101 replies to this topic

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Could Fernando and Ferrari have made an effort to keep racing "as is" untlil the next stop for tyres and even changed tyre stop strategy as a result?

Yes, I understand he would have lost downforce through the corners and twisty bits...but he would have been faster in the straight sections and could have modified breaking/accelerating accordingly.

Perhaps i'm missing something but wasn't he able to keep di Resta's Force India at bay? He could have driven like Villeneuve a la Jarama 1981: **** in the corners but mighty in the straights.

Isn't it possible that he would have lost less than 22 seconds doing the above ... and then used his next tyre stop to push the wing back into place and, then, not use it anymore?

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 22 April 2013 - 20:11.

[learningtobelost]

Could Fernando and Ferrari have made an effort to keep racing "as is" untlil the next stop for tyres and even changed tyre stop strategy as a result?

Yes, I understand he would have lost downforce through the corners and twisty bits...but he would have been faster in the straight sections and could have modified breaking/accelerating accordingly.

Isn't it possible that he would have lost less than 22 seconds doing the above ... and then used his next tyre stop to push the wing back into place and, then, not use it anymore?

Assuming he had done this, he would have still opened the DRS again and had to re-pit. Moot point.

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Assuming he had done this, he would have still opened the DRS again and had to re-pit. Moot point.

No its actually not moot.

Had he continued on to the next stop, he would have known/been told to not open it again.

What i'm saying is that he shouldn't have come in on the very next lap and, instead, have continued on until the next scheduled tyre stop to have the wing closed manually again (and, then, not opened it again...as was the case anyway).

They even could have brought him in ahead of schedule and modified tyre strategy.

He need not have lost an entire 22 seconds.

I'm asking if he would have dropped less time had he continued with the wing open on his second stint?

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 22 April 2013 - 20:18.

[EthanM]

you want them to run less rear wing, for a full stint, on a rear limited track? Do the math, it's not complicated (hint: tyres wouldn't have lasted 10 laps)

[charly0418]

Downforce > Top Speed on straights

That's why

[Watkins74]

Is he even allowed to run lap after lap with the wing open or would he have been ordered by Charlie to pit anyway?

I don't think he can continue with the flap open.

Edited by Watkins74, 22 April 2013 - 20:20.

[jimjimjeroo]

Surely he would have been black flagged or something to that effect

Use of DRS outside I'd DRS zone effectively

[Beamer]

Wouldn't he have gotten a flag for mechanical failure? Even though he didn't pose a thread to anyone? Anybody got a guesstimate on how much laptime would it have cost him had he contnued?

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Downforce > Top Speed on straights

That's why

But is it possible that he would have lost less than 22 seconds on a shorter stint with that equation?

Wasn't he holding off di Resta?

[Kyo]

If they had done that he would certainly be penalized by the stewards.

[SR388]

I am surprised he was not black flagged as it was yesterday.

[Watkins74]

I am surprised he was not black flagged as it was yesterday.

He went straight into the pits. No chance to give him a black flag.

[crbassassin]

I think it is against the rules to have the DRS enabled in the non activation zones.

[encircled]

Yeah, I think he probably would have been forced to pit by Charlie.

@SR388

OT: That guy on your avatar is apparently DPOY for the season.

[SR388]

He went straight into the pits. No chance to give him a black flag.

Well, that answers that then.

[SR388]

Yeah, I think he probably would have been forced to pit by Charlie.

@SR388

OT: That guy on your avatar is apparently DPOY for the season.

Damn skippy Gasol is DPOY! He really earned it!

[RayInTorontoCanada]

I think it is against the rules to have the DRS enabled in the non activation zones.

Is this true?

I have seen DRS open on cars in non-DRS zones in the past...without penalty.

[SR388]

Is this true?

I have seen DRS open on cars in non-DRS zones in the past...without penalty.

I only remember that coming up at 2011 Chinese GP, where Alonso opened his rear wing, but that was due to a timing issue. No penalty.

Logic tells us that it is a rule. If you could run DRS open as you pleased, why would they bother making DRS zones?


Also when Alonso's broken DRS was open it seemed to be open too far. I wonder if it would have a detrimental effect in the straights, with the top part of the wing up at a higher angle?

[One]

Flap beinglookingup, meaning it was creating lift, not something that you want for 22 more laps.

[RockyRaccoon68]

I only remember that coming up at 2011 Chinese GP, where Alonso opened his rear wing, but that was due to a timing issue. No penalty.

Logic tells us that it is a rule. If you could run DRS open as you pleased, why would they bother making DRS zones?


Also when Alonso's broken DRS was open it seemed to be open too far. I wonder if it would have a detrimental effect in the straights, with the top part of the wing up at a higher angle?

It wasn't just open too far, the DRS flap flipped right upside down!

Running with the DRS open just wasn't an option, it's dangerous never mind very slow!

[Afterburner]

Is this true?

I have seen DRS open on cars in non-DRS zones in the past...without penalty.

As far as I know, the drivers can't open DRS unless it's activated remotely from the computers at race control, so it's basically a mea culpa on the part of race control if they're given the go-ahead to open DRS outside the designated zones. So far I haven't seen anything drastic come from DRS allowance errors, but I'm sure there will be a huge debate when/if such a thing happens.

As for Alonso's incident in particular: it was a minor mech failure, and he wasn't benefiting from it in terms of lap time, so no need for a penalty, as far as I can see. The sensible thing to do would've been to test it in the zone before the pit-lane as close as possible to his second pit-stop rather than try to open it right away after stopping the first time. Give me the hindsight routine if you want, but seriously, it seemed like a no-brainer to me at the time, at least.

[RayInTorontoCanada]

The sensible thing to do would've been to test it in the zone before the pit-lane as close as possible to his second pit-stop rather than try to open it right away after stopping the first time.

That's a good point.

I'm sure other teams will have learned from that.

[ANF]

He probably would have lost time on the straights as well. The loss of rear downforce would have led to lower cornering speeds and longer braking distances. And it would have led to higher rear tyre degradation – also leading to lower cornering speeds and longer braking distances.

Then there would have been the chance of some nasty oversteer, high brake temps, and mirrors full of faster cars.

No, I don't think he would have lost less than 22 seconds by staying out.

[Diderlo]

First of all you do not lose 22 seconds by pitting. Yes, it takes so many seconds to pit and drive through the pits, but you should consider that others have to drive the main straight. You can subtract that (but you could also add some time because you have to accelerate a bit before the first turn, but this isn't as big of a time loss)

Edited by Diderlo, 22 April 2013 - 21:42.

[Fastcake]

What also should be remembered, beyond the likelihood of losing even more time or being flagged into the pits should he of continued, is how Alonso had already retirement from one race after trying to stay out with a mechanical failure. Do you think Ferrari were willing to risk it once again?

[RayInTorontoCanada]

These are all good points.

A LOT of very good points, in fact.

Thanks everyone!

[MikeTekRacing]

i don't think it's illegal to run DRS on always (it's like running a monza spec low DF wing).

activating DRS outside of the zone is bad because you have both high downforce and low donwforce on demand. having low downforce always isn't ilegal imho

[Coops3]

^

Of course it's illegal. They have dedicated DRS zones, so clearly it's going to be against the rules to use it outside of those zones. It was a mechanical failure which he didn't gain an advantage from, so it would probably have been harsh to give him a penalty. Nevertheless, if they'd decided to keep him out as the OP suggests, I wouldn't have been very happy about it.

[Deluxx]

Having a rear wing open around tight turns is ridiculous. The amount of downforce you lose would case your rear end to fly around the circuit almost causing you to violently spin with just the -SMALLEST- amount of power. Imagine the power Fernando uses around corners to stay within competitive lap times.

And like watkins said, just because of this instability it is deemed a safety hazard, also could be considered an unfair advantage, Charlie would have black flagged him if he stayed out longer than he did.

Edited by Deluxx, 22 April 2013 - 22:14.

[redreni]

^

Of course it's illegal. They have dedicated DRS zones, so clearly it's going to be against the rules to use it outside of those zones. It was a mechanical failure which he didn't gain an advantage from, so it would probably have been harsh to give him a penalty. Nevertheless, if they'd decided to keep him out as the OP suggests, I wouldn't have been very happy about it.

I don't think it's at all obvious that running with that wing for longer would have been illegal. You can't have a moveable aero device except for DRS, which you can only use in the activation zone under certain conditions. A wing with the flap stuck open is not a moveable aero device. If you were activating your DRS on the straights outside the activation zone and then closing it for the corners then of course you would be cheating. But if it's stuck in one position then you should be fine in my view. If your DRS is stuck in the closed position then nobody would dispute that you can carry on with it. So why should it be forbidden to run it when it is stuck open? Given the choice you would prefer to have it stuck closed than stuck open, wouldn't you?

I may be wrong and there may be a rule specifically requiring teams to pit if their DRS flap is stuck open, but if so it's a needless rule in my view.

[michaelmyers]

Actually the rules* very clearly state that the DRS mechanism must be designed so that if it breaks down, the flap remains closed. So both Fernando and Ferrari should be punished. On a more serious note that rule is quite stupid. You can't really ever build nor design anything completely fail-safe.

* http://www.formula1....2011/0/824.html

Edited by michaelmyers, 23 April 2013 - 00:00.

[Lee Nicolle]

you want them to run less rear wing, for a full stint, on a rear limited track? Do the math, it's not complicated (hint: tyres wouldn't have lasted 10 laps)

They seldom do anyway!

[karne]

I was quite impressed by how well Fernando was able to keep driving the car back to the pits on both occasions. Major skill.

But no way would he have continued with it open. It would have been very dangerous.

[Watkins74]

The sensible thing to do would've been to test it in the zone before the pit-lane as close as possible to his second pit-stop rather than try to open it right away after stopping the first time. Give me the hindsight routine if you want, but seriously, it seemed like a no-brainer to me at the time, at least.

Your theory is based on the fact that he would have to have been 1 second behind another car in the DRS detection zone the couple of laps prior to his expected pit stop. What if he wasn't?

Ahhh.....didn't think of that did you. Don't quit your day job.

edit: So what's close? 2 laps? 3 laps? 4 laps? 5 laps? If it stuck 4 or 5 laps before his scheduled stop it still would have thrown off his pit schedule. If he waited longer and didn't have to the chance to use his DRS he wouldn't be allowed to engage it before his stop. Again you are just assuming the opportunity would have been there.

Edited by Watkins74, 23 April 2013 - 01:16.

[Afterburner]

Your theory is based on the fact that he would have to have been 1 second behind another car in the DRS detection zone the lap prior to his expected pit stop. What if he wasn't?

Ahhh.....didn't think of that did you. Don't quit your day job.

Er, I think I said 'as close as possible to his second pit-stop'. I never said 'a lap prior'.

And to reply to the above edit: I think waiting to test it would've compomised his race far less than the extra pit-stop did, even if doing so would've meant an extra few laps on his last set of tyres.

EDIT: And to add to that, he was running in traffic for most of the race--I'd imagine he would've found at least one time close to his pit-stop window to use it. If not, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Very unlike Alonso and Ferrari to take such a risk when they need to be collecting as many points as they can.

Edited by Afterburner, 23 April 2013 - 01:01.

[Craven Morehead]

Could Fernando and Ferrari have made an effort to keep racing "as is" untlil the next stop for tyres and even changed tyre stop strategy as a result?

Yes, I understand he would have lost downforce through the corners and twisty bits...but he would have been faster in the straight sections and could have modified breaking/accelerating accordingly.

Perhaps i'm missing something but wasn't he able to keep di Resta's Force India at bay? He could have driven like Villeneuve a la Jarama 1981: **** in the corners but mighty in the straights.

Isn't it possible that he would have lost less than 22 seconds doing the above ... and then used his next tyre stop to push the wing back into place and, then, not use it anymore?

Hi Ray,

If you can, go back and look at the wing more closely. It's not that it's just open. Its actually gone well past the 'neutral/ open' point and is inverted. Looks like its causing both lift & drag. Hope that helps answer your question.

[DILLIGAF]

Surely he would have been black flagged or something to that effect

Use of DRS outside I'd DRS zone effectively

^^ This

[pingu666]

what where his sector times? Massive oversteer would be be the imdiate eye opener ;-)

don't think I've ever seen a drs fail and go to default position....

[Afterburner]

So what's close? 2 laps? 3 laps? 4 laps? 5 laps? If it stuck 4 or 5 laps before his scheduled stop it still would have thrown off his pit schedule. If he waited longer and didn't have to the chance to use his DRS he wouldn't be allowed to engage it before his stop. Again you are just assuming the opportunity would have been there.

You're assuming the DRS was a necessity in order for Ferrari to remain competitive--Alonso's result shows that it wasn't, and if they had instructed Alonso to keep the DRS closed until around their next scheduled stop, they would've realised this early on in the race. They really didn't need to test it again at all, and personally I would've only considered a test of the system again if Alonso quickly began losing time on the leaders--then it would have been worth taking the risk because they would have had nothing to lose.

Testing the DRS on a lap mid-stint may have compromised his pit schedule, but again--would four or five extra laps on his last set of tyres really cost him as much time as an additional pit-stop did? Regardless of whether the opportunity would have been there or not, I stand by my original opinion: it was an unnecessary risk, and they should have waited until they were close enough to their expected pit window to test it, in order to cover themselves in case it wasn't working properly.

In essence, Ferrari made a decision on the value of DRS in the race almost immediately after Alonso's first stop. I think it's logical to assume they wouldn't have had Alonso test it so soon after his first stop if they thought it was going to be unimportant. Their mistake lies in the fact that they didn't wait to see how competitive Alonso was without DRS first before making a decision on how useful it would have been for their strategy and the race. Basically, they made a decision on how effective Alonso's car would be without DRS going on, what, a lap and a half of data? That's really where my disbelief over this whole situation lies--it strikes me as being very unlike Ferrari to take such a risk in a race that looked very early on like being Vettel's. They needed to be on damage control, and they weren't.

[Deluxx]

What are you guys fighting about anyways lol

[Afterburner]

What are you guys fighting about anyways lol

I dunno, really--I guess the wisdom of Alonso/Ferrari testing the broken DRS the way they did?

The funny thing is that I actually agree with a significant amount of what Watkins usually posts--don't know why this particular issue is such a big deal. Ferrari f#%ked up; it happens.

[mcdaddy]

TBH I was even surprise Alonso was not penalise for running 2 or 3 laps with the wing open (not sure of the rule with the situation). His DRS was stuck open in lap 5 or 6 then he was called in to pit at lap 8? I'm just curious & even Martin Brundle & company in the commentary box did not even see Alonso's DRS failed until it was shown on the screen.

[redreni]

Actually the rules* very clearly state that the DRS mechanism must be designed so that if it breaks down, the flap remains closed. So both Fernando and Ferrari should be punished. On a more serious note that rule is quite stupid. You can't really ever build nor design anything completely fail-safe.

* http://www.formula1....2011/0/824.html

First, can you show us the post you made calling for Michael Schumacher to be punished for his DRS wing failure last year? If not, please explain why anybody should be the least bit interested in this call for Ferrari to be punished now?

Second, the to meet the sixth requirement under Technical Regulation 3.18.1, all you have to do in practice is show that failure of the actuator mechanism such as failure of the electrical control system or loss of hydraulic pressure results in the wing going back to its closed position. I don't think the scrutineers would expect a breakage of the wing itself or any of its elements to have the same result necessarily - obviously that won't always be the case.

Edited by redreni, 23 April 2013 - 10:03.

[Coops3]

I don't think it's at all obvious that running with that wing for longer would have been illegal. You can't have a moveable aero device except for DRS, which you can only use in the activation zone under certain conditions. A wing with the flap stuck open is not a moveable aero device. If you were activating your DRS on the straights outside the activation zone and then closing it for the corners then of course you would be cheating. But if it's stuck in one position then you should be fine in my view. If your DRS is stuck in the closed position then nobody would dispute that you can carry on with it. So why should it be forbidden to run it when it is stuck open? Given the choice you would prefer to have it stuck closed than stuck open, wouldn't you?

I may be wrong and there may be a rule specifically requiring teams to pit if their DRS flap is stuck open, but if so it's a needless rule in my view.

It's not a needless rule because it removes ambiguity, which is exactly what rules should do. The consensus in this discussion has been that having your DRS stuck open would have been a disadvantage, and I agree with that, but what if the track was Monza? Much less clear cut.

[Jon83]

TBH I was even surprise Alonso was not penalise for running 2 or 3 laps with the wing open (not sure of the rule with the situation). His DRS was stuck open in lap 5 or 6 then he was called in to pit at lap 8? I'm just curious & even Martin Brundle & company in the commentary box did not even see Alonso's DRS failed until it was shown on the screen.

As far as I could see, he boxed as soon as it was clear it was broken, went back out and boxed straight away again after it failed to close the second time.

To penalise him would have been very harsh and I'm glad they didn't (of course, surely they would have investigated it after the race anyway )

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Hi Ray,

If you can, go back and look at the wing more closely. It's not that it's just open. Its actually gone well past the 'neutral/ open' point and is inverted. Looks like its causing both lift & drag. Hope that helps answer your question.

Good morning* Craven Morehead!

Yes, I wrote a post yesterday saying that a number of people had made some very good points I hadn't thought of/known about.

Thanks. To all.

I'm glad I started the thread and that there were many considered responses.

Again, thank you all.





* It's morning here in Toronto.

[mcdaddy]

As far as I could see, he boxed as soon as it was clear it was broken, went back out and boxed straight away again after it failed to close the second time.

To penalise him would have been very harsh and I'm glad they didn't (of course, surely they would have investigated it after the race anyway )

Dunno bro.. I reviewed the race last night with the live timing apps and Alonso was running for 2 or three laps before he was called to box in. Don't get me wrong.. I'm not bashing Alonso.. it is just how come the race stewards did not inform the Ferrari pit wall about Alonso's problem... worst thing happened just like one poster said that the wing opened inverted when supposedly deactivated in the braking zone. Anyway, since no drivers or team complained to it then I don't see any problem. simple as that.

Edited by mcdaddy, 23 April 2013 - 13:28.

[redreni]

It's not a needless rule because it removes ambiguity, which is exactly what rules should do. The consensus in this discussion has been that having your DRS stuck open would have been a disadvantage, and I agree with that, but what if the track was Monza? Much less clear cut.

Needless or not, do we know if there actually is any such rule?

Because in the absence of any specific rule you'd have to say a damaged wing that can no longer be moved by the driver is not a moveable aero device so shouldn't fall foul of the rules pertaining to DRS activation. It may breach other elements of the technical regulations by virtue of the wing element protruding too far rearwards, for example, but as long as it's clear that this is due to damage and is not providing an advantage, the stewards and race director ought to let that go unless they judge the wing to pose a danger.

[Coops3]

Needless or not, do we know if there actually is any such rule?

Because in the absence of any specific rule you'd have to say a damaged wing that can no longer be moved by the driver is not a moveable aero device so shouldn't fall foul of the rules pertaining to DRS activation. It may breach other elements of the technical regulations by virtue of the wing element protruding too far rearwards, for example, but as long as it's clear that this is due to damage and is not providing an advantage, the stewards and race director ought to let that go unless they judge the wing to pose a danger.

Well I found this:

http://www.formula1..../14186/fia.html

The rules are typically poorly worded, but it says "The system will be disabled by the control electronics the first time the driver uses the brakes after he has activated the system" which I take to mean, "the system must be disabled..."

I hear what you're saying about the rules on movable aero devices, but I think they're redundant in this case given that there are a specific set of rules relating to DRS.

[redreni]

Well I found this:

http://www.formula1..../14186/fia.html

The rules are typically poorly worded, but it says "The system will be disabled by the control electronics the first time the driver uses the brakes after he has activated the system" which I take to mean, "the system must be disabled..."

I hear what you're saying about the rules on movable aero devices, but I think they're redundant in this case given that there are a specific set of rules relating to DRS.

I can see the interpretation that says a wing with the flap stuck open is an activated DRS which falls foul of the rules by not deactivating when the driver brakes. But it is certainly possible to argue that a wing where the flap is stuck open and can‘t be moved by the driver is not a DRS at all and so the DRS-specific rules don‘t apply to it.