Because you partially lose the downforce (aerodynamic benefit) gained from having a front or rear wing if you stall it. There is the result is that you may be able to run more front wing but that's a secondary result.
Regardless though, Drag Reduction Systems (DRS) are legal. F-ducts were never banned, only the driver movement to operate them was and Mercedes have just found a crafty way to use them again.
Chalie Whiting said:
Lotus and Ferrari's reactive ride height sytems were banned because Article 3.15 of the F1 technical regulations requires that any aerodynamic effect created by the suspension should be incidental to its primary function.The primary function of the ride height system was for aerodynamic gain.
Operating the DRS is the only specifically allowed driver movement to affect the bodywork of the car. As I said earlier, it opens the door for teams to come up with other innovations that can be activated as an incidence of DRS.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't considered that.
Where else could they stall air?
The suspension stansions?
The suspension stansions?
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
Lift is directly proportional to drag. Downforce is just lift turned wrong way up. So halving or doubling the downforce also halves or doubles the drag.
At this juncture, the other teams all are guessing that Mercedes' newfound speed is significantly attributable to the W-Duct. But that might not prove to be the case. The Merc W-Duct could just prove to be the sport's new Keyser Söze, a misdirection that keeps them seeing the real cause.
The irony is, they began developing this in 2010 because their engine cover was not adaptable to a proper F-Duct. So they sought to minimize their losses by running the same trick on the front.
At this juncture, the other teams all are guessing that Mercedes' newfound speed is significantly attributable to the W-Duct. But that might not prove to be the case. The Merc W-Duct could just prove to be the sport's new Keyser Söze, a misdirection that keeps them seeing the real cause.
The irony is, they began developing this in 2010 because their engine cover was not adaptable to a proper F-Duct. So they sought to minimize their losses by running the same trick on the front.
This reminds me of when IMSA roadracing in the USA banned driver-adjustable boost. One reporter asked IMSA legend Peter Gregg (at the time, the most successful Porsche race driver in history) how the change would affect his team. He answered, "Well, we'll have to be more clever about where we hide it."
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
It would be great if it were that simple but the adage "drag squares with speed" is a somewhat more complex issue. The effect of increasing the presentation of a surface, either by angle or by dimension, in the direction of motion and therefore to the resistance of air (or a fluid) results, as speed increases, in an exponential (I
, but stand to be corrected) increase in drag.As I'm crap at the mathematics, I dug out the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
http://physics.info/drag/
Nice post, nevertheless.
Blue Flags Again
Rookie
McLaren have been quite quiet over this whole W Duct issue other than a few comments here and there, maybe because of the Mercedes connection, "don't rock the boat approach", however, I would be very surprised if they have not been working on a system in the wind tunnel, or at least computer simulations evaluating the effect with their car, biding time until another team protested and tested the FIA's resolve. The test in Mugello may be when we see some new hybrid W Ducts and ideas along the same approach. As for legality...I think the FIA spins the wheel and it landed on legal this time.
Should we start using Mercedes' internal verbiage for their "Double-DRS"? Because I'm pretty sure Michael refereed to it yesterday as the "R-Vane".
Really annoyed me when they kept calling it an F-Duct on Sky's coverage yesterday.
72degreeV10
Rookie
The problem with F1 is that the open wheels and cockpits add a lot of drag, and pure ground effects (witch are much more effective) are banned in favor of wings and diffuses.
All these things spoil the air behind causing turbulence (dirty air), hence the need for the DRS.
All these things spoil the air behind causing turbulence (dirty air), hence the need for the DRS.
I thought this system was ingenious and clever, I see no reason why it should be banned. It doesn't have the safety aspect unlike the F-duct, it applies with the regulations, above all that it's cheap to make (for F1 standards, don't go making one for your road car 
)
Shame really.
)Shame really.
I really wonder what the point of trying to push the envelope when it comes to F1 design is any more. It would seem that whatever you do it will be banned within 18 months mainly on the grounds of cost cutting. Right oh then, just get on with making it a spec formula and put us all out of our misery. You can't touch the engines these days, the chassis are homogolated at the start of the season and you've all got the same tyres so a big cost cutting measure would be to sack the designer and the whole design team and buy your chassis from Lola (God knows they need the money) and your engines from PURE (cause the FIA are desperate for you to give them your money). Technically the most advanced form of motor racing, my arse. Take a leaf out of the LMS and reward inovation don't ban it. GRRRRRRRR.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
