Porpoising, what if?

[HustleRussell]

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

[TypeRTim]

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

[Sandpit Steve]

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

DAS was perfectly legal, in part because of the mechanism used to activate it.

That first testing day, when everyone in the paddock basically stood back and applauded Mercedes, was one of the reasons I love F1 so much. Every single engineer wished they’d thought of that, because it was so damn obvious once it had been seen.

Edit: Link to Stewards’ decision, under protest from Red Bull, that the DAS is a steering system and not a suspension system, and therefore legal. https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-d...

Edited by Sandpit Steve on Wednesday 15th June 13:17

[PhilAsia]

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

Pass me the welding torch...

[HustleRussell]

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

[TypeRTim]

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

[entropy]

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

It was legal. Merc outwitted the regs/FIA.

Merc approached the FIA before of what they were up to and it was approved before it was seen in testing.

It was banned for the next season via re-writing the regs clarifying steering and suspension modifications.

[Siao]

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

[HustleRussell]

TypeRTim said:

would have been illegal if

Technically if your auntie had bks she'd be your uncle.

[TypeRTim]

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

would have been illegal if

Technically if your auntie had bks she'd be your uncle.

Would explain a few things...

[TypeRTim]

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

[Byker28i]

Merc explain bouncing and porpoising
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mercedes-explain...

[TypeRTim]

Byker28i said:

Merc explain bouncing and porpoising
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mercedes-explain...

Seems that in order to fight against the porpoising AND run their car lower, they are running super solid suspension with next to no damping. Helps to keep a stable aero platform for sure. But unless the surface is super smooth, it really doesn't work.

I would read that as they haven't actually solved the porpoising problem and what is causing it, but are running their car so stiff that the suspension basically has zero travel in order to stop the aero bouncing. Unfortunately, that leads to increased mechanical bouncing on uneven surfaces due to lack of compliance and damping.

[Byker28i]

TypeRTim said:

Byker28i said:

Merc explain bouncing and porpoising
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mercedes-explain...

Seems that in order to fight against the porpoising AND run their car lower, they are running super solid suspension with next to no damping. Helps to keep a stable aero platform for sure. But unless the surface is super smooth, it really doesn't work.

I would read that as they haven't actually solved the porpoising problem and what is causing it, but are running their car so stiff that the suspension basically has zero travel in order to stop the aero bouncing. Unfortunately, that leads to increased mechanical bouncing on uneven surfaces due to lack of compliance and damping.

It's in the video. They thought they'd fixed or improved the porpoising, dropped the ride height (so they are raising it despite what some RB fans are claiming) and in dropping the ride height (too far?) hit the issue of bounce. Now is that the break of ground force again?

What Merc have agreed is they pushed it too far for performance, at the expense of the drivers

[MarkwG]

TypeRTim said:

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

No, not a good example: Benetton knew what they were doing was cheating, they hid the workings deep in the software, hoping no-one would be able to spot it: traction control was clearly a breach of the rules. As said elsewhere, Mercedes designed DAS as a legitimate system, had it signed off by the FIA & all the other teams were gobsmacked when they saw it - it was in plain sight at all times.

[NRS]

MarkwG said:

TypeRTim said:

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

No, not a good example: Benetton knew what they were doing was cheating, they hid the workings deep in the software, hoping no-one would be able to spot it: traction control was clearly a breach of the rules. As said elsewhere, Mercedes designed DAS as a legitimate system, had it signed off by the FIA & all the other teams were gobsmacked when they saw it - it was in plain sight at all times.

This. The Benetton thing was more like the Ferrari engine cheat a few years ago. The DAS was more like the RB flexy wing that we've seen a few times - within the wording of the regulation but they updated the regulations to be more precisely worded, meaning they were made illegal later in time.

[patmahe]

I'd agree with a vibration limit for this season, with in race penalties if they are exceeded, that would take of driver welfare without giving an unfair advantage.

Depending on how successful the above is, they need to consider the return of active suspension for 2023.

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

TypeRTim said:

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

No, not a good example: Benetton knew what they were doing was cheating, they hid the workings deep in the software, hoping no-one would be able to spot it: traction control was clearly a breach of the rules. As said elsewhere, Mercedes designed DAS as a legitimate system, had it signed off by the FIA & all the other teams were gobsmacked when they saw it - it was in plain sight at all times.

Not really, the hidden command was for the proper launch control through software and that wasn't really used. What Benetton did wasn't that, have a look at Toet's blog (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rotational-inertia-led-traction-control-willem-toet/), he maintains that this was a legal solution and indicates that others copied it. So they didn't have traction control per se, they just achieved the same results in another way.

[MarkwG]

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

TypeRTim said:

Siao said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

HustleRussell said:

TypeRTim said:

DAS was technically illegal

Why then were they allowed to continue to use it? and for a full season?

Because of the difficulty of removing such a system from the car at such short notice.

You are making this up as you go along.

Mostly, yes.

But the fact that in their interactions with Mercedes during development of DAS, the FIA concluded that the system would have been illegal if it was actuated via a different mechanism shows, to me, that it was deemed a moveable suspension system and therefore illegal.

I too, in a way, applauded them for it. Was extremely ballsy. It toed the line between illegal and legal enough for it to get through. Only for it to be instantly banned thereafter!

That's my 'hot take' on it.

I see it as the Benetton '94 traction control. Getting the "banned" result from a "legal" solution. Benetton had a "sort of" traction control, but not by the conventional way, as Toet described how it worked in his blog. Similarly, the Merc got the DAS, not via a lever in the cockpit (which would have made it illegal), but via the steering itself, so they called it steering input. Clever solutions.

Kind of the point I'm trying to make with it! Thanks for giving an example!

No, not a good example: Benetton knew what they were doing was cheating, they hid the workings deep in the software, hoping no-one would be able to spot it: traction control was clearly a breach of the rules. As said elsewhere, Mercedes designed DAS as a legitimate system, had it signed off by the FIA & all the other teams were gobsmacked when they saw it - it was in plain sight at all times.

Not really, the hidden command was for the proper launch control through software and that wasn't really used. What Benetton did wasn't that, have a look at Toet's blog (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rotational-inertia-led-traction-control-willem-toet/), he maintains that this was a legal solution and indicates that others copied it. So they didn't have traction control per se, they just achieved the same results in another way.

Whether it was used or not, was open to debate: there was no way of proving it, one way or the other. It shouldn't have been there at all. They certainly claimed they didn't use it - but couldn't explain why it was there, if they never intended to use it - & why would you build something in, just for decoration? Either way, it's not analogous to the Mercedes DAS; Benetton were found out, whereas Mercedes were up front at all times.

[GCH]

MarkwG said:

There's no such thing as "technically illegal" - either it's legal, or it isn't.

Unless it's passing behind the safety car "for a very short period of time"