Red Bull failed front wing deflection test
Discussion
As posted in thevAbu Dhabi thread, there seems to have been a spring mechanism in the wing. That's a whole world of rule dodging above laying the carbon directionally to pass the FIA test but flex in use.
@adamcooperf1
Re the RBR wing flaps, I'm told the FIA discovered a leaf spring arrangement encased in a rubber shroud
6:33pm - 22 Nov 14
@adamcooperf1
Re the RBR wing flaps, I'm told the FIA discovered a leaf spring arrangement encased in a rubber shroud
6:33pm - 22 Nov 14
Jasandjules said:
It seems a shame to punish the drivers to me for this. By all means fine the team or remove Constructor Points, but the drivers? Of course, as others have said, now there is going to be some fun as they scrap through the backmarkers.
With the enthusiasm for the drivers in F1 (due to how it is marketed) people seem to forget that F1 is a team game. Win together, lose together. Car was illegal the drivers benefitted.You cannot view the driver separate from the constructor and vice versa.
If you want to exempt the drivers from this sort of thing, make it a one make chassis/engine series and be done with it.
Vocal Minority said:
With the enthusiasm for the drivers in F1 (due to how it is marketed) people seem to forget that F1 is a team game. Win together, lose together. Car was illegal the drivers benefitted.
You cannot view the driver separate from the constructor and vice versa.
If you want to exempt the drivers from this sort of thing, make it a one make chassis/engine series and be done with it.
Besides, this is the punishment Red Bull themselves would rather have, constructor points are cash pure and simple.You cannot view the driver separate from the constructor and vice versa.
If you want to exempt the drivers from this sort of thing, make it a one make chassis/engine series and be done with it.
ajprice said:
As posted in thevAbu Dhabi thread, there seems to have been a spring mechanism in the wing. That's a whole world of rule dodging above laying the carbon directionally to pass the FIA test but flex in use.
@adamcooperf1
Re the RBR wing flaps, I'm told the FIA discovered a leaf spring arrangement encased in a rubber shroud
6:33pm - 22 Nov 14
Anyone remember 1981? @adamcooperf1
Re the RBR wing flaps, I'm told the FIA discovered a leaf spring arrangement encased in a rubber shroud
6:33pm - 22 Nov 14
ajprice said:
Leithen said:
Anyone remember 1981?
I was 5, so the technicalities of F1 rules didn't interest me at the time. What happened in 1981?Designed by Gordon Murray and paid for by Bernie Ecclestone. Do a search on the Brabham BT49.
Many have argued over the years that this wasn't cheating - just a clever way to circumvent the rules....
Oh, they won the Driver's Championship with it too. And as an aside there was a driver called Rosberg struggling in a Fittipaldi who would do much better the next year....
Edited by Leithen on Saturday 22 November 21:32
Leithen said:
ajprice said:
Leithen said:
Anyone remember 1981?
I was 5, so the technicalities of F1 rules didn't interest me at the time. What happened in 1981?Designed by Gordon Murray and paid for by Bernie Ecclestone. Do a search on the Brabham BT49.
Many have argued over the years that this wasn't cheating - just a clever way to circumvent the rules....
Jasandjules said:
It seems a shame to punish the drivers to me for this. By all means fine the team or remove Constructor Points, but the drivers? Of course, as others have said, now there is going to be some fun as they scrap through the backmarkers.
Entirely correct to punish drivers because deflection increases performance therefore their lap times were not achieved fairly.Leithen said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Oh come on! There's interpreting the rules and there's hiding a secret spring to cheat the tests!
Effectively exactly what happened in 1981. The only difference is the wording of the rules now, not the intent. the ride height rule was always about when the car was in the pit lane, nothing about what it was on track (plenty of cars has pneumatic systems to raise them back up as they came in off the cct).
that's an example of a badly written rule.
what red bull have is a clearly illegal wing that's a sprung system that's specifically banned in the regs.
Last time I heard of a spring in a wing trick was around 2004 in Germany when Raikkonen had an unusual wing failure, but IIRC nobody was penalised. However shortly after that the FIA did increase the rear deflection test. Before that it was Ferrari in the late 90s 
It'll at least be fun to watch them come through the pack. They might take the option to start one of both cars from pitlane and change the car's configuration?
It'll at least be fun to watch them come through the pack. They might take the option to start one of both cars from pitlane and change the car's configuration?
Scuffers said:
Leithen said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Oh come on! There's interpreting the rules and there's hiding a secret spring to cheat the tests!
Effectively exactly what happened in 1981. The only difference is the wording of the rules now, not the intent. the ride height rule was always about when the car was in the pit lane, nothing about what it was on track (plenty of cars has pneumatic systems to raise them back up as they came in off the cct).
that's an example of a badly written rule.
what red bull have is a clearly illegal wing that's a sprung system that's specifically banned in the regs.
In my mind it was cheating then, just as Red Bulls wing device appears to be cheating now. However there is a long history of this in F1 and any outrage toward Red Bull ought to be set in context.
Some examples of rule bending/breaking/circumvention have been seen as OK, some haven't. The BT49 approach was copied whilst the BT46B fan concept wasn't. The Lotus 88 never raced, etc etc . So much is down to the threat the concept poses to the bigger teams.
How many similar wing devices have quietly been removed by other teams last night?
Cheating was endmic and largely allowed. We've all seen rear wings that took four men to carry and when fitted almost taking the front wheels off the ground.
The BT49 was against the spirit of the regs but then the wording of the regs are at fault. One wonders if the woolly words were an accident.
I remember a team which removed a safety device from the fuel rig which have much shorter pit stops. Stop watches showed they were cheating by the powers that be didn't bother. Even when they set alight to the car, their mechanics and the driver the punishment was virtually harsh words and no driver lost points.
No wonder the teams think it is OK to cheat.
The BT49 was against the spirit of the regs but then the wording of the regs are at fault. One wonders if the woolly words were an accident.
I remember a team which removed a safety device from the fuel rig which have much shorter pit stops. Stop watches showed they were cheating by the powers that be didn't bother. Even when they set alight to the car, their mechanics and the driver the punishment was virtually harsh words and no driver lost points.
No wonder the teams think it is OK to cheat.
Derek Smith said:
Cheating was endmic and largely allowed. We've all seen rear wings that took four men to carry and when fitted almost taking the front wheels off the ground.
The BT49 was against the spirit of the regs but then the wording of the regs are at fault. One wonders if the woolly words were an accident.
I remember a team which removed a safety device from the fuel rig which have much shorter pit stops. Stop watches showed they were cheating by the powers that be didn't bother. Even when they set alight to the car, their mechanics and the driver the punishment was virtually harsh words and no driver lost points.
No wonder the teams think it is OK to cheat.
And of course if you want to see the sport in all it's corrupt glory, just recall the 1984 Tyrrell saga - something Brundle ought to have an interesting perspective on...The BT49 was against the spirit of the regs but then the wording of the regs are at fault. One wonders if the woolly words were an accident.
I remember a team which removed a safety device from the fuel rig which have much shorter pit stops. Stop watches showed they were cheating by the powers that be didn't bother. Even when they set alight to the car, their mechanics and the driver the punishment was virtually harsh words and no driver lost points.
No wonder the teams think it is OK to cheat.
This was just how they rolled in F1 then, and nothing has changed since.
sjn2004 said:
stevesingo said:
Best take a look at the McLaren win also...
It failed a deflection test, not for design/dimensions reasons.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff