Super DRS/Double DRS

[johnnoble1990]

What are we expecting to pop up over the coming months in terms of this? Could we see tubes and ducts popping up all over the place? One thought I had was, could we not see teams bring back their 2010 F-Ducts and use the air from the F-Duct in the rear wing to open the duct in the old bigger and better positioned F-Duct. Teams already had such a good grasp of that technology. Surely they'd be able to find time so easily if this was possible?

 

[FB]

I can imagine that in the test after Bahrain there will be a huge number of passive systems attached to the DRS system blowing air in all sorts of different directions. The FIA has opened a whole can of worms here which lead to protest upon protest upon protest.

FYI - the chief designer at HRT was seen in B&Q at the weekend buying some flexible electrical trunking cable and a few rolls of gaffer tape so expect them to have a new system installed in Bahrain Marussia are also trying to do the same but the piping isn't long enough...

 

[ramilas1]

I presume HRT bought their piping in metres, whereas Marussia insisted on the same number, but in yards.

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

The only problem with that is the old shark fins which were an integral part of the original F-Duct are now banned.

 

[Viscount]

I'm expecting some other innovations in addition to the super DRS. During the China GP practice Alguersuari mentioned that some teams had a DRS system in qualifying where the DRS was activated automatically once the driver was on 90% throttle eliminating the driver's reaction if he had to press the button for DRS. So there must be other potential sytems that can be linked to the activation of DRS.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

The only problem with that is the old shark fins which were an integral part of the original F-Duct are now banned.

Not as Mercedes F-Duct was implemented. There were a variety of ways that the ducts were channelled to the rear wing. McLaren only lead the way with the shark-fin interpretation,

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

Not as Mercedes F-Duct was implemented. There were a variety of ways that the ducts were channelled to the rear wing. McLaren only lead the way with the shark-fin interpretation,

Ah ok, didn't realise that, I thought all teams channeled air to the rear wing through the shark fin. More reading of Scarbs for me

 

[johnnoble1990]

The only problem with that is the old shark fins which were an integral part of the original F-Duct are now banned.

I didn't realise they had been banned. I thought it was only driver moveable aerodynamic devices were banned and the DRS was a way of getting round that.

 

[Johnny Carwash]

Red Bull need to get some sort of super DRS sorted as Vettel was unable to overtake Raikkonen in the DRS zone which contributed to that crocodile of cars as everyone was within a second of each other but as everyone could use DRS no one could over take in the DRS zone.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Hmm. DRS is also not he only driver operated part of the car that could potentially activate passive systems.

What about these?

Steering
Brakes
Gears
Brake Bias
Accelerator
KERS

 

[no-FIAt-please]

I didn't realise they had been banned. I thought it was only driver moveable aerodynamic devices were banned and the DRS was a way of getting round that.

They banned any sort of shark fin from touching the rear wing, you can have a shark fin, it just can't touch the rear ring which means you can't use it to house an F-duct.

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

Hmm. DRS is also not he only driver operated part of the car that could potentially activate passive systems.
<snip.......>

Renault tried that with their anti-dive suspension system, which i believe was operated by the brakes. And the FIA said it's primary function was aerodynamic!

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Renault tried that with their anti-dive suspension system, which i believe was operated by the brakes. And the FIA said it's primary function was aerodynamic!

Unlike the W-Duct.

 

[chreden]

I think one of the reasons they got away with it is that they played on the fact that it aids in overtaking via DRS, thereby making it an extension/enhancement of the DRS rather than an entirely separate system. That's what I got from the FIA report anyway.

 

[Westy]

And there in lies the problem with the FIA's ruling. How can one system be aerodunamic in function and the other not? Especially when stalling a wing has absolutely no other function than an aero one?

Unless I am missing something and the FIA has a grander picture of what is best for the sport than I can comprehend, I can only see this as stacking the rules in the favor of one team principal over the rest.

 

[Viscount]

Stalling the wing gives no aerodynamic benefit, it's primary function is to reduce drag and you lose downforce as a result of it. I believe the FIA ruling only bans systems that give a primary aerodynamic benefit not just anything that affects the aerodynamics.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

How is reducing drag not an aerodynamic benefit?

 

[Westy]

Exactly ExtremeNinja. The aero benefit in the Mercedes case is that they can run a large amount of front wing for the corners but will not be hampered by a lower top speed thanks to the reduced drag from the double DRS.

It's a win win for Mercedes!

 

[Wombcat]

Not really, because it'll only work when DRS is available. So in the race the large amount of front wing will deliver extra drag.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Yep. And to clarify, drag and downforce are both resultant of aerodynamics. In fact, they only really exist as aerodynamic concepts In respect of motor vehicles. An advantage with one is normally gained with the disadvantage of the other and therefore drag vs downforce is a balancing act of compromise for all teams. Any device that lessens this compromise can be seen as nothing else than an advantage - an aerodynamic advantage to be absolutely precise.