FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1bettings]

FOM is probably happy to let this pass to make the cars equally competitive.

Lets see the edge they get in the first race. If it is 1-2 dominant sweep then expect maybe F1 to get involved and maybe say this isn't fair. They want a competitive season and the last race to matter.

[bigpat]

Storm in a tea cup I think....

Yes it works, but I don't think its a game changer. The FIA have declared it legal for now, so the others have to get on with it.

The bigger issue is the dodgy exhaust routing on the Red Bulls etc. It is obvious that they are trying to get the flow to replicate the EBD. ( Note: The RB's were the only cars to have a funny sounding 'gargle' to the exhaust note at part throttle, may be linked to this?????).
But, the exhaust complies dimensionally to the regs, so the others will have to come up with their own solution now. That's the way motor racing has always been. You can't ban something because it is clever interpretation, although the F-duct and mass dampers are 2 glaring anomolies in my opinion.....

[LRW]

Is CW buckling under the pressure from other teams. Seems he is reassesing his position on the legality of the wing.

BBC Artical Link

[andrew]

FIA insists that Mercedes F-duct wing is legal

It's legal. The other teams just have to dry their eyes and deal with it.

[LewEngBridewell]

FIA insists that Mercedes F-duct wing is legal

It's legal. The other teams just have to dry their eyes and deal with it.

This is really old now. I cannot believe it's still rumbling on!

[McLaren]

FIA insists that Mercedes F-duct wing is legal

It's legal. The other teams just have to dry their eyes and deal with it.

This is really old now. I cannot believe it's still rumbling on!

It's getting just like red bulls front wing ...........

[bud]

I findit funny Horners doing a lot of the talking.

[andrew]

I findit funny Horners doing a lot of the talking.

On one hand it is but on the other it could be looked at as payback time over floppy front wings. Going by what Ross Brawn says, there are a few teams whinging.

[geetface9]

FIA insists that Mercedes F-duct wing is legal

It's legal. The other teams just have to dry their eyes and deal with it.

This is really old now. I cannot believe it's still rumbling on!

It'll probably be going on through next year if mercedes win a race this year

[madbrad]

The solution is to outlaw DRS and bring back real passing in the process.

[stonemonkey]

I findit funny Horners doing a lot of the talking.

Maybe he's trying to get his own back, I read somewhere that Merc waited until late in the testing season to report an engine loophole to the FIA and that RB might've been making use of the loophole for some form of overrun and then when the loophole was closed had to rush out the new parts at the end of testing which didn't really work and has left RB behind.
Whether or not any of that's close to the truth I have no idea but there were some vids from testing that suggested RB were doing something off throttle that hasn't been noticable in the race weekends.

[darwin dali]

It's officially legal now!

ESPNF1:

Lotus has had its formal protest against the controversial Mercedes DRS system rejected by the FIA.

After a number of teams had been awaiting clarity on the innovative system which has seen Mercedes extremely competitive in qualifying when DRS usage is not limited, Lotus lodged an official protest on Thursday. A note from the clerk of the course read:

"A protest has been lodged by Lotus F1 team concerning the Technical Delegate's scrutineering report (Document 5) of today's date regarding cars 7&8 relating to their conformity with Article 3.15 of the FIA F1 Technical Regulations.

"Accordingly a hearing of the parties concerned (namely Lotus F1 Team and Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team) is convened for 17.15 today Thursday April 12th 2012."

The article in question in the technical regulations states that "with the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

The FIA's Charlie Whiting had previously said he believes it to be completely legal, and following the Lotus protest the stewards unanimously agreed with Whiting's view. The result means that Mercedes can continue using the DRS system this weekend, while Lotus has the right to appeal.

[andrew]

Autosport wrote:">The full Mercedes decision by the FIA

The Stewards convened at 17:15 hrs on April 12, 2012 to consider a protest lodged by Lotus F1 Team concerning the Technical Delegate's scrutineering report of April 12, 2012.

The protest was against the eligibility of Cars 7 and 8 entered by Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team wherein it was alleged the cars did not comply with Article 3.15 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations.

The protest was lodged in accordance with Article 171 of the International Sporting Code and was lodged within the time prescribed under Article 174 (c).

Appearances at the Hearing;

Representing Lotus F1 Team: Messrs Alan Permane and James Allison

Representing Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team: Messrs Ross Brawn and Geoff Willis

FIA Technical Delegate: Mr Jo Bauer

Argument

Mr Allison, in his case on behalf of Lotus, proposed 5 questions that he believed needed to be answered;

1. Does Article 3.15 apply to the device being employed by Mercedes?

2. Does the system comprise any parts that are not "necessary for the adjustment described in Art 3.18"?

3. Can what Mercedes is running be described accurately as a "car system", a "device" or "procedure"?

4. Does the Mercedes device depend upon "driver movement"?

5. Does the Mercedes device "alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car"?

Mr Allison then asserted that if the answers to all these questions is "yes" then it must be concluded the Mercedes system is prohibited.

Mr Allison also asserted there needed to be a distinction between the "prime" purpose of a "device" and a secondary purpose or consequential outcome.

He argued that the Mercedes device has a prime purpose of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car.

Mr Allison later provided the Stewards with written grounds for the protest (Exhibit B). Mr Brawn, for the Respondent Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, provided the Stewards with a detailed paper outlining its response (Exhibit A). This paper contains certain confidential Intellectual Property and could not be provided to Lotus however Mr Brawn presented the key points of his response verbally, which were;

1. The "device" or "design" contains no moving parts.

2. There are no upper limitations provided in the regulations on what can be achieved using DRS apart from what is written in the current regulations. He provided examples of teams making modifications to other parts of cars to take advantage of the different airflow resulting when DRS is activated.

3. The "device" or "system" being protested against (commonly referred to within the team as "DDRS" or "Double DRS") was simply an enhancement to the existing DRS but made after DRS was originally introduced. Therefore is was wrong to discriminate against any enhancement simply because it has been introduced after the original introduction of DRS

4. There is nothing in the regulations preventing a hole in the inner side of the rear end plate and a duct running to the front of the car to take account of a change in the aero characteristics when DRS was operated and that this was an evolution to improve the performance of the DRS.

Mr Allison argued that the Mercedes device being protested was not a part of DRS and indeed that "DRS" was not a term defined in the regulations. He also argued that there was a substantial difference between other modifications made to the car which had aero impacts compared to the modifications made to the Mercedes.

Mr Allison agreed in response to questioning that there is nothing in the regulations that prevents an aero link between the front and rear wings but that the protest centred on the fact the link created was for the sole purpose of using a driver-created movement to alter the aerodynamics of the car.

He stated that if the hole currently located in the rear end plate was located elsewhere and permanently exposed, this would be acceptable.

In response Mr Brawn argued that the regulations do not state how much effect can be gained from DRS and that the Mercedes system was passive. He advised that almost all cars on the grid had made improvements to the aerodynamics of parts of the cars so that they reacted better to the airflow when DRS was activated and in some cases this had increased the speed by 17 to 20 kph as opposed to the initial increase using DRS of 10 kph (Mr Allison argued that the initial advantage was 12 kph).

Mr Willis asserted that all the teams had developed their bodywork to react to the movement in the upper rear wing flap.

Mr Bauer noted that it was not possible to operate the new Mercedes device in isolation to the normal DRS, it was not independent of it.

He also advised that Mercedes has sought clarification on the device prior to the first Grand Prix of 2012 and that he had confirmed to the team prior to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix that the design was permissible.

Note: In relation to the absence of a definition of the term "DRS", Article 3.18 makes several references to the word "systems" and the term "Drag Reduction System" has been widely used within Formula One and the FIA. For the purpose of this deliberation, it is taken to mean the "system" referred to under article 3.18.1 "Driver adjustable bodywork"

Decision

Having examined the evidence presented, the Stewards DECIDE unanimously that the Protest is DISMISSED.

The grounds for this decision are:

1. There are many different parts of bodywork fitted to cars from a variety of teams, which have been designed specifically to take advantage of the change in airflow caused by the activation of the DRS.

2. The modifications on Cars 7 and 8 are examples of the above.

3. The Mercedes design complies with all bodywork geometric and stiffness regulations.

4. The design is entirely passive and has no moving parts whatsoever.

5. The sole purpose of the "DRS" (or the "system" as referred to in the regulations) as stated in Article 3.18.3, is to improve overtaking. The Mercedes design is completely consistent with this objective.

6. . Noting the agreement of Lotus that "if the hole currently located in the rear end plate was located elsewhere and permanently exposed, this would be acceptable", there is no reason why the locating of the hole is the current position on Cars 7 and 8 should not also be acceptable. 7. In relation to the 5 questions posed by Lotus, all 5 of which Lotus assert (and the Stewards agree) if answered in the affirmative, would rule the vehicles ineligible;

(i) Article 3.15 does not apply because it does not directly use driver movement, as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car. The alteration is indirectly (and not directly) consequential to the movement of the driver adjustable bodywork ("DRS")

(ii) The second question posed is not relevant in light of (i) above

(iii) The Mercedes design is not a "system" or "device" in its own right, it is part of a design made to take advantage of the change in airflow caused by the activation of the DRS (refer 1 above)

(iv) The Mercedes design is not activated by driver movement. It is a consequence of a change of position of the driver adjustable bodywork, which is permitted under the regulations.

(v) The Mercedes design does appear to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car by reducing the drag, however this is consistent with the intent of the regulations.

Accordingly not all of the 5 questions can be answered in the affirmative and therefore do not form successful grounds for the upholding of the protest.

Further, and distinct from the grounds above, the protest is dismissed on the grounds that the FIA confirmed the assertion of the Mercedes team that it had, in accordance with Article 2.4 and/or 2.5 of the F1 Technical Regulations, sought clarification from the FIA Formula One Technical Department concerning this matter and the FIA confirmed that the Mercedes design had been deemed permissible.

All parties are reminded of their Right of Appeal.

It's perfectly legal so time to move on now.

[bud]

(v) The Mercedes design does appear to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car by reducing the drag, however this is consistent with the intent of the regulations.

This bit here is telling for those who argue its against the spirit of the rules.

[darwin dali]

(v) The Mercedes design does appear to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car by reducing the drag, however this is consistent with the intent of the regulations.

This bit here is telling for those who argue its against the spirit of the rules.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11577