Overrun - when/what should the FiA have done?

[NJB13]

Given that we have our opinions on whether winning will be good or not for SF after the overrun ban, I thought it made sense to see how we think the FiA should have handled this matter.

Just to be clear, the FiA are going to ban overrun because it is in breach of the current rule (art 3.15) as it was written before the start of the year. Charlie Whiting has also said the FiA were aware of this before the start of the year.

The question is, what should the FiA have done and when should the FiA have acted?

(Would be good if we could combine this with the other thread/poll on overrun, but I couldn't see how to do that.)

[Rishu]

1st option.

[sagi58]

First of all, thank you for that informantion!! I honestly wasn't aware of the technicalities of the rules on this!

As for what I think? Well, since the FIA hasn't acted upon this rule, to date, they may as well be writing a "new" rule, for all the sense it's going to make to "suddenly" decide to enforce it!

I would suggest it's similar to any of the rules the drivers operate under. If, for example, at one race, cutting a chicane to overtake is given a drive-through, then that rule should apply to the next driver, the next race, etc.

Otherwise, it's simply being biased.

So, definitely the first option: enforced the rule at the beginning of the season!!

[Greig]

They should not change the rules, but that option seems to be missing :-)

[Hermann]

They didn't change the rules. Just took them a while to find out its breaking a rule.

[Greig]

they issued new directives, so yes they did :-)

Exhaust gasses have been used for aero for a long long time, everyone knows that, James Allen wrote about EBD last season, it's been common knowledge for a while, that is why many other teams followed suit, FIA changed their ruling.

[aroutis]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10112&start=0

my understanding of a COLD blown exhaust was that even out of the throttle the inlet and exhaust valve would open and close allowing gasses (effectivly AIR) to pass throught the trumpets..engine..exhaust. But both valves remain open, so at best only the operating faces would be cooled.

A HOT blown exhaust is where they lock the exhaust outlets open and just open the inlets, inject fuel and retard the ignition to just past top dead center to allow as much of the firing cycle to vent out the exhaust. Then when back on the throttle the exhaust valves regain there natural movement to allow torque to be produced from the engine. But maps can alos be created to ignite selected cyinders just BEFORE ttc to decrease engine speeds as fast as possiable.

From what i know the "extreme" measures are now that a certain team...no names...is able to tune the engine mapping to generate a certain amount of hot exhaust gas in certain cylinders per different engine map.

Example...china, Tight 1st sector high downforce, engine map 1 (example) Overrun on all 8 pistons.

Sector 3 long straight with very tight hairpin at the end, maximum power on the exit so go to map 2, overun only on 4 pistons, 2 each side.

Think about of this (and they may well be, only time will tell) engine maps could be mixed in with the diff settings and be able to generate differing amounts of DF on either side of the car out off the trottle to help turn in and save fuel that would be wasted (TWISE, from the engine and excess DF)
This is what the FIA wants to ban. And they should've from day one. But better late than never.

[Brakefade]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10112&start=0
This is what the FIA wants to ban. And they should've from day one. But better late than never.

Wow, that's almost as bad as adjustable suspension. I'm glad they the FIA clamped on it sooner rather than later.

[Ken]

It wasnt" Illegal" at the start of the year.

Therefore any ban or change to the rules should be applied for next year.

I will say it again "Its the FIA Fixing races ", to achieve some sort equalizing affect during the season, in the misguided opinion that it keeps fans watching and makes the racing more entertaining.

If these mid season changes are for entertainment purposes then the FIA should go into producing West end musicals where changes like this are essential mid season.

[NJB13]

A definitive statement that 100% clears up that the rule has not been changed. Verbatim quote from Charlie Whiting's press conference at Valencia:-
"What we are doing is stopping people breaking the existing rules"

It can't get any clearer than that. Team are breaking the existing rule.

As most people in the poll so far have said, the FiA should have acted before the Australian GP.

[Greig]

:rotflsure Charlie

so the FIA let them break the rules since last season....good job and proves Charlie has changed his mind, probably due to outside pressure to try and manufacture a close title :-)

FIA changed their ruling, no matter how bold you post it lol

BBC just said it was Ferrari that put the most pressure on the FIA to change the ruling......

[dr.k]

Ross Brawn about overrun ban. He explains why FIA banned it now and ....

full article from Friday's press conference
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92594


RB: I think James probably touched on it very well there in terms of it not being a change of regulation; it's a realisation. The things we were doing, that type of interpretation is not legal. I think the difficulty the FIA had is that the protagonists behind raising this issue were threatening to protest the cars and that was the difficulty they had. They couldn't ignore that and once they were made aware of the technology I think they started to sympathise with the view that the people who were upset about it had, because the FIA didn't discover this by themselves, they were alerted about it by a team. And once that ball started to roll, they probably had little choice but to decree what should happen. If they hadn't have taken action, then it sounds like some teams were going to protest the situation to get clarity through the stewards and that wouldn't be very good for Formula One. We want to avoid that at all costs because I know from experience that the stewards would find such a technical argument quite difficult to resolve and it would probably end up in the appeal courts again and that's no good. I think it's probably being dealt with in the best possible way but what we need now is absolute clarity on where we're going with this and I think having the exhaust moved next year is very important because we don't want this to end up as another argument of the type we had about traction control: what was traction control, what wasn't traction control, what you could do, what you couldn't do? We want clarity because, as you know, the traction control issue has not been discussed for several years, and we don't want to have the exhaust blown issue being discussed and being a major distraction to what we're doing. So we will cope – I think we will all cope this year. It will make a difference to the cars. We've got a new floor coming at Silverstone which is designed around that technology. We've got to decide what we're going to do now but I think having the exhaust moved next year should bring clarity to this area. But there will be something else round the corner, as always in Formula One.

[m1dknight]

A definitive statement that 100% clears up that the rule has not been changed. Verbatim quote from Charlie Whiting's press conference at Valencia:-
"What we are doing is stopping people breaking the existing rules"

It can't get any clearer than that. Team are breaking the existing rule.

As most people in the poll so far have said, the FiA should have acted before the Australian GP.

No they are not and Whiting is full of it,


Exhaust blowing was on my menu of aero development during the first year of the flat bottom era (1983) as one possibility to recover some downforce. I was in Renault at the time in charge of aero and, after some checks on the engine bench as we were terrified to face another lag time (!) between throttle movement and downforce creation, I was given the green light to experiment in the tunnel. Exhaust blowing to create a fluid skirt on the side of the car (also tested early 1983) did not worked but blowing the rear diffuser was quite powerful (I remember something like 50 kg on the rear axle at full throttle whatever the speed).

It was introduced at MonteCarlo in 1983 on the RE 40 and stay on it most of the season. It was kept on RE50 the year after (ask Derek Warwick!) and I introduced it also on the F1/86 (Canada 1986) when I worked for Ferrari later.

I remember well that in 1983 we were immediately protested by Brabham and Gordon Murray (on the basis of the exhaust blowing being a movable aero device) but Renault managed to win that case. A pity they did not return the favor to Brabham at the end of the season!!!

Diffuser blowing is specially good for traction out of slow corners but it has its downsides too. It increases balance sensitivity to throttle position which may create problems on high speed corners. Good and bad sides are quite depending on the driving style too: some drivers can take advantage of it more than others. The gas momentum available in the exhaust today is anyway much reduced compared to the turbo era (about 50%).

So 28 years ago the same issue came up and it was ruled by the FIA that exhaust blown diffusers are NOT a movable aero device. So where is the poll option for if they don't agree with this it should have been banned then not just when Red Bull made everyone else look like amateurs.

[NJB13]

So 28 years ago the same issue came up and it was ruled by the FIA that exhaust blown diffusers are NOT a movable aero device.
EBD's are not being ruled illegal by the FiA. EBDs will remain at and after Silverstone. Extreme engine overrun (which has nothing to do with driving the car) is being banned.


So where is the poll option for if they don't agree with this it should have been banned then not just when Red Bull made everyone else look like amateurs.
Most probably on the Red Bull forum.

[Greig]

Yeah 28% over run is ok, and is not moveable aero, but maybe 35% over run is illegal now, who can tell then the FIA change their ruling to suit :-)

Seems like they said, it's ok to use exhaust gases as aero as you always have done for years and years, but hey don't take it too far, or we will change our ruling on it.

Nice and consistent governing of the sport, for sure.....maybe they will soon say Red Bull can't use 100% throttle as it's moving the aero too much, who can tell.....

[m1dknight]

EBD's are not being ruled illegal by the FiA. EBDs will remain at and after Silverstone. Extreme engine overrun (which has nothing to do with driving the car) is being banned.


Most probably on the Red Bull forum.

Erm they are banning EBDs as of the end of the year and the turbo engines had even more over run than the current engines as they also used it to keep the turbo chargers spun up. This is one of the reasons blown diffusers lost favour after the turbo era as with the turbos using so much over run there was no loss in downforce when entering a corner where as the naturally aspirated engines did not do this and it became difficult to make a stable car.

[NJB13]

Erm they are banning EBDs as of the end of the year and the turbo engines had even more over run than the current engines as they also used it to keep the turbo chargers spun up. This is one of the reasons blown diffusers lost favour after the turbo era as with the turbos using so much over run there was no loss in downforce when entering a corner where as the naturally aspirated engines did not do this and it became difficult to make a stable car.

On the EBD's, what I said is they will remain after Silverstone - which is true. They can't be banned because they don't breach any existing rule. And, yes, they have signaled that they want to change the rules to ban EBD's from next year. That will need to go through the normal rule change process.

The FiA's position on overrun is clear and correct IMO. To understand the FiA's position you need to consider the purpose of the engine. Basically, the FiA is saying that when the engine is being used to drive the car then whatever you do with revs etc is ok. But, when you start to use the engine for the express purpose of creating a positive aero effect, then then engine is no longer a device to drive the car, rather it becomes a moving aero device - breaching article 3.15. Also, the hot and cold overruns are not simply revving the engine to create exhaust gas. The FiA has looked at overrun data from 2009 and compared it to what is being done now, from this they believe they can deduce what is reasonable in terms of need for engine reliability (both cooling and reducing pressure). That is how they have arrived at the 10/20% overrun limits.

I personally agree with the FiA's logic and position, I'm just annoyed they took so long to act.

[Greig]

Basically, the FiA is saying that when the engine is being used to drive the car then whatever you do with revs etc is ok. But, when you start to use the engine for the express purpose of creating a positive aero effect, then then engine is no longer a device to drive the car, rather it becomes a moving aero device - breaching article 3.15.


"We know exhaust gases have an influence on aerodynamic performance of the car, we accept that, but the point is that the designs should minimise the effect they have on the car, they should not attempt to use the exhaust for a completely different reason.So that makes sense.....not

EBD therefore breach your beloved 3.15 regulation, so why are they not banned now, DD breached the same regulation, f-duct just walked all over your regulation, yet what happened.........

[Grillo]

I picked 1st option but my PoV is that the FIA knew about that since last season so they should have taken action before the start of the season or very soon after it started. Changing the rules in the middle of the season doesn't make sense at all, and it's obvious in this case.

[m1dknight]

The FiA's position on overrun is clear and correct IMO. To understand the FiA's position you need to consider the purpose of the engine. Basically, the FiA is saying that when the engine is being used to drive the car then whatever you do with revs etc is ok. But, when you start to use the engine for the express purpose of creating a positive aero effect, then then engine is no longer a device to drive the car, rather it becomes a moving aero device - breaching article 3.15. Also, the hot and cold overruns are not simply revving the engine to create exhaust gas. The FiA has looked at overrun data from 2009 and compared it to what is being done now, from this they believe they can deduce what is reasonable in terms of need for engine reliability (both cooling and reducing pressure). That is how they have arrived at the 10/20% overrun limits.

I personally agree with the FiA's logic and position, I'm just annoyed they took so long to act.

Lets look at 3.15


With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts
solely associated with its actuation) 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.

Right nothing so far that can be used to say the over run is illegal


With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system,
device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
Right this is the part the are banning it under. The problem is by reducing the off throttle over run you make the driver directly respoonsible for the aero balance of the car and drivers will start having to use the throttle not just to accelerate but also to obtain rear downforce by generating exhaust gas. Red Bull in one interview mentioned that prior to the automated system about half way through last year the driver would have to keep the throttle open a certain amount during turn in so they didn't unload the rear of the car.

If anything the ban makes this an even worse breach of the regulations as the throttle is now directly used to affect the cars aerodynamics.

[NJB13]

Lets look at 3.15



Right nothing so far that can be used to say the over run is illegal


Right this is the part the are banning it under. The problem is by reducing the off throttle over run you make the driver directly respoonsible for the aero balance of the car and drivers will start having to use the throttle not just to accelerate but also to obtain rear downforce by generating exhaust gas. Red Bull in one interview mentioned that prior to the automated system about half way through last year the driver would have to keep the throttle open a certain amount during turn in so they didn't unload the rear of the car.

If anything the ban makes this an even worse breach of the regulations as the throttle is now directly used to affect the cars aerodynamics.

Interesting position you have. However, I would think they are banning it under this section:-
any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Referring back to what I posted above, it's inherently obvious that the engine revs and works to drive the car - that is its purpose. However, with overrun, the engine has been given a new task which it can do while it is not "propelling" the car (ie when the driver is off throttle to go around a corner). In this case the engine has a another function. Now the engine is not propelling the car, and it is not doing something to maintain itself, it is being used with the specific purpose of creating a flow to aid its aeros. So when it is doing this (ie it is in the overrun state) it is a "specific part of the car" and it is "influencing its aerodynamic performance". It is also very clear that the engine is not "immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".

[Greig]

Yet over run has been fine for years and years and years, a fact you seem to ignore, wonder why.

F-Duct, moveable aero device, no mid season rule change, tell us why?
DD - same as EBD in essence, moveable aero, no mid season rule change, care to explain why?
EBD - moveable aero, mid season rule change - why?

we all know why, to try and interfere with the title and that is the facts.

[m1dknight]

Interesting position you have. However, I would think they are banning it under this section:-
any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Referring back to what I posted above, it's inherently obvious that the engine revs and works to drive the car - that is its purpose. However, with overrun, the engine has been given a new task which it can do while it is not "propelling" the car (ie when the driver is off throttle to go around a corner). In this case the engine has a another function. Now the engine is not propelling the car, and it is not doing something to maintain itself, it is being used with the specific purpose of creating a flow to aid its aeros. So when it is doing this (ie it is in the overrun state) it is a "specific part of the car" and it is "influencing its aerodynamic performance". It is also very clear that the engine is not "immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".

The problem with that part of the rule is that the engine is always influencing the aerodynamics of the car, not just on the over run. Nowhere in the rules does it say unless it is also providing forward motion. If you use that part of the rule EBDs are completely illegal and should all be removed. The only part of the rule you can realistically use is the driver controlled part of it.

Also regardless of all this I won't ever agree with the ban, F1 is about techincal innovation above all else but over the last half decade or so the FIA have made it very clear that they will ban anything even remotely clever, which in my opinion is very much against the spirit of F1.

[NJB13]

The problem with that part of the rule is that the engine is always influencing the aerodynamics of the car, not just on the over run. Nowhere in the rules does it say unless it is also providing forward motion. If you use that part of the rule EBDs are completely illegal and should all be removed. The only part of the rule you can realistically use is the driver controlled part of it.
I think the distinction is the "purpose" of the part of the car we are talking about. The inherent purpose of the engine is propel the car forward. As long as the part is performing it's purpose then a vicarious aero effect would not qualify the part to be considered a "part influencing its aerodynamic performance". And I believe there is plenty of precedence to easily uphold this position. The wheels move and influence the aeros of the car, but, their purpose is also clearly not to influence the aeros of the car, they are there to steer and provide mechanical grip. Therefore, when you read the rules you must always consider the "purpose" of the part in question (and as I have shown there is precedence for this position).

The extreme overruns being used are clearly beyond and outside the engines purpose of propelling the car - no-one could argue against that. Therefore, the engine, while it is in the extreme overrun state, changes from being an engine in the traditional sense of the word to a part with only one purpose - the purpose of influencing the aero performance of the car. Therefore in the extreme overrun state it is an aero device - not a engine. For me that's clearly against the rules and should have been banned before the first race of the season, if not when it was first discovered.


Also regardless of all this I won't ever agree with the ban, F1 is about techincal innovation above all else but over the last half decade or so the FIA have made it very clear that they will ban anything even remotely clever, which in my opinion is very much against the spirit of F1.
I agree and disagree with this comment. I disagree in that, IMO, if there is a rule, it must be respected and properly followed by all teams. I don't see any breach of a rule as being clever.

However, I agree in that the F1 should be conducive to creativity. The number of rules and there complexity contrive against creativity. For me there are just too many rules. We should go back to much simpler rules. Take engines for example, quite some time ago I suggested that all engine rules could be thrown out the door and teams simply be given a season and race specific fuel allowance.