraps wouldnt indicate anything if theyre using the mechanism to allow higher downforce to be used.

Speedtraps wouldnt indicate anything if theyre using the mechanism to allow higher downforce to be used.

It's not used to gain downforce,it's used to reduce drag,thereby increasing top speed.:)

were bmw and ferrari noticable faster in the timetraps in the last race?I checked formula1.com and it does not seem to have speedtrap figures for the race but for qualifying they have them here (http://www.formula1.com/archive/grandprix/speedtrap/2007/770/24.html). Pretty inconclusive really. Ferrari certainly at the top but the BMWs were at the bottom.

At least McLaren asked the FIA 'can we do this as well?' rather than 'we think its illegal, send them to jail, do not pass go'.

Even if the top speeds don't show anything, they still could be running a higher downforce setting at low speeds which cancels out when they go above a certain speed on the straights ... thus giving them the best of both worlds.

It's not used to gain downforce,it's used to reduce drag,thereby increasing top speed.:)

What i was suggesting was using its ability to reduce drag to offset higher levels of downforce. Afterall, if it wasnt for the drag the teams would always be running as much downforce as possible.

Kebab, Mclaren almost had no intention to follow and design a similar setup. The letter was crafted to describe an opponent's design with Mclaren's own interpretation of how it MAY work.

I think it's fair that FIA responded quickly, even though i think much has been made out of little. it's just that i'm tired of conspiracies and false accusations flying at every race, and i'd just love to see how Ferrari and BMW would respond on track.

Ron was right, its illegal.

Well done FIA for issuing such a prompt clarification

The spring support for the front floor is something that all teams use - including McLaren! It stops you destroying the keel of the chassis when you hit a kerb hard.

I think that McLaren have hurt themselves as much as anyone else by getting this clarification.

I think that McLaren have hurt themselves as much as anyone else by getting this clarification.


don't think so!

this was a classic "interpretation" (and why not?) of the rule book in a literal sense, rather than what the rules intended. Worth a try, but now clarified.

be interesting to see if it makes any difference.

If BMW and Ferrari's car are designed around this mechanism, much like how the Renault was designed around the mass damper, the gain for McLaren is going to be larger by having BMW and Ferrari having to change their system, than McLaren adapt theirs.

I think that McLaren have hurt themselves as much as anyone else by getting this clarification.
If it was goiong to hurt McLaren the wouldnt have protested it...

Why do so many armchair "fans" think that Ron is stupid? He's not you know

mmmhh there's a point a I can't catch: cdifferently from mass dampers, a movable floor is an external device, then an easy thing to see; infact ron saw it. But if Ron could see it, even more it was seeable from ispectors which check the cars at the end of the race!

If they found it regular, what could Ron perceive that they couldn't?

It was win-win for him to ask the FIA about it - if it was legal they could copy it, if it wasn't then they may close the gap to Ferrari and put them on the back foot.

Doing nothing would have been a little silly.

The reason that I think that McLaren have shot themselves in the foot is that the FIA said that the spring system was illegal - it went on to say (in the clarification published today) that any system in that area must be removed for the front floor deflection test.

McLaren's system used a buckling stay that they now cannot use!

Yes, but maybe the advantages they gained from it were not that great.

They can use what they like,so long as it gets through the test.Obviously now it remains to be seen how it affects the teams performance.

At least the rule clarification came nice and early this season... well, the first one anyhow..

Indeed, i'd watch the proceedings and performance of teams with interest.

And i think once again, FIA has rubbished suggestions of being pro-Ferrari, that they would not hasitate to act for the sports, even if Ferrari may be disadvantaged.

But one point that needs to be clarified is that at no point is BMW and Ferrari judged illegal. The cars passed all scutineering tests. And the allegations made by Ron are just assumptions. Not facts. His engineers propose what MIGHT and CAN happen if the system is abused, but at no point were anybody under the BMW / Ferraris at 250km/h to see if the floor really deflects.

But interesting nevertheless that Haug and Ron are saying how they would work to close the gap.. yepp.. not by bringing themselves up, but bringing the competitors down. That's the game!

One week to go :)

And i think once again, FIA has rubbished suggestions of being pro-Ferrari, that they would not hasitate to act for the sports, even if Ferrari may be disadvantaged.



Nice to see the FIA trying to even things up.;)

can anybody explain in principle how the spring/other system works to avoid kerb damage? and i understand teams can run all the contraptions they want as long as it can be disconnected and still pass the deflection test.

broadrun96: The front floor (or tea tray) is a fairly substantial piece, often made of steel and carrying ballast. The rules say that with 500N applied at the front, the floor must not deflect more than 5mm (that's 112 lbf and 3/16" for those of you on the other side of the pond). On most cars the floor of the monocoque is raised in this area and a spring fitted fwd of the fixing point to achieve the required stiffness. In this way, the monocoque should be protected from direct contact with a Kerb.

Interestingly, during the coverage of qualifying this morning, Giorgio Piaola said that Ferrari passed scritineering on Thursday, whilst McLaren and some other teams had to make last minute modifications.

broadrun96: The front floor (or tea tray) is a fairly substantial piece, often made of steel and carrying ballast. The rules say that with 500N applied at the front, the floor must not deflect more than 5mm (that's 112 lbf and 3/16" for those of you on the other side of the pond). On most cars the floor of the monocoque is raised in this area and a spring fitted fwd of the fixing point to achieve the required stiffness. In this way, the monocoque should be protected from direct contact with a Kerb.

Interestingly, during the coverage of qualifying this morning, Giorgio Piaola said that Ferrari passed scritineering on Thursday, whilst McLaren and some other teams had to make last minute modifications.

K, so the floor (finally having seen some good high-res pics) is held up with the spring until enough force comes across it aerodynamically and then it would deflect down stalling the air to the rear of the car? the spring is used instead of a hard attachment because the latter wouldnt flex enough? sorry not an engineer, i play with trees for a living instead. thanks for clearing it up (if that was a correct interpretation), been watching sports cars but finally have the time to really get into both sports cars and f1.

Given that Ferrari were head and shoulders beyond McLaren in the last race, but had their butts handed to them in this race, I suspect that the clarification of regulations effected Ferrari quiet drastically.

Not really, the Ferrari's still had a massive advantage down the straights apparently.

The worst hit teams were Renault, Red Bull and Honda allegedly.

Then why was Ferrari so slow? Heidfeld was barely holding Massa up! Kimi's Aus performance was the most dominant since the F2002 or F2004.

Being fast downt he straight has as much to do with setup. SpeedTV said that Davidson was something like 3rd or 5th fastest in the speed traps during qualifying.

Well, my thoughts are that Malaysia is a lot better indicator of car performance than Australia for a start.

Also, the Malaysia test has helped McLaren get the car totally optimised and they have no doubt learned a lot more about the Bridgestone tyres.

McLaren have just caught up quite a bit. But we won't really know where everyone ultimately stands for a few races yet.

Also don't forget, that in Australia McLaren never really had a go at Ferrari as they spent a long time behind a BMW and by then were too far behind to do much.

From what I gather, McLaren brought a truck load of new parts from Woking in time for Malaysia, though I heard nothing about Ferrari. Perhaps Ferrari were just in their "Melbourne spec" and McLaren have caught up in terms of development?

According to Todt, the F2007 won't get any new parts till Barcelona.

That stuff may be true, but if one looks at outright lap times Ferrari blew Mclaren away at Melbourne. They were probably .8s+ faster. It was a circuit that was thought to not suit the long wheelbase Ferrari. Now we get to Malaysia and Ferrari are probably .4s+ behind Mclaren. With the exception of Ferrari at Hungary in 2003 (when MS was lapped), I can't recall seeing such a disparity from one race to the next. At both races both teams ran into difficulties, but ultimately had clear track at some point.