Mercedes W17

[matteosc]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage. In the case of a excessively worn plank or of a underweight car, there is definitely an advantage. In the case of the front wing closing slowly, apparently there is not. Not sure about how this determination was made.

[AR3-GP]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage.

The Halo doesn't provide a performance advantage, yet teams are required to run with it to be compliant. I don't think that there is a secondary layer of haggling involved in these technical regulations. What is written must be complied with. The FIA doesn't have to prove you got a performance benefit and likewise a team cannot argue that they didn't because it's not about that. Introducing this kind of quid pro quo adds an unnecessary layer of subjectivity and overhead for the FIA that is ripe for abuse.

[zibby43]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage.

The Halo doesn't provide a performance advantage, yet teams are required to run with it to be compliant. I don't think that there is a secondary layer of haggling involved in these technical regulations. What is written must be complied with.

That’s clearly not the case in practice, as I evidenced in another thread when George was dealing with a DRS issue in Bahrain. The radio button was activating DRS “illegally.” But the stewards did not penalize George or the team because they found, in part, that there was no competitive advantage.

Having a lower weight (minimum fuel) or running lower (plank) are very clear cut from a performance advantage perspective and there are straightforward tests to ensure compliance in post-race scrutineering.

Having the front wing not perform as designed and not only not produce a performance benefit but instead, a detriment, should absolutely be considered from a “spirit of the rules” perspective. Plus we are talking about potentially running afoul of a regulation based on supposed visual evidence alone, (from TV broadcasts) as there was no failed scrutineering with the W17.

[matteosc]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage.

The Halo doesn't provide a performance advantage, yet teams are required to run with it to be compliant. I don't think that there is a secondary layer of haggling involved in these technical regulations. What is written must be complied with. The FIA doesn't have to prove you got a performance benefit and likewise a team cannot argue that they didn't because it's not about that. Introducing this kind of quid pro quo adds an unnecessary layer of subjectivity and overhead for the FIA that is ripe for abuse.

Well, that seems what the FIA is doing. To be fair the example of the Halo would be considered as a safety issue, while you cannot say the same for the front wing. I believe that they considered in the same way as if you lose a piece of bodywork because of a contact. In theory, now you car does not comply with the regulations, but it does not make sense to disqualify based on that.

In my opinion they should have been disqualified, jsut to be clear. But since they were not, I am trying to make sense of the legal basis for what happened.

[AR3-GP]

Well, that seems what the FIA is doing. To be fair the example of the Halo would be considered as a safety issue, while you cannot say the same for the front wing. I believe that they considered in the same way as if you lose a piece of bodywork because of a contact. In theory, now you car does not comply with the regulations, but it does not make sense to disqualify based on that.

In my opinion they should have been disqualified, jsut to be clear. But since they were not, I am trying to make sense of the legal basis for what happened.

I understand your point now. If I can make one comment, it is that the 400ms regulation seems to be there on the basis of safety. There is no other plausible reason why the FIA hasn't made this 1000ms, or 2000ms. Active aero is inherently dangerous if it doesn't close when the driver expects it to. You can imagine somewhere like Suzuka where if the system is too slow, it can cause a crash in T1. So the FIA wants these systems to be fast and fit for purpose.


As for the performance benefits of delayed front wing closure:

A source from a rival team indicated to PlanetF1.com that it is commonplace for teams to delay the activation and deactivation of straight-line mode between the front and rear of the car.

However, this usually sees the front wing close later than the rear wing in order to reduce the potential for bottoming and skid wear.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-ham ... ing-update

This would have enabled lower ride heights. So Mercedes don't really have any legs to stand on. If it was not a performance benefit, it is a safety issue. If it was a performance benefit, then well...it's a mess either way.

[chrisc90]

Yeh, it's not intentional for the plank to be worn too thin, or for their to be a tenth of a mm more slot gap in the rear wing. If you don't conform to the regulations then you should be disqualified.

It is all about proving that the non conformity did not produce an advantage. In the case of a excessively worn plank or of a underweight car, there is definitely an advantage. In the case of the front wing closing slowly, apparently there is not. Not sure about how this determination was made.

Does 0.1mm of extra DRS flap opening give an advantage?

[vorticism]

If it’s random (and it looks to be, as we’ve seen the wing operate with and without delay, as AR3 showed) that generally would not provide an advantage; unless you want to propose what the benefit of unpredictability ahead of braking zones would be.

Setting that aside, the claims are:
--it helps airflow re-attachment (maybe, but so far this is just a meme that cropped up during testing)
--it reduces peak DF in that brief moment, by slowing the onset of downforce, to protect the FW or bib
--it helps harvesting (for a fraction after several seconds of harvesting have already occured)

But you would have to argue why you would want any of those supposed benefits happening at random only.

Agree that DQ should have been done if the wing takes more than 400ms to close. Doesn't matter if its by design or due to a problem. The regulation is there for a reason. If you have a fuel leak and finish the race with less than the required fuel amount, you will get a DQ. Etc.

If a front wing endplate or part of the floor breaks off mid-race, still cars are permitted to race, despite having illegal geometry, despite the car being lighter than it should be at the end of the race. Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

[johnnycesup]

Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

If the wing displayed the illegal behaviour in both cars in both races, is it a malfunction or a poor design?

Poor designs that break the rules should absolutely lead to DSQ

[PlatinumZealot]

Would requiring hydraulic pressure to force the wing closed not leave them open to it failing in the straight mode, which is if I am not mistaken forbidden and any failure must see the wing default to cornering mode ?

It requires pressure to open but because it us hydraulic it also gives resistance to close unless they is a valving to release the fluid (like a mechanic's jack).

I don't buy the excuse that it was a failure though. That's too simple for it to happen to Mercedes. What are they going to say the put too much fluid in the accumulator? Lol.

I think this Loophole exists and Mercedes are quenching the coals before a full fire breaks out.

[vorticism]

Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

If the wing displayed the illegal behaviour in both cars in both races, is it a malfunction or a poor design?

Poor designs that break the rules should absolutely lead to DSQ

"should be" =/= precedent i.e. how often have we seen broken aero parts lead to DSQ

Malfunction and bad design are not mutually exclusive, obviously. If the error persists, the FIA will likely step in, and if they do, I bet it would be done from a safety perspective, not a concern over performance gains, because it is (as far as AR3 showed) random. I haven't seen any of the Hamilton fans fueling this frenzy construct an argument for how random downforce variation ahead of braking would be a good thing for George & Kimi.

[johnnycesup]

"should be" =/= precedent i.e. how often have we seen broken aero parts lead to DSQ

Malfunction and bad design are not mutually exclusive, obviously. If the error persists, the FIA will likely step in, and if they do, I bet it would be done from a safety perspective, not a concern over performance gains, because it is (as far as AR3 showed) random. I haven't seen any of the Hamilton fans fueling this frenzy construct an argument for how random downforce variation ahead of braking would be a good thing for George & Kimi.

IMO there should not be any consideration about performance gains, because those can be easily disguised and there's not a single word about it in the regulations. I don't know what's the scope for DSQ Mercedes from Melbourne or Shanghai right now, so maybe "the talk" the FIA had with Mercedes would be enough for the FIA.

However, if their wing can't close consistently on time in FP, the stewards should call Mercedes and tell them that during qualifying and the race its a DSQ if it can't be fixed. Merc can run the FW in corner mode the entire race if they need to.

[FNTC]

Agree that DQ should have been done if the wing takes more than 400ms to close. Doesn't matter if its by design or due to a problem. The regulation is there for a reason. If you have a fuel leak and finish the race with less than the required fuel amount, you will get a DQ. Etc.

If a front wing endplate or part of the floor breaks off mid-race, still cars are permitted to race, despite having illegal geometry, despite the car being lighter than it should be at the end of the race. Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

But if it happens without any external forces, they have to investigate whether it is accidental or on purpose.
Also failed bodywork gives the car a slower lap time, generally. If this "failure" is helpful, in laptime or in stabilizing the car under braking, it should be a DQ.
Also, why did Mercedes not say anything about this so called failure until videos showed up and rival teams protested?
To me this appears similar to the MCL mini-DRS, where it "failed" and created a larger DRS opening. But it was probably designed to do to.

[SB15]

Agree that DQ should have been done if the wing takes more than 400ms to close. Doesn't matter if its by design or due to a problem. The regulation is there for a reason. If you have a fuel leak and finish the race with less than the required fuel amount, you will get a DQ. Etc.

If a front wing endplate or part of the floor breaks off mid-race, still cars are permitted to race, despite having illegal geometry, despite the car being lighter than it should be at the end of the race. Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

But if it happens without any external forces, they have to investigate whether it is accidental or on purpose.
Also failed bodywork gives the car a slower lap time, generally. If this "failure" is helpful, in laptime or in stabilizing the car under braking, it should be a DQ.
Also, why did Mercedes not say anything about this so called failure until videos showed up and rival teams protested?
To me this appears similar to the MCL mini-DRS, where it "failed" and created a larger DRS opening. But it was probably designed to do to.

If you look at the motion on the side-by-side, it seems like it was operating in the same motion when it was properly working, just moving much faster.

This as a technical failure though? It should've been on the grounds of a DSQ but I think the FIA might of seen their argument if it wasn't properly outputting enough hydraulic pressure. Surprised they didn't at least say anything about fines...

But we move on.

[zibby43]

If it’s random (and it looks to be, as we’ve seen the wing operate with and without delay, as AR3 showed) that generally would not provide an advantage; unless you want to propose what the benefit of unpredictability ahead of braking zones would be.

Setting that aside, the claims are:
--it helps airflow re-attachment (maybe, but so far this is just a meme that cropped up during testing)
--it reduces peak DF in that brief moment, by slowing the onset of downforce, to protect the FW or bib
--it helps harvesting (for a fraction after several seconds of harvesting have already occured)

But you would have to argue why you would want any of those supposed benefits happening at random only.

Agree that DQ should have been done if the wing takes more than 400ms to close. Doesn't matter if its by design or due to a problem. The regulation is there for a reason. If you have a fuel leak and finish the race with less than the required fuel amount, you will get a DQ. Etc.

If a front wing endplate or part of the floor breaks off mid-race, still cars are permitted to race, despite having illegal geometry, despite the car being lighter than it should be at the end of the race. Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

Excellent example and the slightly clattered front wings are definitely going to be prone to active aero glitches in this new rule set.

[zibby43]

Agree that DQ should have been done if the wing takes more than 400ms to close. Doesn't matter if its by design or due to a problem. The regulation is there for a reason. If you have a fuel leak and finish the race with less than the required fuel amount, you will get a DQ. Etc.

If a front wing endplate or part of the floor breaks off mid-race, still cars are permitted to race, despite having illegal geometry, despite the car being lighter than it should be at the end of the race. Obviously bodywork malfunctions have generally not lead to DSQs.

But if it happens without any external forces, they have to investigate whether it is accidental or on purpose.
Also failed bodywork gives the car a slower lap time, generally. If this "failure" is helpful, in laptime or in stabilizing the car under braking, it should be a DQ.
Also, why did Mercedes not say anything about this so called failure until videos showed up and rival teams protested?
To me this appears similar to the MCL mini-DRS, where it "failed" and created a larger DRS opening. But it was probably designed to do to.

They did speak up with the parties that matter. And no one protested, either.

You’ve got your facts all muddled up, sorry to say.