Leads me back to the flexi wing and an approach that just occorrued to me. Why did the FIA not stick it in a wind tunnel at the expense of the protesters, for them to be reimbursed by Red Bull if found illegal?
Technical Mercedes GP reinvent F-duct for the Front Wing?
- Thread starter tranquility2k9
- Start date
Westy
Pole Sitter
Every year there seems to be a new toy that every team has to copy only to see it banned the following year. I continue to be impressed by the seemingly endless knowledge and ingenuity of F1 designers. However, this cycle cannot continue.
The FIA may enjoy the drama that is brought to the sport by their openly interpretive rules, but surely at some point the strictness of the rules will result in stagnation of development.
Alas, logic never has been the FIA's strongest ability.
The FIA may enjoy the drama that is brought to the sport by their openly interpretive rules, but surely at some point the strictness of the rules will result in stagnation of development.
Alas, logic never has been the FIA's strongest ability.
The flaw in this of course, is that they can't bring a wind tunnel to every track for use by the scrutinisers. Doh!
Technically they haven't - the FIA technical delegate (Jo Bauer) has performed scrutineering, and decided not to refer the system to the stewards. In situations where Bauer finds something out of order (such as Sauber at Melbourne last season), it is referred to the stewards for a decision.
If someone protests with a specific question, the stewards will take advice from Bauer and Whiting and whoever else, but still the ruling on the protest will be down to them. Until then, they won't look at the car directly.
EDIT: for example:
Which only highlights how absurd the situation is.Even if they did, different stewards in China!
So one set of stewards at one race can declare it legal but another group at a different race can declare it illegal?
Reading that, I can't see how there is a problem. All the driver operated parts necessary for the fwfd are necessary for the drs.
It's a slippery slope but those are the 2012 rules. Well done Merc for the innovation in my view.
I just read it back to myself four or five time and yes, you are right. Clever gits.
the_roadie
Banned
Have to disagree. Technically they have passed it twice, Melbourne and Malaysia, three days before the race.
If they hadn't passed it at both those venues then there would have been no Mercs on the grid.
In addition Charlie Whiting has reportedly considered multiple complaints by other teams and knocked them back each time.
I also read somewhere else that the FIA approved this before Mercedes even built the damn thing but I haven't found a link to anything that shows that one way or the other.
The Technical Delegate's report makes interesting (!) reading. Here are some nuggets gleaned from it.
At Malaysia, car 7 had the symetric front wing deflection test
Car 7 also had tests for
1) Bodywork around the front wheels
2) Front wing height and overhang
3) Rear wing height and overhang
4) Front and rear wing width
5) Rear wing configuration
6) Rear bodywork area
7) Rear winglet height
8) Skidblock thickness
9) Stepped bottom
10) Diffuser height
11) Diffuser area
12) Overall height
13) Overall width
[5 and 6 are my italics]
Also car 7 (again had:
It was confirmed for car numbers ...,07,... that any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line and situated in the volumes defined in Article 3.8.4 form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface with a radius no less than 75mm.
The concave radius of sections of the three rear wing elements which are in contact with the external air stream was checked on car numbers ... 07,...
The bit at the end above Jo Bauer's signature is that all cars tested in these tests and for weights were in conformity with the 2012 FIA F1 Technical Regulations.
Well done Mercedes.
Let's see you do something with it now !
One solitary point from two races is not good enough even if the car technically is !
Arguably the ducting that runs the length of the car is a "system that uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car", and that certainly isn't necessary for the functioning of the DRS.
They've passed scrutineering, of course, but then so did the mass damper-equipped Renault, repeatedly, until someone protested it. I grant there there's little chance of success, but the possibility remains for the stewards to take a different view from Whiting.
Isn't this a classic "within the letter of the law but not within the spirit of the law" issue? I thought there had been legislation added a while ago to cover that (?). Of course it's also just one more reason why DRS shouldn't be allowed in quali, IMO.
Westy
Pole Sitter
Why isn't every car scrutineered at each event? Yes this would take time, but F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing and therefor should not worry about cost or time allowances for such an important process. Heck, $25 million a pop should easily cover the cost for a group of scrutineers to follow the F1 circus for continuity and quality purposes.
The FIA really have opened themselves up to look like complete incompetents.
The FIA really have opened themselves up to look like complete incompetents.
Hee Hee. Informative, but funny too.
http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/22058/7646425/Talking-heads-The-Mercedes-DRS
http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/22058/7646425/Talking-heads-The-Mercedes-DRS
Wow, a 10 mph gain in a straight line is huge. Yet again, and I shall be tediously repetitive, this is all down to the fact that for some reason that is totally unclear to me, DRS can be used anywhere in qualifying. Can anyone provide any logical explanation?
Dunno
Beats me. Seems absolutely daft. I have been asking that question since it's introduction.
Similar threads
- Article
