Technical Mercedes GP reinvent F-duct for the Front Wing?

I was thinking the same thing:
Charlie: Ross, that looks very much like a JATO tube to me.
Ross: Charlie, my dear friend, I can easily see how you could think that, but actually its clearly part of the DRS.
Charlie: Ross, it actually says JATO on it, right next to that RAF roundel!
Ross: Again, Charlie, I can easily see how you could be mistaken. However, JATO stands for ... er ... Just Another Tubelike Object. The blue, white and red circles, which I agree are similar to the RAF roundel, are actually ... er ... aerodynamic testing markings. Phew!
Charlie: ...
Ross: ...
Charlie: You said that "Phew" out loud.
Ross: No I didn't.
Charlie: ...
Ross: ...
Charlie: Take. It. Off.
Ross: Absolutely, but first I want to talk to you about Red Bull's exhaust ...

LOL

That's drop-dead brilliant - even in print it sounds like them !!:cheer:
 

Senna's_right_foot

Race Winner
Supporter
Interesting take from McLaren's Paddy Lowe:

"There's no such thing as the spirit of the rules. It's a term often used, but the rulebook is text that has a meaning - you decide what that means and how you work to it. There's no headline regulation that says 'above all else, you've got to remain within the spirit of what was intended'....The debate around whether or not they can keep that system on the car is not about whether it is in that spirit or not, it's about whether the text of the regulations means they cannot."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98691
 
Interesting take from McLaren's Paddy Lowe:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98691

You couldn't want for any better comment than that - you can't spend your time pratting around trying to guess whose "spirit of the rules" is the one you want to think is right, the only thing that's clear is what's written in the damn thing.
You can argue all you like about the meaning of the letter of the law, but in law there's no such thing as "spirit of the law".
In fact, in British law (all systems, English+Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland), a judge and jury are forbidden from considering what the purpose of the law was, they are only allowed to consider the letter of the law, even if the letter contradicts the purpose of the law.
The same ought to be unarguable in F1 Regulations, as in other sporting areas - football for one !
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
He's right, and with any regulation there are unintended consequences which is what I think people mean by "the spirit of the rules" - take, as an example, when Colin Chapman argued that his Lotus 88 was legal as chassis is both a singular and a plural the text of the rules had to be redefined to explain what was meant within the spirit of them.

For me, the front wing "F duct" is a driver operated aerodynamic system regardless of whether it is integrated into the DRS system or not therefore it should be declared illegal. Hasn't helped Mercedes too much so far this year though so maybe let them keep it :snigger:
 

Mezzer

A fine chap if ever there was one.
Contributor
Putting the shoe on the other foot, then, no one can cry if/when their innovation is banned if their interpretation of the regs differs from the FIA's.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I think the point of flow vis paint is that it doesn't flow all that well so you can see where it starts and moves too. I'd be surprised if it managed to flow from the rear wing to the front but I may be wrong. Time a web search on Flow-Vis paint methinks.
 

The Pits

Harumph. Again.
Valued Member
I have recently found out that a work friend of mine is friends with the chap from Mercedes who actually came up with the idea of the trap door slots. I am trying to "pump" him for more info (and a factory tour) but little as yet has been forthcoming.

If anything does come to light, as my wife is unlikely to be in the slightest bit interested, I will let you know!
 

canis

Race Winner
Valued Member
That is if it provides a reasonable advantage having it. It does aid the Mercs in top speed, but it certainly doesn't appear to help them in other areas and may cause a team to go backwards rather than forwards if they are not careful...
 

RasputinLives

Leave me alone I'm on Smoko
Contributor
That should be an end to it then.

Cue the frantic scramble by the other teams to implement their own systems.

Indeed!

I will be interested to see what advanatge it gives a car that doesn't shred its tyres every 2 laps. What a shame for Merc they've not been able to take advantage of the system whilst they were the only one's that had it.

Unless of course we find out its this system thats creating the issues
 

chreden

Podium Finisher
Contributor
That is if it provides a reasonable advantage having it. It does aid the Mercs in top speed, but it certainly doesn't appear to help them in other areas and may cause a team to go backwards rather than forwards if they are not careful...

Even if the specific device Mercedes has isn't all that great, having a protest rejected on the matter potentially opens the door for other things to be activated as a consequence of using the DRS. We'll just have to wait and see if anything else emerges.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
So, theoretically, you could blow air over the top of the rear diffuser when the wing is open to change the pressure differential and reduce drag and run it under the diffuser when the wing is shut for more downforce in the corners? Or am I going too far?
 

ExtremeNinja

Karting amateur
Contributor
So, theoretically, you could blow air over the top of the rear diffuser when the wing is open to change the pressure differential and reduce drag and run it under the diffuser when the wing is shut for more downforce in the corners? Or am I going too far?

I don't see why not. Could become very unstable, though.

I think the reason Mercedes came up with the solution they did is that by affecting both the front wing at the same time, you are changing balance on both sides of the fulcrum.
 
Top Bottom