196 replies to this topic

[Goron3]

Basically, at this point, any secondary effect caused by 'pulling' the steering wheel is now allowed. I think that's why Red Bull wanted it queried.

 

If Newey can work out an aero advantage from pulling the steering wheel, it'll be on the car.

 

For what it's worth, Missed Apex Podcast, who have a few contacts at Red Bull, said today that Red Bull actually have their own version on the car. Perhaps they've misunderstood something, but from my point of view I imagine Red Bull protested it knowing it would fail, but simply wanted in writing confirmation that any secondary effect is allowed.

[MasterOfCoin]

Put a Fork in this thread DAS ist gut...

Edited by MasterOfCoin, 03 July 2020 - 23:28.

[Jordan44]

Basically, at this point, any secondary effect caused by 'pulling' the steering wheel is now allowed. I think that's why Red Bull wanted it queried.[/size]

If Newey can work out an aero advantage from pulling the steering wheel, it'll be on the car.[/size]

For what it's worth, Missed Apex Podcast, who have a few contacts at Red Bull, said today that Red Bull actually have their own version on the car. Perhaps they've [/size]misunderstood something, but from my point of view I imagine Red Bull protested it knowing it would fail, but simply wanted in writing confirmation that any secondary effect is allowed.

Only if that secondary effect comes from changing the toe angle. It could only be argued it was part of the steering because it is literally changing the wheel direction. So I don't see what other avenues you could possibly be referring to that this opens.

Edited by Jordan44, 03 July 2020 - 23:28.

[ARTGP]

Basically, at this point, any secondary effect caused by 'pulling' the steering wheel is now allowed. I think that's why Red Bull wanted it queried.

 

If Newey can work out an aero advantage from pulling the steering wheel, it'll be on the car.

 

For what it's worth, Missed Apex Podcast, who have a few contacts at Red Bull, said today that Red Bull actually have their own version on the car. Perhaps they've misunderstood something, but from my point of view I imagine Red Bull protested it knowing it would fail, but simply wanted in writing confirmation that any secondary effect is allowed.

 

 

This is what I believe the entire thing was about. Getting the FIA to fall on their own sword with help from Mercedes to do it.

 

We know Newey likes his front wings low, somehow the steering wheel is going to cause the front wing to drop to the ground on the track 

Edited by ARTGP, 03 July 2020 - 23:29.

[RacingGreen]

 

With the FIA, the rulebook is merely "guidance". ........

How else do you explain Ferrari and Renault not being thrown out of the championship last season?  

 

 

Mercedes have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, on using F1 to increase their technical reputation and car market share. They didn't invest all that money to have their reputation dragged through the mud as cheats. And historically they (just like Renault ) have left F1 before. Given the global financial situation the stewards must know are playing with fire, just like they did last year when politics decided the Ferrari was illegal but they reached a secret deal anyway. The same will happen here. The Liberty Media / FIA simply can't afford the commercial hit F1 with Mercedes pulling out. Politics and finance will decide the outcome here not the interpretation of the terchnical rulebook.

Edited by RacingGreen, 03 July 2020 - 23:34.

[Joefane]

Probably a silly question but if Red Bull have a chassis with DAS-like system ready to go, could they fly them out tonight and race them tomorow? I know parc ferme obviously isn't in effect yet but is it logistically possible?

Edited by Joefane, 03 July 2020 - 23:36.

[ARTGP]

From what I remember earlier, RB don't neccesarily have DAS implemented in exactly the way Mercedes do. But it could end up going that way. They have an odd looking front lower wishbone design. Something I've not seen anywhere before. It's not obvious that the wishbone is even connected to the chassis. It just passes right through the front bulkhead from one side to the other, no break in it.

Edited by ARTGP, 03 July 2020 - 23:37.

[Goron3]

Only if that secondary effect comes from changing the toe angle. It could only be argued it was part of the steering because it is literally changing the wheel direction. So I don't see what other avenues you could possibly be referring to that this opens.

Exactly. The ruling opens up other possibilities now, as long as it's a secondary effect. I'm confident Red Bull know this.

[Jordan44]

Exactly. The ruling opens up other possibilities now, as long as it's a secondary effect. I'm confident Red Bull know this.

 

What secondary effects can you generate from changing the toe angle other than it lifting the suspension?

[ARTGP]

What secondary effects can you generate from changing the toe angle other than it lifting the suspension?

 

If we knew the answer to this, we'd be working in Formula 1  .

 

They could activate an F-duct for all we know 

 

Don't get me wrong, Mercedes still have the edge here. All Red Bull have are theories that we've yet to see on track. But it's amusing nonetheless to imagine the inner workings of Adrian Newey's mind after discovering DAS is legal 

Edited by ARTGP, 03 July 2020 - 23:55.

[FSLIV]

https://www.autospor...rotest-rejected

[Otaku]

I'm pretty sure that Red Bull has the system ALREADY in the cars, just disabled it for FP1/2. Tomorrow we'll see... 

[milestone 11]

Good. Let's see what Red Bull bring to the party, if anything.

[CSF]

Red Bull have nothing.    

[THEWALL]

“The decisions means that Mercedes will be allowed to continue to use DAS on its cars through final practice and qualifying in Austria on Saturday.“

What about the race on Sunday?

[Nobody]

Mercedes have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, on using F1 to increase their technical reputation and car market share. They didn't invest all that money to have their reputation dragged through the mud as cheats. And historically they (just like Renault ) have left F1 before. Given the global financial situation the stewards must know are playing with fire, just like they did last year when politics decided the Ferrari was illegal but they reached a secret deal anyway. The same will happen here. The Liberty Media / FIA simply can't afford the commercial hit F1 with Mercedes pulling out. Politics and finance will decide the outcome here not the interpretation of the terchnical rulebook.

Also the reason we have a pink W10 running

[solochamp07]

would be fun if Racing Point joins the Red Bull complaint now that they're this close to the front 

 

"Hello, FIA? We think our engine supplier (and chassis constructor?) is cheating. We'd like to lodge an official and very public protest. Please advise."

[kernel]

Basically, at this point, any secondary effect caused by 'pulling' the steering wheel is now allowed. I think that's why Red Bull wanted it queried.

If Newey can work out an aero advantage from pulling the steering wheel, it'll be on the car.

For what it's worth, Missed Apex Podcast, who have a few contacts at Red Bull, said today that Red Bull actually have their own version on the car. Perhaps they've misunderstood something, but from my point of view I imagine Red Bull protested it knowing it would fail, but simply wanted in writing confirmation that any secondary effect is allowed.

Missed Apex has an appalling track record. I’d wait until confirmed by actual journos.

[TheFish]

Missed Apex has an appalling track record. I’d wait until confirmed by actual journos.

Agreed. They’re just f1 fans. They ain’t gonna be chatting to Newey.

[Marklar]

Missed Apex has an appalling track record. I’d wait until confirmed by actual journos.

AmuS says they have one "in the works", but not ready yet.

They are apparently the only team btw.

Edited by Marklar, 04 July 2020 - 06:35.

[Timorous]

Yeah, but there has to be an element of steering input.

Torque steer is a thing.

[Disgrace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't today be the first time that rival teams would be able to officially protest DAS?

 

It's all well and good them saying that they don't think it's legal during pre-season testing, but I didn't think they could protest it until Mercedes run it in an official session.

 

If that's the case, this is the least cynical timing possible. Cynical timing would be waiting until they'd won a race running it and then looking to have them disqualified!

 

Makes senses, thanks Grayson! Forgive me for assuming the worst of Horner's intentions. 

[absinthedude]

Having watched practise yesterday, Christian Horner was a bit cagey but reading between the lines I do think that Red Bull either have DAS on the cars disabled but ready to be enabled....or are able to introduce a DAS system in time for today's running.

 

Chances indeed are that they could't lodge an official complaint until yesterday, so now every team has clarification. Whatever the race result tomorrow, it won't be protested due to DAS, and all teams are free to develop their own systems if they can.

[noikeee]

I know memes are supposedly not okay here, but this was too good.

[Clatter]

This comment is in no way me questioning the legality after the FIAs decision: Why is it banned for next year? Why isn't Mercedes holding FIA over the coals to hold onto this advantage?

 

Why is everything so inconsistent??? This is the problem.  Why did Mercedes let FIA take this away from them next year??

 

It is an incredibly mixed message to send, to fight for its legality one year, and then basically act like there is no basis for legality in the next season, when the Tech regs have not changed.

 

Its banned for next year to prevent a spending war. Merc are not going to bother fighting it, because if allowed everyone would have it by next year and any advantage would have been lost. It's not the first time something like this has happened, ie F-duct, so not sure why your surprised.

[Ivanhoe]

Its banned for next year to prevent a spending war. Merc are not going to bother fighting it, because if allowed everyone would have it by next year and any advantage would have been lost. It's not the first time something like this has happened, ie F-duct, so not sure why your surprised.

How can there be a spending war with a budget cap in place? How can Mercedes “fight” a provision in the regulations that prohibits DAS? Only reason they banned it seems to be that is it against the spirit of the rules.

[Clatter]

How can there be a spending war with a budget cap in place? How can Mercedes “fight” a provision in the regulations that prohibits DAS? Only reason they banned it seems to be that is it against the spirit of the rules.

 

The budget cap wasn't in place when this first came up.

[Ivanhoe]

Not officially no, but everyone saw that coming. Anyway, it’s clear to me they just wanted to close an unintended loophole.

[ARTGP]

The budget cap wasn't in place when this first came up.

 

They hadn't finalized it, but we knew it would be 2021. 

[Huffer]

How can there be a spending war with a budget cap in place? How can Mercedes “fight” a provision in the regulations that prohibits DAS? Only reason they banned it seems to be that is it against the spirit of the rules.

 

No, the reason that they banned it was that it opened up an area that could become a spending black-hole, much like the EBD and DDD. The teams who would have adopted a system before the budget cap would have had an unfair advantage over the other teams, as they would not have had the same restrictions in designing and refining their systems.

 

Honestly, this constant whining that DAS is against the rules or somehow violates some unspoken spirit of the rules when it's been cleared to be within the rules, is quite pathetic. 

 

 

[Pimpwerx]

The stewards' decision amounts to what many of us were saying in winter. The device is part of the steering system, and steering was never defined in the regulations. You can't just go on what is assumed to be the accepted definition of steering. Rules are black and white, and trying to interpret the definition of a term in them is a grey area I'm not sure we should be getting into. I'm glad the stewards agreed with that. Time to see if Merc expands the use of the device. I'm hoping that it's more than a tire prep device, and is intended to be used to allow more radical toe angles, for improved cornering, without hurting them on the straights. That would allow it to be used pretty much on every straight.

[ARTGP]

The stewards' decision amounts to what many of us were saying in winter. The device is part of the steering system, and steering was never defined in the regulations. You can't just go on what is assumed to be the accepted definition of steering. Rules are black and white, and trying to interpret the definition of a term in them is a grey area I'm not sure we should be getting into. I'm glad the stewards agreed with that. Time to see if Merc expands the use of the device. I'm hoping that it's more than a tire prep device, and is intended to be used to allow more radical toe angles, for improved cornering, without hurting them on the straights. That would allow it to be used pretty much on every straight.

 

It's no so much that I have a problem with this statement. The problem is, historically, F1 have not consistently utilized the rulebook in this manner....How else can you explain Renault and Ferrari not being thrown out of the 2019 championship, if the rules are "black and white"?

 

That's why I personally could not predict what the FIA would rule. Merc are lucky it did not go against them. FIA have been shooting from the hip for years.

Edited by ARTGP, 04 July 2020 - 09:58.

[CountDooku]

I know memes are supposedly not okay here, but this was too good.

Loooool! Christian again being disingenuous and saying that because they are using it in qualifying that they could be breaking parc ferme rules. 🙄

The whole point of the stewards ruling is that it’s part of the stressing and the driver can steer the car as much as he wishes during that!!!

[pdac]

I wish I had made a note of where I saw it, but before the (scheduled) start of the season, I read a credible article which claimed that it was not easy for Red Bull to add DAS as it would require a major redesign of the car (something that would probably take months to do). The article also suggested that Ferrari, amongst others, would not have such problems.

 

I think this is the reason that Red Bull are so upset about it - because if it proves to be very useful, others might copy it, but they cannot.

[coppilcus]

Unbelievable that after four months, Red Bull came up with that piece of wording!

[Henri Greuter]

I wish I had made a note of where I saw it, but before the (scheduled) start of the season, I read a credible article which claimed that it was not easy for Red Bull to add DAS as it would require a major redesign of the car (something that would probably take months to do). The article also suggested that Ferrari, amongst others, would not have such problems.

 

I think this is the reason that Red Bull are so upset about it - because if it proves to be very useful, others might copy it, but they cannot.

Nothing new. Due to their rear suspension lay-out in 2009 it was difficult for them to copy the double diffuser as wel back in 2009. What appeared to be an advantage then bcake a setback because it made an even bigger gain difficult to exploit.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 04 July 2020 - 10:39.

[ARTGP]

I wish I had made a note of where I saw it, but before the (scheduled) start of the season, I read a credible article which claimed that it was not easy for Red Bull to add DAS as it would require a major redesign of the car (something that would probably take months to do). The article also suggested that Ferrari, amongst others, would not have such problems.

 

I think this is the reason that Red Bull are so upset about it - because if it proves to be very useful, others might copy it, but they cannot.

 

Yes the story was that because Red Bull moved their steering rack, far backwards relative to the others, and hidden behind a "false" bulkhead, that there just isn't any space to install a mechanism that Mercedes has done.

 

But this does not mean Red Bull cannot do a different implementation.

[pdac]

Yes the story was that because Red Bull moved their steering rack, far backwards relative to the others, and hidden behind a "false" bulkhead, that there just isn't any space to install a mechanism that Mercedes has done.

 

But this does not mean Red Bull cannot do a different implementation.

 

I think the original point was the timing and the usefulness of it. Because it was already banned for the following season, only teams that could introduce it in a timely fashion to have a reasonable number of races to use it would really benefit. The suggestion was that Red Bull would not have anything ready in time for it to be at all worthwhile (but Ferrari might).

Edited by pdac, 04 July 2020 - 11:06.

[SophieB]

Loooool! Christian again being disingenuous and saying that because they are using it in qualifying that they could be breaking parc ferme rules.

The whole point of the stewards ruling is that it’s part of the stressing and the driver can steer the car as much as he wishes during that!!!

 

Luke Smith

@LukeSmithF1

·

5m

 

Red Bull warns the FIA has risked opening a can of worms by ruling DAS legal, remaining uncertain how it complies with parc ferme regulations

https://t.co/7nrqCMylpf?amp=1

 

Speaking on Sky Sports F1 on Saturday, Red Bull chief Horner said the stewards' ruling could prompt requests for wider changes to be made under parc ferme conditions.

"I guess if they use it in qualifying, then we may well ask to make a change in parc ferme conditions," Horner said.

"If that is now permitted, then obviously you'll request to make a change not with the steering wheel, but with a set of spanners, to your camber and caster and so on, whatever it controls.

"It is what it is. Hats off to Mercedes, it is a clever system. To incorporate that during this year when it gets outlawed for next year will be very, very difficult."

 

 

My personal view is he sounded kind of unsure of what he was saying.

[Fastcake]

Luke Smith


@LukeSmithF1
·5m







Red Bull warns the FIA has risked opening a can of worms by ruling DAS legal, remaining uncertain how it complies with parc ferme regulations
https://t.co/7nrqCMylpf?amp=1


My personal view is he sounded kind of unsure of what he was saying.

Whatever it is he’s saying, we’re guaranteed to hear it multiple times as Sky interview him before, several times during, and after qualifying and the race.

[pdac]

Whatever it is he’s saying, we’re guaranteed to hear it multiple times as Sky interview him before, several times during, and after qualifying and the race.

 

Yes, he's like one of those politicians who think that if you say the same thing enough times then people will start to think that you have a valid point.

[Pimpwerx]

 

Luke Smith

 

@LukeSmithF1

·

5m

 

Red Bull warns the FIA has risked opening a can of worms by ruling DAS legal, remaining uncertain how it complies with parc ferme regulations

https://t.co/7nrqCMylpf?amp=1

 

 

My personal view is he sounded kind of unsure of what he was saying.

 

He's definitely reaching there. Some geometry settings are restricted in the rules. You just can't change them. But toe angle isn't one of them, so it shouldn't violate parc ferme. Otherwise, cars could never negotiate the circuit. It would be a request to specifically ban a device. If they actually make such a request, then it's probably safe to assume that DAS is a fairly significant benefit for the Merc team. 

[ARTGP]

In the context of when Horner actually said this, he was put on the spot with the question. He fumbled for a clever response. I don't think it's any deeper than that.

 

This wasn't a statement he made after deliberating with his team all night.  It was an in the heat of the moment. He just took the wording as it was phrased to him by Sky (that Merc are using this to change setup), and spun it to link that to Parc Ferme. Very impromptu.

 

But it's got nothing to do with setup. Merc are steering the wheels. 

Edited by ARTGP, 04 July 2020 - 12:20.

[ArrowsLivery]

Wow. This is as shambolic as the Michelin fiasco in 2003.

[pdac]

He's definitely reaching there. Some geometry settings are restricted in the rules. You just can't change them. But toe angle isn't one of them, so it shouldn't violate parc ferme. Otherwise, cars could never negotiate the circuit. It would be a request to specifically ban a device. If they actually make such a request, then it's probably safe to assume that DAS is a fairly significant benefit for the Merc team. 

 

Not really, it's just game playing between the teams. He knows that Mercedes have spent a lot of money on this, so if they can get it banned then he can joke with Toto about it when they are both relaxing and laugh at how he's got one up on him.

[Clatter]

Luke Smith

@LukeSmithF1

·

5m

 

Red Bull warns the FIA has risked opening a can of worms by ruling DAS legal, remaining uncertain how it complies with parc ferme regulations

https://t.co/7nrqCMylpf?amp=1

 

 

My personal view is he sounded kind of unsure of what he was saying.

 

His answer came after being asked the question about Parc Ferme, and he was just speculating on that question.

Edited by Clatter, 04 July 2020 - 13:13.

[Huffer]

The stewards' decision amounts to what many of us were saying in winter. The device is part of the steering system, and steering was never defined in the regulations. 

 

Yup...you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to try and argue that it was part of the suspension system. Which in this instance, includes RBR. Given Horner's continuing grumbling and whining about DAS, I highly doubt that they have any sort of system of their own close to being complete.