Mercedes W11

[PlatinumZealot]

That rack thing makes absolutely no sense. How are you going to change the pitch when both gears need to mesh with the same racks, and even if you had offset teeth on each one, it'd never mesh cleanly, you'd have to wiggle the steering to get it into mesh every time you switched, and you'd need a gap between gears meshing so there'd be a spot in the middle where your steering would be pulled one direction.

Really now?
I have a drawing coming up

[LM10]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

[OO7]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

The driver isn't required to steer the car, just the wheels.

[bauc]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

The driver isn't required to steer the car, just the wheels.

Really? This is your argument? Everyone knows what steering means, extracting only the literate grammatical meaning just to prove a point is like saying that the water is wet

[zibby43]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

To add a few more:

Jo Bauer, the FIA F1 Technical Delegate at Grand Prix races: "Since there is no computer technology behind it, everything is legal. Mercedes asked us about this already years ago. In 2021 the new regulations won’t allow it anymore. The rivals will hardly be able to copy this idea."

Mattia Binotto: "We have faith in the judgment of the FIA on this system. Surely we will look at ourselves to evaluate whether or not to develop it too."

Ferrari are evaluating whether they can implement it in a timely fashion.

"We need to understand it in detail. What does it do? What advantages does it give?"

When asked how long it would take to replicate: "Surely until the middle of the season."

[godlameroso]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

The driver isn't required to steer the car, just the wheels.

The wheels don't steer themselves, there's a driver steering and using the pedals. Maybe the toe settings are to control front tire wake.

[LM10]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

To add a few more:

Jo Bauer, the FIA F1 Technical Delegate at Grand Prix races: "Since there is no computer technology behind it, everything is legal. Mercedes asked us about this already years ago. In 2021 the new regulations won’t allow it anymore. The rivals will hardly be able to copy this idea."

Mattia Binotto: "We have faith in the judgment of the FIA on this system. Surely we will look at ourselves to evaluate whether or not to develop it too."

Ferrari are evaluating whether they can implement it in a timely fashion.

"We need to understand it in detail. What does it do? What advantages does it give?"

When asked how long it would take to replicate: "Surely until the middle of the season."

What Adrian Newey wants to tell by this is that he doesn’t think Mercedes does this for tyre temperature reasons, but primarily for aerodynamic reasons. That’s why he has a hard time understanding how it can be legal because that would mean actively moving objects for aerodynamic benefit.

[zibby43]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

To add a few more:

Jo Bauer, the FIA F1 Technical Delegate at Grand Prix races: "Since there is no computer technology behind it, everything is legal. Mercedes asked us about this already years ago. In 2021 the new regulations won’t allow it anymore. The rivals will hardly be able to copy this idea."

Mattia Binotto: "We have faith in the judgment of the FIA on this system. Surely we will look at ourselves to evaluate whether or not to develop it too."

Ferrari are evaluating whether they can implement it in a timely fashion.

"We need to understand it in detail. What does it do? What advantages does it give?"

When asked how long it would take to replicate: "Surely until the middle of the season."

What Adrian Newey wants to tell by this is that he doesn’t think Mercedes does this for tyre temperature reasons, but primarily for aerodynamic reasons. That’s why he has a hard time understanding how it can be legal because that would mean actively moving objects for aerodynamic benefit.

But even the POU system, which has been deemed legal (and has been adopted by several teams), can have an incidental aerodynamic effect via the change in ride height (as the front of the car is lowered) and how the corresponding change affects the airflow on the car's aerodynamic surfaces.

The FIA have tried to police the scope of the change, lock-to-lock, but it's incredibly difficult to. The key word is primary, and since Merc have been in cooperation with the FIA, I'm not going out on a limb in saying they have the best evidence to demonstrate how and why the system is in compliance with the regulations.

[turbof1]

The argument that it is moveable aero can be countered by saying that turning the wheels (the normal way) does that anyway, therefore in that sense it's no different from regular steering.
Also just because everybody knows what steering entails, does not mean you can not get creative with the wording. At the bottom of this, the regulation do not define it clear enough to exclude turning the wheel on a different axis.

It's almost literally reinventing the wheel. And frankly it's brilliant. Especially regulatory, because how are you going to ban a moveable aero device that has been a moveable aero devices ever since F1 was concepted.

[nico5]

The argument that it is moveable aero can be countered by saying that turning the wheels (the normal way) does that anyway, therefore in that sense it's no different from regular steering.
Also just because everybody knows what steering entails, does not mean you can not get creative with the wording. At the bottom of this, the regulation do not define it clear enough to exclude turning the wheel on a different axis.

It's almost literally reinventing the wheel. And frankly it's brilliant. Especially regulatory, because how are you going to ban a moveable aero device that has been a moveable aero devices ever since F1 was concepted.

Same goes for the suspension system when the load is transferred forward under braking (or roll, cornering), and yet RB's passively-obtained active rear suspension, which would get sprang that way to then flatten the rake on the straights, was banned with a TD in late 2017. I don't wanna get into a 'spirit of the rules' debate, but under these circumstances it's always gonna come down to a matter of will, to what the FIA is willing to let by. I'm sure teams could come up with hundreds of solutions like this – it's not that brilliant, do you only realize now that steering was the one huge exception to the moveable-aero rule? – and if they don't, it's either because the FIA directly forbids them citing the 'spirit of the rules' argument, by the mean of the moveable-aero rule, or for the very same reason they don't even bother asking. So what is FIA's will?

[turbof1]

The argument that it is moveable aero can be countered by saying that turning the wheels (the normal way) does that anyway, therefore in that sense it's no different from regular steering.
Also just because everybody knows what steering entails, does not mean you can not get creative with the wording. At the bottom of this, the regulation do not define it clear enough to exclude turning the wheel on a different axis.

It's almost literally reinventing the wheel. And frankly it's brilliant. Especially regulatory, because how are you going to ban a moveable aero device that has been a moveable aero devices ever since F1 was concepted.

it's not that brilliant, do you only realize now that steering was the one huge exception to the moveable-aero rule?

Well yes, because previously it was assumed that doing this would be a matter of suspension, and there the regulations are much more strict. Mercedes found a regulatory way to leave suspension legality out of the picture.

So it was not a gaping hole. If it was we would have seen it a long time ago and seen it consequently being banned a long time ago.

The FIA can always use a catch all rule with moveable aero, but I think given the nature of a rotating and spinning wheel, it is much more difficult. Which brings me to this:

Same goes for the suspension system when the load is transferred forward under braking (or roll, cornering), and yet RB's passively-obtained active rear suspension, which would get sprang that way to then flatten the rake on the straights, was banned with a TD in late 2017.

A counter example would be the 2011 exhaust blowing, where the FIA tried to ban it, but Renault succesfully argued they needed cold blowing for engine reliability. The FIA was forced to return on its steps then.
And that's the issue: just like the exhausts being purposely meant to expel gasses and trying to stop the cold/hot blowing is troublesome because you can't stop the expulsion of gasses, you also can't stop a wheel of rotating and spinning. it spinning and rotating makes it by nature an aero device.

I think a TD will not cut it in this instance. A rule change will be needed. They did so first in 2012 (which only partially worked and resulted in coanda-exhausts) and then in 2014 (which was much more effective, but up to this day teams still use the smallest bit of exhaust blowing).

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think a TD will not cut it in this instance. A rule change will be needed. They did so first in 2012 (which only partially worked and resulted in coanda-exhausts) and then in 2014 (which was much more effective, but up to this day teams still use the smallest bit of exhaust blowing).

Which has already been done for 2021 (previously mentioned in this thread). There's literally no point in discussing the legality of this system as it's been given the green light by the FIA. They've tigthened the regs up for next season which effectively is an endorsement of the system for this season and an admission that there was a "gap" in the current regs that allow it exist.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

Coming from the guy who in 2017 said he didn't understand Ferrari's sidepods... which Red Bull subsequently copied. Newey is good at what he does, but he does also occasionally talk nonsense.

There's nothing in the regs that says the car has to turn left when the steering is turned left, they simply aren't that specific. You'd have thought Newey would know that, but I imagine he's simply saying what Red Bull need him to say.

[OO7]

The argument that it is moveable aero can be countered by saying that turning the wheels (the normal way) does that anyway, therefore in that sense it's no different from regular steering.
Also just because everybody knows what steering entails, does not mean you can not get creative with the wording. At the bottom of this, the regulation do not define it clear enough to exclude turning the wheel on a different axis.

It's almost literally reinventing the wheel. And frankly it's brilliant. Especially regulatory, because how are you going to ban a moveable aero device that has been a moveable aero devices ever since F1 was concepted.

Exactly. I argued the same on another forum.

[OO7]

Adrian Newey's opinion on DAS:

"Controlling the tyre temperatures is not enough for me. There must be aerodynamic reasons. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is legal. The driver doesn't steer the car when he pulls the steering wheel towards him or pushes it away."

The driver isn't required to steer the car, just the wheels.

Really? This is your argument? Everyone knows what steering means, extracting only the literate grammatical meaning just to prove a point is like saying that the water is wet

turbof1 essentially covered my follow up regarding aero here: viewtopic.php?p=888195#p888195 ("The argument that it is moveable aero can be countered by saying that turning the wheels (the normal way) does that anyway, therefore in that sense it's no different from regular steering.")
That is why I responded to the Newey quote in the way I did. It should be noted that the tech regs only mention "steering the car" in reference to power steering. Extracting the literal grammatical meaning is exactly how engineers exploit loopholes. Remember there's no 'spirit of the regulation' when using the tech regs to design a car.