Should Mercs Super DRS be allowed?

Negated in what way? As mentioned earlier it was implemented because the fans were complaining about the lack of passing and I also mentioned previously that it was just my "opinion" and not fact.

 

boy oh boy. lol. You haven't thought this through!

 

In your opinion ! Please do not attempt too impress upon me that your "right" and I am "wrong" and that I have no clue.

 

Ok. But it makes no sense. What do you think would be the advantage of allowing DRS any time and anywhere?

 

If the lead car and following car can use it whenever they want, then it does not give the following car any advantage and therefore negates its purpose of increasing passing. It would be like neither one had it.

 

What about Rascasse, then?

 

I disagree, it does not go against the spirit of the rule IMO. When the wing moves, some aero situation is changed on the end plate, regardless of what is on the end plate. Some cars may not get as much advantage as some others based on their end plates design. Designing the end plate to function well when the wing moves makes sense. To me, it is surprising that there are not more different solutions for that end plate area.

 

As for the topic of whether it should be allowed - of course it should be.

It utilizes a follow-on effect of a legal (and, in fact, mandated, IIRC?) system.

The fact that it's switched is irrelevant as Aircon pointed out above. The simple fact that "something changes" is why it's useful. MB took advantage of that change and made something useful out of it.

I would say a majority of the aerodynamics of an F1 car do exactly the same thing. A wing is a drag-inducing obstruction in a corner like the hairpin @ Monaco... but as the car gains speed, the dynamic changes, and it becomes useful.

The FIA has mandated that various parts of the car are configured in various ways. So, for example, the front wing must be a certain height off the ground, a certain width, etc. Let's say a team does some aero testing and they notice that the way the FIA has configured the wing, it creates a high pressure zone in some undesirable area above 100mph. So they put a hole there to release that pressure. Should that be illegal? Because if so, it is outlawing the very essence of F1 design.

So if that should be legal, it's zero different from MB looking at the rear wing, noticing that in some FIA approved/mandated situation, something happens. So they shrewdly place a perfectly legal opening in that location to take advantage of the effect.

No different than any other wing or device on the car.

Brawn was right - all the other teams are whining because they didn't think of it first, and it is going to be difficult to copy.

 

Then, it is somewhat a movable aero device controlled by the driver.

If they banned the mass damper and the blown exhaust diffussers for being "somewhat" movable aero devices or driver controlled aero devices, then why not this?

Always the same problem with FIA´s decisions: lack of coherence, you don´t know what to expect from them.

 

The end plates do not move, only the mandated wing moves. It is a hole.

 

Agree. But they´re using a legal device for doing something that it´s not supposed to do. A hole like Ferrari´s oversized rear wing they tried last year. But that wing was banned and Mercedes´ not.

The issue I see is not about Mercedes´ DRS but about a lack of coherence in the application of the law.

 

Reminds me of the Brabham "vacuum cleaner": Bernie claimed it was to cool the engine. Yeah right.

Just because something is not explicitely banned in the rules doesn't mean it can't violate the spirit of the rules.

The comment was in regards to the comeback MS who gets away with a lot of things (Hungary 2010, Montreal 2010, Singapore 2011, Monza 2011 to name a few).

And if Mercedes had Rosberg and Sutil as drivers we wouldn't be even having this poll.

 

Singapore? Lol. Also Montreal and Monza would be pushing it...

 

Today's FIA is constantly investigating every single incident between two drivers and handing out penalties left and right.

 

The wheel nuts are designed to hold the wheels on. Some teams (wasn't it Ferrari first?) figured out that you could use that to make a device that helped airflow.

It was allowed for at least a year, or more.

Coming up with ingenious devices that lie within the rules is what F1 is all about.

Brawn didn't break any rules, so I think the basis of the complaint is that the other teams would have to do a lot of work to to replicate it.

If it was something like the wheel nuts, nobody would whine.

 

Probably true.

But why some things are banned because they broke the spirit of the rule and this isn´t?

If FIA is not enforcing the letter but the spirit of the rule, then they have to be coherent with that and ban this. If not, then bring back aerodynamic nuts, oversized rear wings, flexible floors, mass dampers and a looong etcetera.

 

Nothing to do with any "spirit" IMO - It's all about "interpretation" - As I keep on saying, F1 does not change it's rules mid-season. [OK, maybe very, very rarely with the agreement of ALL the teams, but I can't recall the last time that happened.]

Charlie issues "clarifications" and may change testing procedures that check for compliance, but the goal-posts don't move.

Formal protests are very rare as, despite whines to the contrary, the rules are pretty clear - When someone pushes the envelope Charlie is generally in the loop already and knows what they're up to - AFAIK the mass damper was almost unique in that his interpretation (legal) was over-ruled by the race stewards. In this case, as someone noted, Mad Max was involved, so maybe that's the key.......

Anyway, aerodynamic wheel nuts etc weren't banned mid-season but in the amended rules for the following season - They "tweak" the rules a little every off season in an attempt to clarify etc - Remember, the original F-duct couldn't be banned until the off season for example. Same with the Super DRS.

If you're anal about this stuff, the complete rules (technical, sporting and the ISC) are all online at the FIA site as PDF's - Any changes since the previous year are "highlighted" in a different color and I suspect many will be surprised at how little actually changes.

Again, there is no spirit in these rules and they don't get changed ala Nascar every week

Cheers,
Ian

 

"Spirit of the rules" is just another "smoke screen" for under-performing teams to complain and they mean nothing in reality, is "Spirit of the rules" in the FIA F1 rule book, no.

 

DRS itself is an abomination and should be banned.
They've shortened the zone this weekend because it was working too well.

 

Not according to most "fans" though...... Even the drivers are supporting it as now they at least have a chance to overtake.

It had the potential to work too well - It was shortened at the request of the drivers - They don't want any "back & forth" nonsense either - Just half a chance to get by a slower car that would be impossible without it.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Ah, yes, "interpretation of the rules", that quite useful euphemism for arbitrarity.

Remember that FIA needed almost two years to "interpret" if blown diffusers were legal or not and then surprisingly decided to ban it mid-season. Almost the same for mass dampers. On the other hand, Ferrari´s higher wing tested in Barcelona was removed inmediately, despide it was also only exploiting (in a quite shameless way, IMO) a loop-hole.

I have the feeling that FIA´s interpretations are not only arbitrary in the outcome, but also in the time they take to apply the rule changes.

 

Make up yer mind.

It's an artifice that is flawed to begin with. No number of modifications will fix it.

 

Can you say that? Seriously, I hear what you're getting at and agree that it was much worse back in the days of Mad Max.

Not true - While Charlie did try to mess with 'em at Silverstone that soon died out and the rules were updated in the off season.

I put the mass damper debacle down to the crazy man. I don't think that would have happened today, although we'll never know.

IIRC, the Ferrari wing was (almost?) a joke - They knew it would be immediately outlawed.

Again, I can see how you get that impression, but the rules are the rules and the protest and appeals procedure is very well documented - We may not like that an appeal goes to Paris and results get changed long after the event, but that's the system and everyone's entitled to their day in court.

Given their hyper competitive nature I actually think it all runs rather smoothly in fact.... [Ducks & covers ]

Cheers,
Ian

 

And here is the famous moveable pipe lol.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Given the highly competitive, sophistically technical and fast evolving nature of the sport the fact that they succeed as well as they do is amazing.
This will, in no way, stop me from picking nits with them though.