Violator flexibility

McLaren tried to incriminate its main competitors

Technical progress in Formula 1 is endless and unpredictable, because human genius is inexhaustible. When it seems that all possibilities for further improvement of technology have dried up, there is a “clever guy” who offers a completely new approach to trivial details. And the parts begin to work, at least a little, but in a different way, revealing the hidden potential of the entire mechanism. But it turns out that inventing something new is only half the battle: it is much more difficult to fit the invention into the Procrustean bed of technical regulations, the strict observance of which is monitored not only by the powerful technical delegates from the FIA, but also with even greater attention by competitors. Only one race of the just started Formula 1 championship has passed, and before the second stage of the Malaysian Grand Prix, the first suspects of violating the regulations have already appeared.

To the “flexible wings” and dampers that made so much noise last season, this time a “flexible bottom” was added. Moreover, the rivals were again able to detect the violators, which has become a common occurrence in the Royal Races. The suspects included Ferrari and BMW-Sauber, whose cars in Melbourne really impressed with their speed. The secret of their superiority was revealed a few days later in a letter sent to the FIA ​​by the chief engineer of the McLaren team, Peddy Lowe. No, this was not the usual protest in such cases against the use of illegal design elements, but... a request to clarify whether it is possible to use a similar device on your cars. The letter, supported by a diagram, explained in detail how the “flexible bottom” worked. The trick of the relative novelty (Ferrari tried it at the last stage of the last championship) is to attach the bottom of the car to the monocoque body with special springs. This mount allows you to pass the mandatory FIA flexibility test, which limits the movement of the bottom to within 5 mm under a load of 500 Newtons. But at maximum speed, the pressure on the lower elements of the car exceeds the test standards, and the bottom begins to “work” - by bending, it improves aerodynamics, allowing you to develop higher speeds and corner more stable.

Although the letter did not directly mention the teams that "sprung" the bottoms of the cars, the main objects of attention were the fastest cars of the first race. Neither Ferrari nor BMW made any comment on the accusations of illegitimacy, citing technical checks by FIA delegates before and after the race, which did not reveal any violations. Considering that only two teams - Aguri Suzuki and Williams - openly stated that they did not use a trick mount, then it can be assumed that it is not only Ferrari and BMW that will encounter difficulties with a thorough inspection. Although the federation will not impose retroactive sanctions on those stables that have already taken advantage of the innovation, it will be more strict about the test in the future. In a response letter from Charlie Whiting, head of the FIA ​​technical committee, it is explained that in the future the procedure for measuring underbody flexibility should be carried out “without devices built into the car in order to ensure test standards.” This means that the spring suspension must be removed.

Why didn’t McLaren follow the same path as their competitors, but preferred to “snitch”, albeit in an unusual way? Perhaps the designers of the English team learned about Ferrari’s developments too late, when work on the new chassis had already entered the final stage, and the introduction of a complex element without additional research increased the risk of not having time to prepare the team for the start of the season. Or the design features of the car did not allow us to fully use the advantages that were evident on the cars of other teams. In any case, the management of McLaren preferred to act on the principle “I’m not there, and I won’t give it to anyone else,” rather than humbly following the technical successes of others.

Now Ferrari, BMW, and perhaps someone else will urgently need, albeit minor, changes in the design, which, naturally, has not benefited anyone. It is difficult to estimate what fractions of seconds allowed the “flexible bottom” to win and how much slower the cars of these teams would become without it. But the psychological advantage is now on the side of the Grove team. In any case, even if the Scuderia pilots again turn out to be faster than the Silver Arrows, their boss Ron Dennis can consider himself a winner. After all, in the end, he contributes to the progress of Formula 1 - an inventive genius will definitely come up with something new, even more cunning, interesting and perfect.

Dmitry SITNIK