24 replies to this topic

[Pit Babe]

Blimey! In light of the Ferrari DQ at Sepang, what possible technical advantage could too-thick barge boards provide?

------------------
PB ;-)

"Sensuality is the most glorious gift a woman has. And I think that's something to be celebrated." -Faith Hill

[Keith Sawatsky]

I would sure like to see a drawing or picture of the item in question..I'm still scratching my head over this one.

[fly]

This is the item in question:
http://formel1.jubii...etImage.dll?w21

But maybe there are some better illustrations?

[fly]

Here it's more clear what the barge-board is:

[fly]

BTW the technical advantage of wider barge boards is of aerodynamic nature (don't ask me how), and better cooling of the engine.

From Autosport:

Both his cars have been thrown out of the results of the Malaysian Grand Prix after finishing 1-2 because of a technical infringement on the barge boards. A turning vane of the aerodynamic aid that runs down the side of the cockpit is said to jut too far out by less than one centimetre.

[MPH]

Most of what I have read about the disqualification is vague, but I did read that they violated rule 3.12.1

From reading this it sounds like the bottom edge of the barge board was either 10mm too high or too low, instead of 10mm too thick or thin.

[This message has been edited by MPH (edited 10-18-1999).]

[Ursus]

I belive was that parts of the board was visible from below that were not at the right planes, thereby violating the "flat bottom" rule



Profile of bargeboard.
Left: Legal, the only part visible from below is at the ref/step plane.
Right: Illegal, parts visible from below is not at the ref/step plane.

Part of the Ferrari barge board seems to have a profile like the righthand pic.

The horizontal plate was apparently 10mm to short resulting in a violation of reg 3.12.1

---
Ursus

[This message has been edited by Ursus (edited 10-18-1999).]

[MPH]

Ursus - very good explanation - thanks.

[fly]

Ursus, I think you're right.

I found this explanation at the Tifosi-Club (I guess it's wrong then ???

The little panel that helps the "ground effect"
But their effort is unsignificant

The barge boards that costed the double disqualify to Ferrari after the Malaysian gp were adopted by Ferrari in the 195 and 196 chassis for the European Gp in Nuerburgring, two weeks ago. These devices are parts of the global balance and aerodaynamical efficency of the F399.



In other words they are almost fundamental for the general efficency of the F399, but, as also all the F1 technical responsables agree, they are unsignificant if considered as illegal advantage that permitted Ferrari to win yesterday.

This strange shape of deflector has been designed by Rory Byrne to improve the cooling of the air directed into the air intakes of the sidepods and its quality (more, fresher and cleaner air) going to improve the general performance of aerodynamic and of the engine. The detail that costed the malaysian GP to Ferrari is a little horizontal "panel" 10 mm wide placed at the base of the deflector.To tell the truth this detail is almost invisible - Jean Todt wonders how Fia has found it... - and - as told before - not so significant to get an "important" advantage.

Ferrari counts on this factor: it will be hard to demonstate by Fia that Ferrari got a considerable advantage enough to be cancelled from the finish order of the Gp.

[This message has been edited by fly (edited 10-19-1999).]

[MickLaren]

Hi Guys I am new here.
BBC has the clearest explanation of this problem:

looks damn insignificant to us but "gain is no excuse" according to the FIA.

[westy]

PB in reference to your question. the added thickness would allow more air deflection of the side pods at speed because they would tend to hold their shape. champ cars would build a box to perform this function adding weight and difficulty in making quick changes for different tracks and speeds . the thinner barge boards give at speed and allow more air to spill off with less resistance. i believe these boards are used to create the proper air vortex around the side pods and air cooling intakes. but i understood the protest was over the length of the barge boards not the thickness. can anyone help me with the proper charges made against the ferrari team? this may be a mute point after the decision tomorrow!

[Christiaan]

Interesting that Jordan hasn't used deflector panels all year.

[HP]

Maybe someone more into aerodynamics, engine development could offer me an explanation why the barge boards would have brought engine and aerodynamical advantages? I have seen the explanation offered above, but I'm asking this in light of Malaysia's qualifiying session. MS was fastest on all track sectors, but his exit speeds were slower than Coulthard all the time, at two times he was slower than Hakkinen, once slower than Irvine, Barichello and Herbert. It seems odd to me that the barge boards should have any advantages for Ferrari, unless I'm missing something here. The Ferrari eninge seems not to have gotten faster than the competition and as well the aerodynamics. To me the reason for astonishing Ferraris performance (besides from the drivers) must be in better traction or balanced handling of the car, or a better put through in the differential/gear box.

Anyone able to explain this more detailed? Or am I mistaken all along? BTW: the time and exit speeds I have from galeforcef1

[EdwRom]

I don't know the technical/aerodynamic advantages of this specific bargeboard. However, I wanted to clarify something. The problem with the "lip" is not that it is 10mm too short or thin. This ruling has nothing to do with the size or shape of the lip. As long as the lip is in the reference/step plane, it is legal. What caused the infraction was that because the lip tappered off too early, the step-up at the center of the barge (the diagonal section on Ursus drawing, above) was visible from below. The problem occured when the shape of the barge was modified. The curve was made more pronounced, pushing further outward but the lip was not widened. This produced the early tappering-off of the lip. Therefore, no aero components were really illegal, the illegality was in that an area of the barge, above the step plane was visible when it should have not. I think that all of the 10mm discrepancy just confussed the whole issue even more. I don't really how Ferrari used the 5mm tolerance rule (any part can be ±5mm of the specified range and still be legal) in this case but, I would have argued that, if the lip were 5mm longer or wider and the difference between the deeper and the shallower sections of the barge were reduced by 5mm, the lip would have covered the step-up from sight, therefore legal. That without gping into whether the messurements were taken properly or not. It is a stretching of the rule to its maximum (isn't that similar to what Max Mosley said) but is it allowable by the rules. (Sorry, shouldn't done the PR job for Ferrari on this technical forum, but I guess I've heard this 10mm too short or too wide argument way too many times.)
Ed

[whitman]

Hey all you techies,
Look at my "wait a minute!!"
post in the readers comments section.
Am I correct?

[EdwRom]

HP, I understand that Michael's exit speeds at the corners were a deliberate way to confuse Mika and prevent him from being able to plan a pass. Schummi was driving inconsistently enough to throw Mika off. This was not a result of aerodynamics.
Ed

[westy]

HP, EDW ROM is on the money Shuey's times were tactical. because Shuey could out accelerate the Mclaren he could over-brake at strategic corners. this had the effect of slowing the field down considerably then by out accelerating the Mclaren it was viewed by officials as not blocking because they were not able to pass because of shuey's great speed . Mclaren was at a disadvantage by not being able to pass in the corners. which would have been to thier advantage because of shuey's over-braking strategy! HP i agree that the BBs were of minimal assistance. what was effective? MS. it goes back to F1 racing that it is not just the car but the holistic idea of the team concept. Michael took a great car and perfectly tuned it (even though it was a new track) something the great Irvine and many engineer's were unable to do. EDW ROM thanks for the excellent specs on BBs and your correct view on shuey's strategy. which i believe only he could have done without drawing a penalty.

[PDA]

The stated purpose of the barge boards is to control and direct airflow to the rear of the car, and particularly to the air intakes for the radiators. In addition, they (may) have some effect in changing airflow to the underside of the car. One presumes that Ferrari found some beneficial effect from the compound curve used in their latest design. The previous design had a single outward curve at the upper front, making the tapered end plate at the bottom neccesary to mask the deflection from vertical. the modified board has an outward curve about two thirds of the way up from the bottom. There is some speculation that this was to increase airflow to the radiators. ferrari's mistake was not to increase the size of the tapered end plate tp mask the outward curve which extends much further to the rear than previously. IMO they were very lucky to be able to prove that the out of compliance was only 5 mm rather than 10 mm. I would bet that at Suzuka, new boards will have been made which completely mask the protruberence.

I have always been of the opinion that tech regulations should be strictly policed (otherwise we would have people trying it on with 4 litre engines!). In this case, it seems that Ferrari are just within the limit. However, what a nit picking "protest" to make.

[HP]

To clarify I was asking about the qualifiying, where Schumi didn't slow down for tactical reasons. Even not on exit speeds. That wouldn't made sense in qualifiying.

[EdwRom]

Oops! Sorry HP, yuo were very clear about this point on your previous post. I just miss the qualifying part. My mistake.
Ed

[westy]

sorry HP i too missed your original letter of intent. i'm not sure i understand your question HP, are you questioning the mystery of elapsed time versus speed?

[Christiaan]

HP, rewatch your tape of the GP. Schuey managed to be faster in the 1st sector only once, and it wasn't on his best lap. I actually remember with clarity that the Ferraris were very slow in the 1st sector, sometimes even by 0.5sec. They were blisteringly fast in the second sector, and average in the third sector.

[HP]

My question summarized would be, what other improvements did Ferrari make to their car? It looks as if the improvements aren't engine related. Or were the others cars all that bad the weekend? Heat problems?

[JamesL]

Sorry guys & gals, I think the obvious explanation for the MS qualifying sector speed/exit speed mystery is traction control. Ferrari needed a front row starting position to allow them to dictate the pace and tactics of the race. The obvious way to get it? Trick MS car up for qualifying, thereby only risking MS race chances in the unlikely event that they get caught.

Unfortunately MS,Byrne and Brawn have quite a history in this area. Their time at Benetton was tarnished by some less than fair electronic tactics. Since joining Ferrari it has been noticeable that when MS REALLY needs a good start he can usually get one. Two examples:

1.Jerez 1997, the title showdown between MS and JV was at its peak and MS made one of the most astounding getaways seen, just when he needed it.

2.Suzuka 1998, after being relegated to the rear of the grid MS makes another quite fantastic start passing numerous cars before the first corner. Watch the tape in slo-mo and you can see the wheels start to spin and then grip almost immediately, and maintain that grip perfectly past all the other lesser mortals battling with throttle control.

One other thing, in Joe Saward's Malaysian qualifying report he quotes photographers out on the circuit as saying that MS car appeared to be misfiring out of corners on his pole lap. Pretty damning statements in my view.

[Christiaan]

yawn