2012 Stalled wings, F/ W ducts & DDRS

[hardingfv32]

The purpose of steering input is to drive the car around the corner. If you piggy back another function onto the steering system you would open up the dedication of the steering signal to the activation of an aerodynamic device. I do not see the same functionality and dedication in the two systems and I am afraid the FiA would also object.

From the FIA Decision:

"(i) Article 3.15 does not apply because it does not directly use driver movement, as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car. The alteration is indirectly (and not directly) consequential to the movement of the driver adjustable bodywork ("DRS")"

This statement clear indicates that the driver's body movements must be used as a means to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car to be fail 3.15. The steering columns movement is no different than the movement of the RW flap. Both are the indirectly cause by the driver.

Brian

[WhiteBlue]

That is only one point of the steward's reckoning concerning the specific case. My concern is still valid. Your proposed case would be different. The steering is not supposed to alter the aerodynamics.

[bhall]

<snip>

Observers get things wrong all the time, <snip>

In fact, there's still no guarantee that this system is going to remain legal. There's still plenty of room for speculation.

<snip>

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Observers get things wrong all the time,

In fact, there's still no guarantee that this system is going to remain legal.

There's still plenty of room for speculation.

So what you are saying is that, even though the FIA have detailed drawings of the system along with actually being able to see it first hand, that you think they are wrong on how it works?

Thats quite a leap of faith there.

[bhall]

Well, ain't that a bitch? I had no idea.

EDIT: Hold up. I misunderstood. When I said that we don't know for sure if the device will remain legal, I had something like the Renault mass damper in mind.

I guess a better way to put it would be to say that it's not unusual for the FIA to reverse course on a decision they've already made. And as far as I know, the FIA hasn't released any details about the system except to say that it's legal.

[FW17]

Will the Merc system be hard to replicate?

Will a duct running extenally to the bodywork / chassis be allowable? as routing within the car may be challenging.

[ESPImperium]

Whitch is the main area of the DDRS that is key, it is a cheap system in F1 terms, it only costs about €600k to develop and the same to get 4 ducting systems made, but developemt of the wiring loom is gonna cost as you will loose data channels to start with and as many team have just got about 30% more than the last day testing open, thet wont loose that now since things are so close this year.

I think you cannot necessarily compare F-duct and DDRS in terms of cost for the wiring loom. The F-duct must have used additional I/Os to cause that effect on the wiring loom. The Mercedes style DDRS should not really need additional I/Os. Perhaps I'm overlooking something. Please comment!

Basically im reffering to the wireing looms being already made for the 2012 cars and that they may need changed if where the majority of wiring goes thru the chassis may be the best diamater for a DDRS hole to go thru, so they would need to change the loom and with this they would loose not only time and money developing a new loom but they could also potentally loose data channels as well.

Its tough to call due to the chassis homologation rules. In many respects the 4th and 5th chassis may be able to be changed for the DDRS so a new loom can be put into it. However this will involve cost, and this isnt in the "bolt on" nature of the DDRS solution.

However there may be a third way, thru the fuel tank area. Whitch is both radical and dangerous.

[WhiteBlue]

Basically im reffering to the wireing looms being already made for the 2012 cars and that they may need changed if where the majority of wiring goes thru the chassis may be the best diamater for a DDRS hole to go thru, so they would need to change the loom and with this they would loose not only time and money developing a new loom but they could also potentally loose data channels as well.

Its tough to call due to the chassis homologation rules. In many respects the 4th and 5th chassis may be able to be changed for the DDRS so a new loom can be put into it. However this will involve cost, and this isnt in the "bolt on" nature of the DDRS solution.

I see three separate issues here.

1. Wiring loom
Changes may or may not be necessary. If necessary they are a critical cost issue.

2. Hole/Conduit internally through the tub
Changes may almost certainly require new crash test and re homologation with a big cost impact.

3. Re homologation by itself
There are very serious sources saying that re homologation is not allowed in the 2009-2012 RRA. Legal impact or even protest possible.

[NonNewtonic]

The purpose of steering input is to drive the car around the corner. If you piggy back another function onto the steering system you would open up the dedication of the steering signal to the activation of an aerodynamic device. I do not see the same functionality and dedication in the two systems and I am afraid the FiA would also object.

From the FIA Decision:

"(i) Article 3.15 does not apply because it does not directly use driver movement, as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car. The alteration is indirectly (and not directly) consequential to the movement of the driver adjustable bodywork ("DRS")"

This statement clear indicates that the driver's body movements must be used as a means to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car to be fail 3.15. The steering columns movement is no different than the movement of the RW flap. Both are the indirectly cause by the driver.

Brian

I do not agree Brian. The reason why the DDRS system is deemed legal is because of even though the driver indirectly alter the aerodynamics of the car it is carried out within the exception of the rules as the rules allows the movement of the upper rear wing plate and the DDRS effect is due to the movement of the rear flap which is also deemed legal. Besides Mercedes argued that the DDRS is just optimising the effect of the DRS which is allowed by the rules just like teams are running shorter chord flap to optimise the effect About the steering column it is clearly stated that the main function of the steering column is to turn the wheels and there is no secondary function allowed beside this just as what Lotus try to do with their suspension where they try to place an inlet for another form of 'F-Duct' because the main function of the suspension is to support the car so no secondary function is allowed

[hardingfv32]

The reason why the DDRS system is deemed legal is because of even though the driver indirectly alter the aerodynamics of the car it is carried out within the exception of the rules as the rules allows the movement of the upper rear wing plate and the DDRS effect is due to the movement of the rear flap which is also deemed legal.

This is not stated as the reason in the official FIA ruling. Rule 3.15 seems to be the only rule applying to the steering column design:

"With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

There is no prohibition to 'altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car' IF you do not physically move any aerodynamic part. There is also no prohibition secondary uses of a device.

A possible challenge would be: Does using the steering column as proposed make it an 'aerodynamic device'?

Brian

[bhall]

A reasonable argument could be made that such a design is merely optimizing the effect of something that's perfectly legal: steering.

[hardingfv32]

You could also use the motion of the steering rack to control the flow. This would be easier for those with the rack mounted in front of the bulkhead. Just add a plate as used with the DRS flap to control flow through an opening.

Brian

[strad]

To me, that looks like, "It can't be. It just can't."

Observers get things wrong all the time, and the FIA doesn't always know its ass from a hole in the ground. In fact, there's still no guarantee that this system is going to remain legal.

There's still plenty of room for speculation. Only babies should be fed with a spoon.

So what you are saying is that, even though the FIA have detailed drawings of the system along with actually being able to see it first hand, that you think they are wrong on how it works?

Thats quite a leap of faith there.

“There are many different parts of bodywork
fitted to cars from a variety of teams, which have
been designed specifically to take advantage of
the change in airflow caused by the activation of
the DRS. The modifications on Cars 7 and 8 are
examples of the above.
“The design is entirely passive and has no moving
parts whatsoever.
“The sole purpose of the "DRS" as stated in Article
3.18.3, is to improve overtaking. The Mercedes
design is completely consistent with this objective.”

[WhiteBlue]

There are many different parts of bodywork
fitted to cars from a variety of teams, which have
been designed specifically to take advantage of
the change in airflow caused by the activation of
the DRS. The modifications on Cars 7 and 8 are
examples of the above.
The design is entirely passive and has no moving
parts whatsoever.
The sole purpose of the "DRS" as stated in Article
3.18.3, is to improve overtaking. The Mercedes
design is completely consistent with this objective.

I agree with strad that the bolded part may be important. Equally important is the view from the DRS. The DRS activation does not activate other functions on top of the DRS. The front wing stall function is understood as part of the DRS.

There lies the difference of piggy backing a front wing activation on the steering signal. The steering signal will have a dual functionality which may not be tolerated by the FiA. You just have to compare the Lotus front ride height system to see that such a dual functionality was disallowed.

[hardingfv32]

I agree with strad that the bolded part may be important. Equally important is the view from the DRS. The DRS activation does not activate other functions on top of the DRS. The front wing stall function is understood as part of the DRS.

It would be my opinion that this discussion of the DRS function is used as an argument during the protest to defend the use of the DDRS. It is a valid statement, but it is not an requirement stated in the rules that must be met. It was like many of the other arguments made, not relevant to any actual rule. An effort to sway the opinion judges using logic not supported or required by the rules.

Nor is there a ban on secondary component functions.

Brian