Adrian Newey, Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020

Newey criticises 2021 rules: ‘It makes F1 a little bit GP1’

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull chief technical officer Adrian Newey is unimpressed with the new regulations for the 2021 F1 season.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

[f1tv2020testa]

Comment of the day

Daniel Ricciardo praised Mercedes innovative DAS system yesterday:

I agree with Ricciardo, well done Mercedes. This is not a new idea and the fact that no one else has thought of applying it to an F1 car is their problem.
@Johnrkh

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Rich!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

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.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 63 comments on “Newey criticises 2021 rules: ‘It makes F1 a little bit GP1’”

    1. COTD spot on, absolutely spot on. The childish reaction of Ferrari fans online is what puts me completely off the team as a whole. No respect for the essence of the sport; innovation. Only for a brand. Blindly.

      1. My reg N16 GER
        22nd February 2020, 2:30

        The only team I have read about openly criticising this is Red Bull. Ferrari have not taken the bait from journalists over this. Even Red Bull may have not criticised it as it was said to be their Cyclops but that may have been made up, not heard him say it on camera.

      2. RB13 I like the innovation of them going for ground effects and away from clean air dependence. After decades. That to me is a massive, game changing innovation for the better. You’re right, innovation is F1’s essence. The power units are amazing innovations too. I’m good without a DAS here or a DRS there.

        1. I’m good without a DAS here or a DRS there.

          How do you even put these in the same sentence? Because they both have 3 letters and start with “D”?

          One is a gimmick from the rulebook, the other is a technical innovation from the likes of the double diffuser, the f-duct or the twin chassis.

          1. DRS is just an innovation (moveable wing) from the 1960s. the way it’s applied now is gimmicky for sure, but it was once just as innovative. we can say the same about DAS – just think, if the DAS had been invented in the 60s, which is not inconceivable, the concept is very simple.

          2. kuvemar I was speaking metaphorically and merely saying that perhaps some are forgetting that innovation isn’t just about finding the small things like DAS or developing DRS, which yes, is an innovation even if you choose to call it something else. Innovation is thriving in F1 as a whole with these wholly new and unprecedented 2021 cars, and with these power units etc…the big things. DAS will be banned and hopefully DRS will be too, but the lasting innovations are still going to be around, so it really is unfair for some to claim there is no innovation in F1 anymore. There is going to be a lot of innovation in the coming years in making F1 a better more sustainable sport, and as well, as they proceed towards carbon neutrality.

        2. @Robbie we are making quite different points. Rules within themselves are not innovative but can be a positive thing, as I also believe the 2021 rules are. Innovation within those rules is to be respected and the ridiculous reaction to DAS mainly from Ferrari fans is just blatant blind bias towards a team when the engineering should be respected and admired wherever it comes from.

          1. RB13 Yeah but that’s just how fanhood works, and of course there are always posters that aren’t exactly providing the most balanced or even logical comments. I’ll suggest that there are likely many Ferrari fans that do respect something like DAS. I don’t disagree that innovation is to be respected and admired. At the same time, freedom to innovate hasn’t exactly brought us to anywhere other than to a format that needs changing, particularly as the Newey’s of the world innovate towards making their cars unable to race closely amongst each other. DAS is pretty cool, but it is one of those things Brawn talks about that can drive up costs well beyond where they need to be, for minimal performance gain. Hence the banning of it for next year. I can’t get all that excited about something that isn’t going to last because it is too extreme to be part of a new model that wants and needs to improve F1 in all aspects at once, because of the very thing DAS represents…something only the rich teams can afford, leaving the lesser teams behind. I’m not against innovation, unless it is innovation that is just going to take away from what F1 needs to do now, and is about to.

            1. @robbie

              I don’t disagree that innovation is to be respected and admired. At the same time, freedom to innovate hasn’t exactly brought us to anywhere other than to a format that needs changing,

              Sounds like an argument for spec racing.

              DAS is pretty cool, but it is one of those things Brawn talks about that can drive up costs well beyond where they need to be, for minimal performance gain.

              That’s exactly what every team is looking for the smallest technical gain the small innovations capable of giving a team the edge it needs to win.

              Hence the banning of it for next year.

              You do know it was already in the rules don’t you?

              I’m not against innovation, unless it is innovation that is just going to take away from what F1 needs to do now, and is about to.

              And what does F1 need right now Robbie? You do understand that all forms of Motor Racing have taken a hit with crowd numbers over the last few yrs.
              What Liberty are doing is still unknown territory no one knows how things will work out after 2021.
              I agree with Newy also the article says that

              And Newey is not the only one who feels that way. He says those he speaks to up and down the pit lane find themselves similarly uncomfortable with the changes.

              As I have said before 2021 will not turn F1 into a spec series but some of the things being said by Brawn about the continued tightening of rules. The seemingly increasing restrictions on innovation is obviously of concern not just to us the fans, but to the people who are the sport itself.

            2. @johnrkh Not an argument for spec racing at all…just for reasonable balance to innovation that minimizes the big imbalance that particularly the last 10 years under BE, along with the introduction of expensive and complex hybrid pus brought on.

              Sure every team is looking for the smallest gain. The bigger teams however can turn over far many more stones in this effort. And to Brawn when it takes a ton of money and resources for a minimal performance gain, that’s where he wants to save the teams money.

              What does F1 need? The very things Liberty and Brawn have introduced and that the teams have signed off on. So sure Newey can talk of an uncomfortableness and I’m sure it is there particulate amongst his design friends who would rather not have to worry about the money, but again, the teams have signed off on this. I get Newey’s displeasure, but I still have not heard a better way from you, or Newey. The solutions have been coming from Brawn and Liberty and the teams have had their input and all have negotiated for what they have been able to maintain, and otherwise, everyone seems pretty on board that these changes are needed.

              Unknown territory? Sure it is. They’ve been hooked on money and clean air dependence for far too long. Time for some newer healthier habits.

          2. Innovation within those rules is to be respected and the ridiculous reaction to DAS mainly from Ferrari fans is just blatant blind bias towards a team when the engineering should be respected and admired wherever it comes from.

            The same must be said about the Ferrari PU which is a master class engineering wise. That’s why the tifosi are complaining and I like the DAS very much as I liked before the F-Duct and the blown diffuser. This is what makes F1 very unique and special.

            1. Every indication is that the Ferrari put is not an innovation but instead it is illegally breaking the rules. Ferrari’s performance at the end of last season is good evidence of that.

              @tifoso1989

            2. @megatron
              Twin battery layout that enables simultaneous energy harvesting and deploying, water to air intercooler, Turbulent Jet Ignition, Dual Boost Turbo, pistons made with additive manufacturing technology and many more are not innovations for you ?

              You are making an assumption about the Ferrari PU being illegal which is wrong since its legality was confirmed many times by the FIA themselves as the late Charlie Whiting said : “It’s very clever – and as far as we’re concerned, completely legal” and if you have any evidence suggesting otherwise would you please share ? (other than every indication)

              It’s worth to mention that Ferrari were sometimes on the limit of what’s legal with regard to their PU(like Mercedes with DAS) :
              1- The oil burn which BTW was pioneered by Mercedes and it was subject to clarification by the FIA following a query from RBR in the early 2015 season. The loophole was completely closed following a TD in mid 2017 season.
              2- The fuel flow measurement (i.e bypass of the FIA sensors) which was also subject to a TD issued in the end of the 2019 season.

              However, you cannot have the benchmark PU on the grid based only on the aforementioned tricks, you have to have a very solid baseline.

              Ferrari’s performance at the end of last season is good evidence of that.

              With the exception of US GP Ferrari were mighty on the straights (Brazil, Mexico and Abu Dhabi)

      3. You are a liar RB13, Italian newspapers and fans are testimony.

    2. Adrian, you know I am not a fan of yours, but THANK YOU!

      2021 rules are stupid and really are nothing what F1 was, is and should be.

      1. I’ll second that ! But I have no reason not to like Adrian.

        1. @dallein Can’t for the life of me think of what Adrian Newey could have done to offend you,

          It is incorrect to say this is not what F1 was, for as AN points out, this restrictiveness has been progressing for a time.

          Hey I am a fan of the new rules, and I am a fan of Newey. I am a fan of innovation too. But other than ‘they’re stupid’ what ideas do you have that are so superior that would correct the big issues of diminishing audience and sustainability, the processional racing, the small teams barely hanging on, no new teams daring to enter etc.

          I don’t hear you do anything but complain, and as much as I admire Newey, of course he of all people, a genius that would love to be less hindered from plying his art, is going to say what he has consistently said throughout the years, including recent days. But even he has not suggested what exactly Liberty and Brawn are to do to better F1 that would involve at the same time a detrimental spending race through freedom of innovation.

          Please explain how we can have the innovation Newey wants, and deal with the resultant continuation of what has been determined as an unsustainable model for F1 at the same time.

          From what I think we have seen, if we care to learn from history, more freedom to innovate is more chance for the vast and unsustainable imbalance within F1 that is the very thing they are trying to correct, collectively. I suggest more freedom would head the cars back to being designed to be hard to follow too, more dependent on downforce and therefore sensitive to dirty air again. No thanks.

          Let’s try something different, sorry Adrian. You did say you do still enjoy the challenge as well. Might I suggest that if all these efforts to better F1 don’t work, and it is discovered that a big key to correcting things is to allow more freedom to innovate, then F1 will instigate that. But there is a reason, and Adrian knows it, why things have been more and more curtailed from rules change to rules change.

          It is a shame, as he says, but then what is so shameless about what we have had with these tires, drs, cars unable to race closely optimally, etc etc? Why wouldn’t genius Newey want as many millions of someone’s dollars as possible so he and his compatriots can play in his fascinating world? But sadly it has all culminated in the right cars to lap quickly on their own, but the wrong cars to race closely and provide the best experience possible. Time for a change, a reset, and then we take it from there.

          1. Completely agree @robbie, it’s a pity when people criticize something yet not give alternatives.

          2. I don’t hear you do anything but complain

            I’d like to add my frustration about commenters constantly complaining ;)

          3. @robbie Inspired comment. I’d add that rules are made to change anyways so why not try changing a non-working situation. I’m very, very excited for 2021 and beyond. What if it doesn’t work? Change the rules again that’s it. People already complaining beforehand but everyone knows that should anything really bad happen there would be a quick change as they even shortened change procedures to be more adaptive. Adrian, this is a true engineering challenge ahead of you despite what you are saying.

          4. Bravo! Hats off to you sir for highlighting the main issues here that ppl blindly tend to want to forget. I had a boss that used to say dont tell me about the problem bring me solutions. This is exactly that. Put up or shut up I say and that goes for newey or anyone else.

          5. @robbie there does seem to be a sense of irony that, having previously hailed Newey’s innovativeness and spoken about how you hoped he would be a “force to be reckoned with” as the 2021 regulations would allow his innovative nature to come to the fore, now that Newey has complained about the 2021 regulations, you seem to be taking the opposite tack and going “who needs innovation?”.

            For quite a number of fans, when they see the question that “Please explain how we can have the innovation Newey wants, and deal with the resultant continuation of what has been determined as an unsustainable model for F1 at the same time.”, they will ask why you seem to believe that it is impossible for the rules to be relaxed whilst at the same time having the budgetary restrictions that the sport has imposed to address the question of financial sustainability.

            After all, if you believe Liberty, aren’t most of the questions over financial sustainability meant to have been addressed by the introduction of those financial regulations, rather than by technical changes? If you are blocked from spending more, then you cannot have “a detrimental spending race through freedom of innovation” because you have removed the mechanism to facilitate that spending race in the first place.

            To many, it feels as if the conflict is between your idea of prioritising “the show” above all else, when to many it has never been solely about “the show” alone – it’s been about the individuality of the teams and the designers. Indeed, a number of designers are themselves held with the same sort of reverence as the drivers of their age – from engine designers like Colombo and Duckworth through to design chiefs like Forghieri, Chapman, Murray or Newey, they are recognised as having helped to build iconic cars over the years that have been as much of a star of the sport as any drivers have been.

            To some, there may be concerns that prioritisation of “the show” above all else runs the risks of making the same mistakes that NASCAR made in the past, where it leaned heavily in the direction of prioritising “the show”. NASCAR did well for a time whilst it kept the more casual fans engaged, but over time the series couldn’t maintain their interest whilst, as the same time, the more hardcore fans bled away as they were progressively alienated by the changes the series made to try and keep the casual fans engaged. Race attendance figures are now so bad that, a few years ago, they stopped publishing the attendance figures to hide the declines and, in a bid to hide empty grandstands, just simply started removing large chunks of the grandstands so you couldn’t see how empty the circuits really were.

            Liberty have a somewhat delicate task here, because they could very easily screw it up and end up setting F1 towards a route that NASCAR has taken – in leaning hard towards “the show”, they risk alienating those in their core audience for whom “the show” was only ever part of the reason for their engagement with the sport. Furthermore, Liberty now has to ensure it can deliver “the show” that it has been promising for so long – if it falls short of the high expectations that you are placing on it, then people are going to ask whether it really was worth it.

            As for your comment about “diminishing audiences”, I’d point out that, in more recent years, there has been a far stronger correlation between the sport switching from free to air to subscription only services and declining audience figures than the actual on track action.

            A number of the big falls in recent years correlated almost perfectly with the number of fans lost when certain nations switched from free to air to subscription only – for example, there was one year where about 92% of the loss in viewers could be explained by the French and Chinese markets switching from free to air to subscription only services.

            It doesn’t matter how good “the show” might be if you price it out of the reach of the majority of those who might otherwise be interested in watching – that, fundamentally, is something that a lot of fans don’t see changing, and many more are prepared to walk because the sport is trying to squeeze too much out of them no matter how good you tell them “the show” is.

            1. I’d add to that that we have offered solutions and not just complained about over regulation.

              Reducing regulations will as you say only result in spending escalation if there is no cap on place.

              It’s still my belief that the cap is a little high, but my major beef is that now there is a cap in place, teams and designers should have had the ability to explore a wide range of innovation, including moveable aero, ground effects and even engine technology all within a broad set of parameters.

            2. @anon No I haven’t said ‘who needs innovation’ but I have said there are reasons freedom to innovate has to be kept in check. That doesn’t mean I think Newey cannot nail RBR’s package and do a better job for 2021 within the parameters that he predictably complains are more restrictive. By predictably I mean no insult to Newey. He has been bemoaning restrictiveness in freedom for at least a couple of decades and I fully respect that coming from him and his ilk. At one point he stepped back and went race-yacht designing out of boredom with F1.

              No I’ve not said ‘who needs innovation’ it is that F1 does not need excessive freedom to innovate as that would go against what they are trying to accomplish. That would send them backwards towards continued unsustainability.

              You make a good point to highlight that there are caps coming and so teams will be forced to spend less. I wish Newey had pointed out that reality out as well in his recent comments, for this is an effort tackling all aspects of F1 together, as they are all intertwined. But then AN has generally only ever bemoaned restrictions but not offered solutions as to how to keep him and his ilk happy without causing it to be simply a money game. Oh I know from the past that at times he has indeed acknowledged that what he wishes for costs money.

              Why do I believe that there cannot be budgetary constraints and Newey type freedom to innovate? I think the answer to that is obvious and has been in our faces for 2 or 3 decades now, right? Excessive freedom to innovate equals ‘he with the most money wins.’ And cars built to create as much dirty air as possible etc etc. All things that are good for the one team doing them, and not good for F1 overall.

              So yes, over the years costs to compete in F1 have only ever gone up and up, and now here we are with all the teams agreeing that cannot go on. Financial restrictions go hand in hand with innovative restrictions, low performance component standardization etc. They’ve discussed the off-site banks of engineers some teams have, the biggest ever staffs on teams just because they can etc etc. They’re talking about how they travel, how they ship their wears around the world, questioning the need for the excessive motor homes and it goes on and on.

              As to the show, I’m quite sure that as fans look for individuality between the teams and designers, they will still find that in the new chapter. Brawn has not and never will make F1 a spec series. There will always be individuality in F1. The teams will see to that or they won’t sign off on new regs as they have for 2021. Anyway, for me what ‘the show’ means is simply cars able to follow more closely and have more close encounters…a more driver vs driver series. That’s all the show I’m looking for.

              There is of course no comparison at all to NASCAR here. No matter what aspect such as ‘the show’ there is nothing relatable to NASCAR and F1 of any significance. That starts with NASCAR being in North America only, and being very very spec compared to anything F1 will ever get close to. So, no need whatsoever to try to fear monger via a comparison to NASCAR.

              Does Liberty have a delicate task? Bigtime. Will people ask if it was worth it? For sure. What choice did Liberty have? What they bought was not sustainable, the teams have all agreed that. So…here we go…Liberty, Brawn, and the teams, all trying to find this delicate balance after decades under BE of kicking that can down the road.

              And you’re saying the declining audience has as much to do with free to air coverage as anything, and I’m sure that is the case, but yet NASCAR’s declining audience according to you has to do with them concentrating too much on the show, as their coverage is indeed needing no special expensive television packaging.

              I suggest that while it would be wonderful if there was more FTA coverage, I personally have no idea where that stands or what the future holds in terms of the global realities for Liberty, but I think it is safe to say that a good start to getting more people to buy in to whatever package, would be to have a much more enthralling product on the track (to me that’s the show) with much more driver vs driver competition rather than the predictability we’ve been having, and that should create a much bigger buzz around why people should be watching, participating in, and entering F1.

            3. @dbradock The problem is the cap has to be a compromise and is also being brought in gradually. They couldn’t make it a huge cut and completely strip the top teams down and expect them to stay stoked about being in F1, and so it is understandable that it is still too high for half the teams to achieve anyway. Five or six of the teams will still be spending below the cap simply due to lack of funds. So to allow the kind of freedom to innovate that you would like to still see, would still leave it as a money game shutting out the lesser teams.

              I mean really, there’s been endless discussion as it is about how ‘impossible’ it would even ever be to police budget caps, with much paranoia at least amongst fans, and yet now these caps are going to be so well managed that we can trust the top teams to not continue to create a vast imbalance between them and the lesser teams while offering them ‘a wide range of innovation within a broad set of parameters?’

            4. @ANON, At last, thank you. So it’s not just my rose-tinted spectacles.
              To summarise, popular motorsport dies the death of a thousand cuts once it’s prime reason for being is to make huge profits for an “owner”.

          6. @robbie

            Financial restrictions go hand in hand with innovative restrictions, low performance component standardization etc.

            That is the opposite of what actually happens, less money means more innovation that has been shown in every aspect of life.
            I’m not against bringing down costs to a more manageable level and a properly implemented and enforced budget cap would increase innovation and increase the competitiveness of the smaller teams.

      2. Colin Shortland
        22nd February 2020, 8:02

        Actually Adrian what turns F1 in GP1 is teams running around in cars built by someone else

        Alpha Tauri
        Hassari
        Pink Mercedes

        1. @robbie I also agree. In this instance I think Newey is talking rubbish. Maybe he’d like to take his design talents elsewhere.

          We already have F1 and F1.5. How is this going to change otherwise?

        2. Not necessarily as customer cars used to be a common part of F1 & it was what gave many successful teams there start.

          I will say that what I don’t like about the way it has become more recently is that it’s now more about been a ‘B’ team rather than a small, new independent privateer buying a customer car to get there start in F1 before moving onto designing there own as teams like Williams did.

      3. Adrian only says the obvious. The FIA Nomenklatura wants to control everything. When you have Brawn talking about reverse grids and banning motorhomes the whole thing is the air. It will only get worse.

    3. I think Newey is a dinosaur that doesn’t seem to realize it’s not 1999 anymore. If Formula 1 didn’t do something big, it would become even more irrelevant. A lot of people in the sport seem to have this attitude. Maybe they’d still be there if all the money (and fans) went away, but I doubt it.

      1. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    4. I’m not sure if you can write off the 2021 rules until they get here and see the end result. Myself, I think it was long overdue.

      1. @gitanes Could not agree more.

    5. So Fred did burn his bridges ! Karma.
      Shame though.

    6. Regarding the COTD. Being an advocate for innovation, it is disappointing to see innovation being stifled. Last season Renault’s race results were Disqualified from the Japanese GP because they had were innovative in how they did some brake bias adjustments. This didn’t breach any technical regulations. So instead of accepting this was genuinely an innovation that could have been useful to all the teams, the Stewards Disqualified them for breaching the “The driver must drive the car alone and unaided” Sporting Regulation (27.1).
      Now we have Mercedes being innovative, and they have the blessing of the FIA, even though to my untrained legal mind it appears the Duel Access Steering system breaches Technical Regulation 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.”

      1. The Renault system was computer controlled, Mercedes is driver controlled.

        Chalk and cheese

        1. The Mercedes system appears to breach the current technical regulations (whether I agree with them is beside the point) while the Renault system didn’t. The big problem for Renault was the Stewards decided to penalise Renault with an ambiguous regulation, e.g. who decides what “alone and unaided” is?
          As it is, the variable orientation of the Mercedes Duel Axis Steering system appears to breach Sporting Regulation 34.6: “A competitor may not modify any part on the car or make changes to the set‐up of the suspension whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions. In the case of a breach of this Article the relevant driver must start the race from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 36.2. In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in pre‐race parc fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.” So the rules require tools to be used to make changes to the “toe” of a wheel, meaning changes made by the driver from within the cockpit aren’t allowed.
          It looks to me like the rule makers had already thought about a steering system like Mercedes’ Duel Axis Steering system and decided they didn’t want it.

          1. The angle of the wheels changes every time the driver moves the wheel, Mercedes have found an interpretation within the current rules to do that to adjust the toe angle, hence why it appears to be fully legal

            Renaults system adjusted something the driver is supposed to be in control of automatically, hence the driver is not driving unaided

            I’m going to agree with the people who know the rules best on this one

            1. Technical Regulation 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.”

            2. @drycrust “fixed” does not specify which axis or which movement. The steering wheel is certainly moved, so the wheels are allowed to turn. No breach.

      2. Actually, the Mercedes system is fully compliant with this regulation. Once Hamilton fixes the steering wheel in some position (turns and pulls/pushes), the front wheels are subsequently indeed moving only vertically due to suspension, there is no other input. So 10.2.1 is spot on.

        And since toe is not a part of suspension (suspension is a device that allows wheels to react to uneven ground without forcing the car itself to do exactly the same), and the purpose of adjustment is not primarily aerodynamical (the purpose is to keep wheels parallel to drive direction, thereby reducing rolling resistance, thereby reducing tyre wear), the new system does seem to be legal.

        But with lawyers one never knows of course, we will see after the first GP.

        1. The words “completely and uniquely defined” mean only one setting with no variation. The Duel Axis Steering system gives the front wheels more than one unique position when the steering wheel is fixed. I suspect the DAS system gives a continuous variation between two settings, which would also be in breach of the rules. Note also further on it says “which does not intentionally provide further degrees of freedom.” So it looks like the rule makers definitely didn’t want a driver to be able to make changes to any of the settings in a steering system other than what normally arises from driving and turning.
          Also, the current Sporting Regulations mandate that changes to the suspension system can only be done with tools (Rule 34.6). I guess one could try to argue that the steering column is a tool, but hopefully the Stewards won’t find that argument very convincing.

          1. @drycrust the arguments that you are raising with regards to the Sporting Regulations are to do with the suspension, but the counter-argument is that Mercedes’s system isn’t changing the properties of any of the parts which are defined as making up the front suspension system (i.e. the wishbones and the pushrod).

            Changing the toe angle is something that can be done independently of the rest of the suspension system since, as Mercedes are doing, it can be changed purely through adjusting the steering rod position – and the steering system is defined as a separate system to the suspension.

          2. @drycrust
            There is no variation possible. The change in toe is done by moving the steering wheel, so when the steering wheel is fixed, so is the toe setting and the position of wheels is “completely and uniquely” determined, indeed. The DAS system is therefore in full compliance with this particular rule as it is written now.

            1. Beat me to it, this is my interpretation. At any specific position of the wheel (rotationally or laterally) the wheels are in a fixed position; they’ve literally just added another axis.

      3. @drycrust You are confusing a regulation clause with regards to suspension to one with steering. Plus “axis” with “access”.

        A steering wheel is allowed to change the orientation of the wheels. That’s what it does.

        The only difference with DAS is that it’s not turning both wheels in the same direction. Either way, it’s still simply turning the wheels.

    7. Newey hasnt produced any innovative car in last couple of years. If anything RBR had rocky start to season with car getting better only towards the end with a big reset to next season again starting from ground up. All the while team spokesmen(Horner and Marko) putting blame on engine supplier. Once again it seems like Newey cannot find any solutions to 2021 problem and already starting to blame everyone else .

      1. Spot on. His cars have been underdeveloped at the start of each of the last few seasons except potentially the upcoming one. He ballsed up the 2017 aero reset and the 2019 wing changes, both scenarios where he was expected / predicted to steal a jump.

        Maybe if you spent less time complaining Adrian…

      2. No. RB is perhaps the most copied car. It was Honda’s reliability issues that forced RB to compromise the car’s packaging and downforce heavily. That they were as good as they were is testament to his skill.

    8. “What was very nice about the last major change back in 2009 was that it wasn’t more restrictive. But these new ones for 2021 are very restrictive and prescriptive. And I think that is an awful shame.”
      – The last major change happened three years ago, though—the last major aero-focused change I mean.

      I agree with the COTD, though.

      1. And yet Aero Guru failed to capitalize on those Aero regulations and even in 2009 it was Brawn who had capitalized on new regulations with RBR trying to play catch up in 1st half of season.

        1. Chaitanya, you criticise Newey for the 2009 rule change, but the RB5 was a pretty clearly superior car to the vast majority of those in the field and would have dominated the season to a ludicrous degree if the double diffuser wasn’t allowed.

          Only the Brawn car was better, and you have to bear in mind that Honda had spent a truly ludicrous amount on that car. Honda had at least two full blown development projects for 2009 – the car that became the BGP001 was just one version, as Honda was also developing a different version of the RA109 at the same time – whilst there were also a lot of devices designed for the car that became the BGP001 that were never fitted, such as Honda’s KERS unit that reached a level of refinement that most other teams took a couple of years to match.

          The conservative estimates puts Honda’s R&D spending for the 2009 season at around $1 billion – until the board in Japan made the decision to pull out, they’d been so determined to win that they’d probably spent as much developing their 2009 car as the rest of the grid combined spent on their cars.

          It is also worth noting that Willem Toet has put together a quite strong argument that the double diffuser that Brawn was using was illegal – particularly since Toet has revealed that, prior to the 2009 season, he had actually submitted a diffuser design to the FIA that used the same loophole that Brawn did, and arguably actually complied with the regulations more closely than the double diffuser did, only for the FIA to tell Toet that his design would be illegal.

          If the double diffuser had been declared illegal and Brawn wasn’t present, then the 2009 season would have looked very different – not to mention that complaining about 2009 does rather then overlook the fact that Newey’s cars then went on to win the championship four times back to back after that.

          1. If I remember correctly Brawn had paid only a 1£ to buy Honda F1 team and Honda had paid majority of that year’s expenses along with all the investments made towards developing the car. Also it wasnt just the double diffuser but also the outward washing front wing which was unique to the Brawn car before it was copied by rivals.
            Also in that same case RBR were also one of the parties who wanted a ban on diffuser. In 2009 both RBR cars might have been fast over the length of season but they had a lot more Dnfs and lowely finishes with a single driver never scoring enough towards driver title. After regulation change of 2014, when has Newey’s design managed to win title or had a strong start to season?

      2. I think Brawn can take Neweys remark as an endorsement. Adrian doesnt like it when there is less scope for aerodynamics to make his car the benchmark. But F1 went to some effort to limit the chance pf that happening, so job well done!

    9. These new ones for 2021 are very restrictive and prescriptive. And I think that is an awful shame. It makes it a little bit GP1 which is not what I think Formula One should be

      All we want is close and exciting racing. So this quote is little stupid in my opinion. I mean does he want Mercedes to constantly dominate the series? If these “restrictions” creates close racing then who cares if it’s restrictive?

      1. Exactly, he’s simply hoping to go back the the 2009 to 2013 years when Red Bull had the best aero package by far and they were racking up the WDC’s (although they managed to fumble in 2009)

      2. When you say “all we want is close and exciting racing” I hope you are only talking for the 2 of you, you don’t talk for me or many, many others. You want it close and exciting, so do the promoters of NASCAR, supercars, BTCC etc. simple cars for simple minds, go there.

        1. @hohum 100% spot on.

    10. I’m sure Adrian wishes it was him we were tuning into but I actually want to see racing not aero mods. F1 has massively lost its way and I’m afraid, top guy though he is I’m sure, it’s people like Newey and the computer sim and data tidal wave that takes any chance element out of the sport. 2021 can’t come soon enough

    11. Sam Brabham could have picked a better picture, I see no apex.

    Comments are closed.