2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Yas Marina, Dec 10 - 12

[AeroDynamic]

Totto in no way lobbied for rules to be broken. It's a huge difference between him and redbull. He does ask for the virtual safety car yes, and he does ask for the safety car to stay out. But he only asks for reasonable choices that are perfectly within the rules.
Redbull on the other hand were very desperate, and I feel wheatley needs to be investigated as well. He may have been pressured by Horner for a miralce to make use of Max fresh tyres.
Masi's bank accounts also need to be checked, just to ensure there was no hanky panky that took place.

What are you on about? Wheatley never asked Masi to break the rules and only let a few cars pass. He said:

"Obviously those lapped cars, you don't need to let them go right away round and catch up with the back of the pack"

Which is correct. With only a lap to go, a gap between the leaders and lapped cars of some 10 seconds is enough to prevent them from getting in the way. But in no way does the above imply to only let -some- cars through. Wheatley's request was no more outrageous than Toto saying "No SC please" or anything along those lines. When I talk about Toto playing games with the FIA, I mean that they strongly lobbied for mid-season rule changes with respect to the wings and pit stops, and incredibly, succeeded. Talking about a team influencing the season.

It isn’t unheard of for rules to change mid season though. Do you forget the engine rules change mid season in 2020?

[DChemTech]

Totto in no way lobbied for rules to be broken. It's a huge difference between him and redbull. He does ask for the virtual safety car yes, and he does ask for the safety car to stay out. But he only asks for reasonable choices that are perfectly within the rules.
Redbull on the other hand were very desperate, and I feel wheatley needs to be investigated as well. He may have been pressured by Horner for a miralce to make use of Max fresh tyres.
Masi's bank accounts also need to be checked, just to ensure there was no hanky panky that took place.

What are you on about? Wheatley never asked Masi to break the rules and only let a few cars pass. He said:

"Obviously those lapped cars, you don't need to let them go right away round and catch up with the back of the pack"

Which is correct. With only a lap to go, a gap between the leaders and lapped cars of some 10 seconds is enough to prevent them from getting in the way. But in no way does the above imply to only let -some- cars through. Wheatley's request was no more outrageous than Toto saying "No SC please" or anything along those lines. When I talk about Toto playing games with the FIA, I mean that they strongly lobbied for mid-season rule changes with respect to the wings and pit stops, and incredibly, succeeded. Talking about a team influencing the season.

It isn’t unheard of for rules to change mid season though. Do you forget the engine rules change mid season in 2020?

I did not forget that, but I do not have enough information on what actually transpired there to classify it as being a rule change, or a rule clarification. If the rules state an absolute limit of something, e.g. a maximum fuel massflow, and a new test is introduced because some teams may be exceeding the limit without detection, that's no rule change. It's a new way of enforcing an existing rule. But with the 'flexing' wings, no absolute limit was stated - the only limits were the tests, and then changing the tests means changing the rules. Which should not happen, and certainly not based on the requests of a participating team.

For example, if the rule stated
Part X cannot deflect more than 3mm under any condition, which is tested by applying a load Y under stationary conditions, and load Y is increased or the way of application and measurement is changed at some point, no problem, the rule itself remains unchanged. The designers designed for a max. deflection of 3mm, and should not exceed that.

If the rule stated
Part X cannot deflect. This is tested by applying load Y under stationary conditions and measuring whether the deflection does not exceed 3mm , and this is subsequently changed to measuring whether the deflection does not exceed 3mm , the definition of what counts as deflection, and hence the rule itself, is changed. And that is a problem. The designers designed for a max. deflection of 3mm, and now suddenly the criteria change such that their perfectly legal design becomes illegal. Instigated because a competitor didn't like the degree of deflection they noted visually.

[AeroDynamic]

What are you on about? Wheatley never asked Masi to break the rules and only let a few cars pass. He said:

"Obviously those lapped cars, you don't need to let them go right away round and catch up with the back of the pack"

Which is correct. With only a lap to go, a gap between the leaders and lapped cars of some 10 seconds is enough to prevent them from getting in the way. But in no way does the above imply to only let -some- cars through. Wheatley's request was no more outrageous than Toto saying "No SC please" or anything along those lines. When I talk about Toto playing games with the FIA, I mean that they strongly lobbied for mid-season rule changes with respect to the wings and pit stops, and incredibly, succeeded. Talking about a team influencing the season.

It isn’t unheard of for rules to change mid season though. Do you forget the engine rules change mid season in 2020?

I did not forget that, but I do not have enough information on what actually transpired there to classify it as being a rule change, or a rule clarification. If the rules state an absolute limit of something, e.g. a maximum fuel massflow, and a new test is introduced because some teams may be exceeding the limit without detection, that's no rule change. It's a new way of enforcing an existing rule. But with the 'flexing' wings, no absolute limit was stated - the only limits were the tests, and then changing the tests means changing the rules. Which should not happen, and certainly not based on the requests of a participating team.

For example, if the rule stated
Part X cannot deflect more than 3mm under any condition, which is tested by applying a load Y under stationary conditions, and load Y is increased or the way of application and measurement is changed at some point, no problem, the rule itself remains unchanged. The designers designed for a max. deflection of 3mm, and should not exceed that.

If the rule stated
Part X cannot deflect. This is tested by applying load Y under stationary conditions and measuring whether the deflection does not exceed 3mm , and this is subsequently changed to measuring whether the deflection does not exceed 3mm , the definition of what counts as deflection, and hence the rule itself, is changed. And that is a problem. The designers designed for a max. deflection of 3mm, and now suddenly the criteria change such that their perfectly legal design becomes illegal. Instigated because a competitor didn't like the degree of deflection they noted visually.

It wasn’t a clarification. It was a rule change. It didn’t benefit Mercedes’ at all, as they had the most powerful advantage of extremes between qualifying mode and race mode. This massively benefited Ferrari, Honda, and Renault. Both in development costs, and on making Mercedes’ are more reachable target.

The rules changing mid season against Mercedes and nobody was complaining about that being bad.

The game is the game. In cases like the tyre war, Ferrari knew something was up with the contact patch but didn’t complain about it until much later and were threatened.

Mercedes made a complaint about the wings, and F1 clearly agreed the wings should not be moving as much as they were, the load tests were designed to police that kind of movement. Just because the teams figured out how to pass the test but achieve the same aim, doesn’t mean what the wing does is ‘legal’ just means it legally passed the test. It is literally the same thing as the Ferrari engine saga: it passed the sensor / tests, but what it DOES is not correct with the rules.

The rules have stayed the same in this case, the only difference was the mandated test to police the rules changed.

This is no different than F1 supposedly adding additional sensors to Ferraris power unit in ‘19 - same rules, more stringent tests to police it.

The actual engine mode rules was literally a change of rules in 2020, not a change of tests.

The pit stop rule change was a rule change though. But if you’re Mercedes’ and rules were changed against your advantage, why wouldn’t you do the same with a new team is at the front? And this is on the presumption that Mercedes’ in fact lobbied for a change, has any proof came out that this happened? According to Mercedes’ they seeked a clarification on their own equipment, and F1 themselves changed the rules?

[Csmith1980]

Totto in no way lobbied for rules to be broken. It's a huge difference between him and redbull. He does ask for the virtual safety car yes, and he does ask for the safety car to stay out. But he only asks for reasonable choices that are perfectly within the rules.
Redbull on the other hand were very desperate, and I feel wheatley needs to be investigated as well. He may have been pressured by Horner for a miralce to make use of Max fresh tyres.
Masi's bank accounts also need to be checked, just to ensure there was no hanky panky that took place.

What are you on about? Wheatley never asked Masi to break the rules and only let a few cars pass. He said:

"Obviously those lapped cars, you don't need to let them go right away round and catch up with the back of the pack"

Which is correct. With only a lap to go, a gap between the leaders and lapped cars of some 10 seconds is enough to prevent them from getting in the way. But in no way does the above imply to only let -some- cars through. Wheatley's request was no more outrageous than Toto saying "No SC please" or anything along those lines. When I talk about Toto playing games with the FIA, I mean that they strongly lobbied for mid-season rule changes with respect to the wings and pit stops, and incredibly, succeeded. Talking about a team influencing the season.

It wasn’t just Toto lobbying for a change on the rear wing though, was it.
not only that but Redbulls RW was bought too the FIA’s attention in 2020 so had they so desired the regs could have been changed in the off season.

[DChemTech]

It wasn’t a clarification. It was a rule change. It didn’t benefit Mercedes’ at all, as they had the most powerful advantage of extremes between qualifying mode and race mode. This massively benefited Ferrari, Honda, and Renault. Both in development costs, and on making Mercedes’ are more reachable target.

The rules changing mid season against Mercedes and nobody was complaining about that being bad.

The game is the game. In cases like the tyre war, Ferrari knew something was up with the contact patch but didn’t complain about it until much later and were threatened.

Mercedes made a complaint about the wings, and F1 clearly agreed the wings should not be moving as much as they were, the load tests were designed to police that kind of movement. Just because the teams figured out how to pass the test but achieve the same aim, doesn’t mean what the wing does is ‘legal’ just means it legally passed the test. It is literally the same thing as the Ferrari engine saga: it passed the sensor / tests, but what it DOES is not correct with the rules.

The rules have stayed the same in this case, the only difference was the mandated test to police the rules changed.

This is no different than F1 supposedly adding additional sensors to Ferraris power unit in ‘19 - same rules, more stringent tests to police it.

The actual engine mode rules was literally a change of rules in 2020, not a change of tests.

The pit stop rule change was a rule change though. But if you’re Mercedes’ and rules were changed against your advantage, why wouldn’t you do the same with a new team is at the front? And this is on the presumption that Mercedes’ in fact lobbied for a change, has any proof came out that this happened? According to Mercedes’ they seemed a clarification on their own equipment, and F1 themselves changed the rules?

Sorry, I mixed up the Ferrari issue with the engine mode change. Yes, I disagree with that engine mode change too. That should not have happened. Teams should not be punished for using the room provided by rules to the max.

F1 clearly agreed the wings should not be moving as much as they were...

If that were the case, they should have written better rules. Within the quantitative limitations provided by the rules, RB did nothing wrong. And the whole 'spirit of the rules' is just a load of hooey. One cannot design for spirit, one designs for numbers. This is not a ghostbusters competition.

It is literally the same thing as the Ferrari engine saga: it passed the sensor / tests, but what it DOES is not correct with the rules.

Wrong, because there were no quantitative limits that were broken. By changing the tests, they changed the limits, hence the rules. These are two very different situations.

[e30ernest]

If would go full conspiracy theory on Masi,:
We know two things,
1 Masi’s way of being likeable is to do requests
2 Liberty has been worried that Hamilton retires without a WC at the front of the field (that’s why they “helped” Alpine with the return of Alonso, because for 2021 there was a possibility to have only Kimi on the grid as a WC)

So, could Liberty also be whispering in Masi’s ear that they would like it very much to have Verstappen as a WC before Hamilton calls it quits?

It's a stretch mate. Can't see it going that way.

The most logical conclusion is that Masi was more concerned about the show, than he was about the sport. I think it was also pressure from Liberty as well. I don't think he really favored one driver over the other, it's just that in this round, it ended up heavily benefiting one and deciding the title overall.

[Stu]

Best course of action would have been to cancel the whole YMGP result…

No, the race would be called at 3/4 distance correct?

No, not really. There were inconsistencies in applications of rules from the very start. The first of which was inconsistent with how the ‘rules’ have been applied previously ever, the last of which saw the ‘rules’ applied differently to they have ever!!
Both of which, if applied as would normally be the case, could be argued to have cost Lewis the WDC.

[AeroDynamic]

Best course of action would have been to cancel the whole YMGP result…

No, the race would be called at 3/4 distance correct?

No, not really. There were inconsistencies in applications of rules from the very start. The first of which was inconsistent with how the ‘rules’ have been applied previously ever, the last of which saw the ‘rules’ applied differently to they have ever!!
Both of which, if applied as would normally be the case, could be argued to have cost Lewis the WDC.

can you elaborate on what you're talking about

[Csmith1980]

No, the race would be called at 3/4 distance correct?

No, not really. There were inconsistencies in applications of rules from the very start. The first of which was inconsistent with how the ‘rules’ have been applied previously ever, the last of which saw the ‘rules’ applied differently to they have ever!!
Both of which, if applied as would normally be the case, could be argued to have cost Lewis the WDC.

can you elaborate on what you're talking about

I assume he’s referring to the incident when Hamilton ran wide and the stewards decided he had given back any advantage he had gained. Given how much quicker Hamilton was I can’t see that would have cost him the WDC had he given the place too max

[AeroDynamic]

It wasn’t a clarification. It was a rule change. It didn’t benefit Mercedes’ at all, as they had the most powerful advantage of extremes between qualifying mode and race mode. This massively benefited Ferrari, Honda, and Renault. Both in development costs, and on making Mercedes’ are more reachable target.

The rules changing mid season against Mercedes and nobody was complaining about that being bad.

The game is the game. In cases like the tyre war, Ferrari knew something was up with the contact patch but didn’t complain about it until much later and were threatened.

Mercedes made a complaint about the wings, and F1 clearly agreed the wings should not be moving as much as they were, the load tests were designed to police that kind of movement. Just because the teams figured out how to pass the test but achieve the same aim, doesn’t mean what the wing does is ‘legal’ just means it legally passed the test. It is literally the same thing as the Ferrari engine saga: it passed the sensor / tests, but what it DOES is not correct with the rules.

The rules have stayed the same in this case, the only difference was the mandated test to police the rules changed.

This is no different than F1 supposedly adding additional sensors to Ferraris power unit in ‘19 - same rules, more stringent tests to police it.

The actual engine mode rules was literally a change of rules in 2020, not a change of tests.

The pit stop rule change was a rule change though. But if you’re Mercedes’ and rules were changed against your advantage, why wouldn’t you do the same with a new team is at the front? And this is on the presumption that Mercedes’ in fact lobbied for a change, has any proof came out that this happened? According to Mercedes’ they seemed a clarification on their own equipment, and F1 themselves changed the rules?

Sorry, I mixed up the Ferrari issue with the engine mode change. Yes, I disagree with that engine mode change too. That should not have happened. Teams should not be punished for using the room provided by rules to the max.

F1 clearly agreed the wings should not be moving as much as they were...

If that were the case, they should have written better rules. Within the quantitative limitations provided by the rules, RB did nothing wrong. And the whole 'spirit of the rules' is just a load of hooey. One cannot design for spirit, one designs for numbers. This is not a ghostbusters competition.

It is literally the same thing as the Ferrari engine saga: it passed the sensor / tests, but what it DOES is not correct with the rules.

Wrong, because there were no quantitative limits that were broken. By changing the tests, they changed the limits, hence the rules. These are two very different situations.

the rules said no moveable aerodynamic devices. I agree the rules should state quantitive limits to help teams know where the boundary is. However, all teams by design of the competition, try to exploit these grey areas, and it is the discretion of the FIA to amend its tests and rules to enforce the boundaries they want. Fia changed their sensors with engines mid season. If you are caught on the wrong side of the limit in the grey area, that is not the FIA's fault, you are just unfortunate but that's the gamble you take when you try to maximise a grey area without an obvious boundary stated – taking a shot in the dark, you are guessing where the target is. When the FIA shines a light on it and you didn't guess right, well, that's on you for trying to shoot in the dark. Ultimately through the new tests, the FIA clarified what was the limit, they didn't change the rules.

Red Bull have been down this road before, and they know very well that flexing aero wings is not on. Teams have been exploiting the test and now the FIA have moved the goal posts accordingly to stop it. That was a setback for Red Bull but nothing untoward. It was announced before that the FIA can and will change rules in a season. I don't have a problem with this if the tests are changed to protect well known rules being conformed to.

[AeroDynamic]

No, not really. There were inconsistencies in applications of rules from the very start. The first of which was inconsistent with how the ‘rules’ have been applied previously ever, the last of which saw the ‘rules’ applied differently to they have ever!!
Both of which, if applied as would normally be the case, could be argued to have cost Lewis the WDC.

can you elaborate on what you're talking about

I assume he’s referring to the incident when Hamilton ran wide and the stewards decided he had given back any advantage he had gained. Given how much quicker Hamilton was I can’t see that would have cost him the WDC had he given the place too max

Right. Well, he definitely gave the advantage back, it is very obvious from all the footages, he cut the corner to avoid the curbs which would've given Max a traction advantage to take the place on the straight. (basically avoiding what happened in Monza where he rode over the curb in turn 4)

With the pace difference, Lewis would've ran circles around Max in that race. He only used one set of Hards, max used two sets and could not keep up or close the gap. Theres a good chance if Max had maintained first place for any length of time, that one of the safety cars mid race would've allowed Hamilton to pit cheap and take a fresh hard set – vs max on an old set, he would've made light work of Max.

The only way Max could've won that race is exactly how he won it – profiting from incompetent race authoring by Masi, Illegitimate race authoring. It was a fictional result in that respect.

[DChemTech]

the rules said no moveable aerodynamic devices.

Which is physically impossible. Such a rule only makes sense if a limit is provided as to what constitutes rigid. The only such limit that was provided was the test value. Which RB abided to. Any other 'limit' that the FIA may have had in mind was not put to paper, hence could not have instructed the designers in making their choices.

I agree the rules should state quantitive limits to help teams know where the boundary is. However, all teams by design of the competition, try to exploit these grey areas, and it is the discretion of the FIA to amend its tests and rules to enforce the boundaries they want.

There was no gray area that was exploited. A limit was provided and was abided to. That's black and white. FIA made it 'gray' by suddenly changing their mind about what constitutes moving, and that should not happen because you penalize rules for not meeting standards that they were not and could not have been aware of.

Fia changed their sensors with engines mid season.

Changing the way something is measured is completely different from changing the limit that applies. Whether or not a sensor is there, the allowed fuel flow is stated (100 kg/h? don't know the numbers by heart). More is illegal, regardless of whether that was measured or not. It would be a different story if the FIA changed the allowed flow to 90 kg/h mid-season. That would be comparable to what they did on the wings.

Ultimately through the new tests, the FIA clarified what was the limit, they didn't change the rules.

No, that's not true. Because the test was the only quantitative limit. If you say to an engineer "drill me a hole with a margin of 0.01 cm, which is what I will test for", and then the next day come in and say "I will test for a margin of 0.003 cm", you changed the rules. You can't penalize an engineer for not abiding to a rule that was not provided in advance.

This is exactly the discussion that has been had before in the dedicated topic though, so I will leave it here.

[AeroDynamic]

the rules said no moveable aerodynamic devices.

Which is physically impossible. Such a rule only makes sense if a limit is provided as to what constitutes rigid. The only such limit that was provided was the test value. Which RB abided to. Any other 'limit' that the FIA may have had in mind was not put to paper, hence could not have instructed the designers in making their choices.

I agree the rules should state quantitive limits to help teams know where the boundary is. However, all teams by design of the competition, try to exploit these grey areas, and it is the discretion of the FIA to amend its tests and rules to enforce the boundaries they want.

There was no gray area that was exploited. A limit was provided and was abided to. That's black and white. FIA made it 'gray' by suddenly changing their mind about what constitutes moving, and that should not happen because you penalize rules for not meeting standards that they were not and could not have been aware of.

Fia changed their sensors with engines mid season.

Changing the way something is measured is completely different from changing the limit that applies. Whether or not a sensor is there, the allowed fuel flow is stated (100 kg/h? don't know the numbers by heart). More is illegal, regardless of whether that was measured or not. It would be a different story if the FIA changed the allowed flow to 90 kg/h mid-season. That would be comparable to what they did on the wings.

Ultimately through the new tests, the FIA clarified what was the limit, they didn't change the rules.

No, that's not true. Because the test was the only quantitative limit. If you say to an engineer "drill me a hole with a margin of 0.01 cm, which is what I will test for", and then the next day come in and say "I will test for a margin of 0.003 cm", you changed the rules. You can't penalize an engineer for not abiding to a rule that was not provided in advance.

This is exactly the discussion that has been had before in the dedicated topic though, so I will leave it here.

Okay, you can have the 'limit' measurement thing if you want, but the rules made it clear they should not move. Teams exploited making it move as much as they dared while be able to pass the legality flex test. But now the rules have clarified what is too much: The test was amended in the process. I still don't see how the outcry about it is proportionate. The pitstop rule change, I can.

[DChemTech]

Okay, you can have the 'limit' measurement thing if you want, but the rules made it clear they should not move. Teams exploited making it move as much as they dared while be able to pass the legality flex test. But now the rules have clarified what is too much: The test was amended in the process. I still don't see how the outcry about it is proportionate. The pitstop rule change, I can.

I already said why: "they should not move" is literally physically impossible. If no tolerance is specified, no engineer can design any wing. If a tolerance is specified, that informs the design choices - so if the tolerance changes, the design choices change. Doing so mid-season penalizes the teams that took the effort to design on (but not over!) the limit. If that's the way to go, one might as well make F1 a spec series.

[AeroDynamic]

Okay, you can have the 'limit' measurement thing if you want, but the rules made it clear they should not move. Teams exploited making it move as much as they dared while be able to pass the legality flex test. But now the rules have clarified what is too much: The test was amended in the process. I still don't see how the outcry about it is proportionate. The pitstop rule change, I can.

I already said why: "they should not move" is literally physically impossible. If no tolerance is specified, no engineer can design any wing. If a tolerance is specified, that informs the design choices - so if the tolerance changes, the design choices change. Doing so mid-season penalizes the teams that took the effort to design on (but not over!) the limit. If that's the way to go, one might as well make F1 a spec series.

They designed the wing to flex for as much aerodynamic benefit as they could while passing the test. Shooting in the dark. That is a grey area they chose to exploit. Not every team did it, and some did it more than others. The sport penalised the right people, you think they should penalise the teams that respected the meaning of the rules that the FIA wants ?

The rule changes on engine and pitstops midseason I think were wrong.