• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Formula 1 2020 (Will Contain Race Day Spoilers)

Not sure Lewis or VB will have any problem with it, there is almost nothing these drivers would not do to gain a competitive edge.
Expect to see it banned.

Yes, once upon a time they actually had to take a hand off the wheel and change gear! :eek: There is great vid of Senna driving one handed virtually all the way around Monaco, without power steering....which is now allowed.
So why wouldn't DAS be allowed?

We do not know the full benefits of DAS yet, and probably neither do Mercedes. I'm quite sure there will be hidden benefits and unintended consequences.
Any toe setting is a compromise, so we might see DAS used to increase toe at certain points on the circuit as well as the more obvious drag reduction on straights.
If you have ever seen the toe stiffness on a race car under 5g loads, there is also the possibility of 'toe- correction' under these conditions.

It really is quite an innovation.

Oh! And any pilot will feel at home with moving control column in and out...
 
Last edited:
Additional to the merits of DAS that have been highlighted - it is a variable. LH and VB can use it or not use it lap to lap to control tyre temps setting more aggressive toe out if desired and negate or retain on the straights depending on they tyres' need for more or less temperature.
With the known difficulty in 'switching on' tyres, DAS surely offers Mercedes an advantage over normal steering set-ups. Given the lack of testing - they must have deduced its advantage on simulators. Or the advantage(s) are so obvious to them they barely need verified.

Presumably for cornering the wheel is in its furthest forward position. Thus, the driver can lean in on it without fear of it moving around unwantedly.
 
It is an innovation - so was the six wheel Tyrell & F duct, etc - I hope It does not get banned, but my guess is Ferrari and the others are putting more resources in finding a way to get it banned than they are trying to copy it.

I know you need rules , but sometimes I wish they would let them build one 'no holds barred' car and allow them to race (say) a 20 lap sprint a few times during the season , after the real race perhaps. Some mad $hit would come out then !
 
Additional to the merits of DAS that have been highlighted - it is a variable. LH and VB can use it or not use it lap to lap to control tyre temps setting more aggressive toe out if desired and negate or retain on the straights depending on they tyres' need for more or less temperature.
With the known difficulty in 'switching on' tyres, DAS surely offers Mercedes an advantage over normal steering set-ups. Given the lack of testing - they must have deduced its advantage on simulators. Or the advantage(s) are so obvious to them they barely need verified.

Presumably for cornering the wheel is in its furthest forward position. Thus, the driver can lean in on it without fear of it moving around unwantedly.

I'm guessing that there is a hydraulic lock on the steering wheel depth which has to be released to activate the movement and prevent any mid corner/highload unintended movement. If not, they will have made the force required substantial in consultation with the drivers.
 
I'm guessing that there is a hydraulic lock on the steering wheel depth which has to be released to activate the movement and prevent any mid corner/highload unintended movement. If not, they will have made the force required substantial in consultation with the drivers.

A variety of possibilities I'll wager. Even locking it in a mid position if that is best - even for a few laps - after (or before) a tyre change? Endless permutations!

The idea of the weight of the drivers arms under braking G force seamlessly pushing more toe out onto the front axle just as the apex appears is oh so tantalising. LH in the BBC piece you linked said something along the lines of getting used to it so I guess the system will be tweaked to driver preference. The other teams must be feeling pretty deflated right now.
 
Here's the Technical Regs for those interested. 10.2.3 is the interesting one but it's how you interpret it.

ARTICLE 10 : SUSPENSION AND STEERING SYSTEMS
10.1 Sprung suspension :
10.1.1 Cars must be fitted with sprung suspension.
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.
10.1.3 Any suspension system fitted to the rear wheels must be so arranged that its response
results only from changes in load applied to the rear wheels.
10.2 Suspension geometry :
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.
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.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to any suspension system while the car is in motion.
10.3 Suspension members :
10.3.1 With the exception of minimal local changes of section for the passage of hydraulic brake lines,
electrical wiring and wheel tethers or the attachment of flexures, rod ends and spherical
bearings, the cross‐sections of each member of every suspension component, when taken
normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, must :
a) Intersect the straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, with the
exception of front suspension elements for the sole purpose of ensuring minimum
clearance with the wheel rim at full steering lock.
b) Have a major axis no greater than 100mm.
c) Have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1.
d) Have no dimension which exceeds 100mm.
The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross‐section. The
length of the intersection of this axis with the cross‐section must not be less than 95% of the
maximum dimension of the section.
10.3.2 Suspension members having shared attachment points will be considered by a virtual
dissection into discrete members.
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, taken normal to a straight line
between the inner and outer attachment points, when assessed in accordance with Article
10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 10° to the reference plane with the car set to the
nominal design ride height.
10.3.4 Non‐structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork.
10.3.5 There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to
the fully sprung part of the car.
Redundant suspension members are not permitted.
10.3.6 In order to help prevent a wheel becoming separated in the event of all suspension members
connecting it to the car failing, flexible tethers each with a cross sectional area greater than
110mm² must be fitted. The sole purpose of the tethers is to prevent a wheel becoming
separated from the car, they should perform no other function.
Each wheel must be fitted with three tethers each of which comply with FIA standard 8864‐
2013 and each of which has a minimum energy absorption of 7kJ. No suspension member may
contain more than two tethers.
Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends, which :
a) Are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45°
(included angle) measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member.
b) Are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of 15mm.
c) Do not share a common fastener and are designed such that the failure of one
attachment point will not lead to the direct failure of an adjacent attachment point.
Furthermore, at least two of the three tethers must have attachment points which:
d) On the survival cell or gearbox are separated by at least 100mm measured between the
centres of the two attachment points.
e) On each wheel/upright assembly are separated by at least 90° radially with respect to
the axis of the wheel and 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment
points.
Each tether must exceed 450mm in length and must utilise end fittings which result in a tether
bend radius greater than 7.5mm.
Each team must supply detailed geometries which clearly show that any two of the three
tethers will independently prevent a wheel from making contact with a driver’s head during an
accident, assuming 7kJ energy absorption in each tether.
10.3.7 Once the suspension members are fully defined to satisfy Articles 10.3.1 to 10.3.6, it is
permissible to apply any geometry to the outside of the suspension members, provided that:
a) It is contained within either of the volumes defined by Article 11.4.1 (and outboard of a
plane that lies 5mm inboard of the inboard plane of the wheel rim) or Article 11.5 with
the steered wheels in the straight‐ahead position.
b) It is rigid and rigidly secured to the suspension members (rigidly secured means not
having any degree of freedom), with the exception of front suspension elements where
minimal flexible parts are allowed for the sole purpose of ensuring minimum clearance
with the wheel rim at full steering lock.
 
Back to testing, Ferrari has had a power unit failure after 40 laps this morning. Engine change and the faulty one is going back to Maranello and Seb will be back in the car this afternoon
 
Mercedes "get out " arguement is its a steering thing not suspension possibly defined as such by its modus operandi via alteration by the steering wheel mechanism. Due to ackerman/anti-ackerman front wheels' steering angles already alter wrt to each other when steering lock is applied during cornering its just never been done in the straight ahead position- that's maybe the getout clause?
Ackermann steering geometry - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
As DAS adjusts toe, it's not adjusting suspension geometry, it's adjusting steering geometry. So Rule 10.2.3 doesn't apply.

One comment made this morning was that once the car is under parc ferme conditions, adjusting toe is not allowed (apparently, I haven't seen the actual wording). But that might be in reference to systems that are 'fixed'. MB will have carried out a forensic examination of the regulations, so may well have found some wiggle room.
 
There's no need for a get-out clause as the FIA have allowed DAS for this season. Teams may obviously challenge this but MB have the ruling in their favour.
Next season it's out, apparently MB approached the FIA over DAS a good few months back and the FIA have taken the time to reword the reg to tighten up on this aspect, the result is DAS is out next season.
 
Mercedes "get out " arguement is its a steering thing not suspension possibly defined as such by its modus operandi via alteration by the steering wheel mechanism. Due to ackerman/anti-ackerman front wheels' steering angles already alter wrt to each other when steering lock is applied during cornering its just never been done in the straight ahead position- that's maybe the getout clause?
Ackermann steering geometry - Wikipedia
Yes, there must be toe-out on turns as the wheels are negotiating different turn radii.
 
Disappointing that it is banned for 2021 but isn't that the year of big changes and big wheels - in which case maybe DAS advantage is less?

Looking at the regs for suspension as posted - why don't the FIA just build the cars as well as design them? Regs that restrictive make me wonder if F1 isn't a 'one make' series with the FIA being the maker. Defining the engine's centre of gravity FFS!
 
Disappointing that it is banned for 2021 but isn't that the year of big changes and big wheels - in which case maybe DAS advantage is less?

Looking at the regs for suspension as posted - why don't the FIA just build the cars as well as design them? Regs that restrictive make me wonder if F1 isn't a 'one make' series with the FIA being the maker. Defining the engine's centre of gravity FFS!
DAS may be more useful in the race for managing tyres than it is for ultimate lap time. I guess we'll find out if MB keep it on the car.

The regs do seem OTT, but they always have been. They used to be in both English and French, lots of fun to be had deciding on which language version of a particular regulation could be exploited to best advantage. It says a lot about the intellect within the teams that there is variation between the cars.
 
As DAS adjusts toe, it's not adjusting suspension geometry, it's adjusting steering geometry. So Rule 10.2.3 doesn't apply.

One comment made this morning was that once the car is under parc ferme conditions, adjusting toe is not allowed (apparently, I haven't seen the actual wording). But that might be in reference to systems that are 'fixed'. MB will have carried out a forensic examination of the regulations, so may well have found some wiggle room.
When ground effect side skirts were 'banned' they were only banned in parc ferme . So teams fitted retractable ones controlled by the driver. On track, skirts down, coming into the pits skirts up !
 
One comment made this morning was that once the car is under parc ferme conditions, adjusting toe is not allowed (apparently, I haven't seen the actual wording). But that might be in reference to systems that are 'fixed'. MB will have carried out a forensic examination of the regulations, so may well have found some wiggle room.

Lock the steering column in one position for parc ferme?


DAS may be more useful in the race for managing tyres than it is for ultimate lap time. I guess we'll find out if MB keep it on the car.
.

Absolutely for the current tyres, managing them and 'switching them on' can only be helped by DAS. Do we know if the tyres for 2021 (big wheels) are going to be so sensitive as the current ones or perhaps less cliff edgy?
 
.... Do we know if the tyres for 2021 (big wheels) are going to be so sensitive as the current ones or perhaps less cliff edgy?

Hard to say who really knows how the new 18" F1 tyres will behave over a race distance. My assumption is that Pirelli probably have the best view. I think compared to the current 13" balloon-tyres, the much reduced sidewall height and by inference increased stiffness, will give much more 'authority' to the suspension settings.

I also think the tyres will be more sensitive to settings than the current ones, simply due to having less compliance. This might be bollocks though.
 
Pirelli have said on more than a few occasions, especially when facing criticism criticism, that they make what they're asked to. Effectively "Don't blame us, these are what the boss wanted". I don't see this changing with 18 inchers.
 
The change in sidewall height will have a marked effect on the suspension - how many threads have we seen about changing from 16" to 20" wheels and the ride quality goes to hell - and our cars have much more compliant suspension than an F1 car! Suspect 2021 will see a major change in F1 car suspension!
 
The change in sidewall height will have a marked effect on the suspension - how many threads have we seen about changing from 16" to 20" wheels and the ride quality goes to hell - and our cars have much more compliant suspension than an F1 car! Suspect 2021 will see a major change in F1 car suspension!

Pull-rod or Push-rod? :dk:

:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom