Red bull bending the rules

[TheDeuce]

Hungrymc said:

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.

People, well, myself at least are not saying that at all.

What is being said is that at some point for a rule to be enforced, a limit had to be defined. Somewhere between the minimal possible deflection (due to material limitation) and useful design deflection, will be the limit of what is acceptable.

Presently that limit is only defined by the weight load deflection test. That's obviously insufficient and RB have taken advantage of that - but it is however not illegal as there is no other way of defining what the absolute legal of deflection is other than the test.. until now, where the FIA have introduced a new test which will further shift what is allowable 'the limit' towards zero movement.

As has been pointed out already, fuel flow cheat was different as that was a set flow rate defined in black and white.

[Raymond Reddington]

During my time at RB I did about a year helping out in the composite R&D dept and later on did a stint at Merc. One of the teams is leagues ahead of the other in terms of the composite design and new ideas/technology. But make no mistake, if there's a loophole to be found, they're all at it. Saying that because it's an Aero surface it must be 100% immobile is ridiculous, it doesn't work like that, some flex would be nearly impossible to eliminate.

[mantis84]

Raymond Reddington said:

During my time at RB I did about a year helping out in the composite R&D dept and later on did a stint at Merc. One of the teams is leagues ahead of the other in terms of the composite design and new ideas/technology. But make no mistake, if there's a loophole to be found, they're all at it. Saying that because it's an Aero surface it must be 100% immobile is ridiculous, it doesn't work like that, some flex would be nearly impossible to eliminate.

So which team is further ahead than the other?

[kiseca]

I'm not sure about this one. Not sure whether it's a clever interpretation of the rules, for example the double diffuser: When someone at Brawn came up with the idea, those arguing against it said it was against the rule because the rule means x. The guy with the idea responded "Maybe, but that's not what the rule says."

Or maybe it's a simple cheat, like Ferrari's fuel flow, or Toyota's airflow restrictor plate in WRC. To me there's a difference between accepting that the bodywork is going to flex a bit and nothing is perfectly rigid (which to me is not a realistic argument anyway, it's like saying time is relative when arriving late for school. It adds no practical value to the problem) and so designing something to be as stiff as you can within the weight and thickness targets you want to meet, versus deliberately designing it to flex more and in such a way that it becomes in practice a moving aero piece whose movement provides known and intended aerodynamic benefits.

If they've done the latter, IMO they've broken the rule as it is currently worded, regardless of the applied test.

[mw88]

Sad that people are wishing DQ or losing points - All teams should be pushing the boundaries of the rules, and if not, they're leaving performance on the table that someone else will take.

Pushing the rules happens everywhere, whether it's a football player falling over looking for a foul, without being booked for simulation or as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, doing 57 through average speed cameras because they hope they won't be caught.

If the FIAs pull back test is 100kg - Of course you'd be looking for some advantage at 105kg.

Mercedes will be pushing the rules in other aspects of the car that people haven't noticed yet.

There's so much money at stake, can't blame the teams if the FIAs tests aren't enough.

[C2Red]

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

Looks like the entire wing drops down, not just the top element, I wonder if the wing supports are the pieces that are flexing.

[TheDeuce]

kiseca said:

I'm not sure about this one. Not sure whether it's a clever interpretation of the rules, for example the double diffuser: When someone at Brawn came up with the idea, those arguing against it said it was against the rule because the rule means x. The guy with the idea responded "Maybe, but that's not what the rule says."

Or maybe it's a simple cheat, like Ferrari's fuel flow, or Toyota's airflow restrictor plate in WRC. To me there's a difference between accepting that the bodywork is going to flex a bit and nothing is perfectly rigid (which to me is not a realistic argument anyway, it's like saying time is relative when arriving late for school. It adds no practical value to the problem) and so designing something to be as stiff as you can within the weight and thickness targets you want to meet, versus deliberately designing it to flex more and in such a way that it becomes in practice a moving aero piece whose movement provides known and intended aerodynamic benefits.

If they've done the latter, IMO they've broken the rule as it is currently worded, regardless of the applied test.

Be objective - where do you see the limit between accepting some flex and making it useful, Vs engineering in as much flex as possible?

There is no defined limit so far as I can see - other than failing the test = too much.

Why would any of the teams design something to be as rigid as possible if it's unhelpful? That would be like the teams aiming to never get within 10% of the fuel flow limit for the sake of playing it safe and respecting the spirit of the rules.

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

People, well, myself at least are not saying that at all.

What is being said is that at some point for a rule to be enforced, a limit had to be defined. Somewhere between the minimal possible deflection (due to material limitation) and useful design deflection, will be the limit of what is acceptable.

Presently that limit is only defined by the weight load deflection test. That's obviously insufficient and RB have taken advantage of that - but it is however not illegal as there is no other way of defining what the absolute legal of deflection is other than the test.. until now, where the FIA have introduced a new test which will further shift what is allowable 'the limit' towards zero movement.

As has been pointed out already, fuel flow cheat was different as that was a set flow rate defined in black and white.

The regulations on this point look straightforward. In 3.2.2 the aerodynamic surfaces must be rigidly secured and immobile relative to their frame of reference. In the case of the rear wing, the frame of reference is the sprung mass of the car (art. 3.3).

Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2021 said:

3.2.2 ...aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing
the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to
their frame of reference defined in Article 3.3...

I can't see any allowance for or tolerance of movement in the regulation.

On that basis any movement relative to the sprung mass is (or can be considered) an infringement.

Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2021 said:

3.15.1 Introduction of load/deflection tests
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.2.2 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

The above article allows the FIA to introduce any load/deflection test it sees fit to ensure the parts remain immobile.

That a car passes a load of deflection test doesn't mean it is complying with 3.2.2 (the fact the RB passed the test but it's not complying is proof of this). It only means the car has passed the test (and has not been 'caught').

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 13th May 08:48

[Exige77]

Here’s a pic widely circulated.

You can see the wing bends back quite considerably.

We are not talking 2/3 mm

[egomeister]

marine boy said:

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

I think it would be clearer to read immobile as "not actuated or articulated". As mentioned previously, any structure will deform (or "move") to some extent when it sees a load, hence why load tests are applied to attempt to control the extents of such motion.

[IJWS15]

If RB are doing this then they are cheating, simply they are designing to meet the tests, not designing to comply with the rules.

i.e. knowingly doing something that breaks the rules

[anonymous-user]

IJWS15 said:

If RB are doing this then they are cheating, simply they are designing to meet the tests, not designing to comply with the rules.

i.e. knowingly doing something that breaks the rules

Exactly.

[IforB]

marine boy said:

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

You are both correct. Anything can move, however, the rules are that things should not, but there is a tolerance built in of something 0.1 degrees from the reference plane to take into account the fact that some movement allows.

This does not appear to fall within that limitation.

[egomeister]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

IJWS15 said:

If RB are doing this then they are cheating, simply they are designing to meet the tests, not designing to comply with the rules.

i.e. knowingly doing something that breaks the rules

Exactly.

Every team will be doing this, and optimising components to perform in the most beneficial way possible. Some will be doing it better than others, with Red Bull being the masters of this kind of design

[kiseca]

TheDeuce said:

kiseca said:

I'm not sure about this one. Not sure whether it's a clever interpretation of the rules, for example the double diffuser: When someone at Brawn came up with the idea, those arguing against it said it was against the rule because the rule means x. The guy with the idea responded "Maybe, but that's not what the rule says."

Or maybe it's a simple cheat, like Ferrari's fuel flow, or Toyota's airflow restrictor plate in WRC. To me there's a difference between accepting that the bodywork is going to flex a bit and nothing is perfectly rigid (which to me is not a realistic argument anyway, it's like saying time is relative when arriving late for school. It adds no practical value to the problem) and so designing something to be as stiff as you can within the weight and thickness targets you want to meet, versus deliberately designing it to flex more and in such a way that it becomes in practice a moving aero piece whose movement provides known and intended aerodynamic benefits.

If they've done the latter, IMO they've broken the rule as it is currently worded, regardless of the applied test.

Be objective - where do you see the limit between accepting some flex and making it useful, Vs engineering in as much flex as possible?

There is no defined limit so far as I can see - other than failing the test = too much.

Why would any of the teams design something to be as rigid as possible if it's unhelpful? That would be like the teams aiming to never get within 10% of the fuel flow limit for the sake of playing it safe and respecting the spirit of the rules.

that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the difference is between deliberately designing it to flex in a way that it becomes a moving aero piece by design, and accepting that it will flex a bit but focussing on making the wing work well. If you aren't focussing on making it flex in a beneficial way, you'd be focussed on minimising flex so that the downforce and drag aren't disrupted.

[Hungrymc]

kiseca said:

that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the difference is between deliberately designing it to flex in a way that it becomes a moving aero piece by design, and accepting that it will flex a bit but focussing on making the wing work well. If you aren't focussing on making it flex in a beneficial way, you'd be focussed on minimising flex so that the downforce and drag aren't disrupted.

Exactly my thinking.

Add to this Horner’s (irritated) comments that only spoke of passing the tests, and avoiding any comment on the engineering intent of his car..... I’d be very surprised if they aren’t bang-to-rights.

That said, I don’t want them to be disqualified. It’s just like the fuel flow issue. Can it be possible that Merc are so good, that these other highly professional teams can only compete by cheating ? That doesn’t sound right either.

[IforB]

Hungrymc said:

kiseca said:

that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the difference is between deliberately designing it to flex in a way that it becomes a moving aero piece by design, and accepting that it will flex a bit but focussing on making the wing work well. If you aren't focussing on making it flex in a beneficial way, you'd be focussed on minimising flex so that the downforce and drag aren't disrupted.

Exactly my thinking.

Add to this Horner’s (irritated) comments that only spoke of passing the tests, and avoiding any comment on the engineering intent of his car..... I’d be very surprised if they aren’t bang-to-rights.

That said, I don’t want them to be disqualified. It’s just like the fuel flow issue. Can it be possible that Merc are so good, that these other highly professional teams can only compete by cheating ? That doesn’t sound right either.

I think we can all be sure that every team is pushing the rule book to the point of breaking!

[kambites]

egomeister said:

Every team will be doing this, and optimising components to perform in the most beneficial way possible. Some will be doing it better than others, with Red Bull being the masters of this kind of design

It's exactly what Ferrari were (alegedly) doing with the fuel flow thing - doing something which they know is in breach of the intent and letter of the rules but cannot be detected by the tests use to enforce the rules. Whether that's dispicable or an inherent part of the sport is, I suppose, a matter of personal opinion but no team would seriously expect not to at least be told to stop doing it if discovered.

[Kawasicki]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

IJWS15 said:

If RB are doing this then they are cheating, simply they are designing to meet the tests, not designing to comply with the rules.

i.e. knowingly doing something that breaks the rules

Exactly.

But, for the nth time, all structures move under load, so the rule makes no sense.

[Catatafish]

Its a clever use of CFRP IMO, but yes technically against the daft, contrived rulebook.

I don't think they'll do too much to compromise Redbull though, as they tend to act somewhat assymetrically (unfairly) if the involved parties are in real contention of WDC or WCC. They don't want to reduce the spectacle by punishing too much.