Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Red Bull Ring, 2020

Red Bull officially lodge protest against Mercedes over DAS

2020 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull has officially protested the Dual Axis Steering device on Mercedes’ two W11 cars in the Austrian Grand Prix.

A statement from the FIA confirmed the cars of Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas were subject to a protest from Red Bull concerning two aspects of the technical regulations.

Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint.

Representatives of Mercedes have been called to a meeting of the stewards at 7:10pm local time. The teams’ cars finished first and second in both today;s practice sessions at the Red Bull Ring.

DAS, which was first seen on Mercedes’ cars during pre-season testing, allows its drivers to adjust the toe angle of its front wheels by sliding the steering wheel forwards and back.

Why Mercedes could still face a legality fight after reinventing the steering wheel
Mercedes originally considered introducing DAS during 2019. It discussed its plans with the FIA, and made revisions to its operation before running it at the Circuit de Catalunya in February. At the time an FIA representative advised RaceFans the device appeared to be legal.

However Red Bull indicated earlier today they had asked the FIA to clarify the legality of the device, which they have now followed up with a formal protest.

Speaking in an FIA press conference earlier today, Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff said the team had discussed the design of DAS with the FIA and “we think we are on the on the right side.”

Red Bull’s grounds for protest

Red Bull have cited the following regulations in their protest against Mercedes:

Aerodynamic influence

With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view mirrors described in Article 14.3, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.10, 3.7.11 and 3.7.12, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
Technical regulations article 3.8

No adjustment may be made to any suspension system while the car is in motion.
Technical regulations article 3.8

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

75 comments on “Red Bull officially lodge protest against Mercedes over DAS”

  1. Andre Furtado
    3rd July 2020, 17:28

    That was coming

  2. That’s more like it. Let’s settle it publicly. Not a backdoor settlement nor privately written apology.

    1. Horner’s real grumble is why didn’t Newey invent DAS before Mercedes.

      1. I’d guess that if Horner makes enough noise about it then that will serve as a sufficient excuse to keep his boss happy, and keep him in his role. He doesn’t genuinely expect a rule reversal.

  3. Who cares?
    Quit Crying RedBull.

    Lodge a protest at Ferrari for racing the largest nose in F1. Adopting the Mercedes narrow nose is now common place except at Ferrari. The size of the nose of the Ferrari looks as big as a picnic table. It’s Toleman weird looking. It’s looks odd today.

    What are the double teardrop shapes on the air scoop of the Racing point for??

    1. AJ (@asleepatthewheel)
      3rd July 2020, 17:54

      Tyre temperature cameras. At least that’s what they said on Sky in FP1.

    2. Bruno Verrari
      3rd July 2020, 19:06

      I do!
      False leaders cheating team…stop it!

  4. davey (@djdaveyp87)
    3rd July 2020, 17:50

    I hope whatever the outcome it is settled here and now instead of in CAS.

  5. So what happens if it is indeed found to contravene the regulations? Can they remove the system overnight in time for P3/Q1? Will they be even allowed to do so?

    1. AJ (@asleepatthewheel)
      3rd July 2020, 17:54

      They simply won’t use it if deemed illegal, I guess..

      1. Yes, simply lock it in one position.

    2. ColdFly (@)
      3rd July 2020, 18:01

      They only need to stop using it (maybe immobilise it), @sravan-pe.
      But why carry the extra weight if you cannot use it; they will certainly remove it asap if deemed illegal.

      1. Yes, that sounds logical. Mercedes will have a plan as to what to do in the event that some Stewards deem DAS as being illegal. For example there might be a place where you can add a bolt that locks the steering in one position.

      2. @coldfly Edd Straw actually confirmed the same (immobilizing it) on The Race, on behalf of Gary Anderson. Was happy to see they replied!

    3. They may allow it just this race and dock the constructor points

  6. Two things come to mind.
    1. The FIA are clearly convinced it’s legal and that is why they have had to change next years egs to specifically make it illegal.
    2. The Olympic levels of irony in RB questioning someone else’s compliance to the rigidity of aero parts. For years (years!) they blatantly and deliberately designed aero parts to flex. They were never declared illegal because they passed the flawed tests to determine compliance. Those parts were illegal to the letter of the regulation that they are now throwing at Mercedes over what is a steering adjustment!

    1. Exactly. They wouldn’t need to change the regs if was already illegal. I was going to spend 30mins looking through the regs, but actually thanks Paul you’ve saved me some time!

      1. @pdduggan

        1. I think it is likely you are right that FIA thinks DAS is legal. That’s certainly what we have been told. Makes me wonder then why they weren’t able to convince RBR of why it is legal when they asked earlier for clarification, such that now it has become a formal protest by RBR.

        2. Whatever RBR did in the past that you even admit was not illegal, has no bearing on this issue whatsoever. Also, ALL teams have been guilty of this type of behaviour throughout the years, so singling out some irony via RBR is moot. Surely you don’t think they or any team would sit there and say ‘you know what, we’ve bent the rules in the past too, so have at your DAS and we won’t say a peep.’ ‘After all, nobody said a thing when we made a flexy wing.’

        1. ColdFly (@)
          3rd July 2020, 19:11

          @robbie, sorry to be a bit lawyerly here, but there can be a big difference between the legality of a system (i.e. what FIA considered) and the use of such system (RBR’s protest).
          This is also the reason that RBR had to wait until Mercedes used it during an official session (pre-season testing is not an official session and teams can drive whatever they want).

          It’s a bit like a knife; legal as a tool but you cannot use it to hurt somebody.

          1. @coldfly Fair point. You’re saying the most they could do pre-FP1 was to call for clarification. Now they can protest officially.

            What has me a bit defensive on this on RBR’s behalf is due to the rhetoric some spew that this (the very word protest) means they are angry, or jealous, or missed the boat, or pot calling kettle black, or ironic, when it is actually more about the technicalities and the clarifications, so that RBR can proceed accordingly. As you’ve said, it’s about legalities and this is just RBR’s legal formal avenue to get clarification, and is not some thing done out of spite. They have a technical disagreement. They decided to lodge it now for clarity asap, as it made less sense to wait until after more sessions or the race had been run.

            I’m only just now watching FP2 and the show starts with the Sky guys practically saying it like it’s a fact, that RBR have their own system ready to go. And now I see Horner speaking on it being an avenue for clarification as they have technical questions. Of course he skirts whether they have a system too. I then see TW saying it is completely normal and nothing personal for anybody to ‘protest’ as in ask for clarity. I use the quotes because protest needn’t connote outrage over the issue. And I would think if they were that emotional or worried about Merc’s DAS and it’s deemed legality, we’d have heard a lot more about it during pre-season and during the down time.

        2. Paul Duggan
          3rd July 2020, 19:13

          Actually I did not say that it wasn’t illegal! Just the opposite! It very clearly was illegal. It’s a simple reg. The tests used to determine legality were badly flawed and systematically gamed.

          1. ColdFly (@)
            3rd July 2020, 19:21

            @pdduggan, I’ll be a bit lawyerly to you as well:
            The rules did not say that bodywork could not flex, but said it could not flex more than X under a Y load at point Z. The RBR wing did pass the specific test as was described in the rules and thus wasn’t illegal.

          2. Paul Duggan
            3rd July 2020, 19:39

            Coldfly: No. You’re quoting from the test that was used to determine legality. The reg is as written in the article above and is very simple. It’s a fact that some flex has to be allowed because nothing is perfectly rigid. But parts were designed deliberately to flex (illegal) but at the same time pass the test, showing the test to be flawed. It’s not disputed that the parts passed the test but (and I’m being lawyerly) they were illegal.

          3. Paul “They were never declared illegal…”

            Because they passed the test. If said test was flawed that was not of RBR’s doing.

          4. Paul Duggan
            3rd July 2020, 20:53

            Robbie: Correct. My initial comment was on the supreme irony of his team protesting a Merc while quoting a reg which they systematically broke. Not their fault they were allowed to for sure.

          5. @robbie you are wrong about never being caught!

            Abu Dhabi 14?
            “Red Bull’s wings were deemed to have breached article 3.15 of the 2014 F1 Technical Regulations which states that all body work (apart from DRS) must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) and that it must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.”

            I dont remember it was in this race or another, there were two cases of redbul wings having dodgy parts exposed… 1) some sort of hydraulic system in the front wing… 2) some hidden illegal metal?? part was exposed inside front wing…

          6. they were DSQ from the quali… also they got another DSQ due to fuel flow meter issues… funnily ferrari has been exposed about the very same issue, but never found guilty… that doesnt mean they didnt cheat!

          7. @mysticus That’s fair comment, I’m aware of that dsq. There were also times they were legal, while overly flexing, due to the weakness of F1’s test, but it all shows they were scrutinized too. Perhaps started by a team that lodged a protest because that would have been the formal avenue through which to suss out the technicalities of the issue, towards resolving something.

            If RBR are to be criticized or chastised for this protest, then towards which team(s) do we direct such treatment for calling out their flexy wings? And was it petty for some to call Ferrari out for their secret fuel flow trick of late? No they’re still reaching for answers on that file as are many fans.

            All this just to say really that I categorize these protests more as part of the science of F1 than the drama for the sake of drama side, so a team shouldn’t necessarily be lowered to something akin to vengeful emotional basketcases just because they want technical answers.

    2. They were never declared illegal because they passed the flawed tests to determine compliance

      They were actually caught and as a result were excluded from qualifying at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

  7. 3: ‘They’ve’ had three months to figure this out.

    1. You can’t lodge a complaint until the car has been on track, hence why they waited until today to formalize it.

      Anybody angry at Red Bull for playing politics in a sport that’s more about off-track action than on is just fooling themselves. How is this different than asking for clarification on Ferrari’s fuel flow chicanery or FRIC? How many in the comments sections were quick to dismiss HAAS’ 2018 car as a carbon copy of the 2017 Ferrari or refer to those pink cars as Tracing Point?

      The drama & intrigue is half the fun of this sport, so sit back with your bucket of popcorn and enjoy the show.

      1. Yes. I wasn’t sure if a team could protest another team’s car at Final Practice session, and that we’d have to wait for Qualifying or the race but obviously you can. I think it’s great that Red Bull did this now and didn’t wait for the race before protesting.

  8. These will be the regulations the stewards will be considering in the case of a protest:

    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.
    10.2.1 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.
    10.3.5 There may be no more than six suspension members connecting each suspension upright to the fully sprung part of the car.

    10.4 Steering
    10.4.2 Power assisted steering systems may not be electronically controlled or electrically powered. No such system may carry out any function other than reduce the physical effort required to steer the car.
    10.4.3 No part of the steering wheel or column, nor any part fitted to them, may be closer to the driver than a plane formed by the entire rear edge of the steering wheel rim. All parts fixed to the steering wheel must be fitted in such a way as to minimise the risk of injury in the event of a driver’s head making contact with any part of the wheel assembly.
    10.4.4 The steering wheel, steering column and steering rack assembly must pass an impact test, details of the test procedure may be found in Article 16.5.

    Treatment of tyres
    12.7.3 The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets which use resistive heating elements. The heating elements may only act upon the outer tyre surface.

    1. @trindade except that Red Bull’s protest does not cite a single part of any of the regulations you cite above.

    2. ColdFly (@)
      3rd July 2020, 18:58

      The stewards will only consider the regulations which are allegedly breached according to the protest; these are Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3. (see above). Protests need to be very specific.

      10.2.3. will cover the part if DAS is considered part of the suspension system.
      3.8 (clever one IMO) covers the part where the changed toe setting will impact drag on the straight.

      1. @coldfly
        Steering always effects suspension and i remember mercedes went for clearance due to steering column axis rules, i suppose the reason for fia deeming legality maybe superseding those articles?

        1. ColdFly (@)
          3rd July 2020, 22:51

          Agree, @mysticus.
          I think that’s why Horner used the words (primary function of this system). This is a smart way of separating DAS from normal steering. Up to the stewards to solve that one.

          Personally, I’m a fan of the ingenuity of the DAS system, and it is an innovation befitting F1.
          But I also understand why they want to ban it from next year (costly arms race in this direction), and if it were to be banned then luckily it is primarily Mercedes who lost some development monies.

          1. @coldfly they were cleared again and DAS is legal officially as protest is rejected… i would really doubt merc would develop/use it without consulting FIA first, which both parties confirmed before as well about the both ways communication, and dont understand why RBR still went for a protest rather than request for an informal clarification…

          2. ColdFly (@)
            4th July 2020, 19:04

            dont understand why RBR still went for a protest rather than request for an informal clarification…

            FIA can only define the rule, not declare something legal. Thus in all ‘grey’ cases it’s only the race stewards who can decide.
            There was no earlier opportunity (first official session) nor other body (has to be the stewards rather than FIA rule makers) where RBR could have clarified it.
            And the only way to clarify something is to raise a protest why you think it is against the rules.

    3. Indeed @trinade, thanks for putting them down here.

      Now, I have to say, it’s a bit disappointing – I have seen (F1 technical.net forum) a lot of technical discussion on the Newey ‘it has to be aero, what else’ kind of argument, which didn’t really seem to be very clear on exactly how much it was only incidental changing the toe likelliy to have the biggest influence, but that’s a rather clear mechanical suspension effect first, as well as on the aspect of ‘changing the suspension settings during the race’ – which the steering wheel fundamentally does anyway, and that’s allowed by the rules. Which means it only is about the oversight of the rule-makers to foresee someone adding a 2nd axis to that steering (which is the thing the FIA agreed wasn’t against the rules).

      The aero bit basically relies on the stewards taking the precedent of the mass-damper ban and running with it, while the other seem to go into spirit of the rules direction. It might well happen either way, but it doesn’t seem a very strong argument. Guess we will see.

  9. Some things never change. Mercedes- like Red Bull before them- found a loophole in the regulations and Red Bull are furious that they weren’t savvy enough to spot it first. So what do they do? They do a Mourinho. Red Bull clearly see the size of the gap and have decided that since they can’t win the war on track, they will play politics instead. IIRC this system was already cleared in testing so this protest should be a slam dunk dismissal.

    1. Also, given the size of the gap at a track like Austria, its clearly not all down to DAS. Red Bull will have to look for skulduggery in the engine and chassis department too.

  10. Wolff: “F1 must avoid post-race protest over DAS legality”
    Horner: Lodges protect before the race

    1. Paul Duggan
      3rd July 2020, 19:46

      Which is exactly what Wolff wanted…
      Clarity will benefit everyone.

  11. Unbelievable that this had to wait until the start of the first Grand Prix weekend to sort out. Couldn’t this have been decided and ruled on weeks, if not months, ago?

  12. Josh (@canadianjosh)
    3rd July 2020, 19:17

    Well they’ve both had 3 and a bit months to both make their best arguments so I would think the FIA will have a clear answer as they’ve had time to think about it. I guarantee Mercedes sandbagged today to make it look less harmless as well. The clear answer should be, if it’s outside of the rules you can’t have it and if inside the rules, everyone better develop their own just like the 2009 diffuser. There shouldn’t be any grey area, just a yes or no.

    1. ColdFly (@)
      3rd July 2020, 19:26

      I would think the FIA will have a clear answer as they’ve had time to think about it.

      It’s not the FIA (lawmaker) to rule, but the stewards (judges), @canadianjosh. FIA is not even part of this.

      I’m sure though Mercedes will bring their previous communications FIA, but in the end the stewards will simply compare the (use of the) system with the written regulations and previous steward decisions.

      1. Josh (@canadianjosh)
        3rd July 2020, 20:02

        So could this change week to week if the stewards are different?

        1. ColdFly (@)
          3rd July 2020, 20:07

          Extremely unlikely (or flat our ‘no’) because the decisions are based on “previous steward decisions”.

          1. Josh (@canadianjosh)
            3rd July 2020, 23:51

            I see it was rejected

  13. It seems to me that it’s OK on the aero rules because the tyres cannot be considered an aero part of the car (though they obviously affect airflow they are not modifying it as such. The drag reduction of the DAS on the straight is surely miniscule, but that might come into discussions). If the tyres are defined as aero parts then all teams will have to change their entire designs, which incorporate the effect on the airflow from the tyres. Apart from anything else, they are definitely below the reference plane!

    However, as for modifying the suspension while the car is moving, that seems harder to get around. Is the toe setting part of the suspension? It feels like it is, but there should be some sort of precedent for defining it. I would expect Mercedes to have figured out a defence for all this already but some quarters will be keen to punish them regardless.

    Personally, I think it’s a great bit of engineering innovation but I can understand why it is banned from next year on the grounds of unnecessary cost – the lap time return on investment ratio must be tiny.

    1. Paul Duggan
      3rd July 2020, 19:49

      Depends. If (and it’s a big if) it reduces tyre wear significantly or allows for more toe-in to give significantly better turn-in (because there’s no need to compromise with the straight configuration) it might not be tiny at all over a race distance.
      We just don’t know. We do know that Merc our significant effort into putting it in the car.

    2. Thanks @frood19. I think you’ve answered my question with that analysis.

      The key term that complicates the debate might be that it’s not specifically altering “aero components”, but “aero characteristics” that puts this into the grey area of dispute. But as you point out, every steering input does that. So seems difficult to enforce.

      I’ll stay watching from the fence on this one.

  14. DAllein (@)
    3rd July 2020, 19:52

    Sore losers (RBR)!
    They will lose

  15. I understand that the stewards will be deciding and that their decision is subject to appeal before the FIA (or some other tribunal), which will end up making a somewhat binding decision. Right?

  16. Can I officially protest Christian Horner?

    1. Paul Duggan
      3rd July 2020, 20:55

      For not shutting up about the perfectly legal double defuser from 2009 until the present flipping day (and most likely beyond)? Yes. Yes you can. And you have my vote.

  17. Ah yes!, this is good old F1! Season has started! Unleash your weapons, yours tricks… and your lawyers!

  18. Considering that DAS from the next season is illegal so there must be some true as aero influence that matters in it. Some will say its banned from next season because the other teams will spend money to create it but the the cost i think it’s very small in comparison the other parts in an F1 car.
    That’s why RB protest and then i believe it will be banned, if not for the 1st race then from the 2nd.

    1. Ian Stephens
      3rd July 2020, 23:42

      Not necessarily, on either count. The 2021 rule change is about the cost of development, which the FIA was trying to bring down before the season started.

      In general teams have htree choices when they realise they have been out-engineered:
      1. Ignore it and take the performance hit.
      2. Copy if and pay the development cost.
      3. Protest it in the hope that they can convince the stewards to overrule the earlier FIA approval.

      By changing the 2021 rules the FIA have worsened the cost-benefit case for option 2.

      RB have unsurprisingly chosen option 3. Ferrari might have done the same were it not for their rumoured mutual non-protest agreement with Mercedes.

  19. petebaldwin (@)
    3rd July 2020, 21:24

    Horner explained it very simply during FP2 – lots of his engineers feel the system is illegal. The only way to get the FIA to make a decision which ends this discussion is to protest against it. Once they decide, the teams can decide to develop a similar system or something illegal can be removed.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      3rd July 2020, 21:25

      I wrote that too quickly – not FIA, stewards.

  20. Why is everyone blaming Red Bull for doing exactly what a F1 team usually does? In a sport with so many loopholes, if a team finds anything usefull, it’s 100% certain that some other team will protest it. No team will say “it’s a loophole, too bad we didn’t think of, we could protest it, but we won’t, because we nice guys…”

    All the teams do this and most of them on strategic moments. Not only i don’t think Red Bull could have protested it before FP1 today but even if they could, why would they do it in February and let Mercedes have 4 months free time to ajust it to make it legal if possible or to accept not to use it, when they could do it at the very last moment and in the small chance they’re fould guilty, they’ll have to make changes to the car at short notice.
    It isn’t any different to teams asking clarification on the Ferrari engine,
    it isn’t any different to Racing Point protesting and having Renault disqualified from last year’s Japanese GP 10 days after! when they were both fighting for points and in that race Renault got plenty,
    it isn’t any different to Ferrari asking for clarification on Mercedes’s and Red Bull’s suspension designs in 2017 before the season.

    All the teams do it and if it was the other way around, Mercedes would most definately protest Red Bull’s DAS system.

  21. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    3rd July 2020, 21:32

    It should not be protestable at this point. The legality of any known update should have a reasonable window of contest. That window has long expired for Red Bull. Unless Mercedes has modified the DAS, it should be legal at this point. Both the FIA and Red Bull have been aware about it for half a season and could have contested its legality.

    Even the FIA should not be able to contest it at this point for, at least, this season.

    1. Paul Duggan
      3rd July 2020, 21:47

      It’s been made pretty clear that until it’s been run in an actual session at an actual event it’s not protestable. This is in fact the first opportunity for it to be subject to protest. So the window is not just ‘not expired’ but it only opened today.
      Should that be the case? It’s arguable – there are good reasons for it to be this way. But that is is the case is a fact.

      1. You beat me to it I had almost the same message typed out asking about this so called window that didn’t open till today and please explain

      2. Also to add in the FIA has nothing to do with it at this point. They arnt the ruling party. Also if RedBull has a system ready they need to protest it to make sure it’s 100% good to go and they don’t waste their time and money

        1. This seems to be more the path that Red Bull is taking, get clarification by the stewards, and then they’ll add the system to the car.
          I think Red Bull see this 2020 season as their chance to “steal” a title, so they’re likely to try and match development with Mercedes.
          If so, we’re in for a good season!

      3. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        4th July 2020, 0:01

        If those are the regulations, they are preposterous. F1 is about innovation. If a team plans to introduce a new technology, they should not have to wait until the 1st race to determine if it’s legal. If it’s not, then the season is over for that team and they can exit the sport.

        1. Paul Duggan
          4th July 2020, 9:48

          But you can run anything you like in testing. Including rakes and stuff. No-one wants scrutineering and patc ferme in testing.

  22. I’m with you completely @robbie , there’s absolutely nothing wrong (in fact there’s absolutely everything right imo) with designers looking to exploit the regs, or with rival teams protesting their competitor’s exploits. That’s what we want! I just hope decisions are quick and clear.

    My confusion on this one is the technical side. And I’m no expert, so I welcome anybody’s input.

    “any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.”

    Sounds slam dunk illegal to me. How is it not this? It improves tyre wear and aero performance by design, no?

    No beef from me against Mercedes-Benz. I love the concept. I’m just confused as to this particular grey area, to me, not seeming all that grey.

    1. Paul Duggan
      3rd July 2020, 23:29

      Because rotating the steering wheel alters the aerodynamic characteristics by driver movement. The aerodynamic effect though is not the primary purpose of the movement.
      DAS forward and backward movement also alters dynamic characteristics but unless you can show that is the primary purpose it shouldn’t be banned because of that or you would have to ban other steering inputs for the same reason. That would have consequences.
      Aero is almost certainly not the primary purpose and I’m sure Merc can easily show that it’s not, just as they can show that primary purpose of rotating the wheel is to turn the car while consequentially causing an aero effect.
      No slam dunk.

      1. Ian Stephens
        3rd July 2020, 23:50

        I understand from someone involved in the development that the original project was to control tyre temperatures. If true then the primary purpose was probably safety, not aero.

        However the name ‘dual axis steering’ does sound as if it was designed to make the feature sound like a (legal) steering function to steer the FIA away from other (questionable) interpretations. Excuse the pun.

  23. Graham (@amancalledchuda)
    4th July 2020, 0:09

    Given that the DAS system essentially changes the direction that the front wheels are pointing, I fail to see on what grounds it could be deemed illegal, without also meaning that the steering is similarly illegal.

    1. Paul Duggan
      4th July 2020, 9:49

      Stewards agree.

Comments are closed.