Red bull bending the rules
Discussion
Well yeah, any situation where you have a concrete rule which cannot be met is going to be a mess. They either need to get rid of 3.8 and rely on (probably a modified version of) 3.9 or they need to reword 3.8 to either include the intention, the extent or the nature of the flex.
A great many of these rules were actually introduced to avoid the big teams getting even quicker throwing money at the problems. One could argue that the cost cap, if it works properly, could negate the need for a lot of the more... finickety rules. If teams want to spend their limited development budget on making a wing which can pass the load tests but flex more under racing loads, why not let them given that it's bound to result in a compromise somewhere else in their design.
A great many of these rules were actually introduced to avoid the big teams getting even quicker throwing money at the problems. One could argue that the cost cap, if it works properly, could negate the need for a lot of the more... finickety rules. If teams want to spend their limited development budget on making a wing which can pass the load tests but flex more under racing loads, why not let them given that it's bound to result in a compromise somewhere else in their design.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 1st June 20:08
The issue is the wiggle room where people argue passing the prescribed tests in 3.9 means the car complies with rule 3.8. If you take away prescribed tests and replace with a catch-all, you leave only the rule and therefore it's clear that it's the rule you have to comply with rather than the tests.
APontus said:
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.
Unlikely... 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.
You are being very generous there!
APontus said:
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.
3.8The 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.
3.9
Please feel free to expand?
APontus said:
Laughing with you, not at you.
So let’s cut to the chase, What exactly are you looking for here..?
Technical directive issued..! FIA believe that there is activity beyond the very widely accepted regulations, and tolerances.
Red Bull, Ferrari and Alfa no longer able to run the same rear flexing wing they have been using in 2021 (nearly typed 2022) at France and beyond..
So the above three teams need to change, or not get out of Parc Ferme from Paul Ricard.
kambites said:
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. And all 3.9 confirms is what I've been saying for the length of this thread - that the regs themselves point to passing the test as the defining factor as to what is acceptable.
The regs don't give and set value other than those required to pass the current test... It passed, it's therefore within the regs and legal until the test is changed, by which point the wing will be changed to suit.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 1st June 22:56
Deesee said:
So let’s cut to the chase,
What exactly are you looking for here..?
Technical directive issued..! FIA believe that there is activity beyond the very widely accepted regulations, and tolerances.
Red Bull, Ferrari and Alfa no longer able to run the same rear flexing wing they have been using in 2021 (nearly typed 2022) at France and beyond..
So the above three teams need to change, or not get out of Parc Ferme from Paul Ricard.
Not after anything. Suspect Mercedes and McLaren might be if they feel RB and Ferrari are running bendy rear wings in Baku, though. What exactly are you looking for here..?
Technical directive issued..! FIA believe that there is activity beyond the very widely accepted regulations, and tolerances.
Red Bull, Ferrari and Alfa no longer able to run the same rear flexing wing they have been using in 2021 (nearly typed 2022) at France and beyond..
So the above three teams need to change, or not get out of Parc Ferme from Paul Ricard.
APontus said:
The issue is the wiggle room where people argue passing the prescribed tests in 3.9 means the car complies with rule 3.8. If you take away prescribed tests and replace with a catch-all, you leave only the rule and therefore it's clear that it's the rule you have to comply with rather than the tests.
That would be great - but it's basically impossible to write a rule that allows for the fact no material is totally rigid (so there is always movement), so if they don't rely on the test, the rules would need to be updated to give specific values for levels of deflection under endless conditions (some of which are beyond the teams control) and also apply fairly across all current and potential wing designs. It's just not going to work, because it's not as simple to define as a speed limit etc, it's endlessly complex and beyond practical written definition. So as is the case with practical tests on road cars (think crash tests), the test becomes the definition of compliance. TheDeuce said:
APontus said:
The issue is the wiggle room where people argue passing the prescribed tests in 3.9 means the car complies with rule 3.8. If you take away prescribed tests and replace with a catch-all, you leave only the rule and therefore it's clear that it's the rule you have to comply with rather than the tests.
That would be great - but it's basically impossible to write a rule that allows for the fact no material is totally rigid (so there is always movement), so if they don't rely on the test, the rules would need to be updated to give specific values for levels of deflection under endless conditions (some of which are beyond the teams control) and also apply fairly across all current and potential wing designs. It's just not going to work, because it's not as simple to define as a speed limit etc, it's endlessly complex and beyond practical written definition. So as is the case with practical tests on road cars (think crash tests), the test becomes the definition of compliance. Sandpit Steve said:
The Red Bull wing deflection fails an obviousness test. They can argue all day that it passes the specified test - but it’s obviously moving, and doing so in a way that’s advantageous to the performance of the car. It’s a big call for the stewards to have to make though, if it gets protested.
take away the FOM supplied rear wing camera feed on the Red Bull & the 'obviousness test' goes away ...thus kicking the can down the road until Paul Ricard (this is definitely how Bernie would've solved the current issue 
)angrymoby said:
take away the FOM supplied rear wing camera feed on the Red Bull & the 'obviousness test' goes away ...thus kicking the can down the road until Paul Ricard (this is definitely how Bernie would've solved the current issue )
like bendy wings; something Red Bull have history with. In 2014 they interpreted the front camera mounting to be inside the bodywork..... until the FIA forced them to change it. )egomeister said:
llewop said:
like bendy wings; something Red Bull have history with. In 2014 they interpreted the front camera mounting to be inside the bodywork..... until the FIA forced them to change it.
What did they do? I'm not familiar with this onehttps://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-forces-red-b...
llewop said:
egomeister said:
llewop said:
like bendy wings; something Red Bull have history with. In 2014 they interpreted the front camera mounting to be inside the bodywork..... until the FIA forced them to change it.
What did they do? I'm not familiar with this onehttps://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-forces-red-b...
egomeister said:
Neat!
considering what happened later that year in Abu Dhabi i'm not too convinced that moving the camera inside the nose (& thus restricting it's view- which is what folks complained about) was purely for aerodynamic benefit ...well, not that specific aerodynamic benefit everyone thought it wasGassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff