[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Contracts 101: It's the whole thing.

What do you mean it's the whole thing?
They are going to change specific rules. This is a matter of which rule, which paragraph they're going to adapt.

That they've divided moving and flexing in 2 different sections says that it's not as simple as your 'basic definitions'.
The FIA makes a distinction between these 2 concepts.

If it was a matter of 'basic definitions', the FIA rulebook was only comprised of 'basic definitions'...

But we'll see in a few months if you're right and the adaptation will be in section 3.8 or if I'm right and the adaptation will be in section 3.9
It will be interesting to reflect on this when it finally happens

[SenorFunkyPants]

I would imagine that the FIA will change the regulations only to the Aerodynamic Component Flexibility section with new numbers for the load/deflection tests.

For instance increasing the load number in this section (and other related)

"Rear Wing Flap Pullback
The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
900mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adaptor which must be supplied by the relevant team."

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

So..from what I read..in the end it would come to nothing and a waste of time b/c hammy 'thought' he saw a wing move 1mm more than he thought normal

Situation 1 : The Mercedes DAS in '2020

Merc's DAS was approved and allowed by the FIA the entire '20 season .
Mercedes had the whole '20 season in 17 races huge advantage by DAS !
Only after the 17 races in '2020 when the season was completed, DAS was (finally) banned by the FIA .

Situation 2 : "FIA taking actions on Red Bulls '2021 flexible rear wing"

Within 2-3 weeks the FIA has to change the 2021 wing regulations and new tests will be performed !
If this is going to happen so suddenly in a hurry ... The FIA is financially sponsored by Mercedes !

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

What do you mean it's the whole thing?
They are going to change specific rules. This is a matter of which rule, which paragraph they're going to adapt.

That they've divided moving and flexing in 2 different sections says that it's not as simple as your 'basic definitions'.
The FIA makes a distinction between these 2 concepts.

If it was a matter of 'basic definitions', the FIA rulebook was only comprised of 'basic definitions'...

But we'll see in a few months if you're right and the adaptation will be in section 3.8 or if I'm right and the adaptation will be in section 3.9
It will be interesting to reflect on this when it finally happens

When I say it's the whole thing, I mean this: It is the responsibility of the competitor to present a car to the FIA that is completely within compliance of the rules. Not a car that will pass the test.

The Ferrari Fuel Trick passed the test. That didn't make the car compliant within the rules structure governing fuel flow because they found a way to defeat the test.

Just because the engineering department found a clever way to beat the test, doesn't make the car compliant. It's really simple.

There is a storm brewing with the affected teams thinking of performing a protest for the upcoming race in the vein that the, "bendy wing" will confer a huge advantage in Baku because of the length of the straight.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I would imagine that the FIA will change the regulations only to the Aerodynamic Component Flexibility section with new numbers for the load/deflection tests.

For instance increasing the load number in this section (and other related)

"Rear Wing Flap Pullback
The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
900mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adaptor which must be supplied by the relevant team."

That is exactly the passage I was referring to. (3.9.6 I believe)
The way the FIA talks about parts moving in 3.8 are parts that on their own can be set in different positions ('the freedom to' is how they describe it). The parts that they exclude in this paragraph are also parts that can be set in different positions: mirrors and air ducts on the wheels (wheels can turn and go up and down).
That 3.9 is a very long section that contains rules for the amount of flexing of all the different bodyparts says to me that the FIA distinguishes between parts that can 'move' (as in moved and set in different positions) and parts that flex under differernt circumstances.
I suspect that they'll change 3.9.6 in both the amount of force, the direction of the force and the place of the force as test specs to a certain amount of flexing.
As this article specifically sets the rules for how much a rear wing may flex.
I can't imagine the RB car (and maybe other car with flexing wings) not meeting this current article. Because the FIA said that no current cars fail to meet the rulebook on this point. So there is no cheating, no breaking of rules.
MErcedes (and apparantly mclaren, and maybe other teams) want the rules and ways of testing to be more stringent on this aspect. And the FIA is going to follow those suggestions.

So my guess is that in 6 months time we'll see RB cars with stiff wings and a very flappy rear finn

[eljay]

I think Nico Rosberg winning the championship proved that the way you can beat the best is to mess with their head.

All of these drivers and teams are the peak of their respective game, so it only makes sense for the top teams to start a little FIA and media war to distract the other party from the job at hand a bit and gain that one messy pit stop, or divert resources to investigate something that has no benefit and end up losing a race or two by a bad call or simply a 0.001 in qualifying.

[Killed by Death]

So true

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

So true

That's for you mate . Binotto spoke at this time !

I really wonder who hasn't a flexible rear wing ?

[Killed by Death]

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Go and read the rule. Passing the test, which in inadequate, doesn't mean you are in compliance.

Their wing must remain rigid in relation to the sprung bodywork.

It does not, in situ.

This is a rules violation. The test doesn't matter.

Edit: This is perfectly congruent with VW. They designed a cheat to pass the emissions test but return to pollution mode at speed. RBR designed a wing to pass the static load test but flex at speed. Notice the similarities?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

''Yes hello fia its Siedl,I want to complain about their wing also, why? because my friend supplies me with engines and I want to agree with him also''.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

Interesting video.
But what I don't understand is regarding to the potential new FIA rules.
They say that (@5:10) following the new loads applied (1000N vertically and 2x 750N horizontally directed to the rear), the rear wing is allowed to flex 1 degree.
So that is a rotational deformation.
The video only refers to 3.9.3 (@2:58) and not to 3.9.6 which covers amount of flex (in mm, not degrees) when applied with horizontal load (on the top aerofoil). I would expect the FIA to expand 3.9.6 with a vertical load and an allowable deformation in mm (they can also write that in 3.9.3 of course, but the point is an allowable deformation in mm, not in degrees.)

Is Mercedes' problem with the RB wing that it rotates too much (so the direction of the aerofoil is changed) or that it sags too much, so that it might catch less airstream as it hides more behind the rest of the car?

If the last case is the problem, setting limits to the rotational deformation has no effect.
It's not impossible to design a rigid spring that only deflects in one direction, so that any rotational movement is limited but linear movement is allowed (in my eyes that's what they already did).
So does the video miss the real problem and corresponding FIA article at hand or don't I understand the problem correctly?

[M5Rick]

[QUOTE=GuidoK;27612530]Interesting video.
But what I don't understand is regarding to the potential new FIA rules.
They say that (@5:10) following the new loads applied (1000N vertically and 2x allowable deformation in mm, not in degrees.)

Is Mercedes' problem with the RB wing that it rotates too much (so the direction of the aerofoil is changed) or that it sags too much, so that it might catch less airstream as it hides more behind the rest of the car?
-----------------------------------

*This. It could be that Merc have got their knickers in a twist (pun intended).

[yco]

FIA admits flexi wings are giving advantage and McLaren may go for protest..

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...hreat/6512421/ ..

[M5Rick]

I wasn't joking about the cost.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...-joke/6512286/

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Interesting video.
But what I don't understand is regarding to the potential new FIA rules.
They say that (@5:10) following the new loads applied (1000N vertically and 2x 750N horizontally directed to the rear), the rear wing is allowed to flex 1 degree.
So that is a rotational deformation.
The video only refers to 3.9.3 (@2:58) and not to 3.9.6 which covers amount of flex (in mm, not degrees) when applied with horizontal load (on the top aerofoil). I would expect the FIA to expand 3.9.6 with a vertical load and an allowable deformation in mm (they can also write that in 3.9.3 of course, but the point is an allowable deformation in mm, not in degrees.)

Is Mercedes' problem with the RB wing that it rotates too much (so the direction of the aerofoil is changed) or that it sags too much, so that it might catch less airstream as it hides more behind the rest of the car?

If the last case is the problem, setting limits to the rotational deformation has no effect.
It's not impossible to design a rigid spring that only deflects in one direction, so that any rotational movement is limited but linear movement is allowed (in my eyes that's what they already did).
So does the video miss the real problem and corresponding FIA article at hand or don't I understand the problem correctly?

The simple answer is I don't know but thought the video was very informative.

Article 3.9.9 at 4:36 screwed my argument the FIA shouldn't change the test mid-season

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

The simple answer is I don't know but thought the video was very informative.

Article 3.9.9 at 4:36 screwed my argument the FIA shouldn't change the test mid-season

The video is 100% informative and tells why the illegality is present. We can even look at the language Binotto used, "...we exploited...". This is an admission of cheating, imho.

This is a problem.

Everyone thinks the test is the focus when the actual issue is non-compliance with the rules regarding flexible wings.

Defeating a test doesn't mean compliance with the rules. Why is this sooooooo difficult to understand?

If I figured out a way to break into a bank without a trace and removed money, did I break the law even though there is no evidence but my possession of the money? Of course I broke the law.

The wings comply with the test but, in situ, flex which is against the rules.

Easy peezy, lemon squeezy.

[M5Rick]

RB boss has now accused Wolff of having an illegal FRONT wing on the W12..looks like the details on that one will be spilled out soon but I gather it concerns the endings.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

RB boss has now accused Wolff of having an illegal FRONT wing on the W12..looks like the details on that one will be spilled out soon but I gather it concerns the endings.

Typical Red Bull.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This isn't the first time RBR has been caught cheating now they are saying, "But, but, but.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Mercedes...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

How sad is it that a team has the alleged best driver to ever hold a steering wheel, an illegal car, and still can't win?

As one of the worst leaders I ever worked for said, "If you can't win by cheating, you don't deserve to win."

This should be the moniker hung around RBRs neck.

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

The video is 100% informative and tells why the illegality is present. We can even look at the language Binotto used, "...we exploited...". This is an admission of cheating, imho.

This is a problem.

Everyone thinks the test is the focus when the actual issue is non-compliance with the rules regarding flexible wings.

Defeating a test doesn't mean compliance with the rules. Why is this sooooooo difficult to understand?

If I figured out a way to break into a bank without a trace and removed money, did I break the law even though there is no evidence but my possession of the money? Of course I broke the law.

The wings comply with the test but, in situ, flex which is against the rules.

Easy peezy, lemon squeezy.

I'm still a simpleton, pass the test good to go

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Typical Red Bull.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This isn't the first time RBR has been caught cheating now they are saying, "But, but, but.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Mercedes...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

How sad is it that a team has the alleged best driver to ever hold a steering wheel, an illegal car, and still can't win?

As one of the worst leaders I ever worked for said, "If you can't win by cheating, you don't deserve to win."

This should be the moniker hung around RBRs neck.

As I said 2 weeks ago : "WAR" !!!

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

As I said 2 weeks ago : "WAR" !!!

So Ferrari is another in the flexi wing cauldron pot saga, no surprise with their sudden gain of speed