Well I guess CH knows the car cant match the McLarens in quali at the moment but needs to be at least in the second row in front of both Mercedes' or this will start to get Seb 11' ugly and have those drivers running off in the distance with RBR fighting with Mercedes on quali and Lotus on race. McLaren got it easier last year as they were clear number 2 to RBR in my opinion, where as this time RBR are fighting with Mercedes and Lotus and making life harder to give us a picture of the contender team.
Depends really. Everybody was going on and on about the bendy front wings, because they all knew it was by the deffinition of the rules & by the spirit of the rules - illegal. However, the tests were not sufficient to re-inforce the rules, therefor it was legal. But, if you can't match it, and yo think it's wrong, would you just ignore it? The spirit of the rules is that NO stalling of the wing is permitted. Mclaren did it, and were widely despised for breaking the gentlemens agreement. So no reason why people shouldn't moan now, when they have - in effect, doubly broken the gentlements agreement over stalling the wing, and apear to be breaking the rules on driver activated aero devices - especially as RB were penalised for the ebd, and it was agreed (I believe) no one would use the DRS for alternative solutions?
I thought the spirit of not stalling the rear wing was introduced AFTER McLaren introduced the F-duct, but only by way of the driver using a seperate device to stall the wing? Hence the controversy of Mercedes now doing it, but seemingly using a device linked to a legal device and not by a seperate driver movement? When the driver has not activated DRS, there is no stall on the rear wing and nothing the driver can do when DRS is not working to activate any stalling mechanism? **** that, I need a pint now. It's Friday folks
I'm pretty sure that the agreement over stalling the rear wing was raised when McLaren first used the F-duct, so it was in place beforehand. This is from crash.net but the source isn't important, more to the point is that it was being talked about back in early 2010:
From Scarbs (tube running down the side of the engine heat sheld): please log in to view this image McLaren are almost ready to go with theirs. please log in to view this image They're also using hot driver gases to blow the underside of the floor. please log in to view this image
Lotus technical director James Allison has revealed that his team has developed a new argument against the DRS-duct, which they'll be trying out at the Chinese GP.
Perhaps its time they put that effort into copying Mercedes. I know Lotus' main rivals are most probably Mercedes, but the fuss they're kicking up makes me think something about their chassis makes copying Mercedes impossible?
Yeah I think there might be some truth to that. I also noticed that the other team(Red Bull) who questions the W-Duct a lot, seems to have very little room to fit such a system in their package.
Very difficult, yes. I read yesterday that the concept of the DRS-duct came about by the tortuous ducting Mercedes had to design to get their 2010 F-duct installed - basically, through the floor and up the rear wing endplates - because the benefits of redesigning the chassis and submitting it for further crash testing wasn't considered to outweigh the costs. I think DRS has been included in the 2014 specs so it's here to stay. With the apparently arbitrary release of a section of Whiting's Australian GP press conference, I believe the FIA is trying to head off not just any further requests for clarification but also any post-race protests by quoting the very firm "this is specifically allowed" and, more importantly, leading with the acceptance of any potentially contentious exhaust issues (i.e. telling Lotus and Red Bull that they're allowing clever exhaust techniques, so don't make a fuss about clever ducting solutions). All this means ducting solutions and exhaust gas routing are acceptable in a non-aggressive ground effects configuration, which may lead to closer integration of internal and external aerodynamics in the future.
Interesting that you mention Lotus and Red Bull, but McLarens solutions is by far the most extreme exhaust solution. Some teams even thought about protesting against McLarens exhaust. Ross Brawn also mentioned that their (McLarens) solution is in his mind not in the spirit of the rule changes that were especially made regarding exhaust and blown diffusors.
Yes but McLaren aren't planning to ask for a third clarification on the DRS-duct from Charlie Whiting or threatening to protest Mercedes's race results.
Indeed, and perhaps because of that, other 'friendly' conversations are held when various team personnel happen to bump into one another. It wouldn't surprise me to see McLaren one of the first teams to implement their own DRS-duct if they think there's a significant gain to be found on their own car. I pointed out in the MP4-27 thread that there is already a degree of bulky sculpting on the inner face of its rear wing endplates.
I think with this area of development effectively unrestricted, next year could see a lot more extreme interpretations. By increasing the size of the DRS actuator, a larger area for ducting could be opened up. Rather than just stalling the front wing, I suppose other aero devices could be stalled too, increasing the DRS effect.
I wonder if that would shake the grid up at all and, if so, would it be desirable? I'm thinking back to the days of single-lap qualifying, which was intended to produce some variation on the grid with the previous race's winner going out first on a dirty track. More to the point, there was a fair bit of discussion then about reverse grids and suchlike, making the faster drivers have to fight through the pack to win. Would we end up with a few Mercedes-type teams - great in qualifying but bound to fall back in the race - or would the best teams have the best DRS+ systems? If we did have the real podium contenders further back on the grid all the time, how frustrating would it be to watch?
Mercedes race pace is so shocking they need to do something. They could lock out the front row and still have a fight on their hands to both stay in the top 10. It may be debatable how good the drivers are compared to the rest but they are certainly not so bad that the car falls apart in the race. I agree with this from Brawn, Team's are desperate to get the system banned because they can't copy it with their chassis. Clever idea's should be rewarded and be free from any potential mid season rule changes
To ban or not to ban, well, if one team think they've found a loop-hole they can exploit and exploit it, why can't another team look through the rules for an 'anti-loop-hole' to find a way to have it banned? I'm not saying I like it, or any part of the political/legal and general Machiavellian cloak and dagger BS that seems an integral part of F1 (more so than any other sport I'd guess), but lets not kid ourselves it's just RBR, they all do it, how many teams have made compaints over the last few years? My guess would be all of them.
