2026 Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team

[zibby43]

No investigation into Merc’s front wing.

0-3 for the Italian media at this point.

https://x.com/kymillman/status/20370037 ... w2eCbwUjFA

I’ll caveat that we still are probably lacking a reliable, definitive source.

Edit:

A more definitive source is now available: https://x.com/SMitchellF1/status/203704 ... 19433?s=20

It doesn't matter if it was a problem, mistake, or rules exploitation. It was illegal just like the plank wear in COTA 2023 and the Min weight in Spa 2024. "oops" is not a valid excuse.

That’s not a good example. The planks failed scrutineering. The front wings did not, based on all the info. we have.

Mercedes have been DSQ’d with Hamilton before in Brazil for a minor RW DRS-related issue in scrutineering before.

By that same token, George has had an issue in a race before where his radio button was causing DRS to open when it shouldn’t have been allowed. The stewards were satisfied with the explanation. No DSQ.

Under your interpretation, what happens to a car this year with active aero that gets in an incident that damages the FW enough to jeopardize the normal operating of the active aero, post-pitstop, but isn’t enough to warrant being dangerous. DSQ? Because it will happen.

I think there’s a clear difference between black and white physical measurements that either pass scrutineering or they don’t and complex operation of the systems on track.

It’s telling to me that more online forum dwellers are making a stink about this than actual F1 personnel in the paddock. That generally tells me everything I need to know.

[AR3-GP]

That’s not a good example. The planks failed scrutineering. The front wings did not, based on all the info. we have.

Because the FIA was inattentive to their own regulations. It's on recorded television running outside of the regulations at both GPs that they won this year.

[zibby43]

That’s not a good example. The planks failed scrutineering. The front wings did not, based on all the info. we have.

Because the FIA was inattentive to their own regulations. It's on recorded television running outside of the regulations at both GPs that they won this year.

Ah I forgot about the old television test that’s written into these rules.

You ignored my George DRS example. His rear wing passed scrutineering but a fault on track caused operation issues during a race, captured on television. The stewards found there was no technical advantage, etc.

[basti313]

That’s not a good example. The planks failed scrutineering. The front wings did not, based on all the info. we have.

Because the FIA was inattentive to their own regulations. It's on recorded television running outside of the regulations at both GPs that they won this year.

Ah I forgot about the old television test that’s written into these rules.

You ignored my George DRS example. His rear wing passed scrutineering but a fault on track caused operation issues during a race, captured on television. The stewards found there was no technical advantage, etc.

I do not think the DRS malfunction is a good example. Failures, defects or crash damage are not a technical infringement if the part was fine before and how it was adjusted and designed.

The front wing mechanism here was designed too small/weak, thus closing too late. This is a design choice, which brings all sorts of benefit. Weight just to name one clearly. A wrong design or adjustment choice is a clear technical infringement and a clear DSQ.

They were just lucky, that no one did catch it before the scrutineering finished.

[zibby43]

Because the FIA was inattentive to their own regulations. It's on recorded television running outside of the regulations at both GPs that they won this year.

Ah I forgot about the old television test that’s written into these rules.

You ignored my George DRS example. His rear wing passed scrutineering but a fault on track caused operation issues during a race, captured on television. The stewards found there was no technical advantage, etc.

I do not think the DRS malfunction is a good example. Failures, defects or crash damage are not a technical infringement if the part was fine before and how it was adjusted and designed.

The front wing mechanism here was designed too small/weak, thus closing too late. This is a design choice, which brings all sorts of benefit. Weight just to name one clearly. A wrong design or adjustment choice is a clear technical infringement and a clear DSQ.

They were just lucky, that no one did catch it before the scrutineering finished.

But the part WAS fine before, or else it wouldn’t have passed scrutineering.

And the design isn’t the issue. “In Shanghai, the team got its calculations wrong in terms of how much hydraulic pressure was required to close the wing at maximum speed because of the forces being pushed against it as the car travels through the air.” There isn’t enough of a sample size to say the design was defective because the behavior wasn’t flagged in AUS, nor was it observed in testing.

I fail how to see unpredictable braking “brings all sort of benefit.”

Anyway, the sport’s governing body is satisfied and it doesn’t really concern me much anymore. Fans of rival teams (not suggesting you, I’m sure your intentions are honorable) want to continue to further their agendas and hopes that there will be some magic bullet to nerf Merc and I’m sure they’re foaming at the mouth for the next potential illegality to latch onto lol.

Feels like 2014 - 2020 all over again.

[Lasssept]

Albano

[Lasssept]

[OverheatedTurbo]

Long runs look good.

[HungarianRacer]

Doesn't look like a struggle out of the chicane, it's either a flat battery or intentional sandbagging.
Car in the S curves looks mint though:

[Lasssept]

[Jdn1327]

What happened with George's car? Did he take the wrong direction with setup?

[Lasssept]

[F1subman25]

If Kimi wins this one and the hype train gets to full speed I think we’ll see nasty George appear.

[Lasssept]

What happened with George's car? Did he take the wrong direction with setup?

[Jdn1327]

What happened with George's car? Did he take the wrong direction with setup?

Thank you sir. I suspected as much.