Lotus E20 VD

[turbof1]

I think it shouldnt have been banned, yet another innovation we can kiss goodbye to, I think its great to find these systems and try and find out how they work, what are the grounds on banning it because it cannot be cost as RB has already discussed, every great innovation gets banned.

F ducts, DDD's, DDRS, EBD's, I think its time they allowed a bit of innovation IMHO

Yes I agree on that. I mean obviously F1 should cut costs, but there are enough area's where you can cut that; you don't need to attack innovation every time. For 2014 I would really wish they more or less kept the rules the same for aerodynamics, besides those ugly noses, and reintroduce ground effect together with grooved tires, together with developments for the engines, within economic reasons, made possible.

A big cost reduction lies with the tyres. Unused tyres need to be destroyed after each race. That's just redicolous and every year millions are thrown away like that.

[N12ck]

I think it shouldnt have been banned, yet another innovation we can kiss goodbye to, I think its great to find these systems and try and find out how they work, what are the grounds on banning it because it cannot be cost as RB has already discussed, every great innovation gets banned.

F ducts, DDD's, DDRS, EBD's, I think its time they allowed a bit of innovation IMHO

Yes I agree on that. I mean obviously F1 should cut costs, but there are enough area's where you can cut that; you don't need to attack innovation every time. For 2014 I would really wish they more or less kept the rules the same for aerodynamics, besides those ugly noses, and reintroduce ground effect together with grooved tires, together with developments for the engines, within economic reasons, made possible.

A big cost reduction lies with the tyres. Unused tyres need to be destroyed after each race. That's just redicolous and every year millions are thrown away like that.

If f1 wants to be more road relevant then they need to be efficient, ground effect is more efficient than wings, Fducts are efficient, DDRS is efficient, EBD's without off throttle is efficient, so by banning all this goes against what f1 is about,

anyways back onto the e20, does anyone have an image of the drs open?

[turbof1]

I think it shouldnt have been banned, yet another innovation we can kiss goodbye to, I think its great to find these systems and try and find out how they work, what are the grounds on banning it because it cannot be cost as RB has already discussed, every great innovation gets banned.

F ducts, DDD's, DDRS, EBD's, I think its time they allowed a bit of innovation IMHO

Yes I agree on that. I mean obviously F1 should cut costs, but there are enough area's where you can cut that; you don't need to attack innovation every time. For 2014 I would really wish they more or less kept the rules the same for aerodynamics, besides those ugly noses, and reintroduce ground effect together with grooved tires, together with developments for the engines, within economic reasons, made possible.

A big cost reduction lies with the tyres. Unused tyres need to be destroyed after each race. That's just redicolous and every year millions are thrown away like that.

If f1 wants to be more road relevant then they need to be efficient, ground effect is more efficient than wings, Fducts are efficient, DDRS is efficient, EBD's without off throttle is efficient, so by banning all this goes against what f1 is about,

anyways back onto the e20, does anyone have an image of the drs open?

Well f ducts aren't efficient; they are used to stall the rear wing. If the rules would allow sufficient flexing, you could gain the same effect. And EBDs aren't really efficient either; They are used to seal off the diffuser. If teams were allowed they could do the same with bodywork; far less sensitive and the same effect. Just saying: most solutions used in modern F1 could all be replaced by more efficient ones which are banned by rules.

Also we should be carefull with criticising the FIA about banning. The initial goal was to cut ever higher reaching cornering speeds which were life treathening. IMO safety should come first; innovation next. What I do think is that the FIA kind of lost that goal: they now more or less reacting on any major improvement by banning it. It has more a political taste. If the FIA wants to cut speed, they shouldn't do that with banning, but with making cars again and again safer (which inevitably cuts speed). That way cars can be allowed to go faster.

[N12ck]

I am not saying they are the most efficient solution, however what is better,,,,

a car with an exhaust which does nothing aerodynamically or very little,or a car with an Exhaust blown diffuser, if you are going to have an Exhaust you may aswell do something useful with it,

same for the F duct, and DDRS, which is why it is in f1's interest to not ban these innovations

[Huntresa]

Yeah its just lol that they ban everything, it was fine when the argument was " Ground effect is dangerous we are going to fast and we will die if we crash" but today just banning something and all the time going back to cost cutting is lame as ---.

and yes plz reintroduce ground effects god damnit!

[turbof1]

I am not saying they are the most efficient solution, however what is better,,,,

a car with an exhaust which does nothing aerodynamically or very little,or a car with an Exhaust blown diffuser, if you are going to have an Exhaust you may aswell do something useful with it,

same for the F duct, and DDRS, which is why it is in f1's interest to not ban these innovations

Don't get me wrong: I do agree with you. Just saying; all those modern solutions are there because of limitations to earlier innovations which were banned.
We shouldn't also focus only on the aero; mechanical there has been alot of innovations banned! Like Lotus their pre-season ride height suspension. Purely mechanical, no electronics or otherwise adjustable parts involved, works purely reactive. Still banned. That made me a bit sad actually.

It's like the FIA is just only taking their rule book and check what they can ban. They aren't flexible at all. Which was the last time we got rules being made less strict? I can't think of any of it.

[beelsebob]

I am not saying they are the most efficient solution, however what is better,,,,

a car with an exhaust which does nothing aerodynamically or very little,or a car with an Exhaust blown diffuser, if you are going to have an Exhaust you may aswell do something useful with it,

same for the F duct, and DDRS, which is why it is in f1's interest to not ban these innovations

Don't get me wrong: I do agree with you. Just saying; all those modern solutions are there because of limitations to earlier innovations which were banned.
We shouldn't also focus only on the aero; mechanical there has been alot of innovations banned! Like Lotus their pre-season ride height suspension. Purely mechanical, no electronics or otherwise adjustable parts involved, works purely reactive. Still banned. That made me a bit sad actually.

It's like the FIA is just only taking their rule book and check what they can ban. They aren't flexible at all. Which was the last time we got rules being made less strict? I can't think of any of it.

The same time as when the designers made the cars slower.

[superdread]

The rules are so needlessly complicated because they simply reacted to every innovation adding paragraph after paragraph.
They should sit down and think of new rules (certainly inspired by the old but much much fewer).

There are good reasons to limit the cars performance, and also legitimate areas that can be improved in exchange for speed:
Safety is a no-brainer, also there are aesthetics (banning all those stupid fins in the rear), fairness (low front, high rearwing), action (DRS *shiver*)...
The FIA doesn't think big enough when they ban a mechanism, i.e. they are too specific and don't show any hindsight on how teams could achieve a similar effect. Also they are susceptible to pressure from the teams (giving way to tactical bannings because other teams don't want to develop similar technology).

And btw., DDD and DDRS are solutions to problems that never should have existed because foremost they are ugly.
The FIA should ban driver-influenced aerodynamics all together. On the other side, suspension should be free as long as it's non-electronic (except sensors) but with mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics...(because I want to see a DS3-style pneumatic suspension on a race car).

[PlatinumZealot]

DDRS banned for 2013! http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/4253 ... _for_2013/

here we go again, everything against lotus. first their ride-height device banned when was already devoloped with E20, then now when they created their own DDRS (after many protest about regulations) is also banned. same happend with their F-duct 2010. when they created their own F-duct, FIA banned them for next year

But I don't think Lotus have a DDRS. I think they just have a blown wing. That may be switchable like an F-duct.

[N12ck]

DDRS banned for 2013! http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/4253 ... _for_2013/

here we go again, everything against lotus. first their ride-height device banned when was already devoloped with E20, then now when they created their own DDRS (after many protest about regulations) is also banned. same happend with their F-duct 2010. when they created their own F-duct, FIA banned them for next year

But I don't think Lotus have a DDRS. I think they just have a blown wing.

I believe it is a dual system, both DDRS and passive

[PlatinumZealot]

Well the DDRS system, would only stall when DRS is open, but it if were passive it would activate all the time once the car goes over a certain speed (like the passive F-duct). Which maybe me more beneficial, but yes, more problematic to fine tune for each track.

[N12ck]

Well the DDRS system, would only stall when DRS is open, but it if were passive it would activate all the time once the car goes over a certain speed (like the passive F-duct). Which maybe me more beneficial, but yes, more problematic to fine tune for each track.

It could be done, in principal my diagram should work,

[superdread]

Well the DDRS system, would only stall when DRS is open, but it if were passive it would activate all the time once the car goes over a certain speed (like the passive F-duct). Which maybe me more beneficial, but yes, more problematic to fine tune for each track.

It could be done, in principal my diagram should work,

You seem rather adamant about your doodle. My beef with it is that two ducts are a lot to cram into that pylon.

I rather think they direct that flow through the endplates (like Merc) and then through the beam wing (there are two little pylons connecting beam wing and crash structure) or the floor (there might be bulges, I didn't find good enough pics).
Another point is that the front half of the endplate can be quite thick (they have a stepped profile, being further apart at the rear than at the front).

[Huntresa]

We still dont have any holes in the endplates to show off, when we have we can dicuss this.

[N12ck]

We still dont have any holes in the endplates to show off, when we have we can dicuss this.

The problem is there are no FOM tv shots of lotus's DRS open, or Sutton images,