Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Oneshortplanck wrote:
more like
Driver > Button > DRS > change in airflow > shnidy ducts and pipes into the equasion whch stalls the wing
so in order for the duct to passively operate, the DRS button must be pressed. (don't make me draw a venn diagram.)
The DRS button only activates the DRS
the DRS button dosnt activate the duct,
the activated DRS system meerly provides aero conditions for the duct to function in a passive manor.
when DRS s activated, weather the duct functions in an advantagous mannor is up to phisics, and/or whatevor figment of your imagination you pass of as a deity.
Do not argue with an idiot. She will drag you down to her level and beat you with experience.
beelsebob wrote:
Which part of the f-duct moves when the driver presses the DRS button?
It's irrelevant, they are using a primary system to activate a secondary system and it's still driver controlled no matter what word games you play.
Not at all irrelevant.
Many systems on the car have secondary effects or by-product effects on the aero, if you banned any system that had a secondary effect on aero you wouldn't be able to have a working F1 car.
Repeating what I said earlier. The function of the button pressed by the driver is to open the DRS not to activate the F-duct, that's a by-product.
By your logic a driver wouldn't be able to press the accelerator, or turn the steering wheel, sounds ridiculous but they all have a secondary effect on the aero beyond their primary purpose, no different to the DRS button who's primary function is not to re-direct airflow to the F-duct, it is to operate the DRS flap.
manchild wrote: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.
beelsebob wrote:
Which part of the f-duct moves when the driver presses the DRS button?
It's irrelevant, they are using a primary system to activate a secondary system and it's still driver controlled no matter what word games you play.
If the driver has no button to activate the f-duct, and no part of the f-duct moves, in what way is the f-duct active?
Essentially you're arguing that any bodywork behind the DRS flap (including any rear wing endplates for example) is illegal bodywork because the airflow over it is affected by the DRS opening and closing. Hell, even some bodywork in front of the DRS flap – most teams for example stall the rear wing main plane when the DRS is open simply by dint of having no air flow through the narrow slot to keep the air attached – is this an illegal movable aero device now?
This is very simple – if the driver has no button to control it, and in fact, it doesn't even have any movement to control, it's not active.
The FIA rule is very clear, or clear as mud, depending on your position. Looking at the above pictures of the Merc rear wing. It would be possible to argue that in the raised position it modifies airflow through the wing end-plate louvres. Driver modified airflow? That would allow this whole argument to dip into the ridiculous.
Whether the Mercedes system is legal or not is probably down to 'glass half full/half empty', depending on the point of view and which camp someone is in. Arguably, both answers are correct at the same time. A conundrum indeed. There is however a bigger problem and one which is, amazingly, not front of mind on this current issue. F1 is about using 'grey areas'. That's what we love about the sport. Although in this instance it's not good for the show and the wider implications that it allows, namely, Mercedes have designed and built a top QUALIFYING car.
When a Mercedes is on the first couple of spots on race day, reality sets in that they're going to hold up the other cars in the race - and ruin what could be an awesome display of truly competitive RACING up the front. While many enjoy watching F1 cars passing on the track, the fact that a 'qualifying grey area' has directly resulted in purposely designed qualifying cars holding up faster race designed cars and potentially destroying what could have a been a closer contest up the front on race day, is frustrating to view and not in the spirit of pure racing. Exploit the grey areas, by all means, but for race trim. That is why all the changes have been made isn't it, to show a better race?
The better question to ask would be "why are we allowing a limited use race overtaking feature to be 100% active in a qualifying scenario?".
Limit DRS to the applicable track race zone(s) in qualifying - problem solved. Back to finding grey areas to exploit for racing.
Would go well with Brawns questioning of whether people actually know what's going on/why people are even calling it an F duct and could be the reason why Whiting/the FIA had no problem with it?
