Red Bull and Lotus to protest Mercedes f-duct

[Neno]

What's with all this complain? What advantage has Mercedes got from this system that other team want it to be banned? Lotus developed a system which was banned by FIA. They want it to be the same case with Mercedes. Grosjean ended up up third in qualifying. Does that not satisfy Mr. Boullier?

why would, he want championship, not some 3rd places

[Maynard G. Krebs]

It would be less controversial if it were not covered by the wing sometimes. If it was exposed all the time, it would just be a hole in the endplate, of which there are already several. As it is, a part does have to move to expose it, and that part moves due to a driver action.

Having said that, I am not sure how I feel about the legality. I like the innovation, I don't mind a team gaining an advantage through innovation, but I think it is questionable.

I don't think the "secondary function" argument is very strong. I think the flow chart looks like this:

Your Pedal example:
Driver > Pedal > F-Duct opening.
(1.Driver operates Pedal, 2.Pedal covers F-duct opening.)

MGP DRS F-duct:
Driver > Button > DRS/F-Duct opening.
(1.Driver operates DRS button, 2.DRS Button activates DRS flap AND F-duct.)

The DRS and the hole "activate" at the same time by the same action. There is nothing secondary about it. They are equal partners in the movement of the flap. Two things happen as a result of the moved flap: Air flows differently over the wing, and air flows through the duct.

[Oneshortplanck]

It would be less controversial if it were not covered by the wing sometimes. If it was exposed all the time, it would just be a hole in the endplate, of which there are already several. As it is, a part does have to move to expose it, and that part moves due to a driver action.

Having said that, I am not sure how I feel about the legality. I like the innovation, I don't mind a team gaining an advantage through innovation, but I think it is questionable.

I don't think the "secondary function" argument is very strong. I think the flow chart looks like this:

Your Pedal example:
Driver > Pedal > F-Duct opening.
(1.Driver operates Pedal, 2.Pedal covers F-duct opening.)

MGP DRS F-duct:
Driver > Button > DRS/F-Duct opening.
(1.Driver operates DRS button, 2.DRS Button activates DRS flap AND F-duct.)

The DRS and the hole "activate" at the same time by the same action. There is nothing secondary about it. They are equal partners in the movement of the flap. Two things happen as a result of the moved flap: Air flows differently over the wing, and air flows through the duct.

more like
Driver > Button > DRS > change in airflow > shnidy ducts and pipes into the equasion whch stalls the wing

[Pup]

To me, the system seems to work like most of these things usually do:

Rulebook > Loophole > 20 pages of unhelpful posts on F1tech debating some irrelevant philosophical tangent

Or so.

[Maynard G. Krebs]

Having said all that, I think the better argument is that the duct is PART OF the DRS system. It serves the same function (aids in overtaking), and so if it is part of the DRS and does not violate other rules, it may be fine.

[myurr]

Driver > Button > DRS > F-Duct opening.
(1.Driver operates DRS button, 2.DRS Button activates DRS flap, 3.DRS flap exposes F-duct.)

Perfect..It's not direct, it's a by product.

The uncovering of the duct may be a by product but the primary design of the duct is to allow airflow once a mechanically movable cover is removed.

[Agerasia]

Not "activated" at all. It's totally passive.

[Dragonfly]

In case of a protest I hope Ross still has his blue folder which he used to carry under his armpit back in the Ferrari days, and in it there were all his notes about possible illegalities on rivals' cars.

[ScottB]

All this stuff really annoys me, I love the technical innovation in the sport, and the whole protesting every new idea thing that has kicked in in recent years is a nonsense.

I fail to see how if the FIA declare something legal that that isn't the end of it, presumably it goes though whatever tests the FIA deem necessary, so what changes between then and a couple teams complaining?

[strad]

I fail to see how if the FIA declare something legal that that isn't the end of it, presumably it goes though whatever tests the FIA deem necessary, so what changes between then and a couple teams complaining?

The FIA doesn't declare it legal...the team ask Charlie the head scrutineering guy and he gives what amounts to an informed opinion but is not binding and then nothing happens,,everything goes forward,,,then a competitor who feels disadvantaged, rather than compete asks to have it banned under some rule they think covers said innovation...THEN,,the FIA gets officially involved and makes a decision.
ANybody...do I have it wrong?

[Dann]

It seems that Martin Whitmarsh has no problem with this and will copy it. Others seem quiet too. May be because McL (and other teams e.g Force India) use Merc engine & don't want to offend them.

[Pup]

All this stuff really annoys me, I love the technical innovation in the sport, and the whole protesting every new idea thing that has kicked in in recent years is a nonsense.

I fail to see how if the FIA declare something legal that that isn't the end of it, presumably it goes though whatever tests the FIA deem necessary, so what changes between then and a couple teams complaining?

Hardly recent.

[ecapox]

I don't like this whole drs activated f-duct or whatever. I think its against the rules, Charlie does not. But I do think its bullshit that teams wait until the day before the race to protest. They knew what Mercedes was doing a long time ago and they should have protested then.

[thisisatest]

so people have an issue because there is a hole that is normally covered and it is uncovered when the drs activates. i can understand that.
what if there was a hole that is exposed all the time, and under normal circumstances the area by the hole is subjected to low pressure air, so air does not enter (it may exit)? and what if, when the drs is activated, air is redirected, and the hole sees high pressure air? where would people stand on its legality then?
what if the wo3 system does not physically touch the endplate, so there is a thin gap of air between the upper wing element and the end plate?

[manchild]

Mercedes had almost identical apertures on rear wing back in 2010 when F duct was legal.



It was on their passive system, with duct connecting lower and upper blade. There were just two apertures back than, now there are at least 4 if I remember the pic correctly.

Here they are on MGP W03, closed though, since it was just car launch.



Extremely high res pics from Australia, apparently they unscrew lids only when car is about to be driven, and perhaps sometimes use none, sometimes just 2, and sometimes all 4 - depending on type of circuit. I might be wrong, but my suspicion is based on similarity presented on first two pics.

http://www.formule1.nl/media/uploads/me ... 937.41.jpg

http://www.formule1.nl/media/uploads/me ... 7151.2.jpg