Red bull bending the rules
Discussion
Mr Pointy said:
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
No. It passed all the load tests. FIA now changing the load tests. No DQ.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
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 ?Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.
Also it hasn’t been banned yet has it, think your jumping the gun.
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
Also, the Red Bull wing was known to be flexing a lot last season too, and nothing was done about it, so I'm not sure why it has suddenly become topical again, unless Mercedes are doing what Horner would and trying to win the championship in a boardroom.
Mikeeb said:
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.
There is no 'spirit of the rules'. There are only the rules as written. If the rules allow this interpretation they need to be re-written to prevent it. kiseca said:
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 ?Hopefully the wing will fail the new test & RB will be disqualified from the first four GP.
Also it hasn’t been banned yet has it, think your jumping the gun.
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
Also, the Red Bull wing was known to be flexing a lot last season too, and nothing was done about it, so I'm not sure why it has suddenly become topical again, unless Mercedes are doing what Horner would and trying to win the championship in a boardroom.
Of course we know it won't happen. The best we can hope for is that the wing fails & RB have to run around without a front wing fitted.
Why has the bendy wing become topical? Well if you're going to steal six PU engineers don't be surprised if there's a bit of comeback. Maybe Toto's pissed off with being a target for Liberty & the FIA & is just making a point that he might start stirring things up for other teams.
carl_w said:
Mikeeb said:
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.
There is no 'spirit of the rules'. There are only the rules as written. If the rules allow this interpretation they need to be re-written to prevent it. My guess is we'll see some new tests introduced to enforce the existing rules a bit better and manufacturers will be allowed to change their cars to pass the tests without incurring any penalties for previous races. Anything else would be stupid.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 12th May 16:44
Slyjoe said:
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.
Here is my prediction..... The wing passes all the static loads without issue. I’ve no doubt.However when subjected to the real aero load, some of its properties change (maybe the uprights distort across car to alter the support they offer the horizontal elements in a very carefully engineered way).
The FIA will find deliberate engineering to allow a defined movement of the aero surface. So even though it passes the test, they will be shown to have deliberately engineered a moving aero surface. We’re talking complex and specific design features which will make the “nothing can be rigid” defense irrelevant.
This is based on what we’ve read from the FIA today and Horner’s very carefully chosen words last weekend.
I suspect RB are ‘bang to rights’.... I hope I’m wrong.
Mr Pointy said:
Of course we know it won't happen. The best we can hope for is that the wing fails & RB have to run around without a front wing fitted.
1. It's the rear wing. 2. The chances of a car continuing to race without a rear wing are between slim and none.
3. Why do you want Red Bull to fail so badly? I know Horner comes across as a bit of a w
ker, but the past few races have been some of the most exciting in terms of a battle between the top teams in absolutely ages. They even managed to make the Spanish GP exciting! All Red Bull have done is build a wing that just manages to pass the required tests.
It's the FIA's fault for not having a more stringent pull tests.
What will be interesting to know is who will have to strengthen their wings and who doesn't need to.
I guess we won't find out though.
It's the FIA's fault for not having a more stringent pull tests.
What will be interesting to know is who will have to strengthen their wings and who doesn't need to.
I guess we won't find out though.
kambites said:
The rules as written are impossible to build a car to conform to because they state aerodynamic surfaces must "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"
Not really, the surfaces are allowed to move a certain amount when a certain load is applied in a certain direction. With the car up on jacks, when a load is applied to the mainplane in Z, a measurement is usually taken from the top of the endplates. If it passes this test, along with the pullback, it's legal. Mainplanes, endplates, floors and pylons all have a different stiffness and deform differently under load. Edited by kambites on Wednesday 12th May 16:44
It's a bit ridiculous to let teams build the cars to the rules and then change the rules because Hamilton got a bit emotional about a "bendy" wing.
Edited by RobGT81 on Wednesday 12th May 16:55
RobGT81 said:
Not really, the surfaces are allowed to move a certain amount when a certain load is applied in a certain direction.
No they are not. The technical rules explicitly state that the surfaces must remain immobile - they are not allowed to move at all. The way that the FIA chooses to enforce that rule is a different matter but by the literal letter of the rules, every car on the grid is illegal. Hence the "spirit" of the rule is generally interpreted as "the car must pass the scrutineering tests" but changing those tests is not changing the rules, it's simply enforcing them more rigorously.
Broadly the same reason mass damper got "banned" mid season. The rules didn't actually change, the FIA just decided to enforce them differently.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 12th May 17:11
TheDeuce said:
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.
The difference as I see it is red bull have stretched the rule to the limit of what they can while still meeting the prescribed test for compliance - this is like setting your cruise control to 57 in a 50 zone knowing the enforcement threshold is 10%+2.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.
Ferraris way of cheating the fuel sensor by gaming the sample rate (if that what they did), this is more like driving at 80 and using a GPS speed camera locator to slam on the brakes every time you pass one .
The Moose said:
95 fiesta si said:
I’d say [Mercedes DAS] had more of an advantage then the Redbull bendy wing.
On what basis are you making that statement?No ifs or buts.
Even though legal, the FIA didn’t want it to be used so the rules where changed between seasons to outlaw it.
Completely different to bendy wing rules.
It’s not possible to say wings must never bend as everything will bend if you apply enough force. Together with a rule must be an appropriate test to replicate real world conditions.
Maybe Hamilton following closely for so long, showed the wing was indeed bending at high speed even though it was perfectly legal.
Hence the rule change as the previous test was not tough enough to stop the wing flexing under worst case racing conditions.
mantis84 said:
Mr Pointy said:
Of course we know it won't happen. The best we can hope for is that the wing fails & RB have to run around without a front wing fitted.
1. It's the rear wing. 2. The chances of a car continuing to race without a rear wing are between slim and none.
3. Why do you want Red Bull to fail so badly? I know Horner comes across as a bit of a w
ker, but the past few races have been some of the most exciting in terms of a battle between the top teams in absolutely ages. They even managed to make the Spanish GP exciting! https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/flapping-phenom...
I don't want RB to fail, I'm just fed up of Liberty, the FIA, Ferrari & RB taking pot shots at Mercedes just because they can't match them on the track. Every time something is done to pull Mercedes back they rise above & continue to piss all over their detractors but it must get very wearing to be fighting everyone on all fronts.
If Mercedes had cheated like Ferrari did do you think it would have been dealt with behind closed doors?
PH User said:
If you enjoy watching Formula One and this year's tight racing for the championship then you won't want a team to get disqualified.
And the DQ is not relevant as the cars were ruled legal subject to the scrutineering and parc fermé inspections for each race.They aren't cheating as I see it - they are pushing the limits of the rules (as all do) and have passed the current FIA load test, which will now be adjusted.
PH User said:
If you enjoy watching Formula One and this year's tight racing for the championship then you won't want a team to get disqualified.
They won't. If new tests are introduced that they fail, they will need to redesign the part to pass the new tests. They may already be doing this.Just like the mass damper and FRICS -- it was banned but nobody got disqualified for previous results. I personally didn't agree with the ruling that a big lump of stuff in the nose attached by springs is a moveable aerodynamic device but I am not in a position to enforce the rules so my opinion is irrelevant.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff