Formula 1 teams agree to ban double DRS for 2013

[Greig]

Double DRS will be banned for 2013, AUTOSPORT has learned, after Formula 1 teams agreed to a change of rules that will outlaw the concept for next year.

Mercedes led the way at the start of this season with a radical design that feeds air via a hole in the rear wing endplate, all the way through the car and out the front wing - which is then stalled when DRS is activated. This helps provide a straight line speed boost.

Rival team Lotus lodged a protest against the concept at the Chinese Grand Prix, but it was rejected by the race stewards who were adamant that channelling air through a hole that is opened when DRS is activated was not against the regulations.

Despite being disappointed at the time about the failure of the protest, Lotus duly set about developing its own version of double DRS, which it tested at the German GP and is set to race in Belgium next month.

Other teams have not pursued the idea yet, and there have been concerns among some of them that work on double DRS could become the subject of an expensive development race.

Following discussions at F1 rules think-tank, the Technical Working Group, sources have revealed that a majority of teams agreed for a change in regulations that will ensure they cannot incorporate double DRS into their cars for 2013.

Although Mercedes did not support the change in rules, because it had made such a headstart in the area, it could not stop the ban going through as it only needed a majority of teams to agree.

It is understood the changes to the rules will be made official by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council later this year.

Despite rivals claiming that double DRS was an expensive avenue of development, Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn was always adamant that it was cost-effective.

Speaking earlier this year he said: "People talk about the huge cost, but there isn't really a huge cost. You all know that there are a couple of carbon pipes running down the car, and the man on the street will tell you that they cost a few thousands pounds – they are not millions of pounds."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101669

[ferrari4life]

surprise surprise..
lets give all the teams a year to waste money on exploring this idea and then we will ban it anyway.
I am sure Lotus is pretty steamed about this

[REDARMYSOJA]

The question is how will Red Bull cheat to get around this?

[EL_NANDO]

The question is how will Red Bull cheat to get around this?

Probably build a triple DRS and then claim it doesn't count as a double DRS.

[Hornet]

Not sure how I feel about this, because the reason they ban was due to cost issue? I mean, F1 do need development and I don't believe the teams are trying to cut cost. Sounds like they are removing something they do not wish to develop. Its like if I'm not having it, neither can you.

[brembo man]

Probably build a triple DRS and then claim it doesn't count as a double DRS.

Great quote!!

[zakfourie]

Yeah it is a bit of a pity it will be banned....

[Jacquesvw]

Cant they give the drivers baked beans or something before a race and blow the diffuser again that way?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[FrankAlfa]

Does anyone remember the term "Rube Goldberg"???? I like the Bake Bean Idea but the Driver's Seat will be a mess!!!!!

Ciao.

Forza Ferrari!!!!

[brembo man]

Adult Pampers! Go baked beans!

[theforce]

Technology and Innovation is F1 SUCKS big time. Any new idea that pops up gets shut down.

[Hornet]

Technology and Innovation is F1 SUCKS big time. Any new idea that pops up gets shut down.

Sometimes there's a need to do that. For example, when shaped floor was introduce, it gives the car so much downforce already but because you don't want to settle just as fast, but you always want to be faster, we started seeing other innovations that looks cool, but bordering on dangerous. Team starts to separate chassis, flexible skirts on the side to seal the floor, and one even put a fan at the rear of the car which was quickly banned.

But yeah, innovations should also be allowed, within a certain limit. I think the challenge is to find this limit, where you can allow innovations, but not too much that it brings negative effect.

And the problem nowadays is that the limit is not just technical limits (safety and so on), but we are including cost limit. This is the really hard part, as we see here. Once you include cost limits, anyone can argue something is too costly so lets ban it.