FIA: Reglamento/Incidencias/Sanciones 2012

[Enna_Alicante]

La FIA declara legal el alerón trasero de Mercedes

El exclusivo sistema de alerón trasero de Mercedes, conocido como "Súper DRS", ha sido declarado legal por la FIA en China. La aclaración sigue a una protesta por parte de Lotus, que creía que el equipo había violado el artículo 3.15 de las normas deportivas.

Lotus, entre otros equipos, había cuestionado previamente la legalidad del dispositivo, mientras que el órgano rector de este deporte lo declaró en la línea del conjunto de reglas actuales tanto en Australia como en Malasia. A pesar de ello, el equipo decidió proseguir este fin de semana con la protesta por la gran ventaja de velocidad en línea recta que se gana usando el dispositivo.

Como consecuencia, los equipos de la parrilla se enfrentan ahora a la disyuntiva de invertir dinero en su propio diseño del sistema en caso de que consideren que el beneficio valga la pena, o seguir buscando mejorar el rendimiento en otras áreas.

Fuente:



- FIA Documento 10
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 ©.
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.