Chads996

Looking at the Malaysian results, it's hard to quantify what really happened due to the weather. That said, mistakes were made by McLaren. Mistakes that cost them big time. As a result, I believe they will bounce back with gusto for the Chinese Grand Prix. My vote is Button.

C.

gums

The Malaysian results were not telling, more a function of the conditions.
Hammy will dig deep and win, upset that he hasn't been able to convert two poles.

Ray S

Interesting news about Bahrain....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83801E20120409

multi21

Hamilton. Button and Vettel will rebound from missing points in the last race, but with two poles and two podiums, Hamilton is overdue to visit the top step.

RajDatta

Alonso for the win!

Ray S

Interesting article on overtaking...

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23758.html

NOVEMBER 22, 2011

Analysis: Overtaking under the microscope


Overtaking and its 'quality' has been much discussed in 2011 since the return of KERS, the advent of DRS (the Drag Reduction System) and the higher wearing Pirelli tyres.

Beyond doubt is that overall levels of overtaking have climbed to record Levels in F1 - there have been nearly 1500 passes so far in 18 races.

We are indebted to Mercedes for its own study, but first a few pointers because no standard definition of an overtaking move exists.

The figures quoted are compiled from a combination of video, timing data and GPS technology. Overtakes are classed as follows:

Normal/ DRS/ Slow Cars (referring to HRT, Lotus, Virgin, as the strategic value of these overtakes is different) / Team-Mates (one driver can choose to let another pass) / Damage /Lap One.

How many overtaking manoeuvres have been made in 18 races?

So far, there have been 1436 overtaking manoeuvres in all categories. Excluding overtakes categorised as 'Lap One' or because of damage, there have been 1180 manoeuvres. The combined total of 'Normal' and 'DRS-assisted' moves - those that most observers consider to be 'clean' overtaking - is 804 overtakes. This gives an average of 45 normal and DRS overtakes per race.

What is the breakdown of overtaking moves within these totals?

There have been 441 normal overtakes and 363 DRS overtakes; from the total of 804 clean overtakes, 55% were normal and 45% were DRS. Some 300 overtakes were on the three slowest teams by faster cars, with passes between team-mates accounting for 76 overtakes.

Which races have seen the most overtakes and which the least?

The highest number of clean overtakes were recorded in Turkey (85), Canada (79) and China (67). The races with the fewest were Monaco (16), Australia (17) and India (18). Nine races featured fewer than 50 clean overtakes; eight races featured more than 50. There have been an average of 45 clean overtakes per race - broken down to 25 normal overtakes and 20 with DRS.

What's the ratio of DRS to normal passes through the season?

The highest ratio of DRS overtakes to normal, i.e. where the influence of DRS was greatest, were: Yas Marina (89%), Nurburgring (81%), Buddh [India] (78%), Istanbul Park (59%) and Barcelona (57%). The lowest ratio of DRS overtakes to normal were: Monaco (13%), Hungary (20%), Canada (22%), Japan (26%) and Great Britain (27%) - it should be noted that three of these five races featured wet or mixed conditions, and use of DRS was restricted for portions of the race in Canada and Great Britain. DRS overtakes have outnumbered normal moves in eight of 18 races.

Has the ratio of DRS passes changed during the season?

In the first nine races of the season, there were an average 21 DRS overtakes per race - on average, 45% of clean overtakes. The influence of DRS has remained stable in the second nine races of the year: there were an average 20 DRS overtakes per race, representing on average 46% of clean overtakes.

Which driver has been the top overtaker in 2011?

The following figures are corrected for retirements of cars ahead, but only positions gained are considered. Buemi has made a total of 112 overtakes in 2011 - closely followed by Schumacher (111), Kobayashi (95), Alguersuari (90) and Perez (89). This total can be broken down into gains between the start and the end of sector one (top starter), gains on the first lap and gains in the race not including lap one.

Who has been the top starter in 2011?

The top starter is Schumacher, who has gained a total of 34 positions; next up come Buemi (29), Kovalainen (28), Liuzzi (20) and Kobayashi (19). In contrast, the driver who has gained the fewest positions in sector one is Vettel, with just one place gained all season, reflecting the fact that he has only once failed to qualify on the front row in 18 races, including 14 pole positions.

Who has gained most positions on the first lap in 2011?

In total terms, Schumacher, Buemi and Kovalainen also lead this table, having gained 40, 30 and 26 positions respectively on lap one. Discounting gains made in sector one, the top-ranked driver is D'Ambrosio, who has gained eight places between the end of sector one and lap one.

Who has done the most overtaking in the races after lap one?

This classification is headed by Perez and Buemi, both with 82 overtakes. They are followed by Button (77), Webber (76), Alguersuari (74) and Schumacher (71).

Kein_Ersatz

Anyone know if Saturday only tickets are available for purchase on site (at the track).

Online all's I have seen is Sat/Sun combo tickets. All grandstand seats look sold out too.

Flying Finn

I don't have 1st hand experience how things work in China, but every F1 race I've been to (Hockenheim and Monaco once, Hungary bunch of times), there's always been people selling tickets.

Nizer

http://www.f1technical.net/news/17220

Adrian Newey, Chief Technical Officer: “We have shown good race pace, but we know we need to make a step in qualifying. In order to evaluate our most recent upgrades, we will run two different specifications of the RB8 in China on Friday. Based on feedback and preference shown by both drivers, Mark will test an updated evolution of the set-up used for the Malaysian GP, while Sebastian will run a pre-season specification. We will then compare the results.”

paradisenb

Hamilton
Vettel
Button

consolidated

Lewis is going to have to charge.

ltc

Mercedes are free to continue using their innovative ‘double DRS’ rear wing after stewards in Shanghai rejected a protest from rival team Lotus on Thursday evening regarding its legality.

Mercedes’ rear wing has holes in its endplates which are exposed when the DRS is activated. Airflow entering the holes is channelled through the chassis to the front wing, where it is released to stall the wing, cutting downforce and boosting top speed in much the same way as the DRS itself does for the rear wing.

Lotus had alleged that Mercedes’ car, which had already cleared scrutineering in China as it did in Australia and Malaysia, contravened Article 3.15 of the technical regulations, which outlaws driver-operated aerodynamic devices.

However, the stewards unanimously dismissed the protest, ruling that Mercedes’ design is not activated by the driver, but as a consequence of the permitted DRS movement. They conceded that it does appear to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car by reducing drag, but declared this to be consistent with the intent of the regulations.

Lotus are not expected to appeal the decision, thus clearing the way for any team to push ahead with implementing their own version of the Mercedes design.

The FIA stewards’ decision in full:

The Stewards convened at 17:15 hrs on April 12, 2012 to consider a protest lodged by Lotus F1 Team concerning the Technical Delegate's scrutineering report of April 12, 2012.

The protest was against the eligibility of Cars 7 and 8 entered by Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team wherein it was alleged the cars did not comply with Article 3.15 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations.

The protest was lodged in accordance with Article 171 of the International Sporting Code and was lodged within the time prescribed under Article 174 (c).

Appearances at the Hearing;

Representing Lotus F1 Team: Messrs Alan Permane and James Allison

Representing Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team: Messrs Ross Brawn and Geoff Willis

FIA Technical Delegate: Mr Jo Bauer

Argument

Mr Allison, in his case on behalf of Lotus, proposed 5 questions that he believed needed to be answered;

1. Does Article 3.15 apply to the device being employed by Mercedes?

2. Does the system comprise any parts that are not "necessary for the adjustment described in Art 3.18"?

3. Can what Mercedes is running be described accurately as a "car system", a "device" or "procedure"?

4. Does the Mercedes device depend upon "driver movement"?

5. Does the Mercedes device "alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car"?

Mr Allison then asserted that if the answers to all these questions is "yes" then it must be concluded the Mercedes system is prohibited.

Mr Allison also asserted there needed to be a distinction between the "prime" purpose of a "device" and a secondary purpose or consequential outcome.

He argued that the Mercedes device has a prime purpose of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car.

Mr Allison later provided the Stewards with written grounds for the protest (Exhibit B). Mr Brawn, for the Respondent Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, provided the Stewards with a detailed paper outlining its response (Exhibit A). This paper contains certain confidential Intellectual Property and could not be provided to Lotus however Mr Brawn presented the key points of his response verbally, which were;

1. The "device" or "design" contains no moving parts.

2. There are no upper limitations provided in the regulations on what can be achieved using DRS apart from what is written in the current regulations. He provided examples of teams making modifications to other parts of cars to take advantage of the different airflow resulting when DRS is activated.

3. The "device" or "system" being protested against (commonly referred to within the team as "DDRS" or "Double DRS") was simply an enhancement to the existing DRS but made after DRS was originally introduced. Therefore is was wrong to discriminate against any enhancement simply because it has been introduced after the original introduction of DRS

4. There is nothing in the regulations preventing a hole in the inner side of the rear end plate and a duct running to the front of the car to take account of a change in the aero characteristics when DRS was operated and that this was an evolution to improve the performance of the DRS.

Mr Allison argued that the Mercedes device being protested was not a part of DRS and indeed that "DRS" was not a term defined in the regulations. He also argued that there was a substantial difference between other modifications made to the car which had aero impacts compared to the modifications made to the Mercedes.

Mr Allison agreed in response to questioning that there is nothing in the regulations that prevents an aero link between the front and rear wings but that the protest centred on the fact the link created was for the sole purpose of using a driver-created movement to alter the aerodynamics of the car.

He stated that if the hole currently located in the rear end plate was located elsewhere and permanently exposed, this would be acceptable.

In response Mr Brawn argued that the regulations do not state how much effect can be gained from DRS and that the Mercedes system was passive. He advised that almost all cars on the grid had made improvements to the aerodynamics of parts of the cars so that they reacted better to the airflow when DRS was activated and in some cases this had increased the speed by 17 to 20 kph as opposed to the initial increase using DRS of 10 kph (Mr Allison argued that the initial advantage was 12 kph).

Mr Willis asserted that all the teams had developed their bodywork to react to the movement in the upper rear wing flap.

Mr Bauer noted that it was not possible to operate the new Mercedes device in isolation to the normal DRS, it was not independent of it.

He also advised that Mercedes has sought clarification on the device prior to the first Grand Prix of 2012 and that he had confirmed to the team prior to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix that the design was permissible.

Note: In relation to the absence of a definition of the term "DRS", Article 3.18 makes several references to the word "systems" and the term "Drag Reduction System" has been widely used within Formula One and the FIA. For the purpose of this deliberation, it is taken to mean the "system" referred to under article 3.18.1 "Driver adjustable bodywork"

Decision

Having examined the evidence presented, the Stewards DECIDE unanimously that the Protest is DISMISSED.

The grounds for this decision are:

1. There are many different parts of bodywork fitted to cars from a variety of teams, which have been designed specifically to take advantage of the change in airflow caused by the activation of the DRS.

2. The modifications on Cars 7 and 8 are examples of the above.

3. The Mercedes design complies with all bodywork geometric and stiffness regulations.

4. The design is entirely passive and has no moving parts whatsoever.

5. The sole purpose of the "DRS" (or the "system" as referred to in the regulations) as stated in Article 3.18.3, is to improve overtaking. The Mercedes design is completely consistent with this objective.

6. . Noting the agreement of Lotus that "if the hole currently located in the rear end plate was located elsewhere and permanently exposed, this would be acceptable", there is no reason why the locating of the hole is the current position on Cars 7 and 8 should not also be acceptable. 7. In relation to the 5 questions posed by Lotus, all 5 of which Lotus assert (and the Stewards agree) if answered in the affirmative, would rule the vehicles ineligible;

(i) Article 3.15 does not apply because it does not directly use driver movement, as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car. The alteration is indirectly (and not directly) consequential to the movement of the driver adjustable bodywork ("DRS")

(ii) The second question posed is not relevant in light of (i) above

(iii) The Mercedes design is not a "system" or "device" in its own right, it is part of a design made to take advantage of the change in airflow caused by the activation of the DRS (refer 1 above)

(iv) The Mercedes design is not activated by driver movement. It is a consequence of a change of position of the driver adjustable bodywork, which is permitted under the regulations.

(v) The Mercedes design does appear to alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the car by reducing the drag, however this is consistent with the intent of the regulations.

Accordingly not all of the 5 questions can be answered in the affirmative and therefore do not form successful grounds for the upholding of the protest.

Further, and distinct from the grounds above, the protest is dismissed on the grounds that the FIA confirmed the assertion of the Mercedes team that it had, in accordance with Article 2.4 and/or 2.5 of the F1 Technical Regulations, sought clarification from the FIA Formula One Technical Department concerning this matter and the FIA confirmed that the Mercedes design had been deemed permissible.

All parties are reminded of their Right of Appeal.

Ray S

FIA confirms the race in Bahrain will take place as scheduled.

ltc

Indy took place one year as well, even though only Bridgestone shod cars took the lights at the start.
It would be interesting for the owners to decide to simply not attend the race.

TwentySix

Looks like a warm welcome