899 replies to this topic

[UltimateLegacy]

Mercedes duel axis hubris system

[Fastcake]

Yeah it's really hard to tell but DAS went from "sensation" to non-story (in terms of coverage/attention) in a matter of a few weeks.

Maybe it would be more of a thing if there was a really close championship and people could debate whether DAS was giving Mercedes the crucial illegal edge over the competition. A combination of DAS probably being inconsequential and the fact Mercedes is so good it just wouldn’t matter anyway made this a non-story.

It is interesting though. This was the pre-season “thing”, and once we finally got the racing underway I completely forgot about it until a commentator pointed to it in use on a Mercedes one weekend.

[Dolph]

Honestly with the way James Allison described the situation (doubt I'll be able to find the article now) in which it got developed, it sounds like a couple of engineers had nothing to do so they just ran with the development of DAS.

A lot of the hype came from the fact I guess it was such an unusual concept in the way it is used and activated, without much thought being put into what on earth it could do.

It was never a silver bullet. Just a result of spare capacity in the team.

 

 

RIGHT. 400 million dollar budget to develop and run a car, where any gram is saved and you claim they throw on a system like this, but it doesn't really do anything. You really don't understand formula 1, do you?

[Bartonz20let]

RIGHT. 400 million dollar budget to develop and run a car, where any gram is saved and you claim they throw on a system like this, but it doesn't really do anything. You really don't understand formula 1, do you?

You probably don't fully understand F1 if you consider weight loss to be the only goal in car development 😉

[PayasYouRace]

You probably don't fully understand F1 if you consider weight loss to be the only goal in car development

 

Dolph did qualify their statement with "but doesn't add anything to the car". A system that provides enough advantage to overcome its weight is entirely reasonable. Much more reasonable than Jordan44's take on things, that they just put in on for a laugh because a couple of engineers were bored.

[Ivanhoe]

They won't need to spend tokens to remove it next year.

Depends on whether they have to modify the suspension.

[ARTGP]

Depends on whether they have to modify the suspension.

 

Allison said no tokens will be expended. @Jordan44 asked him the question personally 

Edited by ARTGP, 11 October 2020 - 10:00.

[Jordan44]

RIGHT. 400 million dollar budget to develop and run a car, where any gram is saved and you claim they throw on a system like this, but it doesn't really do anything. You really don't understand formula 1, do you?

I think Mercedes are in a much better position than everyone else because the car is so much further ahead of the competition and they knew that.

My opinion is pretty much backed up by what Wolff said in winter testing, which was that they don't know what benefits DAS has yet and they need to find out.

[Jordan44]

And also other teams:
Renault sporting director Alan Permane admits that his 'wide-eyed' team doesn't yet fully understand what benefits Mercedes is deriving from DAS

DAS was a show of might from the team. "Look at this amazingly unusual thing we've put on the car that actually had minimal benefits - this is how far ahead we are of you"

Edited by Jordan44, 11 October 2020 - 11:03.

[Dolph]

I think Mercedes are in a much better position than everyone else because the car is so much further ahead of the competition and they knew that.

My opinion is pretty much backed up by what Wolff said in winter testing, which was that they don't know what benefits DAS has yet and they need to find out.

 

 

No. They know exactly what benefits DAS has. Its not a matter of a fancy system that moves the suspension around and lets put it on a car and explore if this could be useful. That would be idiotic.

 

Its purpose built to take advantage of certain logic. They can simulate tyre temperatures at different angles and understand what will be the outcome. There might be an unknown variable if they can take full advantage of it and how much of that advantage can be translated into better qualy and race results. 

 

 

I believe DAS would be a much more discussed topic if Mercedes wasn't a second clear of the field. If the difference would be a tenth or less, the media would be going on and on about how Merc could have been beaten this weekend again, but since they have this miraculous invention called the DAS, they were first.

 

 

Its also not in Mercs interest to brag about the system, but to downplay any advantage it might have at its introduction, because there was a real risk of it being banned. If you were Merc, what would you tell the world in such a case? 

 

a) We have this new device that is on the edge of legality and its going to help us trounce the competition

b) Well, we put this thing on the car, but we really don't know if it will be beneficial or not. 

Edited by Dolph, 11 October 2020 - 14:26.

[Jordan44]

No. They know exactly what benefits DAS has. Its not a matter of a fancy system that moves the suspension around and lets put it on a car and explore if this could be useful. That would be idiotic.
 
Its purpose built to take advantage of certain logic. They can simulate tyre temperatures at different angles and understand what will be the outcome. There might be an unknown variable if they can take full advantage of it and how much of that advantage can be translated into better qualy and race results. 
 
 
I believe DAS would be a much more discussed topic if Mercedes wasn't a second clear of the field. If the difference would be a tenth or less, the media would be going on and on about how Merc could have been beaten this weekend again, but since they have this miraculous invention called the DAS, they were first.
 
 
Its also not in Mercs interest to brag about the system, but to downplay any advantage it might have at its introduction, because there was a real risk of it being banned. If you were Merc, what would you tell the world in such a case? 
 
a) We have this new device that is on the edge of legality and its going to help us trounce the competition
b) Well, we put this thing on the car, but we really don't know if it will be beneficial or not.

But DAS is not helping them trounce the competition, that's the point here. It is so irrelevant that what they've gained from it is probably less than they're losing in ultimate lap time from its 2-3kg weight.

[PayasYouRace]

But DAS is not helping them trounce the competition, that's the point here. It is so irrelevant that what they've gained from it is probably less than they're losing in ultimate lap time from its 2-3kg weight.

The fact that it’s on the car means it gives them an advantage over its own weight.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The fact that it’s on the car means it gives them an advantage over its own weight.

Is it always fitted to the car at every race?

As in can they be seen using the system?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 11 October 2020 - 16:15.

[PayasYouRace]

Is it always fitted to the car at every race?

As in can they be seen using the system?

That I don’t know. But they wouldn’t put it on the car if they didn’t think it would be an advantage. You don’t win 7 consecutive championships with the attitude of throwing things at a car just to see if it sticks.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

That I don’t know. But they wouldn’t put it on the car if they didn’t think it would be an advantage. You don’t win 7 consecutive championships with the attitude of throwing things at a car just to see if it sticks.

Oh I am not disagreeing with you, I was just asking is it actually fitted it and used at every race...

As the advantage it brings may be limited to the kind of circuit? And or the tyre compound...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 11 October 2020 - 16:57.

[Jordan44]

The fact that it’s on the car means it gives them an advantage over its own weight.

They've got no reason to remove it right now. The car isn't relatively overweight, and they're still miles ahead of the competition.

It makes sense to leave it on there for this season, but that doesn't mean it's aims were clear from the outset.

[Kalmake]

The car isn't overweight at all. Having mass higher up that would otherwise be ballast at floor is the "weight cost".

[beachdrifter]

DAS gibt's ja nicht! 

 

DAS gets an official shout-out: 

 

"Because the Safety Car was out for so long the tyre temperatures plummeted which Lewis, with the DAS system, was able to handle a little better than we were," says Horner in the team's press release.

 

 

https://www.gpblog.c...od-restart.html

[Dolph]

They've got no reason to remove it right now. The car isn't relatively overweight, and they're still miles ahead of the competition.

It makes sense to leave it on there for this season, but that doesn't mean it's aims were clear from the outset.

 

For F**** sake, man!!! The aim of the system is very clear to the team and to the racing community. Where the hell do you take this theory that they do not know what the aim of the system is? 

 

 

Too often in life you come upon a person who keeps arguing nonsense to win the argument. There are many times in life the time when you have to take a step and examine the facts. The best team in F1 comprising of the best technical team in the world has put this system on the car and are keeping it on the car with the clear aim that it does what it is supposed to do. You in your armchair back at home don't understand it and for whatever illogical reason think, oh well, they must not understand it as well. And now you keep peddling this nonsense, when you are clearly outclassed in knowledge about F1 cars by the team that has won the world title 6 years in a row.

Edited by Dolph, 11 October 2020 - 23:21.

[Jordan44]

For F**** sake, man!!! The aim of the system is very clear to the team and to the racing community. Where the hell do you take this theory that they do not know what the aim of the system is?


Too often in life you come upon a person who keeps arguing nonsense to win the argument. There are many times in life the time when you have to take a step and examine the facts. The best team in F1 comprising of the best technical team in the world has put this system on the car and are keeping it on the car with the clear aim that it does what it is supposed to do. You in your armchair back at home don't understand it and for whatever illogical reason think, oh well, they must not understand it as well. And now you keep peddling this nonsense, when you are clearly outclassed in knowledge about F1 cars by the team that has won the world title 6 years in a row.

So what are it's aims then?

Why was it not used during the coldest weekend we've had this season?

[ARTGP]

So what are it's aims then?

Why was it not used during the coldest weekend we've had this season?

 

Just because we don't know it's aims, doesn't mean Mercedes doesn't. I think you have to take this one. To suggest Mercedes has no idea what this system does is an insult to Mercedes. A team that won the last 7 titles does not slap something on the car that they have no idea what it does. I promise you nothing makes it onto the car if they don't know what it does. Absolutely nothing.

Edited by ARTGP, 12 October 2020 - 11:57.

[Jordan44]

Just because we don't know it's aims, doesn't mean Mercedes doesn't. I think you have to take this one. To suggest Mercedes has no idea what this system does is an insult to Mercedes. A team that won the last 7 titles does not slap something on the car that they have no idea what it does. I promise you nothing makes it onto the car if they don't know what it does. Absolutely nothing.

Don't know what it does as in the benefits it could bring. They knew they were changing the tow angle, but the basis it could help with warmup was entirely speculative.

[Ivanhoe]

Don't know what it does as in the benefits it could bring. They knew they were changing the tow angle, but the basis it could help with warmup was entirely speculative.

What else could it possiblty be, since we only saw them using it at warm-up laps?

[Requiem84]

Don't know what it does as in the benefits it could bring. They knew they were changing the tow angle, but the basis it could help with warmup was entirely speculative.

 

Interesting hypothesis, that they would built something with such investment costs if it's all merely speculative. 

 

And also fascinating that they are using it during GP weekends, without knowing what it exactly does? 

[Jordan44]

What else could it possiblty be, since we only saw them using it at warm-up laps?

I think people are getting lost with what is being argued here.

The discussion started with someone pointing out how rarely it is used, not even at every event.

That lead onto the question as to why Mercedes wasted development time on something so minor, that came with a massive weight penalty as well.

[Penumbra]

Yeah it's really hard to tell but DAS went from "sensation" to non-story (in terms of coverage/attention) in a matter of a few weeks.

 

I read the title of this thread and my first thought was "wow, I forgot DAS was even a thing this season". Haven't heard it mentioned in commentary once in months!

[Lukin]

Increasing the overall static toe will help put energy into the tyre. Physics tells you that. The fact they slow down in long corners when on the throttle (pouhon) shows the level of drag with steering. Drag = heat. Whether or not it’s measurable is another thing.

My take on the gain is that by having a item they can activate for qual and deactivate for the race allows them to reduce the need to compromise other areas of setup between qualifying and race (ie you might run more damping in qual to get the tyre up but need less in the race for tyre life - you can’t change it between so you compromise).

If they weren’t seen to be using at the Nurburgring perhaps they found the extra toe setup better all the time. They only had 1 hour of practice, maybe their warm up setting was better in race trim so there was no need to change it.

I agree with the sentiments that it will be an overall gain. But the gain might over the weekend as a whole rather than 3 minutes of outlaps.

[Clatter]

Interesting hypothesis, that they would built something with such investment costs if it's all merely speculative.

And also fascinating that they are using it during GP weekends, without knowing what it exactly does?

Surely F1 does this all the time. Some ideas work, some don't, but if they don't try them they will never know.

[yolo]

Don’t know, but it was certainly not within the spirit of the rules, nor was burning 5 kg of oil during qualifying. Clearly some selective indignation going on here.

DAS was not even within the scope of the regulations - in other words, a real and proper loophole - and was developed with the FIA’s consent.

You’ll have to try harder with the whataboutism.

If Horner has a problem with Merc’s FW (hint: he really doesn’t, just trying the deflect), then bring on the protest. This thread is about rear wing bending which is a live issue. Stop polluting it with front wing and other whataboutism.

Edited by yolo, 21 May 2021 - 08:20.

[Augurk]

DAS was not even within the scope of the regulations - in other words, a real and proper loophole - and was developed with the FIA’s consent.

You’ll have to try harder with the whataboutism.

If Horner has a problem with Merc’s FW (hint: he really doesn’t, just trying the deflect), then bring on the protest. This thread is about rear wing bending which is a live issue. Stop polluting it with front wing and other whataboutism.

Surely spotting inconsistency in the FIA's handling (or the forum users response to) in regards to these kinds of "against (the spirit of) the rules" infractions is on-topic.

[ARTGP]

DAS was not even within the scope of the regulations - in other words, a real and proper loophole - and was developed with the FIA’s consent.
 

 

As was the infamous Mercedes tire test....You know the FIA are flappable and incapable of realizing the complexity of their own rulebook so let's not pretend they are suddenly some measure of actually understanding the rules    (which is tragic by the way...)   .  I also remember 2019 where the FIA told Racing point that everything was ok, let them build their car, and then came back and told them the brake ducts were no longer okay and a load of other drama?  I also remember the FIA banning Renault's automatic brake bias system in 2019 long after they knew Renault was using it since 2016.

Edited by ARTGP, 21 May 2021 - 08:25.

[Huffer]

You're absolutely right WOT. Of course DAS was technically a suspension part, it's just that under the wordings of the technical regulations it qualified as a steering system, while anybody with a bright mind knows that applying DAS is not steering a car. Clearly in breach with the spirit of the rules, hence why it was banned. 

 

Only it's not. The stewards and FIA explicitly state that DAS was part of the steering, and it's because of this, that the system was allowed. At no point does it state that toe angle setup is considered a part of the suspension setup. 

 

https://www.fia.com/...st - Car 77.pdf

 

Also, the stewards (and also the FIA's) views on the role of suspension and how the steering system / settings differs; 

 

 

1. Fundamentally suspension has the purpose to insulate the sprung mass of the car from the undulations in the track surface. The alignment of each front wheel (i.e. its steering angle) has an effect on the suspension, but this is incidental. Article 10.2.1 specifically deals with this matter, stating that “With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre...etc.”. This Article essentially separates the function of the suspension and that of the steering. It is also clear that the steering wheel position is in this case a two‐degree‐of‐freedom system.

Edited by Huffer, 21 May 2021 - 08:42.

[Ivanhoe]

 

At no point does it state that toe angle setup is considered a part of the suspension setup. 

 

https://www.fia.com/...st - Car 77.pdf

 

 

Like I said it's a legal thing. Out of 100 engineers, 99 would qualify DAS as a suspension part and not a steering system, for the simple fact that it doesn't steer a car. Because FIA deemed DAS as part of the steering system it can of course no longer be part of the suspension, I get that. If any other team than Mercedes would have changed the toe angle during parc ferme it would be a breach of the parc ferme rules, because you'd have to adjust the suspension to achieve that. Only because Mercedes changed the toe angle with the steering wheel, they get a free pass. Adjusting a suspension part by the steering wheel doesn't make it part of the steering system in my book. Just a wrong and cowardly decision by FIA.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 21 May 2021 - 08:48.

[Huffer]

Out of 100 engineers, 99 would qualify DAS as a suspension part and not a steering system. 

 

Prove it. 

 

Adjusting toe in / toe out angle is not part of the suspension. In fact, I can directly quote two engineers who state that toe change is not part of suspension. For page 146 of "Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics" by Blundel and Harty, 4.1.5 Kinematic wheel plane control; 

 

 

Toe change (steer) with suspension articulation....different on left and right sides of the vehicle ("toe-out")

 

And here's another one for you. From Tyre and vehicle dynamics 2nd edition by Prof Hans B Pacejka; Pages 10 and 11 when discussing toe angle as a steering contribution (emphasis my own); 

 

 

Adding all relevant contributions (1.12) to (1.16) together yields the the total steer angle for each of the wheels

 

As somebody who has worked in vehicle dynamics and simulation, I am also of the opinion that changing toe angle is not a part of the suspension, but a part of the steering system. So you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than some made up statistic which amounts to "everybody else says".

Edited by Huffer, 21 May 2021 - 08:58.

[WOT]

 

Only it's not. The stewards and FIA explicitly state that DAS was part of the steering, and it's because of this, that the system was allowed. At no point does it state that toe angle setup is considered a part of the suspension setup.

 

 

Ohhh jeeez.... All those years ago I was doing it wrong......

[Huffer]

Ohhh jeeez.... All those years ago I was doing it wrong......

 

Sorry matey, can't help you there. You've been adjusting something you thought was part of the suspension but its not. Are you even sure you were adjusting the right thing? 

[Heyli]

Sorry matey, can't help you there. You've been adjusting something you thought was part of the suspension but its not. Are you even sure you were adjusting the right thing? 

I'm a simpleton in this discussion, but how exactly do you change the toe angle without doing anything to the suspension...? 

 

Honest question, not trying to trick anyone . 

Edited by Heyli, 21 May 2021 - 09:07.

[FullOppositeLock]

Prove it. 

 

Adjusting toe in / toe out angle is not part of the suspension. In fact, I can directly quote two engineers who state that toe change is not part of suspension. For page 146 of "Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics" by Blundel and Harty, 4.1.5 Kinematic wheel plane control; 

 

 

 

And here's another one for you. From Tyre and vehicle dynamics 2nd edition by Prof Hans B Pacejka; Pages 10 and 11 when discussing toe angle as a steering contribution (emphasis my own); 

 

 

 

As somebody who has worked in vehicle dynamics and simulation, I am also of the opinion that changing toe angle is not a part of the suspension, but a part of the steering system. So you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than some made up statistic which amounts to "everybody else says".

 

Layman question here, but are steering and suspension mutually exclusive concepts by definition, or is it possible, in theory and/or practice, that a component may be considered part of both the suspension and steering mechanisms of a vehicle? Take tires for example, are they part of a vehicle's suspension (by absorbing large amounts of movement and impact), steering (by moving left and right through steering wheel input), both or even neither? 

 

Edit: how about a steering knuckle, which as I understand it attaches to the steering and suspension components and performs both functions?

 

You see where I'm going with this. DAS was allowed (for 2020) because it could be argued that it was technically part of the steering components (since operated by steering wheel), but it was also part of the suspension components and actually if we are being frank it's primary function was tyre heating on straights and nothing to do with steering. So as Ivanhoe argued, technically allowed, but equally most definitely against the spirit of the parc fermé rules.

Edited by FullOppositeLock, 21 May 2021 - 09:22.

[WOT]

Sorry matey, can't help you there. You've been adjusting something you thought was part of the suspension but its not. Are you even sure you were adjusting the right thing? 

 

Oh yeah.

[Huffer]

Layman question here, but are steering and suspension mutually exclusive concepts by definition, or is it possible, in theory and/or practice, that a component may be considered part of both the suspension and steering mechanisms of a vehicle? Take tires for example, are they part of a vehicle's suspension (by absorbing large amounts of movement and impact), steering (by moving left and right through steering wheel input), both or even neither? 

 

Sure, tires have a suspension effect, but that's out of practicality more than anything else. The fact that they cushion the changes in the driving surface is more incidental than anything else; their main role is to provide contact with the driving surface and provide forces with which to guide the car. Otherwise, we'd have solid rubber tires and broken wheels rims all over the place. 

 

This was pretty much RBR's argument; that because the toe angle would adjust the ride height slightly (as does normal steering) and change the aerodynamic effects of the wheels, DAS was illegal because it could be considered as both a suspension and aerodynamic device. But as the FIA and stewards pointed out, these are incidental affects that occur with a normal steering system as well - and a typical steering system is not considered a part of the suspension and nor is it defined as a moveable aerodynamic device.

[FullOppositeLock]

Sure, tires have a suspension effect, but that's out of practicality more than anything else. The fact that they cushion the changes in the driving surface is more incidental than anything else; their main role is to provide contact with the driving surface and provide forces with which to guide the car. Otherwise, we'd have solid rubber tires and broken wheels rims all over the place. 

 

This was pretty much RBR's argument; that because the toe angle would adjust the ride height slightly (as does normal steering) and change the aerodynamic effects of the wheels, DAS was illegal because it could be considered as both a suspension and aerodynamic device. But as the FIA and stewards pointed out, these are incidental affects that occur with a normal steering system as well - and a typical steering system is not considered a part of the suspension and nor is it defined as a moveable aerodynamic device.

 

I added to my original post while you responded. How about a steering knuckle? And I take from your response that it is possible that steering and suspension are not mutually exclusive components, and it is possible that a component is part of the steering mechanism (and thus exempt from suspension geometry changes under parc fermé rules) but influences (or maybe even was primarily designed to influence) suspension geometry in order to gain a certain advantage (such as additional tyre heating on straights at low speed)? I.e. technically above board, but not really in alignment with "the spirit of the rules"?

[Ivanhoe]

I'm a simpleton in this discussion, but how exactly do you change the toe angle without doing anything to the suspension...? 

 

Honest question, not trying to trick anyone . 

Good question, as I think that on any car, bar the W11, you'd have to make adjustments the suspension to change the toe angle. Admitting I'm not an expert either though, so not sure, but it seems Huffer is, so maybe he can clarify.

[Huffer]

I added to my original post while you responded. How about a steering knuckle? And I take from your response that it is possible that steering and suspension are not mutually exclusive components, and it is possible that a component is part of the steering mechanism (and thus exempt from suspension geometry changes under parc fermé rules) but influences (or maybe even was primarily designed to influence) suspension geometry in order to gain a certain advantage (such as additional tyre heating on straights at low speed)? I.e. technically above board, but not really in alignment with "the spirit of the rules"?

 

No, I'm saying the opposite. They are not parts of the systems primary design to do the job; they have incidental effects but cannot and should not be considered as part of those systems.

 

Look at it another way; suspension allows the car to smooth out weight distribution, changing the maximum amount of force that a tire can produce. Does that mean that we can also apply the rules that also apply to tires to the suspension? What about brakes? The rules state that ABS is not allowed, but allowing  a smooth change in load to the wheels helps to ensure that the front wheels can produce more force during braking; so surely by this idea that incidental effects are the same as ruling that they are part of the system, we can rule that the suspension allows for a form of ABS and should be prevented.

The same goes for TCS - you can have the rear suspension geometry setup in such a manner that more traction is produced by the tires on corner exit; surely that could be considered a form of traction control under this reasoning?

 

The truth is, almost everything in a motor vehicle influences the performance of everything else. Even charging your battery will have have an affect on acceleration and braking, but we don't treat an alternator as part of either of the systems that deal with those affects. It would be silly to do so. 

Edited by Huffer, 21 May 2021 - 09:43.

[Timstr11]

This thread has unfortunaley descended into a debate about legality.

DAS was fully compliant as it was not even covered by the rules.

The flexi-wings are fully compliant, simply because teams pass the deflection test. There should be no debate about that.

 

However, the same rules say that the FIA has the right to change the deflection tests if they feel it does not meet the FIA's intention, which is to prevent teams knowingly expoiting flex for aero gain. The FIA's intention is not a rule, mind you. But teams know it is big risk if they go too far in expoiting bodywork flex for more performance. I don't feel sorry for any of those teams. 

[Huffer]

Good question, as I think that on any car, bar the W11, you'd have to make adjustments the suspension to change the toe angle. Admitting I'm not an expert either though, so not sure, but it seems Huffer is, so maybe he can clarify.

 

It's typically done via the tie rods that connect the steering pinion to the steering arm on the knuckle on a normal road car. You're basically just lengthening or shortening the steering arms to change the angle of the wheels around the king-pin, which is also what DAS was doing. I'm not sure where the typical toe adjustment would be on a F1 car, but I guess it's also on the tie rods; it wouldn't make sense to have it anywhere else (on the upright for example) and would still need some sort of locking on the tie rods and it would be unwanted weight/complexity).

 

I also wanted to point out that, even if the toe adjustment was located on a component that would be considered part of the suspension, it still wouldn't make it a suspension adjustment. Although I can understand why that distinction would be confusing or one that people would protest about. 

Edited by Huffer, 21 May 2021 - 10:00.

[Ivanhoe]

You're basically just lengthening or shortening the steering arms to change the angle of the wheels around the king-pin, which is also what DAS was doing. 

I'm trying to follow Huffer, but it's getting technical and also in another language than my native language, which makes it even harder. But if I summarize:

 

- changing the toe angle is considered as steering

- with 'normal' cars you would have to make adjustments to the suspension (assuming the steering arms are part of the suspension) to change the toe angle

- Mercedes did materially the same thing by DAS which was activated by the steering wheel.

 

Isn't it then just a matter of definition? I.e. defining DAS as part of the steering system instead of a movable suspension part?

[Huffer]

I'm trying to follow Huffer, but it's getting technical and also in another language than my native language, which makes it even harder. But if I summarize:

 

- changing the toe angle is considered as steering

- with 'normal' cars you would have to make adjustments to the suspension (assuming the steering arms are part of the suspension) to change the toe angle

- Mercedes did materially the same thing by DAS which was activated by the steering wheel.

 

Isn't it then just a matter of definition? I.e. defining DAS as part of the steering system instead of a movable suspension part?

 

I'll try to cut down on the technical terms to make it easier to follow. Your English is pretty good so I just assumed you'd be able to follow. Sorry about that. 

 

The only thing I'd challenge in your summary; the steering arms are not part of the suspension. They are connected to the steering pinion (the part that moves left and right in response to the steering wheel movement) to push and pull on the steering arm on the wheel carrier. They don't have anything do with keeping the car body above the ground - they have to move with the suspension, but that's as far as the association really goes.

[Ivanhoe]

I'll try to cut down on the technical terms to make it easier to follow. Your English is pretty good so I just assumed you'd be able to follow. Sorry about that. 

 

The only thing I'd challenge in your summary; the steering arms are not part of the suspension. They are connected to the steering pinion (the part that moves left and right in response to the steering wheel movement) to push and pull on the steering arm on the wheel carrier. They don't have anything do with keeping the car body above the ground - they have to move with the suspension, but that's as far as the association really goes.

Thanks Huffer. FIA  sees that differently I think, if I read this part of their ruling, looks like they see the steering arms as part of the suspension.

 

 

 this forbids an adjustment of suspension in parc fermé.It is, for example, not permitted to adjust the toe angle by mechanically adjusting the length of the steering arms during parc fermé. 

Edited by Ivanhoe, 21 May 2021 - 11:24.

[Huffer]

Thanks Huffer. FIA  sees that differently I think, if I read this part of their ruling, looks like they see the steering arms as part of the suspension.

 

Aye, you've got me there. It seems very odd that they would class the toe angle as being part of the suspension setup, due to the control arm being considered a part of the suspension. I would say the very opposite, since the arm has nothing to do with suspending the car and everything to do with steering. Very odd. 

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

Aye, you've got me there. It seems very odd that they would class the toe angle as being part of the suspension setup, due to the control arm being considered a part of the suspension. I would say the very opposite, since the arm has nothing to do with suspending the car and everything to do with steering. Very odd. 

Yeah and that's what confused me too and explains my earlier posts on this subject. So for all cars bar the W11 changing the toe angle involves an adjustment of the suspension, where the W11 can change the toe angle by steering input. That's why I called it a legal loophole, which admittedly also involved some really clever engineering.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 21 May 2021 - 11:42.