Let's not forget the original rear wing f-duct was just a tube extending along the shark fin which was fed by a hole in the engine intake. Easy in comparison. This new passive f-duct is talking about ducting through the entire car! Not easy if it is indeed integrated to the chassis. They also would need to craft a new front wing and tune the airflow to what the rear wing is doing. All this stuff takes time. A lot of time.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the original design had the intake forward of the cockpit and the subsequent copies had it further back just because of these chassis redesign issues. This new F Ducting would seem tougher to adapt but I have faith. I also wonder if CW would be so willing to allow it if he thought that the other teams would be too disadvantaged in terms of a retrofit.
Well I think we don't really know if it's a 'duct' as we know them or a vacuum. It's a bit mysterious at the moment. And yes, I believe both iterations of f-ducts you mentioned are correct, but the only team to duct it from the front was Mercedes because W01 had no shark fin. All others were ducted at the airbox with the sharkfin, but the switch was obviously inside the cockpit
It was the McLaren that had the forward intake. Mercedes used a couple of different intakes but they were adjacent to the airbox in both cases.
+1 At last!....... You know how we feel over here! I *love* this race - A nice sociable 18:30 start for me Cheers, Ian
Starts here at 3.30... Since it's most likely raining I'll just go and watch P2 at 7.30. Got a long weekend planned, haha. Genuinly can't contain my excitement for this season now. Mercedes really looks to be in top form, to see Schumacher on the podium will be fantastic to say the least!
1830? how's that possible? it's 1700 here in Aus. Practice 1 Fri 12:30 Practice 2 Fri 16:30 Practice 3 Sat 14:00 Qualifying Sat 17:00 Race Sun 17:00
Okay, slightly sour grapes as a Kimi fan, but..... how is it possible that the Lotus passive ride height system is banned as being a movable aerodynamic device, but the MB induction slot wing, which is operated off of the MOVING DRS wing, is not banned under the same broad rules interpretation?! Personally, I think both systems should be permitted as being very clever engineering and within the rules, but I am having difficulty with the inconsistent application of the rule. I know, all part of F1, but still....
It is all BS. Whiting's interpretation of the rules has always been all over the place. Normally the FIA's approach is to make the field a level playing field. So it makes sense they allowed MB's new F duct (despite the moveable aero parts). But it made no sense whatsoever to ban the Lotus' system, particularly since that team really could use a hand to make it to the front of the grid. My only explanation for why they allowed the MB design: a) it might not be that hard/expensive to copy b) it has a limited benefit since it "only" improves top speed during qualifying I'm guessing Whiting thought that for the 3rd GP all teams will have something similar in place and until then MB has only a limited chance of benefitting from this since Melbourne isn't a superfast track and Sepang is a bit of a gamble anyhow given the constant threat of rain.
A really simple way of looking at this is to call it a rear wing version of the passive front wing f-duct they tested at Suzuka. The idea of stalling both front and rear wings is brilliant. F-ducts were banned in the form of driver aided aero devices. The loophole in this new f-duct is that it is a secondary effect to DRS for which there is no rule against. I'm very curious now regarding what sort of qualifying advantage having a very balanced set of stalled wings will bring, specifically, will the drivers use DRS at turns where others are not able to?
Not arguing with you just saying that the FIA interprets the movable aero rule how it serves them and not how it would make sense from an engineering perspective. I realized that when they banned the mass damper which was fully enclosed and totally outside the airstream
Yup I definitely agree the FiA seems apply rules at their discretion and att times odd interpretations. The flexible wings were probably the most obvious example of this.
and here is the magic new duct. It was NOT run during FP1, but only FP2. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sorry, I was talking about FP1, not the race start..... Cheers, Ian FWIW, here's my local (Pacific) times from the F1 site: Image Unavailable, Please Login
And yet more speculation - From Autosport; Now, that I'm a little "happier" about - What are the holes we can see in the main plane otherwise? OTOH, I still don't "see" how the hole is going to be at a higher pressure than the air flowing by it - My WAG is air gets sucked out of the hole, not forced in when it's open. Cheers, Ian
I agree with that. Stalling with a vacuum effect would be more immediate too, depending on the pressure of the vacuum of course.
It does make a little more sense when the "primary function" of the component is considered. The suspension is there to absorb bumps...not to affect aero. The DRS system is there to exploit aero to make the cars go faster under certain conditions and at certain times. MB is pushing the boundaries of the already intended use of a component or system. Personally, I'd rather see both (and more) innovations being allowed...I'd rather see technology battles than the current innovate/copy that is encouraged by narrow interpretations. BUT...I don't think the rulings have been all over the place. In the weird, modern Formula ONE terms, they're sort of consistent.
