Sim lap of 2020 Zandvoort track
And Sim lap Hanoi
And Sim lap Hanoi
Formula 1, 2020
eMcL
161 - 180 of 426 Posts
The-Race
IS DAS LEGAL? GARY ANDERSON EXPLAINS THE KEY ARGUMENTS
By Gary Anderson
Share this article
The big talking point on Friday in Austria is the Mercedes DAS system and the possibility of a protest to challenge its legality – with plenty of talk about its weight and purpose.
First of all, let’s look at the weight. The objective is to build the car to be as light as possible and then add whatever ballast you need to bring the car up to the minimum weight limit.
The DAS system is just another part of that car. It might be a little heavier than a standard system, but for Mercedes it’s acceptable as part of the jigsaw that makes up a car.
As with any innovative idea that the engineers in F1 come up with, there is a process of communication with the FIA to check on its legality. The governing body will never say ‘yes, no problem, fully legal’ and will only give you its opinion.
Basically, you put down on paper what your ideas are all about, while still trying to hide their real benefit – as there are some elements of the regulations where the intention of a device affects its legality and you might want to disguise an ‘innocent’ secondary effect.
And this is where the risk comes – how much of its potential advantage can you hide without being caught out?
The FIA may come back to you and say “in our opinion, it doesn’t contravene the regulations as written”, or it says “it contravenes article X/Y/Z”.
![Mercedes F1 2020 DAS]( "Mercedes F1 2020 DAS")
Initially, when Mercedes started this communication with the FIA it had a separate lever to operate the DAS. This was deemed illegal, so from this and from the fact it was considered acceptable by the FIA when operated by pulling the steering wheel back, I would suggest it was being defined as an extra steering system.
If the FIA agrees that it is acceptable, then you make your own decision on if you want to use it. But when you go racing, if some other team doesn’t see it as legal it is then down to them to come up with a reason why it’s not and lodge a protest.
Then it will be judged by the FIA stewards. They will listen to the arguments from both parties, consult with the FIA technical department to make sure that the user’s reasoning is in line with what was proposed. The stewards can then make a decision.
Accept Non Necessary cookies to view the content.
Before I could make a firm decision on what I believe DAS is being used for, I would need to see if it was only used during the warm-up laps or used periodically during the race.
During Friday practice, it was being used on warm-up and cooldown laps but that might just be to check the function. We will need to wait until push comes to shove later in the weekend to see when Mercedes uses it on the days that count.
If used on warm-up laps then my opinion is that it is for front tyre heating. The front tyres are always difficult to get up to temperature for that one lap in qualifying.
If used during the race then it could be for many things. This includes reducing the overheating of the inner shoulder of the front tyre, reducing tyre drag on straight and, again, reducing front tyre temperature.
![Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020]( "Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020")
It could even be improving straightline speed or changing the airflow characteristics spilling off the front tyre contact patch. This, in turn, could alter how the underfloor works. If this can stall the underfloor and diffuser airflow, the straightline speed advantage will be significant.
Red Bull’s argument is that its primary purpose isn’t to steer the car. That’s Red Bull’s opinion and I probably agree, but it will only be deemed illegal if the Mercedes argument to the FIA was that its sole purpose was to steer the car.
If this is the case then Mercedes will need to satisfy the FIA that the other changes that happen when it is used are insignificant to the car’s overall performance. That’s going to be difficult to achieve.
I have had a look through the F1 technical regulations and these are the areas that Mercedes needs to comply with. If it can do that then it’s fine and good luck with a new and interesting technical development.
These will be the regulations the stewards will be considering in the case of a protest:
10.1.2 Any suspension system fitted to the front wheels must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the front wheels.
Suspension response must only be from load and not from driver input. If the geometry changes in any way it contravenes this regulation, by changing the toe in/out, the kingpin alignment and the castor will have changed minutely, as will the Ackerman. The question here is if the Ackerman is suspension or steering?
Ackerman is a line going through the outer top wishbone point and the outer steering trackrod position. When this line on each side of the car is extended rearward it crosses the rear axle line and this point is defined as the Ackerman angle. By changing the front toe on both wheels at the same time obviously this position changes, which is a change on the Ackerman angle.
![Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020]( "Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020")
10.2.1 With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre and the orientation of its rotation axis must be completely and uniquely defined by a function of its principally vertical suspension travel, save only for the effects of reasonable compliance which does not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom.
It says steering wheel ‘fixed’ not ‘rotationally fixed’, so what position does Mercedes define as its fixed position? Moving it back and forward means that it isn’t fixed.
Also, the position of each wheel centre will change with the position of the steering wheel.
10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of any suspension system is forbidden.
It will alter the configuration of the suspension with a linked suspension. As used in F1, it is impossible to have the geometry of the linkage connection not alter to some small degree.
This means it must be mechanical.
![Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020]( "Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020")
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to any suspension system while the car is in motion.
It must alter the suspension system, changing the front wheel angle will alter the position or angle through the wishbone pick up points.
10.3.5 There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.
Here it says six suspension members. I believe that includes the steering arm, the DAS system changes the geometry of its position so contravenes 10.2.3 above.
10.4 Steering
10.4.2 Power assisted steering systems may not be electronically controlled or electrically powered. No such system may carry out any function other than reduce the physical effort required to steer the car.
Defining what is ‘to steer the car’ will be critical here. To me, it is ‘changing the direction of travel’. The DAS system doesn’t do that, in my opinion, so it cannot be power assisted; it must be mechanical.
10.4.3 No part of the steering wheel or column, nor any part fitted to them, may be closer to the driver than a plane formed by the entire rear edge of the steering wheel rim. All parts fixed to the steering wheel must be fitted in such a way as to minimise the risk of injury in the event of a driver’s head making contact with any part of the wheel assembly.
10.4.4 The steering wheel, steering column and steering rack assembly must pass an impact test, details of the test procedure may be found in Article 16.5.
To comply with this does Mercedes have to pass this test with the steering wheel in both positions?
![Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020]( "Mercedes F1 DAS Austria 2020")
Treatment of tyres
If Mercedes states that the system is for tyre heating and the onboard camera shows it is only used on the warm-up laps then does DAS contravene the rules on the treatment of tyres?
12.7.3 The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets which use resistive heating elements. The heating elements may only act upon the outer tyre surface.
I know that the car running normally on the track heats up the tyres, but with a normal set-up the fronts are more difficult to heat than the rears. If it is only used on the outlaps, then it defines itself as tyre heating.
These will be the key regulations that the FIA stewards and Mercedes will be looking at if there is a protest, and why the way the team originally presented the DAS design to the FIA’s technical department will play a big part in the decision.
the-race.com
—————-
Red Bull officially lodge protest against Mercedes over DAS
2020 F1 season
Posted on
3rd July 2020, 17:24 | Written by Keith Collantine
Red Bull has officially protested the Dual Axis Steering device on Mercedes’ two W11 cars in the Austrian Grand Prix on technical grounds.
A statement from the FIA confirmed the cars of Lewis Hamiltonand Valtteri Bottas were subject to a protest from Red Bull concerning two aspects of the technical regulations.
Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint.
Representatives of Mercedes have been called to a meeting of the stewards at 7:10pm local time. The teams’ cars finished first and second in both today;s practice sessions at the Red Bull Ring.
DAS, which was first seen on Mercedes’ cars during pre-season testing, allows its drivers to adjust the toe angle of its front wheels by sliding the steering wheel forwards and back.
Red Bull’s grounds for protest
Red Bull have cited the following regulations in their protest against Mercedes:
IS DAS LEGAL? GARY ANDERSON EXPLAINS THE KEY ARGUMENTS
By Gary Anderson
Share this article
The big talking point on Friday in Austria is the Mercedes DAS system and the possibility of a protest to challenge its legality – with plenty of talk about its weight and purpose.
First of all, let’s look at the weight. The objective is to build the car to be as light as possible and then add whatever ballast you need to bring the car up to the minimum weight limit.
The DAS system is just another part of that car. It might be a little heavier than a standard system, but for Mercedes it’s acceptable as part of the jigsaw that makes up a car.
As with any innovative idea that the engineers in F1 come up with, there is a process of communication with the FIA to check on its legality. The governing body will never say ‘yes, no problem, fully legal’ and will only give you its opinion.
Basically, you put down on paper what your ideas are all about, while still trying to hide their real benefit – as there are some elements of the regulations where the intention of a device affects its legality and you might want to disguise an ‘innocent’ secondary effect.
And this is where the risk comes – how much of its potential advantage can you hide without being caught out?
The FIA may come back to you and say “in our opinion, it doesn’t contravene the regulations as written”, or it says “it contravenes article X/Y/Z”.
Initially, when Mercedes started this communication with the FIA it had a separate lever to operate the DAS. This was deemed illegal, so from this and from the fact it was considered acceptable by the FIA when operated by pulling the steering wheel back, I would suggest it was being defined as an extra steering system.
If the FIA agrees that it is acceptable, then you make your own decision on if you want to use it. But when you go racing, if some other team doesn’t see it as legal it is then down to them to come up with a reason why it’s not and lodge a protest.
Then it will be judged by the FIA stewards. They will listen to the arguments from both parties, consult with the FIA technical department to make sure that the user’s reasoning is in line with what was proposed. The stewards can then make a decision.
Accept Non Necessary cookies to view the content.
Before I could make a firm decision on what I believe DAS is being used for, I would need to see if it was only used during the warm-up laps or used periodically during the race.
During Friday practice, it was being used on warm-up and cooldown laps but that might just be to check the function. We will need to wait until push comes to shove later in the weekend to see when Mercedes uses it on the days that count.
If used on warm-up laps then my opinion is that it is for front tyre heating. The front tyres are always difficult to get up to temperature for that one lap in qualifying.
If used during the race then it could be for many things. This includes reducing the overheating of the inner shoulder of the front tyre, reducing tyre drag on straight and, again, reducing front tyre temperature.
It could even be improving straightline speed or changing the airflow characteristics spilling off the front tyre contact patch. This, in turn, could alter how the underfloor works. If this can stall the underfloor and diffuser airflow, the straightline speed advantage will be significant.
Red Bull’s argument is that its primary purpose isn’t to steer the car. That’s Red Bull’s opinion and I probably agree, but it will only be deemed illegal if the Mercedes argument to the FIA was that its sole purpose was to steer the car.
If this is the case then Mercedes will need to satisfy the FIA that the other changes that happen when it is used are insignificant to the car’s overall performance. That’s going to be difficult to achieve.
I have had a look through the F1 technical regulations and these are the areas that Mercedes needs to comply with. If it can do that then it’s fine and good luck with a new and interesting technical development.
These will be the regulations the stewards will be considering in the case of a protest:
10.1.2 Any suspension system fitted to the front wheels must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the front wheels.
Suspension response must only be from load and not from driver input. If the geometry changes in any way it contravenes this regulation, by changing the toe in/out, the kingpin alignment and the castor will have changed minutely, as will the Ackerman. The question here is if the Ackerman is suspension or steering?
Ackerman is a line going through the outer top wishbone point and the outer steering trackrod position. When this line on each side of the car is extended rearward it crosses the rear axle line and this point is defined as the Ackerman angle. By changing the front toe on both wheels at the same time obviously this position changes, which is a change on the Ackerman angle.
10.2.1 With the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel centre and the orientation of its rotation axis must be completely and uniquely defined by a function of its principally vertical suspension travel, save only for the effects of reasonable compliance which does not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom.
It says steering wheel ‘fixed’ not ‘rotationally fixed’, so what position does Mercedes define as its fixed position? Moving it back and forward means that it isn’t fixed.
Also, the position of each wheel centre will change with the position of the steering wheel.
10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of any suspension system is forbidden.
It will alter the configuration of the suspension with a linked suspension. As used in F1, it is impossible to have the geometry of the linkage connection not alter to some small degree.
This means it must be mechanical.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to any suspension system while the car is in motion.
It must alter the suspension system, changing the front wheel angle will alter the position or angle through the wishbone pick up points.
10.3.5 There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.
Here it says six suspension members. I believe that includes the steering arm, the DAS system changes the geometry of its position so contravenes 10.2.3 above.
10.4 Steering
10.4.2 Power assisted steering systems may not be electronically controlled or electrically powered. No such system may carry out any function other than reduce the physical effort required to steer the car.
Defining what is ‘to steer the car’ will be critical here. To me, it is ‘changing the direction of travel’. The DAS system doesn’t do that, in my opinion, so it cannot be power assisted; it must be mechanical.
10.4.3 No part of the steering wheel or column, nor any part fitted to them, may be closer to the driver than a plane formed by the entire rear edge of the steering wheel rim. All parts fixed to the steering wheel must be fitted in such a way as to minimise the risk of injury in the event of a driver’s head making contact with any part of the wheel assembly.
10.4.4 The steering wheel, steering column and steering rack assembly must pass an impact test, details of the test procedure may be found in Article 16.5.
To comply with this does Mercedes have to pass this test with the steering wheel in both positions?
Treatment of tyres
If Mercedes states that the system is for tyre heating and the onboard camera shows it is only used on the warm-up laps then does DAS contravene the rules on the treatment of tyres?
12.7.3 The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets which use resistive heating elements. The heating elements may only act upon the outer tyre surface.
I know that the car running normally on the track heats up the tyres, but with a normal set-up the fronts are more difficult to heat than the rears. If it is only used on the outlaps, then it defines itself as tyre heating.
These will be the key regulations that the FIA stewards and Mercedes will be looking at if there is a protest, and why the way the team originally presented the DAS design to the FIA’s technical department will play a big part in the decision.
Is DAS legal? Gary Anderson explains the key arguments - The Race
Gary Anderson looks at the complaints other teams have against Mercedes' DAS, checking them against the Formula 1 regulations
the-race.com
—————-
Red Bull officially lodge protest against Mercedes over DAS2020 F1 season
Posted on
3rd July 2020, 17:24 | Written by Keith Collantine
Red Bull has officially protested the Dual Axis Steering device on Mercedes’ two W11 cars in the Austrian Grand Prix on technical grounds.
A statement from the FIA confirmed the cars of Lewis Hamiltonand Valtteri Bottas were subject to a protest from Red Bull concerning two aspects of the technical regulations.
Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint.
Representatives of Mercedes have been called to a meeting of the stewards at 7:10pm local time. The teams’ cars finished first and second in both today;s practice sessions at the Red Bull Ring.
DAS, which was first seen on Mercedes’ cars during pre-season testing, allows its drivers to adjust the toe angle of its front wheels by sliding the steering wheel forwards and back.
Red Bull’s grounds for protest
Red Bull have cited the following regulations in their protest against Mercedes:
Red Bull officially lodge protest against Mercedes over DAS · RaceFans
Red Bull has officially protested both Mercedes on technical grounds.www.racefans.net
Joined
·
2,098 Posts
IMO, the system is legal. The most problematic bit appears to be:
However, moving your head also affects the aerodynamics, as does braking, and turning. Given that the DAS system would appear to be more for controlling tyre scrub than aerodynamics, I'd hope it would not be ruled illegal.
I don't buy the steering arm being part of the suspension - its loading is clearly only for turnign the wheel.
It's nice to see teams still pushing for innovation, especially ones with more to lose. I hope that budget caps and standardisation don't kill this off.
Yes.
Protest filed by Aston Martin Red Bull Racing against Car number 44*, driven by Lewis Hamilton of the Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team
Stewards Decision: The Protest is rejected as it is not founded.
Procedure:
1. On July 3, 2020, after Free Practice 2 held during the Grand Prix of Austria, counting towards the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship, Aston Martin Red Bull Racing (“Red Bull”) filed a protest against Car 44 (the “car”), owned by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team (“Mercedes”).
Red Bull claimed in its protest that the car would be not in compliance with Art 3.8 and 10.2.3 of the 2020 Formula One Technical Regulations. The parties were summoned and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing (in person or via video conference):
On behalf of Red Bull:
– Paul Monaghan
– Adrian Newey
– Jonathan Wheatley
On behalf of Mercedes:
– James Allison
– Ron Meadows
– John Owen
– Andrew Shovlin
On behalf of the FIA Technical Department:
– Nikolas Tombazis
2. The FIA Technical Department carried out an analysis of the Mercedes system and the Stewards inspected the relevant car parts.
3. At the hearing there were no objections against the composition of the Stewards panel or against the procedure of using a video conference call in addition to a face to face hearing. The parties set out oral arguments and addressed the questions asked by the Stewards. The FIA expert was interviewed and explained his written comments.
4. At the hearing the parties referred to the documents submitted. None of the parties submitted further evidence or initiated the hearing of additional persons or conducting further investigations.
The claims of Red Bull:
• The Mercedes DAS design breaches Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, Aerodynamic Influence and Suspension Geometry respectively, of the 2020 Technical Regulations via the following rationale.
Article 3.8 contains the paragraph:
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car
system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic
characteristics of the car is prohibited.
Article 10.2.3 states
No adjustment may be made to any suspension system while the car is in motion.
DAS appears to work by changing the toe angle of the front wheels. This is separate in effect to the traditional steering system as it does not involve movement of the steering rack pinion gear.
A conventional steering system can navigate a lap of any circuit and by necessity is granted exemption to Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3. In isolation DAS is incapable of lap navigation and is therefore dependent upon the conventional steering system – i.e. DAS, in changing the toe angle of the wheels is a separate and redundant system.
Alteration of the static toe angle on the front axle will also change the aerodynamic characteristics of an F1 car, typically performed in set-up and prohibited in Parc Ferme. DAS operation, which is a front axle toe angle modifier, will have a measurable aerodynamic effect on the car, whether changing the trajectory or not.
A steering system should alter a car’s trajectory when used. Observation of DAS usage in FP2 indicated deployment in a straight line with no change of trajectory, thus rendering DAS not a steering system.
By observation of the video footage from FP2, use of DAS was not every lap and isolated to in/out or re-charge laps thus it was not a system necessary for use in timed laps, rendering the pimary purpose to be something other than steering.
Subsequent use in a corner cannot recover the breach as the competitor must demonstrate compliance with the regulations at all times during an event, Article 2.7 of the Technical Regulations.
The Technical Regulations do allow multiple steering systems. RBR contend a steering system should have the primary purpose of being able to steer the car. A secondary system that is, on its own, incapable of steering the car is an unnecessary system.
A key discussion point must be why have Mercedes added the DAS system? As mentioned above, judging by practice today, it appears to be used on out and slow laps as a means of adjusting tyre temperature, i.e. its primary purpose is not as a steering system but rather a tyre temperature management system.
In conclusion, DAS is an unnecessary, separate system requiring a separate driver input and using components which are separate in their effect to the main steering system breaching Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3 »
Mercedes’s arguments in defence:
« DAS is not a suspension system because:
1. It is mounted on the fully sprung side of the car and plays no role in suspending the car, or insulating the car from the undulations on the road surface
2. It is mounted fully on the power assisted steering rack.
3. All it is capable of doing –just like a traditional steering system –is to alter the alignment of the front wheels about the kingpin axis by changing the position of the outboard ends of the steering rack
4. It cannot change the length of any of the suspension members
DAS is a steering system because:
1. Actuating conventional steering moves the wheels in the same direction
2. Actuating DAS moves the wheels in the opposite direction – it is like changing the static toe angle of the steering system
3. Conventional steering often also changes the toe – but it does so as a function of steering angle
4. Changing the toe angle of the wheels changes the forces on the front tyres.
5. Any driver knows that changing the toe makes the car change its steer response (from lazy to nervous) – changing this value while the car is manoeuvring (in corners or on the straights) will cause the car to steer.
6. This is because under all track conditions (except the purely hypothetical situation of zero wind and geometrically perfect track), the difference in load on the tyres from left to right will cause the car to steer when the toe angle is changed.
7. DAS is a steering system that allows the driver to optimise the toe, and therefore the steer response of the car during a run instead of being confined to changing only from run to run.
DAS is a legal steering system because:
1. It fully respects Article 1.2 and 10.4.1 in that it only allows for the alignment of two wheels
2. It is not electronically controlled
3. It passes all the geometrical and safety requirements of 10.4
4. It is a steering system, and so benefits from the same implicit exemptions from article 3.8 as every conventional steering system on the grid
5. We have fully complied with our obligations under Art 2.5 to describe the novel system. »
Conclusions of the Stewards:
Having considered the various statements made by the parties and listened to the expert witness statements made at the hearing, the Stewards determine the following:
The DAS system allows the driver to adjust the toe angle of the front wheels by a longitudinal motion of the steering wheel along the steering column. So the steering wheel has two degrees of freedom:
– Rotational degree of freedom around the steering column axis: this provides the conventional steering response of the car
– Longitudinal degree of freedom along the steering column axis: this steers the wheels independently from each other, thus adjusting the toe.
The DAS is hydraulically-assisted like any conventional Formula 1 steering system, but remains under the full control of the driver at all times. Physically, the DAS is integrated with the conventional steering system of the car.
The Stewards believe DAS is part of the Steering system, albeit not a conventional one. The key challenges to the legality of DAS rely on it not being part of the Steering system. If this were indeed the case, then it would be breaching the following Technical & Sporting Regulations:
1. Article 3.8 (Aerodynamic Influence): the position of the front wheels affects the aerodynamic performance of the car, and is controlled by the driver. An exception is de facto made for steering, otherwise all cars would be illegal. If DAS fell outside this exception, it would be illegal.
2. Article 10.1.2, which states that the front suspension system must be so arranged that its response results only from changes in load applied to the front wheels. Again there is an implicit exception for steering. So if DAS was not part of the steering system, it would fall foul of this regulation too.
3. Article 10.2.1, which states that with the steering wheel fixed, the position of each wheel must be only influenced by (a) its vertical position, and (b) minor compliances. Clearly if the DAS was not considered to be part of the steering, and to hence provide an independent adjustment of the wheel position, it would be illegal. Steering is a de facto exception, and if DAS was not considered to be part of it then it would fall foul of those Articles.
4. Articles 10.2.2 and 10.2.3, related to adjustments of the suspension whilst the car is in motion or powered suspension systems.
5. Article 34.6 of the Sporting Regulations: 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. Clearly (again) steering is a de facto exception, and if DAS was not considered to be part of it then it would fall foul of this Article.
As a general conclusion, it is very simple to conclude DAS would be illegal IF it were not part of the steering system. So the main challenge and debate has to be on whether it can be considered to be part of the steering system.
The Stewards decide that DAS is a part of the Steering system.
1. Article 1.2 states that “at least two (wheels) are used for steering” and Article 10.4.1 states that “the re-alignment of more than two wheels is not permitted”. These two articles hence limit the number of steered wheels to 2, but crucially no reference is made on that realignment being of a single degree of freedom (i.e. the LH wheel having a single function of position in relation to the RH wheel).
2. There is no direct definition of steering, but one can plausibly suggest that:
a. Steering changes the direction of the car
b. During steering the steered wheels rotate about a vertical or near-vertical axis to change their direction, and hence steer the car.
3. Changes in toe affect the direction of the car in two ways:
a. If toe changes in a corner, the effect will be asymmetric and hence the trajectory of the car will change b. If the driver applies a steering wheel (rotational) input, the response of the car will depend on the toe angle of the wheels, hence the fore-aft position of the DAS will have a direct steering effect.
4. Mechanically, the DAS re-aligns the two front wheels via the same central mechanism that conventional steering does (i.e. the PAS). The fact it acts on the track rod is, we believe, entirely equivalent to the conventional steering.
5. A hydraulically-powered DAS which remains under the full control of the driver is also entirely consistent with the hydraulically-powered conventional steering system.
Because of the above arguments, the Stewards believe that DAS can be legitimately considered to be part of the car’s steering system, and hence that it should be subjected to the same implicit or explicit regulations as the conventional steering system.
The Stewards decide that DAS is not in breach of the suspension-related regulations.
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.
2. Consequentially, the legality of the DAS system is identical to the conventional steering system in terms of the legality under Articles 10.1.2, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3.
3. The legality of the DAS system under other parts of the regulations (Article 3.8 – aerodynamic effect, ride height with steer (TD/003-18), etc.) is equivalent to that of the conventional steering system as the DAS, for the reasons stated, is considered to be part of the car’s steering system.
For the above reasons the Stewards conclude that the DAS system is not part of the suspension, nor can it be considered to illegitimately adjust the suspension.
Therefore the Stewards consider DAS to be a legitimate part of the steering system and hence to satisfy the relevant regulations regarding suspension or aerodynamic influence.
In the opinion of the Stewards, the DAS system is physically and functionally a part of the steering system.
As such, it benefits of the implicit exceptions to certain suspension regulations applicable to steering.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 10.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.
Joined
·
4,404 Posts
DAS is a really clever idea, but one has to wonder to what extent it came into being because Mercedes can afford to employ loads of engineers to work on inessential or non-urgent tasks, whereas most other teams could not do that. Merc have been working on this system for more than a year, so it's not like somebody just had a light-bulb moment over breakfast and a week later it was operational. Even seemingly simple things such as this take money to work out. If your team cannot afford the risk of investing in something that might be banned, you won't go there.
Interesting that the FIA did not approve a separate handle for DAS ie a toe adjuster handle. Mercedes were clever in adapting the steering wheel action to allow the adjustment thereby gaining approval. Recall last year when Mercedes changed holes in the wheels to modify air flow and also add some control over tire temperature.
Horner appeared to indicate during the practice interview that RB had something in the works or ready to apply DAS. He stopped short of confirmation.
Horner appeared to indicate during the practice interview that RB had something in the works or ready to apply DAS. He stopped short of confirmation.
INDEPENDENT
Valtteri Bottas beats Lewis Hamilton to Austrian Grand Prix pole despite late off in qualifying
Finn ends the weekend domination of his Mercedes teammate to clinch pole while the full extent of Ferrari’s troubles is revealed
World champion Hamilton had dominated the weekend at the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg, topping every practice session.
But Bottas delivered when it mattered most to prevent his Mercedes team-mate from opening the defence of his title with top slot on the grid.
The Finn ran off the road on his final lap, but despite Hamilton improving on his opening attempt with his last throw of the dice, it is Bottas who will line up first.
Red Bull's Verstappen finished third, with Norris delivering the best performance of his career to qualify fourth for McLaren.
Austrian Grand Prix grid
1. Bottas
2. Hamilton
3. Verstappen
4. Norris
5. Albon
6. Perez
7. Leclerc
8. Sainz Jr
9. Stroll
10. Ricciardo
11. Vettel
12. Gasly
13. Kvyat
14. Ocon
15. Grosjean
16. Magnussen
17. Russell
18. Giovinazzi
19. Raikkonen
20. Latifi
www.independent.co.uk
Valtteri Bottas beats Lewis Hamilton to Austrian Grand Prix pole despite late off in qualifying
Finn ends the weekend domination of his Mercedes teammate to clinch pole while the full extent of Ferrari’s troubles is revealed
- Philip Duncan
- Saturday 4 July 2020
World champion Hamilton had dominated the weekend at the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg, topping every practice session.
But Bottas delivered when it mattered most to prevent his Mercedes team-mate from opening the defence of his title with top slot on the grid.
The Finn ran off the road on his final lap, but despite Hamilton improving on his opening attempt with his last throw of the dice, it is Bottas who will line up first.
Red Bull's Verstappen finished third, with Norris delivering the best performance of his career to qualify fourth for McLaren.
Austrian Grand Prix grid
1. Bottas
2. Hamilton
3. Verstappen
4. Norris
5. Albon
6. Perez
7. Leclerc
8. Sainz Jr
9. Stroll
10. Ricciardo
11. Vettel
12. Gasly
13. Kvyat
14. Ocon
15. Grosjean
16. Magnussen
17. Russell
18. Giovinazzi
19. Raikkonen
20. Latifi
Valtteri Bottas beats Lewis Hamilton to Austrian Grand Prix pole
Finn ends the weekend domination of his Mercedes teammate to clinch pole while the full extent of Ferrari’s troubles is revealed
www.independent.co.uk
formulaspy
Hamilton escapes penalty for yellow flag infringement
Red Bull Ring, Spielberg
by Thomas Maher
4th July 2020
Mercedes AMG
Austrian Grand Prix – Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton has escaped penalty for a yellow flag infringement during qualifying at the Red Bull Ring.
Hamilton was summoned before race stewards in Austria, after setting his best qualifying time under yellow flag conditions when teammate Valtteri Bottas slid off the track.
After visiting the stewards, they announced that Hamilton would not be given any penalty as it emerged that he was shown conflicting lights as he negotiated the sector with the yellow flag.
Explaining their decision, they said: “The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and the team representative and have reviewed video and telemetry evidences.”
“The driver mentioned that he passed a green light panel in turn 5. The video footage confirmed that there have been yellow flags and green light panels at the same time and therefore conflicting signals were shown to the driver. Taking this into account, the Stewards decide to take no further action.”
Hamilton’s separate summons for failure to rejoin the track correctly after going wide at Turn 10 on his first flying run resulted in his laptime being deleted. However, his second run (the one in which the yellow flag incident occurred) was good enough to secure P2 and just 0.012 slower than Valtteri Bottas’ pole time.
With Mercedes locking out the front row half a second clear of anyone else, Hamilton said: “This team shows year on year of what it is capable of; we continue to set new standards. I think it’s because we’re open-minded, we’re current with the times. We’re always learning from each other and we’re always pushing the boundaries together. We’re united as a team, there aren’t really any politics within this group, and we push together. I think that’s why we’ve come back strong again this year. Now we need to show that strength again tomorrow in the race.”
formulaspy.com
Hamilton escapes penalty for yellow flag infringement
Red Bull Ring, Spielberg
by Thomas Maher
4th July 2020
Mercedes AMG
Austrian Grand Prix – Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton has escaped penalty for a yellow flag infringement during qualifying at the Red Bull Ring.
Hamilton was summoned before race stewards in Austria, after setting his best qualifying time under yellow flag conditions when teammate Valtteri Bottas slid off the track.
After visiting the stewards, they announced that Hamilton would not be given any penalty as it emerged that he was shown conflicting lights as he negotiated the sector with the yellow flag.
Explaining their decision, they said: “The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) and the team representative and have reviewed video and telemetry evidences.”
“The driver mentioned that he passed a green light panel in turn 5. The video footage confirmed that there have been yellow flags and green light panels at the same time and therefore conflicting signals were shown to the driver. Taking this into account, the Stewards decide to take no further action.”
Hamilton’s separate summons for failure to rejoin the track correctly after going wide at Turn 10 on his first flying run resulted in his laptime being deleted. However, his second run (the one in which the yellow flag incident occurred) was good enough to secure P2 and just 0.012 slower than Valtteri Bottas’ pole time.
With Mercedes locking out the front row half a second clear of anyone else, Hamilton said: “This team shows year on year of what it is capable of; we continue to set new standards. I think it’s because we’re open-minded, we’re current with the times. We’re always learning from each other and we’re always pushing the boundaries together. We’re united as a team, there aren’t really any politics within this group, and we push together. I think that’s why we’ve come back strong again this year. Now we need to show that strength again tomorrow in the race.”
F1 News - Hamilton escapes penalty for yellow flag infringement
Austrian Grand Prix - Mercedes' Lewis Hamilton has escaped penalty for a yellow flag infringement during qualifying at the Red Bull Ring.
formulaspy.com
Joined
·
455 Posts
Great race Norris. Fastest lap and podium to start the year off right.
Yes great to see McLaren podium again.
Was anticipating a Mercedes win but not a Ferrari or McLaren podium for this first race of the season.
formulaspy
Seidl astonished by Norris’ final lap performance
Red Bull Ring, Spielberg
By Frank Parker
5th July 2020
2 min read
McLaren
Austrian Grand Prix – McLaren Team Principal, Andreas Seidl, has praised Lando Norris’ podium-winning final lap time.
Lando Norris finished third securing his first ever F1 podium, whilst Carlos Sainz battled up to a solid 5th. This places the team in second place in the Constructors Championship.
“I’m proud, to be honest, proud to be part of the team today,” said a buoyant Seidl after the race. “Nothing could be better for the entire team especially after this difficult period, and to go away with P3 and P5 is simply unbelievable. I’m looking forward, despite social distancing and masks tonight, that we’ll have a small celebration at least!”
Norris managed to grab the final spot on the podium following five-second time penalties for both Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton and Racing Points’ Sergio Perez. The 20-year-old managed to claw his way to within five seconds by setting the fastest lap in the closing moments of the race, a 1:07.475.
Seidl expressed his surprise over Norris’s feat who secures a vital extra point for gaining the fastest lap.
“We kept him [Norris] up to date all the time about the penalties and the gaps,” said Seidl. “To be honest I didn’t expect that he could pull off that lap at the very end.
“But obviously he had a strategy in mind and that such a young guy can pull off such a lap [on] the very last lap and end up on the podium, ah, it’s just great!”
Hamilton tangled with Red Bull’s Alexander Albon after the final Safety Car restart and received a time penalty for the incident. When questioned whether Mercedes had been caught napping, Seidl insisted that he was just pleased with the end result.
“Obviously it’s difficult for me to say at the moment, we need to analyse what happened in detail. Maybe they didn’t think that we had the potential to do that lap at the end. To be honest, I don’t care I’m happy with how it ended.”
Norris battled with Perez for the majority of the race, and managed to hold the Racing Point driver off on the first stint on the soft tyres. McLaren had even expected Racing Point to be out of reach in the race.
“The good thing from today was really that in the race that we could actually do the pace of the main competitors around us,” explained Seidl. “But I think we were able to match [Sergio] Perez and the Ferraris in terms of pace, depending on the tyre choice and so on. That’s obviously very, very encouraging looking ahead. We have a solid foundation for one lap, but also in the race.”
McLaren will hold on to the services of Norris until 2022. In 2021, the Briton will be joined by highly rated Daniel Ricciardo. Seidl explained that he was pleased with Norris’s progress from his debut season last year.
“As a driver it’s all about the momentum and building up the confidence and Lando simply made a good job over winter, working hard with engineers to make the right changes for this year. In terms of personality and character, I think he made a step as well, and I think he can have a great future.
formulaspy.com
Seidl astonished by Norris’ final lap performance
Red Bull Ring, Spielberg
By Frank Parker
5th July 2020
2 min read
McLaren
Austrian Grand Prix – McLaren Team Principal, Andreas Seidl, has praised Lando Norris’ podium-winning final lap time.
Lando Norris finished third securing his first ever F1 podium, whilst Carlos Sainz battled up to a solid 5th. This places the team in second place in the Constructors Championship.
“I’m proud, to be honest, proud to be part of the team today,” said a buoyant Seidl after the race. “Nothing could be better for the entire team especially after this difficult period, and to go away with P3 and P5 is simply unbelievable. I’m looking forward, despite social distancing and masks tonight, that we’ll have a small celebration at least!”
Norris managed to grab the final spot on the podium following five-second time penalties for both Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton and Racing Points’ Sergio Perez. The 20-year-old managed to claw his way to within five seconds by setting the fastest lap in the closing moments of the race, a 1:07.475.
Seidl expressed his surprise over Norris’s feat who secures a vital extra point for gaining the fastest lap.
“We kept him [Norris] up to date all the time about the penalties and the gaps,” said Seidl. “To be honest I didn’t expect that he could pull off that lap at the very end.
“But obviously he had a strategy in mind and that such a young guy can pull off such a lap [on] the very last lap and end up on the podium, ah, it’s just great!”
Hamilton tangled with Red Bull’s Alexander Albon after the final Safety Car restart and received a time penalty for the incident. When questioned whether Mercedes had been caught napping, Seidl insisted that he was just pleased with the end result.
“Obviously it’s difficult for me to say at the moment, we need to analyse what happened in detail. Maybe they didn’t think that we had the potential to do that lap at the end. To be honest, I don’t care I’m happy with how it ended.”
Norris battled with Perez for the majority of the race, and managed to hold the Racing Point driver off on the first stint on the soft tyres. McLaren had even expected Racing Point to be out of reach in the race.
“The good thing from today was really that in the race that we could actually do the pace of the main competitors around us,” explained Seidl. “But I think we were able to match [Sergio] Perez and the Ferraris in terms of pace, depending on the tyre choice and so on. That’s obviously very, very encouraging looking ahead. We have a solid foundation for one lap, but also in the race.”
McLaren will hold on to the services of Norris until 2022. In 2021, the Briton will be joined by highly rated Daniel Ricciardo. Seidl explained that he was pleased with Norris’s progress from his debut season last year.
“As a driver it’s all about the momentum and building up the confidence and Lando simply made a good job over winter, working hard with engineers to make the right changes for this year. In terms of personality and character, I think he made a step as well, and I think he can have a great future.
F1 News - Seidl astonished by Norris' final lap performance
Austrian Grand Prix – McLaren Team Principal Andreas Seidl has praised Lando Norris' podium-winning final lap time in Austria.
formulaspy.com
Joined
·
6,924 Posts
Woo! Amazing to see McLaren on the podium again. Hoping for an awesome season.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well still Renault for this season.
Joined
·
146 Posts
Yeah, finally coming to grips with the Renault in their third year,after being stuck with that boat anchor Honda engine for years. Hopefully Lando and Albon can inject some interest into the series. Despite Honda's past F-1 successes with McLaren their recent F-1 engines brought back memories of the hand-grenade Peugeot engines they used in the 90's.
Today Honda had electric problems. But they seem to have good power now - will be interesting to see how well they do next week.
Joined
·
6,924 Posts
I’ll never tire of seeing Verstappen DNF. He is a baby among toddlers!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Joined
·
2,098 Posts
Really? He had nowhere to go, and didn't change his line (from the onboard camera, he couldn't have tightened his line). Albon came from behind, and turned-in on him. Albon had space, but turned-in more than required to make the corner. I don't see that Hamilton did anything wrong.
Yes but camera views are not the only source of information available to the stewards. They also have access to car telemetry data which can factor into their decision on whether cars contact could have been avoided.
——————-
MotorSport
Horner: Hamilton is the one who needs to change approach
![Horner: Hamilton is the one who needs to change approach]( "Horner: Hamilton is the one who needs to change approach")
By: Jonathan Noble
Jul 6, 2020
Red Bull Formula 1 boss Christian Horner says Lewis Hamilton is the one who perhaps needs to race differently in the future, following his second clash with Alex Albon in three races.
Hamilton and Albon were battling for second place in the closing stages of the Austrian Grand Prix when the Red Bull driver was tipped in to a spin on the exit of Turn 4.
The stewards felt that Hamilton was to blame for the incident and handed him a five-second penalty, which cost the world champion a podium finish.
While Mercedes boss Toto Wolff felt the sanction was not ‘justified’, Horner felt that his man had been totally innocent.
And, in the wake of another collision the pair had in Brazil last year that Hamilton was also punished for, Horner suggests that Hamilton’s approach needs questioning.
Asked by Motorsport.com what advice he would give Albon about racing Hamilton in the future, Horner said: “Be careful!
“Alex didn't have the straight line speed, so he knew he had, with the grip advantage, to pass him in or out of a corner.
“As far as he was concerned, the job was done. He was starting to look down the road towards Valtteri [Bottas] when Lewis put a wheel on the inside. So I think it is more perhaps Lewis that the questions should be asked on what he would do differently.”
Pushed on whether he agreed with Mercedes boss Toto Wolff’s view that the penalty given to Hamilton was ‘too harsh’, Horner said: “Alex had won the corner, and was on the exit of the corner.
“Why Lewis needed to stick a wheel in there, I have no idea. It’s obviously frustrating for Alex that this is the second time in three races that this has happened to him.
“It was unfortunate, because I think he would have had a chance to win the race.”
While some have suggested that Albon could have been more patient in trying to move forward because of the big tyre advantage he had, Horner was clear that he felt that Thai driver was right to move quickly.
“The biggest advantage he had was on the warm up of the tyre, because Mercedes had got to get the hard tyre going after quite a few laps behind the safety car,” he said.
“We could see the Mercedes was very quick on the straights today, so he needed to make it work.
“He got the job done going into the corner. Through the corner he was ahead and he was just accelerating out when Lewis put a wheel in the inside of his right rear. You can't be angry at him for that."
www.motorsport.com
——————-
MotorSport
Horner: Hamilton is the one who needs to change approach
By: Jonathan Noble
Jul 6, 2020
Red Bull Formula 1 boss Christian Horner says Lewis Hamilton is the one who perhaps needs to race differently in the future, following his second clash with Alex Albon in three races.
Hamilton and Albon were battling for second place in the closing stages of the Austrian Grand Prix when the Red Bull driver was tipped in to a spin on the exit of Turn 4.
The stewards felt that Hamilton was to blame for the incident and handed him a five-second penalty, which cost the world champion a podium finish.
While Mercedes boss Toto Wolff felt the sanction was not ‘justified’, Horner felt that his man had been totally innocent.
And, in the wake of another collision the pair had in Brazil last year that Hamilton was also punished for, Horner suggests that Hamilton’s approach needs questioning.
Asked by Motorsport.com what advice he would give Albon about racing Hamilton in the future, Horner said: “Be careful!
“Alex didn't have the straight line speed, so he knew he had, with the grip advantage, to pass him in or out of a corner.
“As far as he was concerned, the job was done. He was starting to look down the road towards Valtteri [Bottas] when Lewis put a wheel on the inside. So I think it is more perhaps Lewis that the questions should be asked on what he would do differently.”
Pushed on whether he agreed with Mercedes boss Toto Wolff’s view that the penalty given to Hamilton was ‘too harsh’, Horner said: “Alex had won the corner, and was on the exit of the corner.
“Why Lewis needed to stick a wheel in there, I have no idea. It’s obviously frustrating for Alex that this is the second time in three races that this has happened to him.
“It was unfortunate, because I think he would have had a chance to win the race.”
While some have suggested that Albon could have been more patient in trying to move forward because of the big tyre advantage he had, Horner was clear that he felt that Thai driver was right to move quickly.
“The biggest advantage he had was on the warm up of the tyre, because Mercedes had got to get the hard tyre going after quite a few laps behind the safety car,” he said.
“We could see the Mercedes was very quick on the straights today, so he needed to make it work.
“He got the job done going into the corner. Through the corner he was ahead and he was just accelerating out when Lewis put a wheel in the inside of his right rear. You can't be angry at him for that."
Horner: Hamilton is the one who needs to change approach
www.motorsport.com
Joined
·
3,706 Posts
The penalty seemed like retribution for an unjust result in Brazil last year. I see no reason to give Hamilton a penalty, looking at the incident in a vacuum. Horner is backing his guy, as he should, but looking at Bottas down the road because the job was done is a hilarious statement. The job very clearly was not done. You have to clear your wheels of the other driver’s car. I think expecting Hamilton to jerk the car to the right, mid-turn and leaving the racing line is unreasonable and actually unsafe. It was a risky move on Albon’s part and it cost him. Racing incident in my view.
Excited to see Vettel fade away into obscurity.
What’s better than Lando’s shrieks of pure joy? Love that young man.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excited to see Vettel fade away into obscurity.
What’s better than Lando’s shrieks of pure joy? Love that young man.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
161 - 180 of 426 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
