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

[Blog Zbod]

The FIA's ruling hinges on their view that the W-Duct does not operate as a direct result of driver movement.

I understand the distinction between the DRS button's primary function and all subordinate functions, but to claim the W-Duct is not directly put into operation by driver movement is absolutely daft. Absent any driver movement, it will not nor cannot operate, therefore it only ever operates as the result of driver movement. They can split hairs direct and indirect all they like but it still is driver operated.

I reiterate my earlier contention that the FIA cannot logically ban Lotus' active anti-dive yet find Mercedes' W-Duct legal. The primary function of the car's brake pedal is to cause the car to de-accelerate, therefore (by the FIA's own logic) Lotus' anti-dive was not directly operated by driver movement. As to their claim the antidive's primary benefit was aerodynamic, Mercedes' W-Duct's sole function is aerodynamic.

It simply does not pass the smell test.

 

[the_roadie]

The FIA's ruling hinges on their view that the W-Duct does not operate as a direct result of driver movement.

I understand the distinction between the DRS button's primary function and all subordinate functions, but to claim the W-Duct is not directly put into operation by driver movement is absolutely daft. Absent any driver movement, it will not nor cannot operate, therefore it only ever operates as the result of driver movement. They can split hairs direct and indirect all they like but it still is driver operated.

I reiterate my earlier contention that the FIA cannot logically ban Lotus' active anti-dive yet find Mercedes' W-Duct legal. The primary function of the car's brake pedal is to cause the car to de-accelerate, therefore (by the FIA's own logic) Lotus' anti-dive was not directly operated by driver movement. As to their claim the antidive's primary benefit was aerodynamic, Mercedes' W-Duct's sole function is aerodynamic.

It simply does not pass the smell test.

Actually just to split hairs, it's not operated by driver movement, it's operated by DRS wing movement. The driver cannot activate the W-duct at all
W-duct also has absolutely no moving parts whatsoever.
Only driver-operated or moveable aerodynamic devices are banned - apart from DRS wings - and this is neither.

It may smell like a 3-month dead haddock, but it was approved by the FIA before Mercedes put it in production (because the FIA felt that they had no grounds under the rules to ban it), it has passed pre-race scrutineering twice (Oz and Malaysia) and in random post-race scrutineering as well, has been appealed by Lotus, appeal has been rejected, and that's got to be that now.

The only question now is how soon other teams can let a trainee loose with a drill and some tubing and then gaffer-tape the whole lot together so that they can have it as well.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

After so much debate, when I find myself convinced of both sides of the argument, the ony thing that is clear to me is that the ruling is to grey to be absolute.

 

[Brogan]

For those who haven't seen it, here's the FIA report with their reasons for rejecting Lotus' protest.

http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/MEDIACENTRE/F1_MEDIA/Documents/chn-document-11.pdf

 

[FB]

That's going to open a whole new can of worms now isn't it? As a consequence of the DRS opening, in effect, the FIA is saying you can do what you like as long as it's a passive system.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

That's going to open a whole new can of worms now isn't it? As a consequence of the DRS opening, in effect, the FIA is saying you can do what you like as long as it's a passive system.

...and has no moving parts. A pretty big caveat!

 

[FB]

But who in their right mind would have thought of running the engine off throttle and blowing the exhaust gasses under the car to improve downforce? I bet Adrian Newey isn't at the next two races...

 

[sushifiesta]

Sorry for being a really lazy bastard and not browsing around, I'm sure the answer has already been posted, but there's is on thing about this Mercedes system that is bugging me and it seems like the obvious question that no one is asking....

How the hell does a system based on the DRS stall the FRONT wing?

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Sorry for being a really lazy bastard and not browsing around, I'm sure the answer has already been posted, but there's is on thing about this Mercedes system that is bugging me and it seems like the obvious question that no one is asking....

How the hell does a system based on the DRS stall the FRONT wing?

I suggest you look at this site, there is a number of articles about Mercedes' DRS.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/

 

[The Pits]

There are holes in the rear wing end plates, which are linked via a duct to the front wing. There are some holes/slots in the front wing placed in order that the air flow created from the high pressure at the rear wing is used to create a pressure differential at the front and stall the wing.

 

[Fenderman]

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/mercedes-drs-duct-how-it-links-to-the-front-wing/

 

[Mezzer]

With the Mercs suddenly looking very quick I've been wondering whether there was any sandbagging with the DDRS until the FIA formally supported it against last week's protest. That said, the main benefit is in quali due to the (IMO absurd) ability to use DRS at any time, and the Merc's race speed seems good too when its not available, so I'm edgind towards the "no".