2020 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 12-15

[dans79]

It depends if you call it making an "adjustment". If it just moves a dynamically movable part then that's not a parc ferme "setting". And since the steering wheel isn't "fixed" that gets them neatly through the loophole. The fact that they closed the loophole for next year is a pretty solid sign the loophole exists for this year.

I think this is how FIA will encourage their stewards to see it.

Not to mention DAS is parting of the steering system and that technically falls under a different set of rules than the suspension system.

no! for the tech rules, wheel rims and tyre are part of the suspension system...

Umm, DAS changes the toe angle. I would think any competent person who has ever actually worked on a car would know a Toe angle change is not a suspension change but a steering change. The rule book is outlined in a similar fashion.

[LM10]

And you think that FIA just out of nowhere and without any connection to DAS rewrote the rules to forbid it in 2021? The rules might have been written before it was public, but Mercedes and the FIA had been in contact with regard to DAS already way before.

Well then it's very much a case of the early bird catches the worm.

I know. I was just pointing out that there surely was a communication going on between Mercedes and the FIA which led to the ban for 2021.

[Polite]

Not to mention DAS is parting of the steering system and that technically falls under a different set of rules than the suspension system.

no! for the tech rules, wheel rims and tyre are part of the suspension system...

Umm, DAS changes the toe angle. I would think any competent person who has ever actually worked on a car would know a Toe angle change is not a suspension change but a steering change. The rule book is outlined in a similar fashion.

.. art. 1.6.. the rules .. where are the rules?

and also, only on the logical pow, das changes the toe angle not in the same direction for the wheels.. so is not a steering change. Steering change occurs, as FIA stated, when the car changes his direction by a movement on the steering wheel.

[Big Tea]

Not to mention DAS is parting of the steering system and that technically falls under a different set of rules than the suspension system.

Yes that too. I reckon it's more likely Red Bull will drop the protest than Mercedes will drop the system.

If for no reason other than sidetracking some development capacity for other teams. They have to study it even if they do not intend to use it.

[dans79]

.. art. 1.6.. the rules .. where are the rules?

Article 10 covers suspension and steering. 10.1 through 10.3 and 10.5 covers the suspension 10.4 is the suspension section.

and also, only on the logical pow, das changes the toe angle not in the same direction for the wheels..

As is the case with a toe change on just about every car ever produced racing or otherwise.

[GPR-A]

no! for the tech rules, wheel rims and tyre are part of the suspension system...

Umm, DAS changes the toe angle. I would think any competent person who has ever actually worked on a car would know a Toe angle change is not a suspension change but a steering change. The rule book is outlined in a similar fashion.

.. art. 1.6.. the rules .. where are the rules?

I don't think anyone on these forums, with knowledge that is good enough to simply use key board, can answer what is in the rules and what is applicable for DAS. I trust that Mercedes have highly competent people in their ranks who not only fully understand what every single rule and sub rule covers, they also fully understand where the gaps are. What covers the suspension and what covers the steering. With such a high understanding of the technical rules, they have then built this while discussing with FIA about it's legality, which means it's not an easy pray to fall within any given rules. IMHO, that is where the matter should be left.

Once again this thread has deviated into DAS!

[nzjrs]

I don't think anyone on these forums, with knowledge that is good enough to simply use key board, can answer what is in the rules and what is applicable for DAS. I trust that Mercedes have highly competent people in their ranks who not only fully understand what every single rule and sub rule covers, they also fully understand where the gaps are. What covers the suspension and what covers the steering. With such a high understanding of the technical rules, they have then built this while discussing with FIA about it's legality, which means it's not an easy pray to fall within any given rules. IMHO, that is where the matter should be left.

Once again this thread has deviated into DAS!

To relate it back to the race, isn't it more correct to say that the FIA offered Mercedes non-binding guidance on legality, but the true legality or otherwise of a part is not tested (ruled on?) until scrutineering during an official race weekend?

[bluechris]

Umm, DAS changes the toe angle. I would think any competent person who has ever actually worked on a car would know a Toe angle change is not a suspension change but a steering change. The rule book is outlined in a similar fashion.

.. art. 1.6.. the rules .. where are the rules?

I don't think anyone on these forums, with knowledge that is good enough to simply use key board, can answer what is in the rules and what is applicable for DAS. I trust that Mercedes have highly competent people in their ranks who not only fully understand what every single rule and sub rule covers, they also fully understand where the gaps are. What covers the suspension and what covers the steering. With such a high understanding of the technical rules, they have then built this while discussing with FIA about it's legality, which means it's not an easy pray to fall within any given rules. IMHO, that is where the matter should be left.

Once again this thread has deviated into DAS!

Newey knows and he said it publicly that he consider DAS an active movable aero device. Its very simple to understand that when you change the alignment of the wheels in the straight, you change how the air travels to the back of the car because the wheel changes the angle of attack to the air.
DAS will be banned not from suspension or steering rules but from aero rules. I don't think Mercedes had that side effect in their minds but maybe they had.
RedBul catched that from the beginning and they will protest with this info.
Melbourne is pretty close and we will see soon.

[mkay]

.. art. 1.6.. the rules .. where are the rules?

I don't think anyone on these forums, with knowledge that is good enough to simply use key board, can answer what is in the rules and what is applicable for DAS. I trust that Mercedes have highly competent people in their ranks who not only fully understand what every single rule and sub rule covers, they also fully understand where the gaps are. What covers the suspension and what covers the steering. With such a high understanding of the technical rules, they have then built this while discussing with FIA about it's legality, which means it's not an easy pray to fall within any given rules. IMHO, that is where the matter should be left.

Once again this thread has deviated into DAS!

Newey knows and he said it publicly that he consider DAS an active movable aero device. Its very simple to understand that when you change the alignment of the wheels in the straight, you change how the air travels to the back of the car because the wheel changes the angle of attack to the air.
DAS will be banned not from suspension or steering rules but from aero rules. I don't think Mercedes had that side effect in their minds but maybe they had.
RedBul catched that from the beginning and they will protest with this info.
Melbourne is pretty close and we will see soon.

Newey also thought the double diffuser was "illegal" in 2009... when in reality he had just been outsmarted by the likes of Brawn, Toyota and Williams.

[dans79]

Newey also thought the double diffuser was "illegal" in 2009... when in reality he had just been outsmarted by the likes of Brawn, Toyota and Williams.

Yep, he is not the omnipotent individual he is often painted as.

[Big Tea]

Who actually gets the final say? Is it the stewards at the event the protest was lodged? I thought their duty ended with the fall of the flag?
If it is the FIA technical delegate, surely that is who would have advised on it being 'legal' (or not illegal) so would not change the opinion.

[dans79]

Who actually gets the final say? Is it the stewards at the event the protest was lodged? I thought their duty ended with the fall of the flag?
If it is the FIA technical delegate, surely that is who would have advised on it being 'legal' (or not illegal) so would not change the opinion.

The stewards would make a ruling at the event, but the team being protested can appeal that if memory serves all they way up to the FIA "International Court of Appeal". So ultimately unless an appeal is denied (unlikely given the scenario) it would still be up to the FIA.

[Big Tea]

Who actually gets the final say? Is it the stewards at the event the protest was lodged? I thought their duty ended with the fall of the flag?
If it is the FIA technical delegate, surely that is who would have advised on it being 'legal' (or not illegal) so would not change the opinion.

The stewards would make a ruling at the event, but the team being protested can appeal that if memory serves all they way up to the FIA "International Court of Appeal". So ultimately unless an appeal is denied (unlikely given the scenario) it would still be up to the FIA.

So who actually makes the decision at the court of appeal? Also, do they study the actual mechanical item or just the wording of the regulation? If it is the wording, again, do they adjudicate on the fitness to the reg, or the appeal?
If Merc (or who ever) were told it is not illegal, I don't see how that can be changed retrospectively. Would they not then be given a time period to remove it from the car, in addition to the time it was already in use.

This could well go a long way into the season before being settled, could it not?

(edit, I realise you are probably not an expert on appeal to FIA Lol, just asking)

[dans79]

Who actually gets the final say? Is it the stewards at the event the protest was lodged? I thought their duty ended with the fall of the flag?
If it is the FIA technical delegate, surely that is who would have advised on it being 'legal' (or not illegal) so would not change the opinion.

The stewards would make a ruling at the event, but the team being protested can appeal that if memory serves all they way up to the FIA "International Court of Appeal". So ultimately unless an appeal is denied (unlikely given the scenario) it would still be up to the FIA.

So who actually makes the decision at the court of appeal? Also, do they study the actual mechanical item or just the wording of the regulation? If it is the wording, again, do they adjudicate on the fitness to the reg, or the appeal?
If Merc (or who ever) were told it is not illegal, I don't see how that can be changed retrospectively. Would they not then be given a time period to remove it from the car, in addition to the time it was already in use.

This could well go a long way into the season before being settled, could it not?

(edit, I realise you are probably not an expert on appeal to FIA Lol, just asking)

This is one of the areas where the FIA fails at a fundamental level imo, because really almost nothing is legal until it's been protested and the protest is rejected or defeated in appeals.

I believe the court would act like any other appeals court. They would review the charges, the laws/rules, arguments presented, and any evidence.

[aral]

OK, thats it! DAS can be discussed on the appropriate thread, be it the merc team thread or the merc W11 thread. it has nothing to do with the actual GP other than someone MAY make a protest about it. Please use the proper thread to discuss. Thanks