Red bull bending the rules

[TheDeuce]

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.

Nope. The rule is no movement, something either complies or it doesn't - there is no 'acceptable' unless what is acceptable is defined in the rules.

Is all movement designed in? Yes - absolutely. Every single designer knows that the materials they use will deflect to an extent, they all know that will have some marginal effect on aero so all will make some measure to make sure it is mostly a helpful side effect, as opposed to unhelpful.

Additionally, every aero surface that moves under aero load is designed to do indirectly - as of course the designers could engineer out the flex to a far greater extent if their chief motivation was compliance with the rules.

[TheDeuce]

APontus said:

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.

Fine, point to the specific part of 3.8 and/or 3.9 which RB are breaking, which it's also possible to comply with 100% as written.

[kimducati]

mw88 said:

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

I don't think they're moving the goal posts so much as reminding the players where the goalposts have always been!!
Kim

[kambites]

kimducati said:

I don't think they're moving the goal posts so much as reminding the players where the goalposts have always been!!
Kim

The problem is, the goal posts have always been narrower than the ball...

[APontus]

TheDeuce said:

Fine, point to the specific part of 3.8 and/or 3.9 which RB are breaking, which it's also possible to comply with 100% as written.

Read 3.9.9. This tells you that tests and allowances described in 3.9 can be added to if it's suspected the rule in 3.8 (that aerodynamic parts must remain immobile relative to the rest of the car) is being breached. That this rule exists tells you 3.8 is the core rule and those tests and allowances in 3.9 are incidental to it.

Dancing on the head of a pin to try and claim RB are compliant is futile; the FIA have already announced additional tests in response. The argument has moved on to that of timing and whether the FIA is able to turn a blind eye to front wing deflections.

[Sandpit Steve]

andburg said:

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

They were also complaining when Bottas had the accident with Russell, that they spent close to a million rebuilding that car.

When there’s a hard budget cap they’re up against, every penny they have to spend on something unexpected is a penny that has to come from another budget somewhere - most likely the overtime bill for the aero development guys, or the ‘22 car design team.

[kambites]

APontus said:

Dancing on the head of a pin to try and claim RB are compliant is futile; the FIA have already announced additional tests in response. The argument has moved on to that of timing and whether the FIA is able to turn a blind eye to front wing deflections.

That's not the question though is it? No-one is arguing that the FIA shouldn't change the tests or that the current Redbull wouldn't be rightly viewed as illegal under 3.9 after the tests have been changed; the question is whether the current wings are open to protest before the new tests come in and that's a much trickier question because the only rule they're actually breaking is being broken by every team.

[Sandpit Steve]

So, if you’re running game theory for Red Bull this weekend, what do you do:

Do you run the flexi wing on Friday, prepare for the protest and run the risk of a small grid penalty - but with a chance it’s declared legal to race?
Do you introduce it on Saturday and hope no-one protests, but risk getting thrown to the back of the grid after qualifying?
Do you not run it at all, and end up somewhat short of performance?
Do you not run it, and protest other (Red) teams with moving rear wings?

[mw88]

Sandpit Steve said:

So, if you’re running game theory for Red Bull this weekend, what do you do:

Do you run the flexi wing on Friday, prepare for the protest and run the risk of a small grid penalty - but with a chance it’s declared legal to race?
Do you introduce it on Saturday and hope no-one protests, but risk getting thrown to the back of the grid after qualifying?
Do you not run it at all, and end up somewhat short of performance?
Do you not run it, and protest other (Red) teams with moving rear wings?

Let's say Red Bull run the Flexi wing, and Mercedes or McLaren protest - How would the FIA test the wing?

The current load/deflection test - Red Bull passes the current tests
The new load test - The FIA said this comes in at Paul Ricard, can they bring this forward? How many teams would be excluded from the results? Red Bull, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Alpha Tauri and Alpine?
Camera tests - As above.

Edit - Genuine question, not just me being pedantic

Edited by mw88 on Tuesday 1st June 18:09

[angrymoby]

mw88 said:

Let's say Red Bull run the Flexi wing, and Mercedes or McLaren protest - How would the FIA test the wing?

The current load/deflection test - Red Bull passes the current tests
The new load test - The FIA said this comes in at Paul Ricard, can they bring this forward? How many teams would be excluded from the results? Red Bull, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Alpha Tauri and Alpine?
Camera tests - As above.

Edit - Genuine question, not just me being pedantic

Edited by mw88 on Tuesday 1st June 18:09

no idea, but the FIA did exactly this without warning in 2014 ...to Red Bull, so they know whats coming (RBR also cited the same non- defence, i.e all the other teams are doing it)

[kambites]

mw88 said:

Let's say Red Bull run the Flexi wing, and Mercedes or McLaren protest - How would the FIA test the wing?

Using camera evidence of flexing in real-world use, I suspect. And teams would only get DQ'd if someone bothered to protest them; although I suppose if Redbull got protested they might well protest everyone else just to make a point.

My guess is that Mercedes, at least, wont protest Redbull. I think they've put too much effort into building their reputation for winning fair and square, even when the opposition are bending the rules past breaking point. I could see Mclaren protesting though.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 1st June 18:21

[rscott]

kambites said:

mw88 said:

Let's say Red Bull run the Flexi wing, and Mercedes or McLaren protest - How would the FIA test the wing?

Using camera evidence of flexing in real-world use, I suspect. And teams would only get DQ'd if someone bothered to protest them; although I suppose if Redbull got protested they might well protest everyone else just to make a point.

My guess is that Mercedes, at least, wont protest Redbull. I think they've put too much effort into building their reputation for winning fair and square, even when the opposition are bending the rules past breaking point. I could see Mclaren protesting though.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 1st June 18:21

And Mercedes "accidentally" forgetting to invoice them for one of the engines used, in return

[APontus]

kambites said:

That's not the question though is it? No-one is arguing that the FIA shouldn't change the tests or that the current Redbull wouldn't be rightly viewed as illegal under 3.9 after the tests have been changed; the question is whether the current wings are open to protest before the new tests come in and that's a much trickier question because the only rule they're actually breaking is being broken by every team.

Illegality or otherwise is determined by 3.8 rather than 3.9. Hence something can pass the tests detailed in 3.9 but still be illegal under 3.8. The stewards are free to determine a car passing all the tests in 3.9 does not conform with 3.8.

[kambites]

APontus said:

kambites said:

That's not the question though is it? No-one is arguing that the FIA shouldn't change the tests or that the current Redbull wouldn't be rightly viewed as illegal under 3.9 after the tests have been changed; the question is whether the current wings are open to protest before the new tests come in and that's a much trickier question because the only rule they're actually breaking is being broken by every team.

Illegality or otherwise is determined by 3.8 rather than 3.9. Hence something can pass the tests detailed in 3.9 but still be illegal under 3.8. The stewards are free to determine a car passing all the tests in 3.9 does not conform with 3.8.

Yes but the point is that every single car on the grid is breaking rule 3.8 because it's impossible not to. When you have a technical rule it's impossible to follow the letter of, it would set a difficult precedent for the stewards to decide what constitutes breaking the rule "by too much".

[APontus]

If teams are breaching the allowances in 3.9, they could be protested, yes.

[kambites]

APontus said:

If teams are breaching the allowances in 3.9, they could be protested, yes.

No team is breaching 3.9, all teams are breaching 3.8. Any protest against Redbull this weekend will be with regard to 3.8 not 3.9.

[APontus]

kambites said:

No team is breaching 3.9, all teams are breaching 3.8. Any protest against Redbull this weekend will be with regard to 3.8 not 3.9.

If they're breaching the allowances in 3.9 they engage 3.8. if they don't breach the allowances of 3.9 but otherwise breach 3.8, they engage 3.8. that's the point!

[Deesee]

Anyone actually remotely interested in reading about this topic..

See


https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.tech-tu...

This (point 5 with video)


https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.flexi-w...

And ‘that’

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.flexi-w...

This pretty much covers everything and is from f1.com

The loop hole has changed from France, as Alfa, Ferrari and Red Bull would have a non conforming wing.

On the other hand Merc are actually confident they can add flex to the wing to meet even the new tech regs from France...

[kambites]

APontus said:

kambites said:

No team is breaching 3.9, all teams are breaching 3.8. Any protest against Redbull this weekend will be with regard to 3.8 not 3.9.

If they're breaching the allowances in 3.9 they engage 3.8. if they don't breach the allowances of 3.9 but otherwise breach 3.8, they engage 3.8. that's the point!

Exactly, and every single car does the latter - breaches 3.8 but not 3.9.

[APontus]

Deesee said:

Anyone actually remotely interested in reading about this topic..

See


https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.tech-tu...

This (point 5 with video)


https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.flexi-w...

And ‘that’

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.flexi-w...

This pretty much covers everything and is from f1.com

The loop hole has changed from France, as Alfa, Ferrari and Red Bull would have a non conforming wing.

On the other hand Merc are actually confident they can add flex to the wing to meet even the new tech regs from France...

The situation is a mess. 3.9 creates mess.

The regs should have 3.8 and instead of the current 3.9 should just say they can use any test they deem necessary at any time to determine compliance with 3.8, plus a set of allowances taking into account the teams are unlikely to be able to maintain absolute rigidity.