Red bull bending the rules
Discussion
SturdyHSV said:
You're saying illegal again.
As I understand it, they're either illegal if they fail the deflection test, or if they fail the 'immobile' rule, which the deflection test is intended to, for want of a better word, test.
All of the wings on all of the cars pass the deflection test, and thus are legal by that rule, presumably we can agree on that?
Nobody knows which wings would pass whatever new deflection tests the FIA come up with, so calling any of them illegal for breaking some unknown test seems baseless, I feel we may be less likely to agree on that?
But in light of those two options for declaring 'illegal' being ruled out, I am having to assume that you mean they're illegal because they break the 'immobile' wording of the regulation, correct?
What is your opinion on the fact that all of the wings on all of the cars move, and that any movement will be engineered to give an advantage by all of the teams?
I'm trying to show you some respect by actually discussing this with you in an effort to better understand your view point, despite your posts coming across as recalcitrant.
EDIT:
Have seen you've possibly clarified you mean within the tolerances in the rules, can you do me a favour and actually reply to the spirit of my questions as opposed to just kicking off that I didn't read your previous post in time.
in light of my previous response, do you want me to, as it all seems a bit moot?As I understand it, they're either illegal if they fail the deflection test, or if they fail the 'immobile' rule, which the deflection test is intended to, for want of a better word, test.
All of the wings on all of the cars pass the deflection test, and thus are legal by that rule, presumably we can agree on that?
Nobody knows which wings would pass whatever new deflection tests the FIA come up with, so calling any of them illegal for breaking some unknown test seems baseless, I feel we may be less likely to agree on that?
But in light of those two options for declaring 'illegal' being ruled out, I am having to assume that you mean they're illegal because they break the 'immobile' wording of the regulation, correct?
What is your opinion on the fact that all of the wings on all of the cars move, and that any movement will be engineered to give an advantage by all of the teams?
I'm trying to show you some respect by actually discussing this with you in an effort to better understand your view point, despite your posts coming across as recalcitrant.
EDIT:
Have seen you've possibly clarified you mean within the tolerances in the rules, can you do me a favour and actually reply to the spirit of my questions as opposed to just kicking off that I didn't read your previous post in time.
but to keep it succinct- legality, to me would be to remain within the tolerances (which we all agree on, no?) for the duration of the event (which is the bit we don't?) ...& that's it really- & seems to be in line with the FIA/ Nikolas Tombazis/ 7/10 teams view
TheDeuce said:
Indeed. And clearly the FIA are well aware that 'immovable' can't be arbitrarily enforced, which is why there is the test in the first instance. The test trumps every other way the rules can be applied, either a car passes or it doesn't. If it does, it's legal in the eyes of the FIA.
This is precisely why the FIA are moving to deal with this via a new more stringent test, because there is no suitable way of defining legality other than practical tests.
But the test isn't the rule: the rule is that aero surfaces must not move & up until now that's been inspected/tested by the pull tests. However, there is now an alternative inspection procedure available: video from the on board cameras. That evidence is equally valid & can be used by the stewards who can form an opinion as to whether 3.8 is being violated or not. I'm not aware of 3.9 saying that the pull test is the ONLY allowable measure of compliance with 3.8 & that no other evidence is admissable.This is precisely why the FIA are moving to deal with this via a new more stringent test, because there is no suitable way of defining legality other than practical tests.
Going back to the speeding past a speed camera analogy. You may have slowed down for the speed camera & been measure as legal but don't forget that if before you reached it you were seen by a policeman travelling at what he considers to be in excess of the speed limit then that it; you can & will be found guilty. It doesn't take any measurement, just the word of someone who has seen you speeding, or bending in this case.
angrymoby said:
in light of my previous response, do you want me to, as it all seems a bit moot?
but to keep it succinct- legality, to me would be to remain within the tolerances (which we all agree on, no?) for the duration of the event (which is the bit we don't?) ...& that's it really- & seems to be in line with the FIA/ Nikolas Tombazis/ 7/10 teams view
No fair enough, succinctness is much better else it sounds very ranty, so apologies for that but to keep it succinct- legality, to me would be to remain within the tolerances (which we all agree on, no?) for the duration of the event (which is the bit we don't?) ...& that's it really- & seems to be in line with the FIA/ Nikolas Tombazis/ 7/10 teams view
Yeah I agree with all of the points you've made there.
I think where our viewpoints differ is for me, the tolerances are defined by the load tests, which the wings on all the cars pass.
I totally understand that what looks to move a lot seems in contradiction to the amount of movement in those tolerances, but to me the tolerances are as specified in the load tests, so if it passes those, it's legal. Certainly with new tests many of the wings on many of the cars may well fail, and wouldn't be allowed to run as they'd fail the tests, and we'd definitely agree that those ones would be illegal
Mr Pointy said:
Going back to the speeding past a speed camera analogy. You may have slowed down for the speed camera & been measure as legal but don't forget that if before you reached it you were seen by a policeman travelling at what he considers to be in excess of the speed limit then that it; you can & will be found guilty. It doesn't take any measurement, just the word of someone who has seen you speeding, or bending in this case.
I think that's quite a good analogy, in terms of a policeman's word that you were doing 67mph instead of 60 isn't likely to stand up and wouldn't make it to court (be protested to the FIA) but when you've been seen doing 120mph by said policeman, it's much more likely to end up in front of those making the rules carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.Evercross said:
carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.
Why do these people think there is a test in the first place!? It's because the FIA themselves have figured out that it's basically impossible to define a broad limit on movement in the regs, the designs of wing vary too much, the other forces at play upon the cars range too much.
angrymoby said:
Evercross said:
You are clutching at straws now.
Pulling straws out of your strawman more like.What matters (and you know I meant this because I said it afterwards) is that the wing that is raced is the same wing that was tested.
Edited by Evercross on Thursday 27th May 19:56
TheDeuce said:
Exactly. It can't be defined as a fixed amount of movement, other than under test conditions.
Of course it could be. You just use cameras to measure defection and any time during the course of the race that the wing deflects by more than the permitted amount, the team picks up a penalty. It wont happen, but it certainly could. I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 27th May 20:36
kambites said:
Of course it could be. You just use cameras to measure defection and any time during the course of the race that the wing deflects by more than the permitted amount, the team picks up a penalty. It wont happen, but it certainly could.
I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
It will only be a matter of time before a team devises a method of making a wing deflect while visually appearing to the (regulatory positioned) cameras that it isn't.I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
Will maybe be two or more cameras to monitor deflection to get a better 3D understanding of position. There may even be an allowance for greater deflection for very short periods and a limited overall time to account for kerb impacts etc (probably not as the FIA are more likely to just ramp up the pressure on the teams to make the wings much more rigid). Some teams may find a way to bypass the new test, and another new test will subsequently be launched.
Not sure why some are so determined that it can’t be done or shouldn’t be done.
Not sure why some are so determined that it can’t be done or shouldn’t be done.
Depends on how complex the pattern the FIA are getting the teams to print on the rear wing turns out to be. If it's just horizontal lines, they might be able to do something clever, but if it's anything more complex than that it'd be more effort than it was worth to try to fool the camera.
Evercross said:
kambites said:
Of course it could be. You just use cameras to measure defection and any time during the course of the race that the wing deflects by more than the permitted amount, the team picks up a penalty. It wont happen, but it certainly could.
I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
It will only be a matter of time before a team devises a method of making a wing deflect while visually appearing to the (regulatory positioned) cameras that it isn't.I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
In case anyone hasn't noticed yet... The FIA essentially need teams to rudely undermine the regulations before they know how to better regulate! This isn't a chicken vs egg situation, it's far more one sided than that. The teams undermine the spirit of the regs, at which point the FIA learn enough about how it was done to actually write effective regs for that aspect of development. The teams lead the FIA - which is why it's all so contentious between the teams and across all teams vs the FIA. Also why it's the case that the FIA consult with the teams on future regulation changes
Anyone who equates the FIA to a referee blowing a whistle has sorely misunderstood the relationship between the FIA and competitors in F1, and F1 itself. It way more complex than it appears - it's chiefly a commercial relationship.
Evercross said:
kambites said:
Of course it could be. You just use cameras to measure defection and any time during the course of the race that the wing deflects by more than the permitted amount, the team picks up a penalty. It wont happen, but it certainly could.
I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
It will only be a matter of time before a team devises a method of making a wing deflect while visually appearing to the (regulatory positioned) cameras that it isn't.I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
Anyway I think it’s a bit weird that Mercedes moan this much, had they come up with the idea in the first place it would be a different story
. I don’t understand why they want to ban it now mid-season when DAS was ruled illegal, but not banned until the end of the season ?
exelero said:
Remember when they (RB) had the flexi front wing back in the early 2010’s? They passed every test yet they were still bending
Anyway I think it’s a bit weird that Mercedes moan this much, had they come up with the idea in the first place it would be a different story.
I don’t understand why they want to ban it now mid-season when DAS was ruled illegal, but not banned until the end of the season ?
DAS wasn't ruled illegal. Find me a single official paper from the FIA or Stewarts that DAS was illegal for 2020. Anyway I think it’s a bit weird that Mercedes moan this much, had they come up with the idea in the first place it would be a different story
. I don’t understand why they want to ban it now mid-season when DAS was ruled illegal, but not banned until the end of the season ?
A bendy wing is illegal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.formula1.com/en/l...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motorsport.com/f1...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.auto-motor-und-sp...
exelero said:
Evercross said:
kambites said:
Of course it could be. You just use cameras to measure defection and any time during the course of the race that the wing deflects by more than the permitted amount, the team picks up a penalty. It wont happen, but it certainly could.
I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
It will only be a matter of time before a team devises a method of making a wing deflect while visually appearing to the (regulatory positioned) cameras that it isn't.I think what they're proposing to do is quite sensible. Have a set of static tests and also the ability to track deflection during the race, then rather than using the in-race tracking to issue penalties, use it as an indication that the static tests are insufficient and need to be improved.
Anyway I think it’s a bit weird that Mercedes moan this much, had they come up with the idea in the first place it would be a different story
. I don’t understand why they want to ban it now mid-season when DAS was ruled illegal, but not banned until the end of the season ?
Rules were changed making it illegal for the future following year.
DAS = Clever innovation
Bendy rear wing is cheating the test.
TheDeuce said:
Evercross said:
carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.Why do these people think there is a test in the first place!? It's because the FIA themselves have figured out that it's basically impossible to define a broad limit on movement in the regs, the designs of wing vary too much, the other forces at play upon the cars range too much.
rscott said:
TheDeuce said:
Evercross said:
carl_w said:
Would it not be simpler to define 'immovable' in the rules to within certain tolerances, e.g. ±5mm at all times including when on track? Then it wouldn't matter how it was measured.
I think the static tests were an acknowledgement that bigger deflections on-track (due to riding kerbs/rumble strips etc.) were possible and effectively not police-able.Why do these people think there is a test in the first place!? It's because the FIA themselves have figured out that it's basically impossible to define a broad limit on movement in the regs, the designs of wing vary too much, the other forces at play upon the cars range too much.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff