Putting Chad's C-post cover in perspective with what goes on in F1.

FenderBumper

FenderBumper

The "good old days" ??
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
49,326
Points
883
Location
New York
Isn't this outright cheating?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...d-front-wing-f-duct-has-competitors-in-a-flap

This year’s engineering wizardry on the Mercedes AMG W03 seems to involve a clever system for channelling air from the rear wing all the way to the nosecone on the car and dumping it over the front wings so as to stall the wing in exactly the same manner as the F-duct did for the rear wing.

The system is activated by the DRS,......

Mercedes argue that the system is automatic and the driver does not control it therefore they consider it legal.
The contrary argument is that this is an illegal secondary system that is activated by the driver when he uses the DRS. In simple terms, the system cannot work unless the driver hits the DRS button therefore it is driver controlled.
-
----------------

So, Mercedes seems to be saying that since there isn't a button marked "secondary and illegal driver activated system", it's all good. The driver is hitting the DRS button, and if something else happens, oh well. It's all good.

Are they friggin' kidding?
 
Same thing happened a couple of years ago with the diffusers, Braun used it to huge advantage.
 
I don't follow F1 but if there's no rule against it how can it be illegal or considered cheating? They built a better mouse trap...IMHO of course,,,,just sayin'

Comparing the two is apples to watermelons,,:rolleyes:
 
Yep. IMO, this isn't even a gray area, it's outright cheating. The DRS system is very well defined in the rules, so how can they just add stuff and F1 lets it go until the end of the year? That's a joke.
 
Lap3Forever said:
is it in the rules? if not then its not illegal
Click to expand...

Same for Chad. F1 has a rule against driver controled driving aids, but lets Mercedes get arund the rule because there is no seperate butto? I can't believe F1 let this car get on the track. Even NASCAR wouldn't put up with this kind of crap.
 
Bernie has his favorites and lets them get away with murder. He has been trying to help Ferrari - but, sadly, to no avail. Actually, it wouldn't bother me if the Pracing Horse never won another race!
 
robbybee said:
Bernie has his favorites and lets them get away with murder. He has been trying to help Ferrari - but, sadly, to no avail. Actually, it wouldn't bother me if the Pracing Horse never won another race!
Click to expand...

Maybe Mercedes could hook up some missiles and a last lap road oiler to the gas pedal, so so they aren't driver activated. :rolleyes:
 
MOEJOE said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Watching F1 are we? I wonder why?
Click to expand...

I DO watch F1. I also watch the IZOD Series as well! I have even been known to tune into Rally, European Sedan Racing and the V8 Supercar Series!! And don't get me started with Monster Trucks!

GRAVE DIGGER RULES!

Hell, I even like rassin on 2 wheels!!
 
FenderBumper said:
Same for Chad. F1 has a rule against driver controled driving aids, but lets Mercedes get arund the rule because there is no seperate butto? I can't believe F1 let this car get on the track. Even NASCAR wouldn't put up with this kind of crap.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that despite all the FIA regulations that change/tighten every season, there is still more room for teams to work on their own individual aero packages, whereas with NASCAR, you either fit the template or you don't.

When f ducts were banned before 2011, the language was "driver controlled." You can't have any ducts that a driver has to open himself. With this years Mercedes f duct, it gets a bit tricky to judge. The duct is exposed when the DRS is engaged, and the DRS is driver controlled. The other teams argue that it is therefore an illegal driver controlled f duct. I'm of the opinion that since DRS is the same on every car, it's no problem if there happens to be a hole behind the wing element.

Long story short, and getting back to the 48, I don't think you can compare the two situations. The 48 car c post was not to spec, no ifs ands or buts. Mercedes ran something that you can argue is not technically illegal.
 
Jameswnh said:
When f ducts were banned before 2011, the language was "driver controlled." You can't have any ducts that a driver has to open himself. With this years Mercedes f duct, it gets a bit tricky to judge. The duct is exposed when the DRS is engaged, and the DRS is driver controlled. The other teams argue that it is therefore an illegal driver controlled f duct. I'm of the opinion that since DRS is the same on every car, it's no problem if there happens to be a hole behind the wing element.

Long story short, and getting back to the 48, I don't think you can compare the two situations. The 48 car c post was not to spec, no ifs ands or buts. Mercedes ran something that you can argue is not technically illegal.
Click to expand...

First F1. It's not just a hole that's exposed when DRS is engaged, it's attached to a complicated duct system that brings the air to the front wing. To say it isn't driver controlled is a word game, nothing more. The fact that the duct is opened by the driver pressing the DRS button is enough for me. It would seem that only a button marked "Illegal duct system" would make it outside the rules. IMO, it's just silly to argue about what button the driver pushes. If this stands, it makes F! look like a bunch of children swearing they didn't "take" the cookie because the ate it right at the cookie jar and didn't take it anywhere.

No ands ifs or buts? Not true. Even NASCAR can't define where the C- covers are wrong, because they passed 4 times. It's not enough to say it isn't right simply because we say it is. NASCAR needs to define there rule better, and F1 needs to enforce theirs.
 
FenderBumper said:
It would seem that only a button marked "Illegal duct system" would make it outside the rules.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is kind of true. It's not a duct that closes and opens on the driver's whim. It's just there, behind the wing, and gets air when the DRS, a separate system which everyone on the track has, is engaged. It can only be used in two places on the track, at times when the stewards allow it. The wording on the official F1 website is as follows: the grey areas in terms of legality are whether it is considered to be passive in its operation (legal) or driver operated (not legal), and whether it is acceptable for the driver-operated DRS mechanism to have such a secondary function. Red Bull and Lotus have requested clarification from the FIA and hope to have it before the Sepang weekend.

I can't speak to the second part, as I've never seen any parameters of the DRS system other than what I wrote before. As far as the first part goes, I say it's passive and legal. The driver never directly manipulates the duct. Looks like we may have to agree to disagree, and wait for the FIA ruling.

And I honestly hadn't heard of the 48's c post covers passing four times. I haven't followed the story much since Daytona. I think in that case, you're probably right, and we're just looking at a difference of opinion on one case.
 
Jenson Button won the 1st race this year having not deploying the DRS once. Who's bi†chin' the most about this? Red Bull? No way they could have dominated F1 so much last year without cheating somewhere themselves. If it's not in the rule book it's not illegal period.
 
Don't know a DRS Button from a Jensen Buttton and this ain't Nascar stuff.
 
blue92 said:
Jenson Button won the 1st race this year having not deploying the DRS once. Who's bi†chin' the most about this? Red Bull? No way they could have dominated F1 so much last year without cheating somewhere themselves. If it's not in the rule book it's not illegal period.
Click to expand...

The leader never has the opportunity to use DRS. Your assertion that Red Bull had cheated is completely groundless and without merit.
 
blue92 said:
Jenson Button won the 1st race this year having not deploying the DRS once. Who's bi†chin' the most about this? Red Bull? No way they could have dominated F1 so much last year without cheating somewhere themselves. If it's not in the rule book it's not illegal period.
Click to expand...

RedBull did't cheat the last two years they won the title. They were using technology called "blowing the diffuser".
They were re-routing exhaust gasses to the diffuser to make the air act different. So much different they were the class of the field.

Im suprised that Adrian Newey (RB's aerodynamasist) didn't think of what Merc thought of first.
 
blue92 said:
Jenson Button won the 1st race this year having not deploying the DRS once. Who's bi†chin' the most about this? Red Bull? No way they could have dominated F1 so much last year without cheating somewhere themselves. If it's not in the rule book it's not illegal period.
Click to expand...

Mclaren has the best car. meaning, it doesn't have that ugle nose that every other car now has, and it's the fastest!

They built it that way. This is a huge part of F1, the constructor.
 
MOEJOE said:
RedBull did't cheat the last two years they won the title. They were using technology called "blowing the diffuser".
They were re-routing exhaust gasses to the diffuser to make the air act different. So much different they were the class of the field.

Im suprised that Adrian Newey (RB's aerodynamasist) didn't think of what Merc thought of first.
Click to expand...

Was that system always active?
 
The Mclaren team has their collective chit together this year.

So does Merc though. And Mclaren has a Merc power plant. Soooooooooo, maybe the Merc engines are better?
 
Alonso gets the win. Massa's days are probably numbered at Ferrari. I think we'll see Perez in the other Ferrari before to much longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom