Red bull bending the rules

[Mikeeb]

too far again......? Not as if they have previous for this 🙄

It does seem that Horner is prepared to be more flexible in his approach to the rule book than Toto.

Thoughts?

[Pebbles167]

To what are you referring, the bendy wing? If it's not illegal, it's fine, F1 teams always do this kind of stuff.

[//j17]

F1 is a sport of tiny margins and so all about bending the rules to their limits in order to gain any/all advantage over your competitors (who are doing exactly the same thing).

The spirit of the rules say wings shouldn't deform as movable aero devices are prohibited - but from the spirit that means you should be able to drop the moon on an F1 car wing and see absolutly zero deflection, which is patently reduclous and why the letter of the rules say "If you put this weight, this far from here and that far from there the wing can't move move than this much in this direction and that much in that direction". This gives you something to can design for and measure for compliance. It also gives you a target, in the case deflecting the maximum amount under the specific conditions - assuming it gives you an advantage.

If you can find a way to get greater deflection in real world conditions and still pass the tests that's being cleaver and a case of the test being wrong, not a sign of any wrong-doing on the part of the team. There's been loads of examples of this in the past - just off the top of my head; the McLaren "F" duct, the Renault exhaust blown diffuser, the Brabham BT46 fan car, and the (I think) Williams ground effect side skirts.

If Red Bull have found a gap in the rulebook one of 2 things will happen:
a) The FIA will be happy with it and everyone will copy it.
b) The FIA won't be happy with it and will update the rulebook to ban it.

Until then if Red Bull have found a new trick, good on them - it's the name of the game for everyone in an F1 team.

[Scolmore]

New wing deflection tests are being introduced, starting in France, apparently.

[95 fiesta si]

Mercedes having a moan, remember last year they run the controversial DAS system, and was aloud to keep it, I’d say that had more of an advantage then the Redbull bendy wing.

Teams always pick holes of the rival teams, just how it is.

[Mr Pointy]

95 fiesta si said:

Mercedes having a moan, remember last year they run the controversial DAS system, and was aloud to keep it, I’d say that had more of an advantage then the Redbull bendy wing.

Teams always pick holes of the rival teams, just how it is.

There's a substantial difference between the two cases though. The DAS system did something that wasn't prohibited so it wasn't banned. The wing rule says that movable aero devices are prohibited & the wing clearly moves so it's against the intention of the rule. The fact that it passes the particular measurement procedure is just evidence of attempting to hide contravention of the rule.

Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.

[95 fiesta si]

Mr Pointy said:

There's a substantial difference between the two cases though. The DAS system did something that wasn't prohibited so it wasn't banned. The wing rule says that movable aero devices are prohibited & the wing clearly moves so it's against the intention of the rule. The fact that it passes the particular measurement procedure is just evidence of attempting to hide contravention of the rule.

Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.

What a ridiculous thing to say, so you want the championship to be over before it’s started ?

Also it hasn’t been banned yet has it, think your jumping the gun.

[Mikeeb]

Pebbles167 said:

To what are you referring, the bendy wing? If it's not illegal, it's fine, F1 teams always do this kind of stuff.

Yes. And it’s an Aero device so it must not move. Looks like they have found a way to cheat the test.

The FIA can’t be happy as they have issued a technical directive and new tests. Along with time for ‘Teams’ to meet the new test.

[mantis84]

Mr Pointy said:

Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.

That's not going to happen, nor should it. As another poster alludes to above, that would inevitably hand the drivers and constructors championship to Mercedes and Hamilton, in what is shaping up to be the most competitive year for ages. And I say that as a big fan of Hamilton - it would just make the rest of the season a bit crap.

The RB wing might fail the new tests, in which case they should be told to produce a more rigid wing. I think it's actually incredibly clever if RB can produce a rear wing which passes all of the FIA tests but still flexes enough to give them an advantage.

It'll be interesting to see what difference it makes to RB performance - I'm not as 'in the know' as most, but I didn't think RB were hammering Mercedes and the rest of the field on the straights.

[carl_w]

Mikeeb said:

Yes. And it’s an Aero device so it must not move. Looks like they have found a way to cheat the test.

Except it has to move, as does everything on the car because it cannot be 100% rigid. Look at the front wings in slo-mo when they go over a kerb. The FIA has introduced a standard for "no movement" and RB's wing passes to that standard. If the FIA introduces another standard/test and the RB wing fails, that is a different matter.

[Mr Pointy]

95 fiesta si said:

Mr Pointy said:

There's a substantial difference between the two cases though. The DAS system did something that wasn't prohibited so it wasn't banned. The wing rule says that movable aero devices are prohibited & the wing clearly moves so it's against the intention of the rule. The fact that it passes the particular measurement procedure is just evidence of attempting to hide contravention of the rule.

Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.

What a ridiculous thing to say, so you want the championship to be over before it’s started ?

Also it hasn’t been banned yet has it, think your jumping the gun.

Why is it ridiculous? Horner would have very happily seen Mercedes disqualified from all races run with DAS if it had been declared illegal & wanted them disqualified from races that used the cooling brake duct/rim system even though it had been declared legal by the FIA. Mercedes were so concerned by this that they decided they couldn't risk the stewards getting it wrong so they didn't run them even after the FAI cleared them.

Consistency is all I'm asking for. RB look like they are running moveable aero devices - you can see them moving. They should be DQ'd

[mantis84]

Mr Pointy said:

95 fiesta si said:

Mr Pointy said:

There's a substantial difference between the two cases though. The DAS system did something that wasn't prohibited so it wasn't banned. The wing rule says that movable aero devices are prohibited & the wing clearly moves so it's against the intention of the rule. The fact that it passes the particular measurement procedure is just evidence of attempting to hide contravention of the rule.

Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.

What a ridiculous thing to say, so you want the championship to be over before it’s started ?

Also it hasn’t been banned yet has it, think your jumping the gun.

Why is it ridiculous? Horner would have very happily seen Mercedes disqualified from all races run with DAS if it had been declared illegal & wanted them disqualified from races that used the cooling brake duct/rim system even though it had been declared legal by the FIA. Mercedes were so concerned by this that they decided they couldn't risk the stewards getting it wrong so they didn't run them even after the FAI cleared them.

Consistency is all I'm asking for. RB look like they are running moveable aero devices - you can see them moving. They should be DQ'd

I don't recall any recent disqualifications, and none of the examples you give resulted in a disqualification. On that basis, where you say "consistency" what it seems you actually mean is that you just want Horner's previous arguments for disqualification (which were unsuccessful) in relation to potential breaches of completely different parts of the rules to be applied against Red Bull.

Given that no disqualifications have happened in recent times, even when Racing Point obviously copied the 2019 Mercedes last year or when Ferrari's engine was drinking more fuel than a cruise liner, what exactly do you want the punishment (if there is any required) for having a bendy wing to be consistent with?

Edited to add - given that Red Bull's wing has passed all of the tests the FIA has to offer, to retrospectively disqualify Red Bull on the basis that it fails a new test would be very, very unfair.

Edited by mantis84 on Wednesday 12th May 13:19

[Nampahc Niloc]

Mr Pointy, please see Carl W’s post above yours. He explains it perfectly.

[Mikeeb]

carl_w said:

Except it has to move, as does everything on the car because it cannot be 100% rigid. Look at the front wings in slo-mo when they go over a kerb. The FIA has introduced a standard for "no movement" and RB's wing passes to that standard. If the FIA introduces another standard/test and the RB wing fails, that is a different matter.

Of course things cannot be 100% rigid. However the intent/spirt of the rule is to stop aero devices changing in shape to give a benefit in certain situations. Front wings bouncing around is hardly an aero benefit!! Hence no one, FIA included, is worried about it.

As far as it being clever to design something that just passes the test. Was Ferrari clever for ‘apparently’ finding a way around the fuel flow/volume rule and checks? Not for me that’s cheating. As is designing something that intentionally breaks the intention behind a rule to gain advantage, but sneaks through the test criteria.

[mantis84]

Mikeeb said:

carl_w said:

Except it has to move, as does everything on the car because it cannot be 100% rigid. Look at the front wings in slo-mo when they go over a kerb. The FIA has introduced a standard for "no movement" and RB's wing passes to that standard. If the FIA introduces another standard/test and the RB wing fails, that is a different matter.

Of course things cannot be 100% rigid. However the intent/spirt of the rule is to stop aero devices changing in shape to give a benefit in certain situations. Front wings bouncing around is hardly an aero benefit!! Hence no one, FIA included, is worried about it.

As far as it being clever to design something that just passes the test. Was Ferrari clever for ‘apparently’ finding a way around the fuel flow/volume rule and checks? Not for me that’s cheating. As is designing something that intentionally breaks the intention behind a rule to gain advantage, but sneaks through the test criteria.

I agree, it is cheating. But it's very clever cheating, and IMO somewhat less dirty and underhand than Ferrari's knobbling of fuel flow sensors. It'll be interesting to see how much of an effect the new tests have RB's top speed on the straights.

[Slyjoe]

If a wing passes the FIA test at 100kg(?) pull back without moving more than the defined limit it is legal, if it starts to deflect more at 101kg of aero load it's still legal.

[TheDeuce]

mantis84 said:

Mikeeb said:

carl_w said:

Except it has to move, as does everything on the car because it cannot be 100% rigid. Look at the front wings in slo-mo when they go over a kerb. The FIA has introduced a standard for "no movement" and RB's wing passes to that standard. If the FIA introduces another standard/test and the RB wing fails, that is a different matter.

Of course things cannot be 100% rigid. However the intent/spirt of the rule is to stop aero devices changing in shape to give a benefit in certain situations. Front wings bouncing around is hardly an aero benefit!! Hence no one, FIA included, is worried about it.

As far as it being clever to design something that just passes the test. Was Ferrari clever for ‘apparently’ finding a way around the fuel flow/volume rule and checks? Not for me that’s cheating. As is designing something that intentionally breaks the intention behind a rule to gain advantage, but sneaks through the test criteria.

I agree, it is cheating. But it's very clever cheating, and IMO somewhat less dirty and underhand than Ferrari's knobbling of fuel flow sensors. It'll be interesting to see how much of an effect the new tests have RB's top speed on the straights.

Not the same as RB exploiting the basic nature of the test for deflection. It is ONLY the test that defines what level of flexibility is legal. I it passes the test, it is defacto legal irrespective of whether or not it is not in line with the spirit of the rules.

Ferrari weren't cheating because they were judged to ignore the spirit of the rules or because they were technically able to pass the test. They were cheating because they exceeded a written in black and white limit, and also they did not 'pass' the test of that limit at all, they effectively avoided the test by only cheating in between test cycles of the sensor. That would be the equivalent of RB passing the deflection test and then via slight of hand deftly swapping the tested part for the cheat parts when the scrutineers were looking in the other direction.

Anyone who doubts the severity of the Ferrari cheat should consider that it was severe enough for it to be unacceptably embarrassing to officially state 'they cheated' so the whole thing was dealt with behind closed doors. At the same time Ferrari conveniently decided not to veto the engine freeze that the FIA wanted, which condemned them to two years of sub-par performance.

[angrymoby]

Mr Pointy said:

Why is it ridiculous? Horner would have very happily seen Mercedes disqualified from all races run with DAS

indeed it was RBR that put in the official protest regarding DAS last year

you reap what you sow

[TheDeuce]

angrymoby said:

Mr Pointy said:

Why is it ridiculous? Horner would have very happily seen Mercedes disqualified from all races run with DAS

indeed it was RBR that put in the official protest regarding DAS last year

you reap what you sow

They'll all put in a protest against just about anything - unless some other team has already protested it. It's the easiest way to ensure the FIA are aware and have given 'whatever' some consideration. It's not a personal attack from team to another to object. Although there have been exceptions when multiple teams object and do so very publicly to try and pressure an FIA decision... It's mostly just a formality though.

[mantis84]

angrymoby said:

Mr Pointy said:

Why is it ridiculous? Horner would have very happily seen Mercedes disqualified from all races run with DAS

indeed it was RBR that put in the official protest regarding DAS last year

you reap what you sow

A team manager like Horner wouldn't be doing his or her job properly if they didn't explore every avenue to ensure their car is as quick as possible, including making sure the other cars aren't gaining an advantage breaking the rules. To suggest that Horner or RB are reaping what they've sown is a little silly.