It's believed that Ferrari has a ride height automatic ajuster, and that would give them 5 tenths per lap, Red Bull seems to have it too, that could be the reason of why those two teams were mighty fast in qualifying and towards the end of the gp. Other teams say it's not difficult to copy that.

About the snorkel of McLaren, Sam says that it could take 2 or 3 races for the teams to copy it.

About us, I think there's no reason to panic, the FW32 it's at a very early stage, there's 2 tenths more to come from the Cosworth, 1 or 2 tenths from the gearbox due to some problems with it's electronics, FW32's traction was very poor at the first race, you could note it from the onboards and the bad starts that both drivers had and obviously from Rubens comments, also he had problems at braking locking up rears, and the balance of the car was poor, there's a lot to come.

Yes- I've just read about that in this week's autosport. It can be achieved mechanically through an extra spring (and therefore legally) where-by the more weight you put through the suspension, the more it resists, and so you don't have to run the car with really high ground clearance in qualifying to stay legal for the race. It's not fact- just a hunch Mercedes and McLaren got after being so much off the pace on saturday.

Either way, I don't think it's an area Williams are exploiting yet, neither are they yet exploiting the driver operated rear-wing staller concept which, like the first DDD's last year with Williams Brawn and Toyota, was a tentative first step in an area which, now deemed legal, has a lot more potential for innovation.

To add to francesc's list, McLaren, Mercedes, Force India and Renault will all have to waste resources making their car slower, whilst hopefully, Williams' Melbourne upgrades will work, which will also allow Rubens more time to develop an optimum setup for the race.

fingers crossed for a more competitive showing- but Im not expecting miracles.

---

Quote:

pgj

Let's get the disappointment out of our systems and look forward to some improvements over the next four to six races.

Thanks to Crusty/pgj - the pity party stops 7 days from next Sunday!

Ride hight adjustment is a tricky one. I thought any automatic adjustment of ride hight would fall foul of an active suspension and a moveable aero device. I listened to a discussion between Maurice Hamilton and David Croft about it. Maurice said that if the driver adjusted the ride hight then it would be considered a MAD. Yet if a mechanic adjusted it during a pitstop it would be ok. Sam said that Williams was looking at a ride hight adjustment but had not found one that could be adjusted quickly and easily.

If Autosport says that there is a legal system then there must be one. Both Ferrari and RBR have bubbles on their bodywork in front of the driver.

---

Williams and proud of it.

The beauty of the concept is that the ride-height never changes. The car is at the optimum height with low fuel, and the optimum height with high fuel. It's all to do with the suspension. Mark Hughes thinks that it could be achieved via a linkage which opposes any increase in weight pressing down on it- eg a ratchet system. So it's a naturally devised mechanical solution which isn't powered. No rival team would ever know of such a device until they start going uncommonly fast in qualifying. Apparently he has asked around the paddock, and the feeling is that such a solution is quite feasible.

---

I am not doubting you there Crusty.

I am always intrigued by technological developments. I suppose that if it is on a mechanical ratchet then it is not active because it cannot return to a point that it was previously at. Very interesting.

The bubbles on the front of the RBR are very noticeable. It may be a reason why Christian was so outspoken about McLaren's snorkel. A bit of misdirection to take questions away from their own development.

---

Williams and proud of it.

Quote:

pgj
Ride hight adjustment is a tricky one. I thought any automatic adjustment of ride hight would fall foul of an active suspension and a moveable aero device. I listened to a discussion between Maurice Hamilton and David Croft about it. Maurice said that if the driver adjusted the ride hight then it would be considered a MAD. Yet if a mechanic adjusted it during a pitstop it would be ok. Sam said that Williams was looking at a ride hight adjustment but had not found one that could be adjusted quickly and easily.

Hmmm...now we are getting to an area where Williams used to be at the forefront: mechanical engineering.
I think we've gotten to a point with aero in the sport where all the teams have pretty much caught up with each other or know what does what.
So some teams are now revisiting the first parts of the rules book to see what they can exploit.

I just think, we spent so much time catching up aero wise - & many here have always pointed it as a weakness - that we've kind taken our eyes of some fundamental things that Williams does well. Just food for thought.

I agree. It is just the kind of project that you would expect PH to throw himself into.

---

Williams and proud of it.

Quote:

pgj
Ride hight adjustment is a tricky one. I thought any automatic adjustment of ride hight would fall foul of an active suspension and a moveable aero device. I listened to a discussion between Maurice Hamilton and David Croft about it. Maurice said that if the driver adjusted the ride hight then it would be considered a MAD. Yet if a mechanic adjusted it during a pitstop it would be ok. Sam said that Williams was looking at a ride hight adjustment but had not found one that could be adjusted quickly and easily.

That brings up an interesting dichotomy - because I figure one would get scrutineer on ride height @ full fuel & empty to ascertain the same stipulated ride height.

Are those mutually exclusive?
Anyhow - per the FIA:
10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.
FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2010

The regulations appear not to rule out teams designing mechanical systems to adjust ride height during pit stops.

That FIA document you posted for 2011 contains automatic ride hight adjustment and automatic wing drag reduction. That sounds like active suspension by another name to me.

I had a read through the regulations and I could not find anything about ride hight adjustment.

Banning active suspension was a bad move. The plank would have broken ground effect and would have allowed the technology to be developed. As that document says - ride hight adjustment is relevant to road cars.

---

Williams and proud of it.

I think the idea here is that nothing has to be adjusted, nor powered- ie- the car is set up to the lowest optimum ride height on low fuel, then the spring system resists the weight of the extra fuel, thus keeping the ride height at a constant. I am no mechanical engineer, but in theory- it sounds permissable when you read the wording of the rules.

---

Quote:

Bond

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1775783383__2011_Chassis_Regulations_Framework.pdf

---

Williams and proud of it.