[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

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.

Originally Posted by inTgr8r

The only way is to revise testing methodology.

Personally I don't like changing test methodology mid-season. I would rather Masi keep it simple and test the team's ingenuity. All he would have to say is this, "If your wing passes the current test you can run it."
ALL engineers have at it!

Originally Posted by MKSixer

"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."

My point exactly, If RB isn't complying with the quoted regulation why aren't the FIA or stewards:
1. Declaring the wing illegal
2. Imposing a fine
3. Imposing a penalty
4. All of the above

It looks to be either cheating OR improvise, overcome & adapt drawn down party lines. Or in this forums case team bias. I don't think we can find a neutral judge.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

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

Have at it...Start at 3.8

Ty lemme read some of this and see if FIA covered their ass.

[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

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

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

My good friend , that's a funny one ...Honestly !

According the latest video observations , the Alpine and Alfa wings flex even more at high speeds .

Mercedes :
The Merc's "flexible fin" makes an air stream turbulence downwards on the rear wing ...
The W12's flexible fin vibrates like a feather in a storm and the turbulence is pushing on the Merc's wing and holds that rear end stable on the track !
In other words : The Merc's fin makes actually variable downforce by turbulence and works even better than the Red Bull wing ...
Yeah , the Merc's WIND TUNNEL TESTS work great as well !

So , "IF" Red Bull has to change the wing . Mercedes has to change "the fin and the wing" !
As far as I can hear : Mercedes (HAM) has shot in his own foot !

The Red Bull wing isn't the issue . MAX is HAM's issue !
The whole situation (WAR) isn't over yet ...It just started by HAM !

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

It looks to be either cheating OR improvise, overcome & adapt drawn down party lines. Or in this forums case team bias.

Correct.

[fiveohwblow]

Metric fuck tons of bias in this forum, but that’s sports and something I spent multiple decades avoiding. F1 was just too damn good so now I’m in the chimpanzee game scratching my right armpit with my right hand as well. Welcome to the WILD WILD WORLD OF SPORTS.

[Killed by Death]

Originally Posted by fiveohwblow

Metric fuck tons of bias in this forum, but that’s sports and something I spent multiple decades avoiding. F1 was just too damn good so now I’m in the chimpanzee game scratching my right armpit with my right hand as well. Welcome to the WILD WILD WORLD OF SPORTS.

Bias doesn't bother me as long as people own up to it. Bias presented as fact is the problem.

[fiveohwblow]

Originally Posted by Killed by Death

Bias doesn't bother me as long as people own up to it. Bias presented as fact is the problem.

Ahhhh the old confirmatory bias otherwise known as personal facts. Also, QUITE prevalent here. Disgusting.

[MKSixer]

Firstly, I simply enjoin everyone to read the rules. It isn't that hard.

Secondly, I ask everyone to understand that passing a test doesn't mean compliance with the rules.

Thirdly, I request that everyone understand this simple fact: It is the responsibility of the entrant to present a car that is fully in compliance with the rules, not a car that can pass the test.

When one sees the wing and looks at the wing in action then compares it with the rules. It can easily be seen that non-compliance with 3.8 is in full effect mode.

That is all.

[MKSixer]

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."

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.

You aren't in a court of law. This is the FIA. This is an organization that has increased the fines and penalties when teams have protested rulings in the past.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Secondly, I ask everyone to understand that passing a test doesn't mean compliance with the rules.

If you're an F1 engineer, that's exactly what it means.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Chihuahua

If you're an F1 engineer, that's exactly what it means.

Lol! Cheating in that manner is deliberate and willful.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

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

Have at it...Start at 3.8

Imho 3.8 is directed at moving parts, not the flexibility of parts.
That starts 3.9.
The RB wing isn't moving imho, it's flexing.
Rules regarding flexing of the rear wing are start in 3.9.6 I think.
I expect the RB car (and all other cars) comply with this and therefore the FIA has not fined teams or disqualified cars as of yet.
There isn't any case of 'consealment' where cars not meet the rules at some point during the race and the FIA can't find that point (regarding to parallels drawn by members here to the ferrari cheat).

I expect the FIA is probably going to change the values and test procedure given in 3.9.6 and not alter the text in 3.8.

If that'll be the case, this topic and the interpretation given in the newsarticles will be based on a misinterpretation of the definitions.
It'll be interesting to look back upon and revie this topic in a month or 3 to see what really happens

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Lol! Cheating in that manner is deliberate and willful.

The articles quote the FIA that they said that there was no cheating involved.
I'm sure that if cheating was involved they would have been fined or disqualified.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Imho 3.8 is directed at moving parts, not the flexibility of parts.
That starts 3.9.
The RB wing isn't moving imho, it's flexing.
Rules regarding flexing of the rear wing are start in 3.9.6 I think.
I expect the RB car (and all other cars) comply with this and therefore the FIA has not fined teams or disqualified cars as of yet.
There isn't any case of 'consealment' where cars not meet the rules at some point during the race and the FIA can't find that point (regarding to parallels drawn by members here to the ferrari cheat).
I expect the FIA is probably going to change the values and test procedure given in 3.9.6 and not alter the text in 3.8.
If that'll be the case, this topic and the interpretation given in the newsarticles will be based on a misinterpretation of the definitions.
It'll be interesting to look back upon and revie this topic in a month or 3 to see what really happens

Indeed...section 3 covers bodywork.
Section 3.8 contains the most relevant section:
[...]"any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
a. Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to
minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4,
11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

Bodywork flexing is covered in the regulations but thats not what is happening.
The whole Red Bulls rear wing assembly "leans back" (for want of a better phrase) to reduce drag at high speed.
A mechanism is in play that can resist the static load and pull back test but enables the rear wing to move at high loads.
This is covered by section b. in bold and is strictly prohibited.
Passing the current static load tests does not make it legal. This is not some clever engineering innovation, the whole point and intent of the system is to cheat the regulations to gain a performance advantage against the specific wording and spirit of the regulations.

IIUC the FIA intend to double the static load and pull back weights...which is why the FIA is giving teams extra time to get their cars into legality.

[M5Rick]

The wings are ALL legal and its not possible for them to test otherwise thus. Are they going to increase the budget cap to take in the expense of making new wings because some nutcase thought he saw a wing move lol

[MKSixer]

A reminder on basic definition since some people think that flexing isn't moving.

flex•i•ble flĕk′sə-bəl
adj. Capable of being bent or flexed; pliable.

[MKSixer]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mc...511803/?nrt=54

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

A reminder on basic definition since some people think that flexing isn't moving.

flex•i•ble flĕk′sə-bəl
adj. Capable of being bent or flexed; pliable.

Every car on the grid is illegal.

[minn19]

RB runs around the last couple of years complaining about other teams to FIA about everything they can. Now they get some back and are surprised?

This is another version of team strategy from Toto/Lewis and MB. They own RB/Horner/Verstappen in every way possible on and off the track.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by minn19

This is another version of team strategy from Toto/Lewis and MB. They own RB/Horner/Verstappen in every way possible on and off the track.

yes and yes.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

A reminder on basic definition since some people think that flexing isn't moving.

flex•i•ble flĕk′sə-bəl
adj. Capable of being bent or flexed; pliable.

We'll see which paragraph the FIA is going to alter.
If it's 3.8, then you're right. If it's 3.9, then I'm right.
If it's both.... then we're both right

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

We'll see which paragraph the FIA is going to alter.
If it's 3.8, then you're right. If it's 3.9, then I'm right.
If it's both.... then we're both right

Contracts 101: It's the whole thing.