Red bull bending the rules

[Mikeeb]

TheDeuce said:

The difference is one was cheating, the other was not. RB aren't breaking a defined rule. Ferrari were.

It's not about getting away with it.. in the end it's about hard fact - was it legal or not.

If the wing moves it breaks the rules, the rules are that black and white. It may meet the current test used to enforce the rule. But the rules also say the tests can be changed.

[Aluminium]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

It's the corners where they'll gain. They can run more downforce with less drag penalty on the straight.

It would help in the lower speed corners, exactly where RedBull seem to have an advantage.

Watching the Barcelona GP on TV I saw Ricciardo weave on the straight more than usual with Perez taking not able to pass for a long time.
Is it possible the ex Red Bull driver might know that the higher speed turning of the RedBull might not match the low centre of gravity in the McLaren?

I like the fact that the different cars have different strengths and weaknesses though as it makes it interesting.

[Ian974]

Regardless of whether it gave a significant advantage or not, DAS was a genius piece of outside the box thinking. It seemed like such a blatantly obvious thing to do once you'd seen it!

[marine boy]

GCH said:

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...

Edited by GCH on Wednesday 12th May 21:26

No aero structure can be made to be infinitely stiff, every aero structure flexes to some degree. If the rear wing is stiff enough to pass the FIA tests then RBR have done nothing wrong and in no way are cheating.

The rules are there to tell you what you can't do, not to tell you what you can do!

Not breaking any rules but causing the FIA to make a rule change is the ultimate endorsement of a job done well so I'd say they've done an excellent job, fair play and congratulations to everyone involved.

Causing a F1 rule change has only happened to me once, funnily enough with another version of a F1 bendy rear wing. Was a very satisfying feeling knowing we'd exploited a loop hole in the rules and added a good chunk of performance to the car.

Looking at the 1st video, think I know how RBR are doing what they are doing, very simple but very clever to get it working within the rules

[TheDeuce]

Mikeeb said:

TheDeuce said:

The difference is one was cheating, the other was not. RB aren't breaking a defined rule. Ferrari were.

It's not about getting away with it.. in the end it's about hard fact - was it legal or not.

If the wing moves it breaks the rules, the rules are that black and white. It may meet the current test used to enforce the rule. But the rules also say the tests can be changed.

Absolute nonsense. Every wing ever to find its way in to F1 deflects under load - no team can possibly design one which does not.

The test is for deflection and the FIA have chosen how stringent it is, and RB have parked themselves just short of crossing that line.

The test could be more stringent and also more thorough, which is what the FIA will now introduce.

Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 12th May 23:06

[Graveworm]

marine boy said:

No aero structure can be made to be infinitely stiff, every aero structure flexes to some degree. If the rear wing is stiff enough to pass the FIA tests then RBR have done nothing wrong and in no way are cheating.

The rules are there to tell you what you can't do, not to tell you what you can do!

There are 2 separate rules, it can't move and it can't be more flexible than the testing. They are not changing the rules (They can't except for safety reasons).
They FIA have said they are going to use cameras to test for breaches of the first rule. The FIA have said that deflections that can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8. Which is as I said not to do with the flex tests. They may also introduce another flex test.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 12th May 23:13

[Mikeeb]

marine boy said:

No aero structure can be made to be infinitely stiff, every aero structure flexes to some degree. If the rear wing is stiff enough to pass the FIA tests then RBR have done nothing wrong and in no way are cheating.

The rules are there to tell you what you can't do, not to tell you what you can do!

Not breaking any rules but causing the FIA to make a rule change is the ultimate endorsement of a job done well so I'd say they've done an excellent job, fair play and congratulations to everyone involved.

Causing a F1 rule change has only happened to me once, funnily enough with another version of a F1 bendy rear wing. Was a very satisfying feeling knowing we'd exploited a loop hole in the rules and added a good chunk of performance to the car.

Looking at the 1st video, think I know how RBR are doing what they are doing, very simple but very clever to get it working within the rules

But this isn’t about changing the rule. The rule is not going to change, just the method of testing to enforce it.

The part has been designed to move to reduce drag (breaking the rule) but designed, cleverly, not to be detected with the current test in place.

[marine boy]

Graveworm said:

There are 2 separate rules, it can't move and it can't be more flexible than the testing. They are not changing the rules (They can't except for safety reasons).
They FIA have said they are going to use cameras to test for breaches of the first rule. The FIA have said that deflections that can have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8. Which is as I said not to do with the flex tests. They may also introduce another flex test.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 12th May 23:13

Can't move is not an F1 rule, never has been and never will be

[Leithen]

Ah, the annual F1 cheating stramash. Where one team's cheat is another's genius bending of the rules? With added sanctimony on the side sir?

Brabham BT49C? Genius cheat.

Was Ferrari's fuel flow method a genius cheat? Can't be, it was done by those dastardly Italians. Herr Wolff took great exception too with added chutzpah points gained for completely failing to see the astonishing hypocrisy of a Dieselgate scandal making such petulance spectacularly misplaced.

Bendy wings? Beginner stuff. Doesn't everyone jump up and down on their wings to prove that they comply?

Better hold onto your hats. Next year is going to be a doozy. New regs, however prescriptive mean that sanctimony levels will be at an all time high with visits to the teacher to complain that little Johnny is a rotter and shouldn't be allowed to take downforce from places that others didn't realise existed.

Ah, F1. Hopefully it will never change.

[Graveworm]

marine boy said:

Can't move is not an F1 rule, never has been and never will be

3.8
Aerodynamic influence
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
What does immobile mean to you?
According to the Cambridge dictionary it's
Not moving or not able to move.

[TheDeuce]

marine boy said:

Can't move is not an F1 rule, never has been and never will be

Correct. People will continue to argue that... But their argument falls down if even some of the rules of physics are applied to it..

[TheDeuce]

Graveworm said:

marine boy said:

Can't move is not an F1 rule, never has been and never will be

3.8
Aerodynamic influence
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
What does immobile mean to you?
According to the Cambridge dictionary it's
Not moving or not able to move.

Correct, so that's every part of every car illegal. That's not going to work as a definition is it...

Solution = a test as to what counts as 'immobile' with regard to application of the rule. RB design passes that test.

[marine boy]

Mikeeb said:

But this isn’t about changing the rule. The rule is not going to change, just the method of testing to enforce it.

The part has been designed to move to reduce drag (breaking the rule) but designed, cleverly, not to be detected with the current test in place.

Think you're getting yourself muddled, changing the test is changing the rules, part of the rules are specific tests that the car has to pass if it is to legally race within the rules

Areo elasticity rules ie load deflection tests have evolved over the years as teams have exploited loopholes. Years ago some load tests were actually a lower load than the track loads making it easier to find a way around them but while still being within the rules

Fast forward a few decades and now there are many more load tests with increased loads so less opportunities for exploiting on track deflections

The trick is to design aero structures that pass these load tests but have enough compliance to flex on track. In a nut shell it is all about optimizing stiffness in different directions along the structure as the only legal movable mechanism is the DRS system

The input required to make an aero structure flex doesn't always have to come from aero loads as there are other ways to legally make aero structures deflect.

I spent nearly 2yrs analyzing what other F1 teams were up to with their car designs, learnt a huge amount and built up a pretty good picture of what our competitors were up to. Part of my findings created rule clarifications from the team I worked for which were specifically designed to stop a competitor doing something that we weren't doing that we thought gave them an advantage we didn't already have.

Only reason Mercedes have gone vocal about RBR is they know RBR have a competitive advantage which is all legal and within the rules. Mercedes obviously want it stopped ASAP with the easy rule change option rather than take the longer option of developing their own solution which could hinder their own performance development rate.

[Graveworm]

TheDeuce said:

Correct, so that's every part of every car illegal. That's not going to work as a definition is it...

Solution = a test as to what counts as 'immobile' with regard to application of the rule. RB design passes that test.

The FIA have said they will use cameras to see if cars are contravening the current rule 3.8. Not a new rule, not a rule change and separate from the flex tests The technical head wrote to all the teams today as I quoted above:
Saying they have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections whilst the cars are in motion... this could have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8... We will be looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing," said Tombazis. 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."
That's in line with all the previous de minimis clarifications about whether a movement is consequential or intended.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 13th May 00:13

[ToastMan76]

TheDeuce said:

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.

Its not so much the FAI clamping down on it thats my issue, its that its always one way traffic. With DAS it was decided very quickly it wasnt against rules per se, and it was to be banned - but the following year. Here again we have something that isnt against the rules, but they are changing the test to make it against the rules from the next race - presumably because it gives RBR an advantage. Merc no doubt have lots of innovations that fly close to the wire, but never seem to have such punishments levied on them which allows them to stay well ahead of everyone else.

[marine boy]

Graveworm said:

3.8
Aerodynamic influence
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
What does immobile mean to you?
According to the Cambridge dictionary it's
Not moving or not able to move.

Everything on an F1 car moves ie deflects under a load, even the stiffest structures on an F1 car do, it' all about the laws of physics, materials and structures

Edited by marine boy on Thursday 13th May 00:36

[marine boy]

Graveworm said:

The FIA have said they will use cameras to see if cars are contravening the current rule 3.8. Not a new rule, not a rule change and separate from the flex tests The technical head wrote to all the teams today as I quoted above:
Saying they have become aware some rear wings passed tests but had excessive deflections whilst the cars are in motion... this could have a significant influence on a car's aerodynamic performance and hence could be deemed to contravene the provisions of article 3.8... We will be looking out for any anomalous behaviour of the deformation of the rear wing," said Tombazis. 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."
That's in line with all the previous de minimis clarifications about whether a movement is consequential or intended.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 13th May 00:13

3.8 is not a separate rule from the flex tests, both rules are designed to address the same basic principle of aero elasticity so are completely inter twined. Be it front wing, front floor, the floor, the diffuser or the rear wings

I've both written world championship motorsport technical rules and spent a lot of my working life trying to find ways around world championship rules

Writing rules at that level is infinitely harder than getting around rules, Nik won't be a happy chappy at the FIA, especially as he is an aero bod and RBR have out smarted his aero rules

Don't think in this case RBR are taking advantage of an asymmetric track loads to circumvent the symmetrical load test

[Teddy Lop]

ToastMan76 said:

TheDeuce said:

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.

Its not so much the FAI clamping down on it thats my issue, its that its always one way traffic. With DAS it was decided very quickly it wasnt against rules per se, and it was to be banned - but the following year. Here again we have something that isnt against the rules, but they are changing the test to make it against the rules from the next race - presumably because it gives RBR an advantage. Merc no doubt have lots of innovations that fly close to the wire, but never seem to have such punishments levied on them which allows them to stay well ahead of everyone else.

"Updated" testing procedures introduced mid season where teams are felt to be exploiting the current one too far is nothing new though - the very issue of Flexi wings brought about one in 05/06ish IIRC. DAS is an entirely new concept so a new rule, rather than a testing update is required.

[angrymoby]

GCH said:

Edit to add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBWUefSl5tI&ab...

it's funny, because you can see both cars having various amounts of deflection on different parts

Mercs fin is flapping around like a headless chicken & RBR's wing is rising & falling & IMO in a quite deliberate way

legality wise, that depends on what was decided at the design stage: if you deliberately design & manufacture an aero part to deflect in a certain way under certain conditions for performance gain, that's illegal under 3.8 regardless of any FIA test

[Hungrymc]

I’m surprised that people are using ‘nothing can be infinitely stiff’ to support a claim that something engineered to deform in a very specific way in order to maximize its aero performance isn’t contravening a law that prevents parts moving to enhance their aero performance. Genuinely surprised to read this.

I guess some believe there was nothing wrong with the fuel flow infringement ?
Or to look into a different area, the emission cheats discovered in automotive ?

Testing attempts to verify compliance with the rule, it is not the extent of the rule.