[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Ah OK got it...I'll leave you to it.

Both Toto Wolff and Lewis Hamilton made remarks about this according to the numerous articles.
Last time I checked they were employed by Mercedes

Haven't seen any reports of other teams complaining about it....
Maybe the other teams also use this effect. There are afaik no reports that RB uses this exclusively.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Both Toto Wolff and Lewis Hamilton made remarks about this according to the numerous articles.
Last time I checked they were employed by Mercedes

Videos of Red Bulls rear wing going up and down like an elevator have been on youtube since at least 2020.
As I said I don't think the FIA were that bothered as long as no one in F1 was talking about it.
I suspect Mercedes weren't that bothered either until Verstappens Red Bull gained an edge over the Mercedes on the long straights this season.
Toto had a word with Horner about it and when Red Bull continued to use the illegal system its seems that Toto asked Hamilton to drop the subject into an interview to force the FIAs hand.
Similar story as Verstappen (under instruction from Horner) talking about Ferraris fuel cheat...the back story there is that Honda also tried to alias the fuel flow data but without the same success as Ferrari.

[yco]

Lewis was watching that wing quite a long time.. after that actually it got more attention..

and more importantly.. remember the time Racing Points were accused by they cheated on their 2020 car?

first one went to FIA was Red Bull about it.. now AM is in low mid-field.. but last year they were among the leading few cars.. so i strongly believe if Red Bull was leading the championship they d already got some penalty.. but they re trying to hunt Merc'.. FIA wants that as well.. and they re being more constructive about it by giving plenty of time before new test methods..

[M5Rick]

Thank goodness hammy didn't crash into RB if he was staring at wing instead of doing his job concentrating on racing. Media has said they are expecting a clash between the two but this would be ridiculous.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by yco

so i strongly believe if Red Bull was leading the championship they d already got some penalty.. but they re trying to hunt Merc'.. FIA wants that as well.. and they re being more constructive about it by giving plenty of time before new test methods..

Indeed.
The FIA are far more involved in the way F1 is run than most sports bodies.
They actively adjust and shape the regulations to tighten the competition as much as possible...and I assume that most spectators are fine with that.
The ban on teams using engine "party" modes, the Mercedes DAS system and the changes to the rear floor were all to reduce the Mercedes performance advantage.
Again I think even Mercedes and their fans can see the benefits of the changes as they have produced better racing this season.
So its disappointing that the improvements that Red Bull have made are partly on the back of illegal aerodynamics...especially if it (removing them) sees them drop behind Mercedes again at some tracks.

[eljay]

In a sport where fractions of seconds separate glory and money from making up the numbers at the back of the grid, it's down to FIA to create 100-volume rule book and think of every possible way to stop cheating. Only for cheating to happen again and again.

The teams' engineers are essentially paid to come up with performance solutions around the rules. If it isn't explicitly banned, it's allowed. And the results are some brilliant solutions to those challenges and I love it!
Yes, it absolutely sucks for the spectacle when someone is better at this game and makes the rest look foolishly weak like Mercedes, Red Bull, Brawn GP, Lotus etc have done.

[Ngilbe36]

Originally Posted by eljay

In a sport where fractions of seconds separate glory and money from making up the numbers at the back of the grid, it's down to FIA to create 100-volume rule book and think of every possible way to stop cheating. Only for cheating to happen again and again.

The teams' engineers are essentially paid to come up with performance solutions around the rules. If it isn't explicitly banned, it's allowed. And the results are some brilliant solutions to those challenges and I love it!
Yes, it absolutely sucks for the spectacle when someone is better at this game and makes the rest look foolishly weak like Mercedes, Red Bull, Brawn GP, Lotus etc have done.

Its amazing what the smartest people in engineering can do with hundreds of millions of dollars! (Not sarcasm)

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Thank goodness hammy didn't crash into RB if he was staring at wing instead of doing his job concentrating on racing. Media has said they are expecting a clash between the two but this would be ridiculous.

Let us hope so my friend , that HAM can see MAX's 'rear wing the whole race at Monaco !

Wing ?
Red Bull gives you wings !

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Come on...its really not that complicated....that some teams were circumventing the static loads tests doesn't make their cars legal.
3.2.2 still stands and takes precedence.
In the same way that Ferrari somehow cheated the fuel flow regulations by altering the output data of the fuel flow sensor didn't make their car legal even though the FIA couldn't figure how they were doing it.

But Ferrari received a fine.

So maybe the simplest test to answer the RB cheating debacle is whether or not they receive a fine or penalty.

No fine / no penalty / no foul

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Let us hope so my friend , that HAM can see MAX's 'rear wing the whole race at Monaco !

Wing ?
Red Bull gives you wings !

Well said and hammy should know better than risk a crash admitting he stares at others' car components, that's the job of Pet Merc spy's of which there are plenty with their telephoto lenses. What a dumb fool he is!

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

But Ferrari received a fine.

So maybe the simplest test to answer the RB cheating debacle is whether or not they receive a fine or penalty.

No fine / no penalty / no foul

IIUC Ferrari (and those teams who used its engines) had to run their engine with a reduced fuel flow for the 2020 season explaining why the teams affected struggled all season. I haven't read about a fine but that doesn't mean they weren't fined.

The problem with the rear wing cheat is that teams other than Red Bull (such as Alpine) have also used illegal rear wings.
Puts the FIA in a bit of a quandary...how can they be sure which teams to penalise if they can't be certain which teams are guilty.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by eljay

In a sport where fractions of seconds separate glory and money from making up the numbers at the back of the grid, it's down to FIA to create 100-volume rule book and think of every possible way to stop cheating. Only for cheating to happen again and again.

The teams' engineers are essentially paid to come up with performance solutions around the rules. If it isn't explicitly banned, it's allowed. And the results are some brilliant solutions to those challenges and I love it!
Yes, it absolutely sucks for the spectacle when someone is better at this game and makes the rest look foolishly weak like Mercedes, Red Bull, Brawn GP, Lotus etc have done.

This guy gets it.^^^


“What you’ve got to acknowledge is that these engineers are geniuses, so if you leave them wiggle room, they will wiggle.”

-L Hamilton

[inTgr8r]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

........
Puts the FIA in a bit of a quandary...how can they be sure which teams to penalise if they can't be certain which teams are guilty.

The only way is to revise testing methodology.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

But Ferrari received a fine.

So maybe the simplest test to answer the RB cheating debacle is whether or not they receive a fine or penalty.

No fine / no penalty / no foul

Exactly.
The FIA said that all cars still pass current tests, that the tests are going to be changed and that the teams get a certain time to adapt their cars to that according to the articles
If the FIA says that, it's imho unlikely that fines and penalties are going to be given. According to the articles, the FIA also said that the cars pass the current tests and are therefore not illegal.
So I don't understand when people here say the cars/wings are illegal where the FIA says not up to this moment

It's not as if the FIA cant figure out how stiff these wings are. It's not as if something is hidden in software or such a thing. There is nothing concealed or anything like that.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Exactly.
The FIA said that all cars still pass current tests, that the tests are going to be changed and that the teams get a certain time to adapt their cars to that according to the articles
If the FIA says that, it's imho unlikely that fines and penalties are going to be given. According to the articles, the FIA also said that the cars pass the current tests and are therefore not illegal.
So I don't understand when people here say the cars/wings are illegal where the FIA says not up to this moment

It's not as if the FIA cant figure out how stiff these wings are. It's not as if something is hidden in software or such a thing. There is nothing concealed or anything like that.

As in the case of Ferrari and their fuel flow cheat, passing a test does not mean compliance with the rules. The rear wing deflection is evident in multiple videos and is a de facto representation of non-compliance with the rules. Passing a test does not mean you comply with the rules.

"2.7 Duty of Competitor
It is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event."

[NYG]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Article 3.8 of the F1 technical regulations states that bodywork must be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".

This is a ban on so-called 'moveable aerodynamic devices', which has been in place for many years.....Static load tests were later included to stop Red Bull using flexible front and rear wings to reduce drag at high speed.

[BBC Sport F1]

The quoted rules of Article 3.8 are not applicable to flexible wings. (Sorry if I'm repeating what someone else may have stated already - I didn't go through every page)

"Rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car" means:

1. Wing to Column connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction.
2. Wing Column should have enough axial stiffness to not shorten or elongate under load.
3. Wing Column to Car connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction relative to the car.

If the rules do not explicitly dictate minimum flexural stiffness requirements or maximum deflection requirements then there is no violation of Article 3.8. Red Bull engineers are just smarter than the FIA rule book.

Infinite stiffness is required for ZERO deformation - it can only be theoretically assumed but never applied realistically.

<- Structural Engineer

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

As in the case of Ferrari and their fuel flow cheat, passing a test does not mean compliance with the rules. The rear wing deflection is evident in multiple videos and is a de facto representation of non-compliance with the rules. Passing a test does not mean you comply with the rules.

"2.7 Duty of Competitor
It is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event."

There again I just can't draw a comparison between RB and the Ferrari cheat.

Ferrari cheated with explicit intention and attempted to cover it up. Probably would have gotten away with it if not for the smoking exhaust.

So I'll stick with my original argument of no intent (IMO) + no fine or penalty = no cheat.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Puts the FIA in a bit of a quandary...how can they be sure which teams to penalise if they can't be certain which teams are guilty.

If the FIA plays by the rules then they can't penalize anyone for violating a rule that doesn't exist.

Any beam made of any material will deflect > 0" under applied load or self-weight - even if it is infinitesimal.

Without imposed limits, something like this would go right out of the window in a court room. The assumption that an aerodynamic component, especially in a sport where material density must be kept to a minimum, would have infinite flexural stiffness is fundamentally wrong.

This isn't even close to cheating - this is the definition of engineering.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by NYG

The quoted rules of Article 3.8 are not applicable to flexible wings. (Sorry if I'm repeating what someone else may have stated already - I didn't go through every page)

"Rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car" means:

1. Wing to Column connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction.
2. Wing Column should have enough axial stiffness to not shorten or elongate under load.
3. Wing Column to Car connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction relative to the car.

If the rules do not explicitly dictate minimum flexural stiffness requirements or maximum deflection requirements then there is no violation of Article 3.8. Red Bull engineers are just smarter than the FIA rule book.

Infinite stiffness is required for ZERO deformation - it can only be theoretically assumed but never applied realistically.

<- Structural Engineer

Read my post above with respect to clause 2.7. The rules are written in clear language and the test are used to CHECK compliance. The simple fact of a part passing a compliance test doesn't mean the car complies with the rules.

Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One.

If any of the above exist in bodywork on a car presented for the championship, then said car is highly likely, illegal or at least minimally non-compliant.

[MKSixer]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-...m=talk_of_town

[NYG]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Read my post above with respect to clause 2.7. The rules are written in clear language and the test are used to CHECK compliance. The simple fact of a part passing a compliance test doesn't mean the car complies with the rules.

Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One.

If any of the above exist in bodywork on a car presented for the championship, then said car is highly likely, illegal or at least minimally non-compliant.

I'm not familiar with the FIA rule book can you cite where they explicitly state "Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One."

Both of those statements are fundamentally not enforceable without definitions or contingencies.

DRS is a movable aerodynamic surface.

"Flexible" must be defined because EVERY material is flexible including brittle materials like concrete. You can't regulate theoretical boundary conditions.

All components are part of an aerodynamic system. Why does a tire expanding from heat or normal acceleration or even sidewall deflection not a violation?

P.S. I've worked on the legal side of structural codes and regulations. So whatever I'm saying, is from the perspective that if this was in a court room and I was defending Redbull, I would destroy this case in a heartbeat.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by NYG

I'm not familiar with the FIA rule book can you cite where they explicitly state "Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One."

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2020-12-16.pdf

Have at it...Start at 3.8