Red bull bending the rules

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

Munter said:

No you're not correct. The test simply decides if the car is going to be allowed to race. The regulations define if it's legal. There is no test to define if the car is legal in this case. It's assumed to be legal until it's found not to be. If it's not found to be illegal, the assumption stands, but isn't proven.

This is really really simple stuff. You can continue to stomp your feet and pout all you like. But that's the way it is. As evidenced by the FIA quite simply changing the test, without affecting the regulations.

(I hear foot stomping coming)

It's the stewards who decide if a car's allowed to race, non?

Speed cameras were mentioned. They don't prove legality, the prove illegality. Hence you can put a laser jammer on the front of your car and go past a mobile camera at 130mph. Are you driving legally because you passed the camera test?

Also, the regulation says no movement, but there are allowable levels of deflection written into them.

Much mental gymnastics going on. The rules are being broken, the tests were unable to detect it. The tests are being updated to allow detection. The game moves on.

Here's a question; Mercedes object to the Baku Stewards over the bendy rear wings. In response RB object to everybody's bendy front wings. It becomes clear no cars on the grid are legal. What do the stewards do?

The speed camera thing is a useless comparison - all that is required in that instance, even if the camera is 'fooled' somehow is to find another method to prove that the car was in excess of the speed limit. If there is evidence, it can be proven in black and white terms that the rule was broken and the driver prosecuted. It's simple because a speed limit is a set value that can be measured in absolute terms.

There is no such black and white definition that applies to the movement of aero surfaces OTHER than that they should not be designed to move - and on by that definition every car fails. Every single aero surface on every car moves, and all are engineered to move by way of the designers electing not to engineer out such movement. Obviously some designers have pushed to extremes to make the movement beneficial and quite obvious - but that doesn't make what they have done more illegal than any other, it just makes it more obvious.

[APontus]

The regs allow movement. They also allow for the tests to be changed. A bit like you say with another test if the speed camera is fooled.

The teams don't appear to be trying too hard to convince people the cars are legal, because they know they aren't. They're currently protected by the inadequate tests and lack of protest from competitors. That might change this weekend and almost certainly from France onwards.

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

There is no such black and white definition that applies to the movement of aero surfaces OTHER than that they should not be designed to move - and on by that definition every car fails. Every single aero surface on every car moves, and all are engineered to move by way of the designers electing not to engineer out such movement.

Well that's close to. But not actually. What people think the situation is. RedBull have not failed to engineer the flex out of the wing. They have engineered in a way for the wing to flex in specific circumstances. Failing to remove the flex would see the wings behaving in the same way as the majority of the grid. But that's not what's happening.

So either RedBull got fantastically lucky it passes the tests, and are hugely incompetent at designing stiff carbon fibre. Or they deliberately did this to exploit the gap between the tests and the regulation, just as they did previously with the front of the car. The FIA, Merc, and others, think the latter.

[Dermot O'Logical]

The introduction of the cost cap might mean that protesting cars from another team will be more cost-effective than spending money on developing one's own car...

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

The regs allow movement. They also allow for the tests to be changed. A bit like you say with another test if the speed camera is fooled.

The teams don't appear to be trying too hard to convince people the cars are legal, because they know they aren't. They're currently protected by the inadequate tests and lack of protest from competitors. That might change this weekend and almost certainly from France onwards.

Sure, there are similarities with the speed camera comparison.. But also fundamental differences. For one, no one on this thread and no one at the FIA have publicly been able to state precisely at which point a design becomes illegal - legality is instead decided by passing or failing the test. Unlike the instance of a car speeding, where legality is defined by ANY test/method that an conclusively prove that a car in a 30 zone was travelling at any speed greater than 30.

They're not changing the test to prove what has gone before was legal or not either, they're changing it solely to influence the designs of the future. This is very clear and the reason the FIA have themselves given for delaying the new tests until France. That if nothing else should make it pretty obvious that the FIA themselves see the test as the defining factor in terms of legality.

[andburg]

Dermot O'Logical said:

The introduction of the cost cap might mean that protesting cars from another team will be more cost-effective than spending money on developing one's own car...

yep

apparently merc binned the pirelli tyre test as it would have cost them money they needed for this year

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

legality is instead decided by passing or failing the test.

No. It isn't. Illegality is proved by failing the test. Legality isn't proved by anything here.

You keep getting that wrong. It seems fundamental to your misunderstanding of the situation.

[TheDeuce]

Munter said:

TheDeuce said:

There is no such black and white definition that applies to the movement of aero surfaces OTHER than that they should not be designed to move - and on by that definition every car fails. Every single aero surface on every car moves, and all are engineered to move by way of the designers electing not to engineer out such movement.

Well that's close to. But not actually. What people think the situation is. RedBull have not failed to engineer the flex out of the wing. They have engineered in a way for the wing to flex in specific circumstances. Failing to remove the flex would see the wings behaving in the same way as the majority of the grid. But that's not what's happening.

So either RedBull got fantastically lucky it passes the tests, and are hugely incompetent at designing stiff carbon fibre. Or they deliberately did this to exploit the gap between the tests and the regulation, just as they did previously with the front of the car. The FIA, Merc, and others, think the latter.

That's all irrelevant though. Yes RB have engineered it to flex in a specific way that creates useful movement. Other teams have done so to a lesser extent and some teams have simply not engineered out all movement as doing so would be too costly and heavy. But all have ultimately designed and engineered surfaces that break the rule of no movement.

You keep alluding to the fact that RB have designed their wing with a different intent to others, which is probably true, but still irrelevant. They've all designed wings that move. Is there a black and white defined point at which movement is too great, or at which engineering intent is 'too' focused on finding an advantage whilst passing a test? No.

Your opinion is that RB have cheated the test, which is also my opinion believe it or not... But in terms of declaring the car illegal, not chance. If the car passed the test then on that day, it was declared legal and was legal - unless it can be proven that it broke a specific regulation, which it can't be as in this instance the regulation itself points to the test as the defining factor..

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

Munter said:

TheDeuce said:

There is no such black and white definition that applies to the movement of aero surfaces OTHER than that they should not be designed to move - and on by that definition every car fails. Every single aero surface on every car moves, and all are engineered to move by way of the designers electing not to engineer out such movement.

Well that's close to. But not actually. What people think the situation is. RedBull have not failed to engineer the flex out of the wing. They have engineered in a way for the wing to flex in specific circumstances. Failing to remove the flex would see the wings behaving in the same way as the majority of the grid. But that's not what's happening.

So either RedBull got fantastically lucky it passes the tests, and are hugely incompetent at designing stiff carbon fibre. Or they deliberately did this to exploit the gap between the tests and the regulation, just as they did previously with the front of the car. The FIA, Merc, and others, think the latter.

That's all irrelevant though. Yes RB have engineered it to flex in a specific way that creates useful movement.

No it's not. And yes they have. Hence the changes to the test to eliminate (within reason) teams doing that for advantage. That's all this is about. And you agree it's been done. Happy we're all on the same page then are you?

[Mr Pointy]

APontus said:

Here's a question; Mercedes object to the Baku Stewards over the bendy rear wings. In response RB object to everybody's bendy front wings. It becomes clear no cars on the grid are legal. What do the stewards do?

Well there's nothing to stop the stewards saying that all the front wings are ok but the RB rear wing isn't - it's a different part of the car.

Of course Mercedes might decide to bring a stiff front wing to Baku so that it doesn't bend as much as the RB one. That would piss on Horner's chips.

The timing of any protest might be interesting: who can get the last one in just before the deadline so the opposition can't get a retaliatory one in.

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

Your opinion is that RB have cheated the test, which is also my opinion believe it or not... But in terms of declaring the car illegal, not chance.

Agreed. Literally nobody has argued the opposite. The car has not been found illegal. So it was able to race. Everybody expects them to keep their points.

[Munter]

TheDeuce said:

But in terms of declaring the car illegal, not chance. If the car passed the test then on that day, it was declared legal and was legal -

That's wrong. The test does not and cannot prove legality. If the car passed the test on the day. Then it wasn't found illegal. It doesn't prove anything other than that.

[Mr Pointy]

Munter said:

Agreed. Literally nobody has argued the opposite. The car has not been found illegal. So it was able to race. Everybody expects them to keep their points.

No-one has protested the RB rear wing yet so the stewards haven't considered the question.

[APontus]

TheDeuce said:

Sure, there are similarities with the speed camera comparison.. But also fundamental differences. For one, no one on this thread and no one at the FIA have publicly been able to state precisely at which point a design becomes illegal

Yes, they have. See 3.8 and 3.9 of the technical regulations.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formu...

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

TheDeuce said:

Sure, there are similarities with the speed camera comparison.. But also fundamental differences. For one, no one on this thread and no one at the FIA have publicly been able to state precisely at which point a design becomes illegal

Yes, they have. See 3.8 and 3.9 of the technical regulations.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formu...

I'm familiar with the regs - please point (quote) to the specific part of either article that the RB design breaks which technically isn't also broken by all others.

[APontus]

TheDeuce said:

I'm familiar with the regs - please point (quote) to the specific part of either article that the RB design breaks which technically isn't also broken by all others.

What the others do or don't do isn't relevant to the legality of the Red Bull.

[mw88]

TheDeuce said:

The speed camera thing is a useless comparison - all that is required in that instance, even if the camera is 'fooled' somehow is to find another method to prove that the car was in excess of the speed limit. If there is evidence, it can be proven in black and white terms that the rule was broken and the driver prosecuted. It's simple because a speed limit is a set value that can be measured in absolute terms.

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but a better speed camera comparison is that the max speed the camera displays is 75mph.

If you go past it at 105, but the max speed it reports is 75, it's impossible to determine how much you were bending the rules. Having someone check the photo, and calculate the speed using the lines on the road is the equivalent of the FIAs tougher tests.

34 pages

[angrymoby]

mw88 said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but a better speed camera comparison is that the max speed the camera displays is 75mph.

If you go past it at 105, but the max speed it reports is 75, it's impossible to determine how much you were bending the rules. Having someone check the photo, and calculate the speed using the lines on the road is the equivalent of the FIAs tougher tests.

34 pages

some of the posts remind me of when my mate got nicked for speeding by an unmarked (85 in a 70) ...& his defense? at the side of the road pointing out to old bill all the other cars going more than 85

also reminds me when he was whining about being caught at 33 in 30 & how he was going to fight it (adamant that 'legally' the rules were 3mph + 10 % ) ...even though he'd been bragging about max'ing out on the motorway about a week before

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 1st June 12:56

[MustangGT]

TheDeuce said:

Yes RB have engineered it to flex in a specific way that creates useful movement.

You keep alluding to the fact that RB have designed their wing with a different intent to others, which is probably true, but still irrelevant. They've all designed wings that move.

Totally relevant. The rule is no movement, therefore to design a specific movement into the wing is a clear contravention of the rules, whereas some small movement, not deliberately designed in, is perfectly acceptable.

[mw88]

MustangGT said:

TheDeuce said:

Yes RB have engineered it to flex in a specific way that creates useful movement.

You keep alluding to the fact that RB have designed their wing with a different intent to others, which is probably true, but still irrelevant. They've all designed wings that move.

Totally relevant. The rule is no movement, therefore to design a specific movement into the wing is a clear contravention of the rules, whereas some small movement, not deliberately designed in, is perfectly acceptable.

It's not as clear as "it must not move". The rules are say no movement, but it's allowed to move so many mm (7mm?) in the 100kg pull back tests.

It's been mentioned lots in the last 34 pages, but the rules are conflicting - That's the issue.

Red Bulls wing moves, obviously - But it doesn't move more than 7mm with the 100kg pull back/down tests, else they would have been DQd already.

Of course, the rules state the FIA can move the goal posts, which is that they're doing - We'll see what happens in France on whether Red Bull need to make changes or how the FIA will police using cameras.

Edited by mw88 on Tuesday 1st June 14:05