2021 Spanish Grand Prix - Catalunya, May 07 - 09

[El Scorchio]

Some would call it political warfare. I'd call it desperation from Redbull if they have indeed made a wing flex within the current testing methods.

And I know I know... it's not cheating if it passes the tests. But is an athlete who uses a new drug that cannot be tested for cheating, or just working within the rules? That is only ever subjective and everybody will have their own opinion.

In that case, all teams are cheating then. All teams have wings that flex..... if enough load is applied to them.

If the rules, for instance, call for a wing that bends no more than 5 degrees when 100kg of load is applied to the middle, and Red Bulls wing doesn't bend until 101kg is applied, is that cheating? If all the other teams' wings don't bend until 150kg, but Red Bulls' wing bends at 101kg, so it flexes more over a lap, is Red Bull cheating?

Working within the rules is never cheating is by definition can only be objective, unless there is no subjective way to test the rule (in which case there isn't really rule; it's a guideline at best).

I wouldn't call it cheating in this instance. I'd call it merely exploiting a loophole in the regulations albeit perhaps against the spirit of them, but I can see why other people would call it cheating.

However, let's not forget all the teams do stuff like this and exploit grey areas all the time to get a competitive edge until such times as rules may be amended to stop it happening. There's no 'good' or 'bad' at play if you look at it objectively rather than subjectively.

[El Scorchio]

Some would call it political warfare. I'd call it desperation from Redbull if they have indeed made a wing flex within the current testing methods.

And I know I know... it's not cheating if it passes the tests. But is an athlete who uses a new drug that cannot be tested for cheating, or just working within the rules? That is only ever subjective and everybody will have their own opinion.

In that case, all teams are cheating then. All teams have wings that flex..... if enough load is applied to them.

If the rules, for instance, call for a wing that bends no more than 5 degrees when 100kg of load is applied to the middle, and Red Bulls wing doesn't bend until 101kg is applied, is that cheating? If all the other teams' wings don't bend until 150kg, but Red Bulls' wing bends at 101kg, so it flexes more over a lap, is Red Bull cheating?

Working within the rules is never cheating is by definition can only be objective, unless there is no subjective way to test the rule (in which case there isn't really rule; it's a guideline at best).

Also the rules are written in a way that often leaves room for exploiting "gray" areas. I think these things have always been a big part of F1, it keeps the teams on their toes

and allows for genius innovation, problem solving and lateral thinking. Maybe some of it later becomes outlawed, maybe some just gets adopted by everyone else too.

[Baulz]

Red Bull have been doing this with their wings for 10 years now, remember their bendy front wings?

[214270]

Red Bull have been doing this with their wings for 10 years now, remember their bendy front wings?

They were using a pretty crude spring that time round before the FIA shut it down. This seems to be something quite different.

[dans79]

Red Bull have been doing this with their wings for 10 years now, remember their bendy front wings?

And they got excluded from the 2014 Abu Dhabi qualifying results for that, and new tests were introduced.

what will catch them out this time is the gotcha rule.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf

3.9.9

In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the
right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to
be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

here is 3.8 and the highlighted part 3.9.9 is referring to (imo)

With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view
mirrors described in Article 14.3, 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.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the
car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of
the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.11, 3.7.12 and 3.7.13, may under any circumstances be
located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any
car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

[Marty_Y]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?

Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.

If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

[Hoffman900]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?

Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.

If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

Racing 101: if it can’t be enforced, then you go for it.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think what is happening here is that Mercedes' Flexi-wing doesn't work as well as RedBull's, and Mercedes is willing to lose it, confident that RedBull has more to lose.

[djones]

I think what is happening here is that Mercedes' Flexi-wing doesn't work as well as RedBull's, and Mercedes is willing to lose it, confident that RedBull has more to lose.

The side by side video shows almost zero flex on the Mercedes. Given even the Alpine wing is bending I suspect Mercedes could have done it too if they were so inclined.

There was a video of the Redbull wing flexing last year. It’s likely Mercedes were not saying anything until it was strategically worthwhile getting it banned.

Let’s pretend the the Mercedes and Redbull wing both flexed. Mercedes would lose less because of their superior engine.

Basically the new flex testing is win/win for Mercedes I think.

[McMika98]

I think what is happening here is that Mercedes' Flexi-wing doesn't work as well as RedBull's, and Mercedes is willing to lose it, confident that RedBull has more to lose.

Let’s pretend the the Mercedes and Redbull wing both flexed. Mercedes would lose less because of their superior engine. Basically the new flex testing is win/win for Mercedes I think.

Pretty much nailed it. The amount of flex in RedBull is easily few kph of top speed and few tenths per lap in a race. That is going to hurt them badly and they already have weaker race pace than Merc. Expecting the unstable rear to kick in the Redbull again if they have to change the rear wing.

[hUirEYExbN]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?
Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.
If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

Letter is not being broken as it passes the requisite tests. Spirit means nothing really.

[NathanOlder]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?
Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.
If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

Letter is not being broken as it passes the requisite tests. Spirit means nothing really.

It may pass the load test, but isn't it breaking Technical Regulations such as

" all body work (apart from DRS) must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) and that it must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"

?

[Hoffman900]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?
Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.
If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

Letter is not being broken as it passes the requisite tests. Spirit means nothing really.

It may pass the load test, but isn't it breaking Technical Regulations such as

" all body work (apart from DRS) must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) and that it must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"

?

Yes, but if you can’t define it, then it doesn’t matter.

This is ubiquitous in racing at all levels. There is no such rule as “spirit”. Also, nothing is completely rigid. So the game is “how much is too much?” And if it isn’t defined, then it’s open game.

Typically what happens in racing is the more rules you make, the more rules need to be made because you have to literally set dimensions for EVERYTHING. On top of that, you them have to enforce it. If the rules say engines have to be a certain displacement but no one ever checks, you bet people will be running larger than rules engines.

[Marty_Y]

Is it right for people to say that they are merely exploiting a grey area of the rules?
Surely this is a case of knowingly breaking the letter and spirit of the rules that bans active aero and says that aero parts should be rigidity secured, remain immobile as stated above in dans79's post.
If anything they are exploiting a grey area in the tests being used, (the tests are not currently sufficient to detect when the rules are being broken).

Letter is not being broken as it passes the requisite tests. Spirit means nothing really.

Here is a good article about it, the letter of the laws are being broken.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/57086036

"The governing body has written to teams saying it had "become aware" some rear wings passed tests but had "excessive deflections while cars are in motion".

The FIA has told teams it will introduce new load-deflection tests from 15 June.

In addition to new, more targeted static tests, the FIA plans to use on-board cameras to monitor the behaviour of wings while cars are in motion in an attempt to spot any excessive movement of bodywork.

Teams will be required to put a series of markings on their wings to facilitate this process.

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."

[dans79]

Yes, but if you can’t define it, then it doesn’t matter.

This is ubiquitous in racing at all levels. There is no such rule as “spirit”. Also, nothing is completely rigid. So the game is “how much is too much?” And if it isn’t defined, then it’s open game.

In the end none of it really matters, as the FIA has already decided they're going to introduce new more stringent tests.