The F-duct voted out by the teams

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:52 am

I was under the impression that the F-Duct was banned indirectly, by simply banning shark fins that connect to the rear wing ...
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine ..."
gridwalker
1
User avatar
 
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Location: Sheffield, UK

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:31 am

F-duct is banned by FOTA and not FIA .. MW was not happy with it ... but he can do nothing abt it
chasefreak
0
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Location: India

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:33 am

FOTA cannot ban anything on their own.
autogyro
34
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:51 am

Strictly speaking, autogyro is correct, only the FIA WMSC can "ban" things.

However, FOTA do have a number of agreements that the FOTA members adhere to as if they were formal rules. These have included the restrictions on testing, wind tunnels, KERS, & F duct. Some of them become FIA rules, so that's where it gets confusing.
richard_leeds
Moderator
User avatar
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:42 pm

gridwalker wrote:I was under the impression that the F-Duct was banned indirectly, by simply banning shark fins that connect to the rear wing ...


I read the rules for next year as that 'driver input' was banned except where allowed (front wing adjustment). The F-Duct (tube with cockpit hole, from front to rear wing) might be banned, but the fully automated systems, that require no driver input aren't. That was my understanding of the new rules.
Shaddock
0
User avatar
 
Joined: 7 Nov 2006
Location: UK

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:42 pm

Shaddock wrote:
gridwalker wrote:I was under the impression that the F-Duct was banned indirectly, by simply banning shark fins that connect to the rear wing ...


I read the rules for next year as that 'driver input' was banned except where allowed (front wing adjustment). The F-Duct (tube with cockpit hole, from front to rear wing) might be banned, but the fully automated systems, that require no driver input aren't. That was my understanding of the new rules.


Good point and also funny in some way. They changed such rules to make them more clear, but they still get understood in different ways
wesley123
36
User avatar
 
Joined: 23 Feb 2008

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:48 pm

Shaddock wrote:but the fully automated systems, that require no driver input aren't

If there's something moving (like a valve closing the hole) it is not permitted.
However, there's a scope for a passive system that would stall the wing at a set speed. But it would be of no use on tracks such as Silverstone or Turkey.
Would be handy at Monza.
timbo
9
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:20 pm

timbo wrote:
Shaddock wrote:but the fully automated systems, that require no driver input aren't

If there's something moving (like a valve closing the hole) it is not permitted.
However, there's a scope for a passive system that would stall the wing at a set speed. But it would be of no use on tracks such as Silverstone or Turkey.
Would be handy at Monza.


So by that logic would Mercedes' f duct and the Monaco 09 wing be permitted next year?
gibells
1
 
Joined: 8 Apr 2009
Location: Andalucia, Spain

0

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:25 pm

timbo wrote:
Shaddock wrote:but the fully automated systems, that require no driver input aren't

If there's something moving (like a valve closing the hole) it is not permitted.
However, there's a scope for a passive system that would stall the wing at a set speed. But it would be of no use on tracks such as Silverstone or Turkey.
Would be handy at Monza.


That was how I understood it - seems arse backwards to me though. Surely the passive systems are more likely to operate inappropriately than the active systems, and thus are more likely to cause a sudden loss of downforce leading to a crash?
myurr
13
 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008

Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:32 pm

wesley123 wrote:They changed such rules to make them more clear, but they still get understood in different ways


AFAIK the "rules" have not been published. Everything about it in this thread is conjecture. We're all guessing until someone shows us what the agreement actually says.
richard_leeds
Moderator
User avatar
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

Previous

Return to Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests