Mercedes W11

[enri_the_red]

I'm going back to the question I asked 2 days ago about the possibility that using the DAS might break the parc fermé rule.
1- If you think that changing the toe angle is not a suspension configuration change, would you allow the mechanics to change it by working on the steering box or moving it?
2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

[LM10]

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.

I absolutely agree with you. If POU has been deemed legal, then I don't see a reason DAS shouldn't be either. If any, the question should be why POU has been deemed legal in the first place. RBR has it too now, so it's gonna be hard to argue for them.

[e30ernest]

I'm going back to the question I asked 2 days ago about the possibility that using the DAS might break the parc fermé rule.
1- If you think that changing the toe angle is not a suspension configuration change, would you allow the mechanics to change it by working on the steering box or moving it?
2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

I wonder if this is pertinent?

Here are the relevant sporting regulations pertaining to Parc Ferme:
34.1 Every team must provide the FIA technical delegate with a suspension set-up sheet for both of their cars before each of them leaves the pit lane for the first time during qualifying practice session.

34.6 A competitor may not modify any part on the car or make changes to the set-up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions. In the case of a breach of this Article the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 36.2.

In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in pre-race parc fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

Since DAS changes toe without the use of tools, does this exclude that? Also, it can be argued that toe changes when you manipulate the steering wheel so this shouldn't count.

[Unc1eM0nty]

With the published rule change for 2021 forbidding DAS, it seems that by default, it's allowed this season. We can argue and debate all we want but the horse has already bolted.

If other teams want to develop this then it's going to take time and resources, do they really want to do this, or, develop what they have and concentrate on 2021.

It's a win win for Mercedes, is seems they're already ahead, AND, other the teams have they eye taken off the ball

[zac510]

2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

Great point. And 10.3.3; Let's put a huge wing on that steering arm

[restless]

I'm going back to the question I asked 2 days ago about the possibility that using the DAS might break the parc fermé rule.
1- If you think that changing the toe angle is not a suspension configuration change, would you allow the mechanics to change it by working on the steering box or moving it?
2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

I wonder if this is pertinent?

Here are the relevant sporting regulations pertaining to Parc Ferme:
34.1 Every team must provide the FIA technical delegate with a suspension set-up sheet for both of their cars before each of them leaves the pit lane for the first time during qualifying practice session.

34.6 A competitor may not modify any part on the car or make changes to the set-up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions. In the case of a breach of this Article the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 36.2.

In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in pre-race parc fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

Since DAS changes toe without the use of tools, does this exclude that? Also, it can be argued that toe changes when you manipulate the steering wheel so this shouldn't count.

But now Mercedes can change these by manipulating "steering"
Does this count?

[Owen.C93]

I'm going back to the question I asked 2 days ago about the possibility that using the DAS might break the parc fermé rule.
1- If you think that changing the toe angle is not a suspension configuration change, would you allow the mechanics to change it by working on the steering box or moving it?
2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

I wonder if this is pertinent?

Here are the relevant sporting regulations pertaining to Parc Ferme:
34.1 Every team must provide the FIA technical delegate with a suspension set-up sheet for both of their cars before each of them leaves the pit lane for the first time during qualifying practice session.

34.6 A competitor may not modify any part on the car or make changes to the set-up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions. In the case of a breach of this Article the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 36.2.

In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in pre-race parc fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

Since DAS changes toe without the use of tools, does this exclude that? Also, it can be argued that toe changes when you manipulate the steering wheel so this shouldn't count.

But now Mercedes can change these by manipulating "steering"
Does this count?

The ride height, camber, rake, stiffness all change with aero loads and driver steering input. Teams can also make aero adjustments in a pitstop if they like.

[henry]

2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

Great point. And 10.3.3; Let's put a huge wing on that steering arm

They do. Up to the size limits in the regs. And they change the incidence with steering angle using a cam on the hub end ball joint. @Platinum Zealot posted about this recently.

[bluechris]

Newey is right, when a normal f1 car runs the air that hit the tyre has an angle because of the toe-out. All f1 cars have toe-out in front wheels. This sends the air after the tyre in an angle after the wheel and aerodynamic guys in the tunnel and with simulators take this in consideration and manage the flow after it.
Now in mercedes case with the DAS when the wheels straighten the air takes different direction to the back of the car so the Mercedes aerorodynamic guys can or allready did counted this behavior in the middle section of the car to have different shape in things that normally wouldn't because the air comes differently.

Its an active aero control of the air that passes the front wheels and it is controlled by the driver.

Its not rocket science and i hope i explained it correctly since my English is not so good but you get the math.

I predict it will be banned before Melbourne and the faster they do it the better, simple because as time pass the 2 Mercedes drivers will use to it.
A simple directive to Mercedes to lock the lateral movement on the steering wheel in a position will be fine, and Mercedes cannot say nothing about it like we will have aero trouble or anything because with that its like admitting it helps aero also.

[Maplesoup]

I predict it will be banned before Melbourne and the faster they do it the better, simple because as time pass the 2 Mercedes drivers will use to it.
A simple directive to Mercedes to lock the lateral movement on the steering wheel in a position will be fine, and Mercedes cannot say nothing about it like we will have aero trouble or anything because with that its like admitting it helps aero also.

Yea I think either it will be killed during scrutineering or they will only be using it on tracks with really long straights.

I don't see them using it on more twisty tracks like Singapore or Monaco for instance but it could be useful on the long straights of Baku and Vietnam.

Edit: aren't teams responsible for the majority of their scrutineering now instead of all cars having to be done. So unless a team raises it for the scrutineers to investigate mercedes might get to race the system.

[vogonvader]

I'm not sure if it was ever discussed but: AFAIK the main goal of brake ducts on current cars is mostly cooling the brakes, but even if I'm not an expert I'm pretty sure most teams are using brake ducts to create an outwash effect by pushing some of that air out through the rim. So I don't know if such an effect is present in W11 and/or if FIA would consider brake ducts an aerodynamic device but If they don't consider the outwash by the brake ducts is a secondary effect, I think any change of toe while the car is moving (aside from steering) could pretty much be considered a breach of the rule:

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS
3.8 Aerodynamic influence
...
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8 [DRS], any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

I'm not sure how relevant this is btw I don't know much about the technical side of this stuff.

[LM10]

I'm not sure if it was ever discussed but: AFAIK the main goal of brake ducts on current cars is mostly cooling the brakes, but even if I'm not an expert I'm pretty sure most teams are using brake ducts to create an outwash effect by pushing some of that air out through the rim. So I don't know if such an effect is present in W11 and/or if FIA would consider brake ducts an aerodynamic device but If they don't consider the outwash by the brake ducts is a secondary effect, I think any change of toe while the car is moving (aside from steering) could pretty much be considered a breach of the rule:

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS
3.8 Aerodynamic influence
...
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8 [DRS], any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

I'm not sure how relevant this is btw I don't know much about the technical side of this stuff.

That's the only way to ban DAS. If a team can convince the FIA and prove the system to primarily have a positive aerodynamic effect, it could be banned because it would be against this rule. The argument that steering the wheel in it's natural manner has an aerodynamic effect too would then count as an argument anymore because it is done to change the direction of the car in a primary way.

[enri_the_red]

2- If the toe angle is not a suspension setup parameter, does it mean that the steering arm is not a suspension member an therefore does not count towards the six suspension members limit defined by art. 10.3.5?

Great point. And 10.3.3; Let's put a huge wing on that steering arm

They do. Up to the size limits in the regs. And they change the incidence with steering angle using a cam on the hub end ball joint. @Platinum Zealot posted about this recently.

rules about the steering or rules about the suspensions?

[thomin]

Can we please stop debating the legality of DAS? We’ve heard all arguments by now.

At the end of the day, Mercedes thinks it’s legal and they have been aligned with FIA during the design process. If somebody in the field doesn’t think it’s legal, they’ll launch an official complaint at which point it will be settled once and for all.

The End.

[Maplesoup]

Can we please stop debating the legality of DAS? We’ve heard all arguments by now.

At the end of the day, Mercedes thinks it’s legal and they have been aligned with FIA during the design process. If somebody in the field doesn’t think it’s legal, they’ll launch an official complaint at which point it will be settled once and for all.

The End.

Well this is a technical forum about F1. There isn't much more to talk about after 3 days of testing other than the what could be the biggest technical innovation we've seen on an F1 car since the double diffuser or the f duct.

Obviously we won't know until it's raced. Maybe someone should start a dedicated thread about the DAS system in general, then the next 3 days of testing we can focus on just the changes to the W11.