planetf1.com

Same thing as Lotus i suppose...

James Allen-
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/02/analysing-a-few-pointers-and-trends-from-first-f1-test-of-2013/

Can u guys point out few more sites which provide new technical developments like this.......better still discuss it here .

_________________

thank u ashley313 .

So do we assume Lotus will have one first? Possibly some advantage early in the season if other teams are only just developing this.

_________________
"I aim to misbehave"

So Kamui has a contract for Ferrari in WEC? Kinda makes this bit a tad pointless..

Third day of testing - Ted reported that Lotus had brought there "DDRS" to testing. So it's all possible they may have an advantage! Be nice to see them reach the top place on the podium more often!

It'll probably go the way of the suspension brake thingy that Lotus developed last year.

I'd be more interested to know what grounds Ferrari have broken on the downforce side. Some reports from testing suggest Red Bull have 10% more downforce than the next best car. That's ominous to say the least.

_________________

Lotus already tested it during Fridays sessions last season. Probably they have been working at this longer than any other team.

_________________
Renault!

2012 Planet F1 Prediction Competition Champion

Is there a source regarding the Red Bull statement?

Gary Anderson is the source of the 10% quote IIRC.

_________________

On the plus side ,Redbull are the second slowest team through the speedtrap.....can lead to more interesting races even if they are on pole.

They have always been near the bottom of the trap list.

_________________

Thats not true

The differences between the top teams would be 1-2% or less

_________________
Supporting in 2012:
Mark Webber.
Lewis Hamilton.

I think it's more than just 1 or 2%.

The RB7 was practically the only chassis in the field that was able to go full throttle in certain slow and twisty turns. 1 or 2 % simply doesn't account for such a speed gain at such a slow speed turn. Speed gain meaning only a hand full of MPH extra at the apex but that's a lot in F1. There were reports showing the extra down force in percentage for the added speed would be in the double digits if not very close to it.

The level of downforce on the cars is not static - I'm sure there were times during the test that the RB9 was running in max downforce trim and the others were in slippery mode. I also don't think GA really meant the actual numbers were 10% higher, but more a colloquial "it looks 10% more planted than the rest" type thing. Does it matter? The cars will keep changing. RBR is bringing all new rear bodywork for Barca pt. 2 as well.

_________________

nop. it came up in the text commentary in Autosport during testing that some trackside expert (don't remember the name, maybe Gary Anderson ?? dunno) reported it. of course I didn't take it literally but to me it meant that the difference in downforce is big enough to be visible.

_________________

Brawn has stated in an interview that Mercedes is also working on their own version. But it is incredibly tricky to figure out and tune, and it may eat up too much valuable resources.

Ouhhh Come ON dude! - As if I'm already not obsessed enough! - You just had to share them didn't you?

Just kidding, thanks. I have a ton of studying to do, instead I'm reading F1 articles and Analysis.

_________________

I find this passive DDRS concept interesting. IIRC Lotus and Mercedes have struggled with it because it has to automatically go on and off (so to speak) at a speed that is faster than the fastest corner. From what I've read it just doesn't seem worthwhile to invest all the resources to get it working, but seeing as a number of teams are pursuing it I can only conclude that it has the potential to be worthwhile. I wonder how many teams will try it in testing but then drop it for the race season.

I'm also quite surprised that the FIA hasn't banned it on safety grounds because surely a stalled rear wing going through corners is a recipe for disaster.

_________________
Formerly kai_

I have to disagree kal. I think that there are so few avenues of development left under these regs that a working passive DRS would be a worthwhile avenue of development.

Honestly if they're severely restricting the use of DRS during practices (including qualifications) because of "safety reasons", it would be likely to also ban passive DDRS.

Now for the real reason of restricting DRS during practices...