Scuderia Ferrari SF71H

[Just_a_fan]

Just like the suspension systems last year, eh? Ferrari jealousy knew no bounds...

[Vanja #66]

A bit OT, but that move from Ferrari was sublime and elegantly wicked.

[ScrewCaptain27]

Now here’s one we don’t see every day. Worn plank from Vettel’s car:

Photo by @ScarbsTech

[Silent Storm]

A bit OT, but that move from Ferrari was sublime and elegantly wicked.

Their timing was perfect too

[Zynerji]

A bit OT, but that move from Ferrari was sublime and elegantly wicked.

Their timing was perfect too

What does this relate to?

[Silent Storm]

A bit OT, but that move from Ferrari was sublime and elegantly wicked.

Their timing was perfect too

What does this relate to?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12859 ... suspension

[Mamba]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the winglet above the mirror is the issue and not the mirror itself? So the winglet is banned but not the mirror placement? FIA really are a pathetic lot.

MAMBA

[LM10]

Just like the suspension systems last year, eh? Ferrari jealousy knew no bounds...

Suspension systems that increased aerodynamic performance were not allowed. Ferrari suspected Mercedes and RBR of having built such suspensions and wanted clarification.
However, this wing-mirror thing was obviouisly not illegal. It is a well visible part of the car which you can tell if that part is legal or not and it was deemed legal. It's not that you need to check the functioning first to make clear if it affects anything like in the suspension topic.
One is visibly legal/illegal, the other one needs to be checked function wise to furthermore find out what it's about. So in my opinion wing-mirror and suspension is not comparable in this respect at all.

[f1316]

On the one hand, I get that it wasn’t the FIA’s intention to allow these kinds of winglets- they only wanted to allow a placing of the mirrors to facilitate better visibility, so exploiting that for performance gain could be said to be against ‘the spirit of the rules’ - but on the other, what on earth does the spirit of the rules mean in F1 these days?

For example, all those winglets on brake ducts have nothing to do with the function of the brakes in any way, shape or form, and yet teams exploit that loophole all the time. Likewise the t-wing etc.

In this case, Ferrari have found a loophole and, in order to nip in the bud teams developing down that rabbit hole, the FIA have immediately clamped down on it but it’s a completely arbitrary decision which of the loopholes - that the FIA left open with their wording of the regulation - are stamped out and which (like brake duct winglets) are allowed to go unchallenged for years upon years.

[Just_a_fan]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the winglet above the mirror is the issue and not the mirror itself? So the winglet is banned but not the mirror placement? FIA really are a pathetic lot.

MAMBA

Yes, the winglet is banned because although Ferrari insist it's part of the mirror's mounting, it's obviously purely an aerodynamic device. The FIA have stamped on this area before it becomes part of an arms race between the teams. That is sensible.

The key will be to see if Ferrari mount the mirrors on the halo next race or not.

[Zynerji]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the winglet above the mirror is the issue and not the mirror itself? So the winglet is banned but not the mirror placement? FIA really are a pathetic lot.

MAMBA

Yes, the winglet is banned because although Ferrari insist it's part of the mirror's mounting, it's obviously purely an aerodynamic device. The FIA have stamped on this area before it becomes part of an arms race between the teams. That is sensible.

The key will be to see if Ferrari mount the mirrors on the halo next race or not.

It's never sensible to change published rules mid season. Never.

That's not a formula, that's a child's game.

[RZS10]

Their own driver (Vettel) kept insisting that the wings are there for better visibility and NOT for performance so Ferrari shouldn't be too upset about not being able to use them anymore, no?

[Just_a_fan]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the winglet above the mirror is the issue and not the mirror itself? So the winglet is banned but not the mirror placement? FIA really are a pathetic lot.

MAMBA

Yes, the winglet is banned because although Ferrari insist it's part of the mirror's mounting, it's obviously purely an aerodynamic device. The FIA have stamped on this area before it becomes part of an arms race between the teams. That is sensible.

The key will be to see if Ferrari mount the mirrors on the halo next race or not.

It's never sensible to change published rules mid season. Never.

That's not a formula, that's a child's game.

Indeed so. Changing the rules mid season to allow mirrors on the halo was wrong to start with. The FIA isn't making it worse by clarifying exactly what is allowed now.

[roon]

Their own driver (Vettel) kept insisting that the wings are there for better visibility and NOT for performance so Ferrari shouldn't be too upset about not being able to use them anymore, no?

Moving the mirror mounts out of line-of-sight would help visibility, that much is true. The extra fin above the mirror was obviously a pure aero device. Perhaps there is also concern within FIA about mounting larger structures to the halo.

[Sevach]

It's really weird where the FIA chooses to draw the line... Red Bull has a car with twin mirror stalks, obviously shaped to turn the air around and not peep has been heard about it.

I guess the halo is sacred...