[Tech Issue] Double DRS banned for 2013

[Marbot]

Yes, yet another innovative F1 idea bites the dust (?). What say yee to this?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101669

Please bear in mind that the 'teams' have decided to ban it.

[chillibowl]

im sure R.Brawn is understating the development cost of it and i can understand that in these economic times the teams are hesitant to go down any avenue where spending is increased. maybe its relatively not that much to develop but it is in an area that hopefully wont be around for too much longer so should be considered wasteful...thats the silver lining here for me.

having said that i dont like the teams agreeing among themselves via a majority to anything that limits the performance of their cars. its the tyranny of the slowest poorest teams.

[Marbot]

It probably doesn't cost a whole load of cash if you have already designed the system into the tub. However, redesigning the tub to accept the tubing and associated gubbins, may not be the work of a moment. If it was, they would all have done it by now.

[Bononi]

Banned before even starting ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Banned before even starting ?

Blame Mercedes. They started it. Those Germans and their 'Vorsprung Durch Technik'!

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It probably doesn't cost a whole load of cash if you have already designed the system into the tub. However, redesigning the tub to accept the tubing and associated gubbins, may not be the work of a moment. If it was, they would all have done it by now.

That clears things up; this year it's expensive so it's allowed and next year (when they'll have had a chance to design it into the tub from the start) it'll be cheap and it'll be banned.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

That clears things up; this year it's expensive so it's allowed and next year (when they'll have had a chance to design it into the tub from the start) it'll be cheap and it'll be banned.

The thing is though, is that if they allowed every little gizmo to be used that was ever thought of by an F1 engineer, the cars would probably by now be very over-complicated indeed, and for no real reason.

Not only, but also.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101674

Banned on the run!

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Blame Mercedes. They started it. Those Germans and their 'Vorsprung Durch Technik'!

Was für eine verrückte sache!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Was für eine verrückte sache!

Those crazy Germans! Next thing you know they'll be winning races! Oh, wait...

[Richard C]

I know that the phrase "spirit of the rules" does not exist within the regulations, and can sometimes be fighting words for some on this forum, but I also think that regulations are written with an idea toward defining a box and to me that box is the "spirit of the rules". Others think that any way you can make it work is OK even if you are doing something that causes everyone to groan when they see it.

This reminds me of the famous quote from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The paraphrase is "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it". So while double DRS may have been deemed legal, I think that a majority (?) felt it didn't follow the "spirit of the rules". So what does that mean? It is deemed legal over the short term and then rules are tweaked to outlaw it for the future.

I am all for designers doing their best to come up with creative solutions and then use those to beat the next guy. But when they play in the area in which the rule makers have tried to close the loopholes then I have little sympathy for innovation X having a short and controversial life. I can think of recent examples around definitions as to "what is a hole" on the floor/underbody, the ongoing attempts (via creative engine mapping) to attempt to find ways to continue with blown diffusers, and double DRS as examples of this.

Personally, I don't think they (double DRS) should have ever been ruled legal, but I also not in charge of those things. I say good riddance to double DRS.

What is painful is truly creative solutions that nobody saw coming which are truly revolutionary and don't fit my definition (understandably vague) of being against the "spirit of the rules" but also effectively screwed the other teams for the entire season if allowed to continue. So they get banned just to keep things balanced. I am not a F1 historian, but I wonder if things like the six wheeled Tyrrell are examples of this. I am sure there are others. Especially some of the stuff going on in the ground effects era.

Richard

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Blame Mercedes. They started it. Those Germans and their 'Vorsprung Durch Technik'!

isn't that strapline for the 'other' german car company, or have i missed a merger somewhere?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

That clears things up; this year it's expensive so it's allowed and next year (when they'll have had a chance to design it into the tub from the start) it'll be cheap and it'll be banned.

I wonder if it is a case of while cheaper to implement next year that the benefit vs. cost still may not be worth it. How much more time and money would it add to build front wings that include complex interior channels and pathways to make this work? It is much more than just carbon tubes that run from the front to the rear as Ross Brawn says.

So ultimately in this cost conscious era, maybe the teams just said... "We don't need this hassle." And the trick really is only good as long as you are the only one who knows how to do it.

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

Depressing turn of events really.It must cost a lot less to install a couple of tubes than it does to develop all the tiny vanes and flaps that the front wing assemblies are now sprouting.How long before we see the GP equivalent of an IRL car,with a standard chassis mated via a standard bolt pattern to an engine having mandated bore spacing and C of G height and with the freedom to bolt on an individual teams sidepods and not much else?It seems such a waste of brains to limit clever engineers to the pursuit of tiny gains by imposing yet more restrictions.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Depressing turn of events really.It must cost a lot less to install a couple of tubes than it does to develop all the tiny vanes and flaps that the front wing assemblies are now sprouting.How long before we see the GP equivalent of an IRL car,with a standard chassis mated via a standard bolt pattern to an engine having mandated bore spacing and C of G height and with the freedom to bolt on an individual teams sidepods and not much else?It seems such a waste of brains to limit clever engineers to the pursuit of tiny gains by imposing yet more restrictions.

That

and



The spirit of F1 is innovation, the spirit of the regulations is an excuse for lousy bureaucracy!

[S14]

I can claim no expertise on the matter, but I fail to see how the 'Double DRS' is in anyway contrary to the "Spirit of the Regulations" - DRS is intended to reduce drag and allow a higher top speed when certain conditions are met. The 'Double DRS' simply does that more effectively, and without a terribly significant increase in complexity (I don't consider the necessary plumbing to be complex - complex to implement on a pre-existing chassis, perhaps, but it doesn't add any moving parts, motors, controls, etc.). That seems completely within the "Spirit of the Regulations" to me.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I know that the phrase "spirit of the rules" does not exist within the regulations, and can sometimes be fighting words for some on this forum, but I also think that regulations are written with an idea toward defining a box and to me that box is the "spirit of the rules". Others think that any way you can make it work is OK even if you are doing something that causes everyone to groan when they see it.

This reminds me of the famous quote from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The paraphrase is "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it". So while double DRS may have been deemed legal, I think that a majority (?) felt it didn't follow the "spirit of the rules". So what does that mean? It is deemed legal over the short term and then rules are tweaked to outlaw it for the future.

I am all for designers doing their best to come up with creative solutions and then use those to beat the next guy. But when they play in the area in which the rule makers have tried to close the loopholes then I have little sympathy for innovation X having a short and controversial life. I can think of recent examples around definitions as to "what is a hole" on the floor/underbody, the ongoing attempts (via creative engine mapping) to attempt to find ways to continue with blown diffusers, and double DRS as examples of this.

Personally, I don't think they (double DRS) should have ever been ruled legal, but I also not in charge of those things. I say good riddance to double DRS.

What is painful is truly creative solutions that nobody saw coming which are truly revolutionary and don't fit my definition (understandably vague) of being against the "spirit of the rules" but also effectively screwed the other teams for the entire season if allowed to continue. So they get banned just to keep things balanced. I am not a F1 historian, but I wonder if things like the six wheeled Tyrrell are examples of this. I am sure there are others. Especially some of the stuff going on in the ground effects era.

Richard

F1 jumped the shark in the 1980's, along with most of the rest of the auto racing world. FSAE/Formula Student and Le Mans are the only places where you can see any sort of innovation anymore.

All the rest are really aimed at protecting the status quo.

I'm just happy I got to see the late '60's through the early '80's. It was fun while it lasted.

[Marbot]

It won't be too long before there's not a lot to see in Le Mans, either.

The thing being that most car companies don't want to spend millions on going racing. They much prefer to put the capital into actually doing stuff that's relevant to their road cars. BMW, Honda and Toyota aren't missing out on anything from a technical point of view because they aren't currently involved in F1.

They may, again, become attracted to F1 if the cost of entering the sport is made much lower and the regulations are fair to both engine/car manufacturers and private teams. Currently, neither are acceptable.

Off Topic alert!

Maybe the argument for a tyre war has also withered away somewhat?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101680

There are parallels to be drawn with other technical aspects of F1. Why bother if the average punter doesn't give a flying duck.

PH: "As we saw it in Indianapolis, that's the ultimate effect of a tyre war. I don't think that's good for tyre makers, and certainly not good for the sport."

Indeed.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There are parallels to be drawn with other technical aspects of F1. Why bother if the average punter doesn't give a flying duck.

sure the average punter cares about overtaking and excitement.

so if its about the average punter whats the argument for not allowing developments which make the DRS zone more effective particularly if its a relatively cheap upgrade? surely this is an example of improving the spectacle without ballooning costs.

i think its an important issue because teams make more now then they ever have and only stand to make more once the new Concorde agreement is signed. you talk about reducing costs as if its a good thing...as if the more the teams save today the more they can invest in the team tomorrow.

they are cutting cost (while increasing the prices to the fans) to increase profits for their investors not because they are trying to make the sport better...and they get away with it because the average punter doesnt know any better or care.

cant really blame them for it because whats the point of reinvesting in F1 if whatever you learn from that extra R&D is going to get banned anyways. no one cares so might as well put that money in your pocket.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

you talk about reducing costs as if its a good thing...as if the more the teams save today the more they can invest in the team tomorrow.

Cutting costs is a way of keeping all of the teams currently in F1, in F1. It matters not if some teams have cash to spare, particularly now the regulations are as tight as a ducks arse. And that being the case, then the likes of HRT and Marussia, stand at least some chance of getting into the points often enough to make it worthwhile doing.

Mr Brawn was being a bit simplistic when he said that the double DRS on his Mercedes was not very expensive. It wasn't very expensive to put it on his car because the tub had already been designed with that system in mind. It's obviously not a cheap fix because no one else has done it.

The other, rather obvious, thing is that no one really knows just how effective Mercedes's double DRS is. It's like the tyres used to be. No one really knew if it was the upteenth car upgrade or the upteenth tyre upgrade that were causing the real benefit in lap time. So, to say that it's a good thing, is something that no one really knows.

[S14]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The other, rather obvious, thing is that no one really knows just how effective Mercedes's double DRS is. It's like the tyres used to be. No one really knew if it was the upteenth car upgrade or the upteenth tyre upgrade that were causing the real benefit in lap time. So, to say that it's a good thing, is something that no one really knows.

It should be pretty easy to test (for Mercedes) - simply run the DRS with the hole open, then run it with the hole plugged, and see what difference it makes.

[Richard C]

People talk as if innovation is gone. I know that there is more than just having a good car. That you have to have the entire "package", but focus for just a minute on just the technical solutions. Take away the drivers, the unicorn designer, etc. And when you look at the cars, they are different enough that they don't perform the same. Innovation exists. I would hope that the teams that are fast "know" why they are fast. That they have one more more items that they consider to be their "secret sauce". I would expect that most of those are the true trade secrets. Things that other teams just haven't gotten a grip on yet.

I think that people also look back at "the good old days" and seem to forget that in many ways that if you compare them to today, they look like amateurs. That the level of understanding of how to make these cars go fast has risen to a high level and that not just the basic, but even the advanced knowledge is generally well known. What is left is people scratching for fractions of seconds. The innovation of years ago was people making the huge leaps forward in understanding. I hate to be the guy that says "there is nothing left to discover" as I don't believe that at all, but I doubt there are many earth shattering discoveries left on the F1 front short of significant rule rewrites that allows designers to explore areas previously unexplored.

Richard

[luke g28]

Areas previously explored but subsequently banned contain a vast amount of potential lap time.

[deeks6]

The only way to get back to "proper" racing is to have hard compound treaded (not the pretend grooved things) tyres. The elimination of the marbles means that all the track can be used. Secondly, downforce must be significantly reduced by smaller wings front and rear. I'm not holding my breath for any common sense though

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

People talk as if innovation is gone. I know that there is more than just having a good car. That you have to have the entire "package", but focus for just a minute on just the technical solutions. Take away the drivers, the unicorn designer, etc. And when you look at the cars, they are different enough that they don't perform the same. Innovation exists. I would hope that the teams that are fast "know" why they are fast. That they have one more more items that they consider to be their "secret sauce". I would expect that most of those are the true trade secrets. Things that other teams just haven't gotten a grip on yet.

I think that people also look back at "the good old days" and seem to forget that in many ways that if you compare them to today, they look like amateurs. That the level of understanding of how to make these cars go fast has risen to a high level and that not just the basic, but even the advanced knowledge is generally well known. What is left is people scratching for fractions of seconds. The innovation of years ago was people making the huge leaps forward in understanding. I hate to be the guy that says "there is nothing left to discover" as I don't believe that at all, but I doubt there are many earth shattering discoveries left on the F1 front short of significant rule rewrites that allows designers to explore areas previously unexplored.

Richard

There were huge areas open for development, which Colin Chapman among others would pursue. The rules and the attitude of the paddock have gotten increasingly restrictive. If F1 didn't have pneumatic valves already and somebody at this point came up with that nifty new innovation, it would get banned. Now there are these big arguments over little bits of tubing.

The DeltaWing was an answer to what a car might look like if the only rules were an energy limit and safety. There are many in the DeltaWing thread who think there would be other solutions, many more conventional, that would beat it under the same rules limitations. Could be. There is no reason to believe it is the ultimate solution of a road racing car.

If the rules hadn't gotten so restrictive, with lots of clever designers coming up with nifty new ideas all the time, who knows what we would have now?

The only thing I know is that there would be a lot of stuff on the grid that would blow our minds, coming from the very limited perspective we have now.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by deeks6

The only way to get back to "proper" racing is to have hard compound treaded (not the pretend grooved things) tyres. The elimination of the marbles means that all the track can be used. Secondly, downforce must be significantly reduced by smaller wings front and rear. I'm not holding my breath for any common sense though

True, I agree. A much harder compound would be better, but you would need to combine that with a massive reduction in downforce. You would also probably need to make the tyres a fair bit wider too so that they have a larger contact patch = more mechanical grip to make up for the lost grip through the compound being harder.