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

[DChemTech]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

[Ryar]

I wonder why this thread is not locked up yet, for good. 200+ pages of recycled information with no one leaving their positions and everyone trying their best to justify the incidents that are convenient to their liking, which they have done over 100+ times.

The only good thing is the unflinching enthusiasm with which the same opinions are being thrown around every single time.

[Csmith1980]

I wonder why this thread is not locked up yet, for good. 200+ pages of recycled information with no one leaving their positions and everyone trying their best to justify the incidents that are convenient to their liking, which they have done over 100+ times.

The only good thing is the unflinching enthusiasm with which the same opinions are being thrown around every single time.

Why not just ignore the threat and enjoy the other content provided by the forum then.

[AeroDynamic]

I wonder why this thread is not locked up yet, for good. 200+ pages of recycled information with no one leaving their positions and everyone trying their best to justify the incidents that are convenient to their liking, which they have done over 100+ times.

The only good thing is the unflinching enthusiasm with which the same opinions are being thrown around every single time.

Why not just ignore the threat and enjoy the other content provided by the forum then.

lobbying the thread shut init

the idea that Max shouldn't be champion because of the way the result was contrived in an illegitimate way, is naturally going to bother some people.

[AeroDynamic]

Why not just ignore the threat and enjoy the other content provided by the forum then.

lobbying the thread shut init

the idea that Max shouldn't be champion because of the way the result was contrived in an illegitimate way, is naturally going to bother some people.

You can say, I enjoyed the misery of some saying "so and so got robbed" so much that it's now beyond the satisfaction levels where even the burps are empty.

what does that say about you?

I doubt its that anyway

[Csmith1980]

Why not just ignore the threat and enjoy the other content provided by the forum then.

lobbying the thread shut init

the idea that Max shouldn't be champion because of the way the result was contrived in an illegitimate way, is naturally going to bother some people.

You can say, I enjoyed the misery of some saying "so and so got robbed" so much that it's now beyond the satisfaction levels where even the burps are empty.

If you’re not satisfied then feel free to vacate the thread and let those who still want to argue the toss get on with it.

[PlatinumZealot]

Could Masi have left the stadium alive if he didn't make that call? It's a serious question considering what happens in other sports like football. Masi may have made the call for fear of his own safety.

[siskue2005]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

[AeroDynamic]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

Can someone cite the rules, they're not my bible so I don't know them particularly well but it would be interesting to analyse them than just go with fancy takes. (not saying you are doing that)

[DChemTech]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

If someone purposefully designed to flex the wing suddenly akin to a DRS, they should be penalized. Not covered up with a rule-change. But, that means there needs to be proof of a deliberate rule breach.

If it was natural flex of the material that abides the test, then that's just designing on the edge. And the FIA should not penalize that. Yes, the FIA has the 'right' to change the rules, but it's bad practice because it can be used to favor one team over the other, a.k.a. influencing the competition.

[siskue2005]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

If someone purposefully designed to flex the wing suddenly akin to a DRS, they should be penalized. Not covered up with a rule-change. But, that means there needs to be proof of a deliberate rule breach.

If it was natural flex of the material that abides the test, then that's just designing on the edge. And the FIA should not penalize that. Yes, the FIA has the 'right' to change the rules, but it's bad practice because it can be used to favor one team over the other, a.k.a. influencing the competition.

What Redbull were doing is not material flex, the whole wing bend over back which has been cited by merc even in 2020 and raised it to fia but nothing happened so merc tried to replicate it but were not above to achieve the same level. Hence they raised it again and fia gave new test.

If it disadvantageous one team, then it means it was an unfair advantage for that team. Hence its nullified
However from what i saw in France (when the rules came) the redbull was 6 tenths faster in qualifying. Hence i dont think it affected them that much

[siskue2005]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

Can someone cite the rules, they're not my bible so I don't know them particularly well but it would be interesting to analyse them than just go with fancy takes. (not saying you are doing that)

Its in sporting rule, i will try to find out

[DChemTech]

As I extensively explained, I completely disagree. They were not exploiting anything, they abided the rules as stated by the FIA. If the FIA wanted 'less flexing', they should have written rules that enforced less flexing, such as an unconditional maximum deflection. They should not have expected engineers to read their minds as to what 'no displacement' meant.

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

Can someone cite the rules, they're not my bible so I don't know them particularly well but it would be interesting to analyse them than just go with fancy takes. (not saying you are doing that)

"3.8: any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance: ... Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)."

This is qualitative, and cannot be literally enforced. Sec. 3.9 goes on to specify a series of load tests and maximum deflections. Which, in their original formulation, were not breached.

[DChemTech]

There is also rule stating that the competitor shouldnot purposely design wing to flex and the fia has the right to change their testing procedure accordingly... this is what happened.

If someone purposefully designed to flex the wing suddenly akin to a DRS, they should be penalized. Not covered up with a rule-change. But, that means there needs to be proof of a deliberate rule breach.

If it was natural flex of the material that abides the test, then that's just designing on the edge. And the FIA should not penalize that. Yes, the FIA has the 'right' to change the rules, but it's bad practice because it can be used to favor one team over the other, a.k.a. influencing the competition.

What Redbull were doing is not material flex, the whole wing bend over back which has been cited by merc even in 2020 and raised it to fia but nothing happened so merc tried to replicate it but were not above to achieve the same level. Hence they raised it again and fia gave new test.

If it disadvantageous one team, then it means it was an unfair advantage for that team. Hence its nullified
However from what i saw in France (when the rules came) the redbull was 6 tenths faster in qualifying. Hence i dont think it affected them that much

If some team cannot replicate a thing that another team is doing, doesn't mean that the other team is having an unfair advantage as long as that thing is within the rules. It just meant RB did a better job of extracting the maximum performance from the rules.
Hell, otherwise MB was illegal for years, they managed to extract performance nobody managed to replicate on many fronts.

It's also not about whether it had an impact or not. The issue is that it could have had (we will never know). And the link to the topic at hand was that the change started with offhand comments by Mercedes that they visually deemed the wing to flex too much.

But again, there is a topic on this. let's not keep straying into the technical discussion. My point was, MB applied lots of pressure on the FIA throughout the season, which led to rule changes that affected their direct competitor, and which may have affected the championship, whether you agree with how the rules were applied or not - just like RB is accused of doing.

[siskue2005]

If someone purposefully designed to flex the wing suddenly akin to a DRS, they should be penalized. Not covered up with a rule-change. But, that means there needs to be proof of a deliberate rule breach.

If it was natural flex of the material that abides the test, then that's just designing on the edge. And the FIA should not penalize that. Yes, the FIA has the 'right' to change the rules, but it's bad practice because it can be used to favor one team over the other, a.k.a. influencing the competition.

What Redbull were doing is not material flex, the whole wing bend over back which has been cited by merc even in 2020 and raised it to fia but nothing happened so merc tried to replicate it but were not above to achieve the same level. Hence they raised it again and fia gave new test.

If it disadvantageous one team, then it means it was an unfair advantage for that team. Hence its nullified
However from what i saw in France (when the rules came) the redbull was 6 tenths faster in qualifying. Hence i dont think it affected them that much

If some team cannot replicate a thing that another team is doing, doesn't mean that the other team is having an unfair advantage as long as that thing is within the rules. It just meant RB did a better job of extracting the maximum performance from the rules.
Hell, otherwise MB was illegal for years, they managed to extract performance nobody managed to replicate on many fronts.

What redbull was doing is not within the rules, so its unfair advantage.
I was also blaming Merc, as they started this when they couldnt replicate.

Its the same in 2020 when redbull honda didnot have merc like party mode and redbull managed to lobby a change in engine rules and banned the party mode.

So this is nothing new in f1, every team do it including redbull, ferrari, merc, mclaren et al.
I dont understand how u r only isolating this event in 2021 as something new