Red bull bending the rules
Discussion
ChocolateFrog said:
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.
However within the tests they say they can introduce more tests, to ensure that the no movement regulations are respected, if any part moves or appears to move whilst in motion. 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.
The no movement regulation is separate to, not part of the flexibility tests. A new test would just determine if the part was legal, not make something legal illegal.
The fuel flow is a good analogy. There was a maximum fuel flow regulation, there was test for it. Passing the test is in addition to not exceeding the peak fuel flow not instead of. If Ferrari had said we did exceed fuel flow but found a way around the old test I doubt it would have ended well.
I sincerely however hope this doesn't overshadow the contest and it goes away quietly with some hints and no penalties etc.
The new tests are going to include looking at camera footage so not just static load tests and they have clarified they
"Will be looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing in particular, we will not tolerate any persistent out-of-plane deformation that may be contrived to circumvent the symmetrical loading applied in the load deflection tests."
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 12th May 20:00
With these things red bull will know they're sailing close to the wind and likely have more rigid designs waiting to go.
By the sounds of it the revised static load tests will be double what they are currently.
All that's going to happen is they'll rock up at scrutineering, pass the tests and carry on, with the wings probably flexing a little less.
By the sounds of it the revised static load tests will be double what they are currently.
All that's going to happen is they'll rock up at scrutineering, pass the tests and carry on, with the wings probably flexing a little less.
Looking at videos there is a fair amount of movement - most noticeably under braking at the end of the straights when it pops right back up.
I guess it like a permanent mini DRS of sorts, and they are clearly gaining some advantage. Question is how much?
Edit to add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBWUefSl5tI&ab...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLbWynMSTBE&ab...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mni8tXPPh24&ab...
I guess it like a permanent mini DRS of sorts, and they are clearly gaining some advantage. Question is how much?
Edit to add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBWUefSl5tI&ab...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLbWynMSTBE&ab...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mni8tXPPh24&ab...
Edited by GCH on Wednesday 12th May 21:26
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I'd laugh if all that chatter from RB about how the Honda engine is now the superb
ks was just smokescreen to explain the bendywing giving them straight line speed.
To be honest I think it is, haven't Mercedes already said they think Honda have overturned them in power?ks was just smokescreen to explain the bendywing giving them straight line speed.Pretty incredible effort from Honda to get this reliably working too, shame they've had the plug pulled already.
Teddy Lop said:
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 .
Is that the same as a motorist setting their cruise control within the established tolerance of the current cameras..? I would say not, on the basis that 57 in a 50 is still defacto law breaking, it's just there isn't an easy enough way to prove it to make prosecution worthwhile. If it could be proven 'beyond doubt' that a driver was even fractionally over the limit, then technically they could be penalised.
The RB case is somewhat different as the defined point at which a rule is broken is the test itself. If the test is passed, as it stands, a rule was not broken. 51mph is always more than 50mph. However, 'surface must pass test' simply requires it to pass whatever test was stipulated at the time of testing.
It's a very fine difference.. but pretty much all innovative work around and exploits in F1 these days rely upon looking at the the extreme fine points of the regs and how compliance is defined and tested. The days when they can casually stick an extra set of wheels or bloody great fan on the back of the car are long gone
carl_w said:
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.
I agree totally with your feelings on the mass damper. It was especially harsh to be banned mid season as it was initially deemed to be permitted and Renault had developed around it - I think it would be much fairer to say it couldn't be used beyond that season (much like DAS). If the mass damper was a moveable aerodynamic device then so was the throttle pedal. 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.
I get bored by this, teams do something to get them closer to Merc, and even if within the rules the FAI will find a way to ban it. Meanwhile Merc have systems that give them blatant advantages and it takes a full year to ban it, if at all. As a fairly neutral fan, it does come across as a bit of pro-Merc bias.
ToastMan76 said:
IMeanwhile Merc have systems that give them blatant advantages and it takes a full year to ban it.
But were never against the rules. In fact, new rules had to be made to restrict DAS.There's a big difference between trying to cheat the rules & being clever enough to develop something the rule makers never even considered.
ToastMan76 said:
I get bored by this, teams do something to get them closer to Merc, and even if within the rules the FAI will find a way to ban it. Meanwhile Merc have systems that give them blatant advantages and it takes a full year to ban it, if at all. As a fairly neutral fan, it does come across as a bit of pro-Merc bias.
So what have the FIA banned? I presume that the Merc system that gave them an advantage was DAS? It wasn't illegal and any team could have developed it. What else have they got that hasn't been banned?
Do you think the rake change benefited Mercedes or Red bull more?
ToastMan76 said:
I get bored by this, teams do something to get them closer to Merc, and even if within the rules the FAI will find a way to ban it. Meanwhile Merc have systems that give them blatant advantages and it takes a full year to ban it, if at all. As a fairly neutral fan, it does come across as a bit of pro-Merc bias.
The FIA has banned many “legal” Mercedes advantages. I don’t understand how you’ve come to your conclusion.
ToastMan76 said:
I get bored by this, teams do something to get them closer to Merc, and even if within the rules the FAI will find a way to ban it. Meanwhile Merc have systems that give them blatant advantages and it takes a full year to ban it, if at all. As a fairly neutral fan, it does come across as a bit of pro-Merc bias.
You misunderstand. DAS was an innovation that filled a space that wasn't even considered when the rules were written - as such it was not against the spirit of the rules, it was something entirely new and it was for the FIA to decide if they wanted it to hang around long term and become a feature of all F1 cars.In contrast, RB haven't thought of anything entirely new, they have simply fine tuned their design so that it is as effective as possible whilst just scraping through the present legality tests. It's against the spirit of the rules of not the letter - which is fair enough, but by the same token it's also fair enough for the FIA to respond by tightening the regs/test procedure.
TheDeuce said:
Teddy Lop said:
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 .
Is that the same as a motorist setting their cruise control within the established tolerance of the current cameras..? I would say not, on the basis that 57 in a 50 is still defacto law breaking, it's just there isn't an easy enough way to prove it to make prosecution worthwhile. If it could be proven 'beyond doubt' that a driver was even fractionally over the limit, then technically they could be penalised.
The RB case is somewhat different as the defined point at which a rule is broken is the test itself. If the test is passed, as it stands, a rule was not broken. 51mph is always more than 50mph. However, 'surface must pass test' simply requires it to pass whatever test was stipulated at the time of testing.
It's a very fine difference.. but pretty much all innovative work around and exploits in F1 these days rely upon looking at the the extreme fine points of the regs and how compliance is defined and tested. The days when they can casually stick an extra set of wheels or bloody great fan on the back of the car are long gone
maz8062 said:
TheDeuce said:
Teddy Lop said:
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 .
Is that the same as a motorist setting their cruise control within the established tolerance of the current cameras..? I would say not, on the basis that 57 in a 50 is still defacto law breaking, it's just there isn't an easy enough way to prove it to make prosecution worthwhile. If it could be proven 'beyond doubt' that a driver was even fractionally over the limit, then technically they could be penalised.
The RB case is somewhat different as the defined point at which a rule is broken is the test itself. If the test is passed, as it stands, a rule was not broken. 51mph is always more than 50mph. However, 'surface must pass test' simply requires it to pass whatever test was stipulated at the time of testing.
It's a very fine difference.. but pretty much all innovative work around and exploits in F1 these days rely upon looking at the the extreme fine points of the regs and how compliance is defined and tested. The days when they can casually stick an extra set of wheels or bloody great fan on the back of the car are long gone
It's not about getting away with it.. in the end it's about hard fact - was it legal or not.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff