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

[DChemTech]

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

As said, they were not doing anything outside the rules until the rules were changed. I have not seen any convincing argument against that in this thread or the thread that actually discussed this topic. Yet, people keep throwing unsupported accusations of illegality at RB. If RB truly designed an illegal moving
Wing that breached the rules, they should have been penalized. As i said many times as well.

And, as I said, I disagreed with party mode too. Why the wing rule change is brought up now is that is potentially influenced this championship this year, after lobbying by MB, as a counterpoint to the narrative of FIA being RBs lap dog that is brought up here. Party mode did not influence this season, so no point in raising it here. Doesn't mean I am 'isolating' the issue; I am just saying that FIA has been influenced both ways, and the selective outrage at the last race is actually isolating a single event while omitting the rest of the season.

[siskue2005]

Doesn't mean I am 'isolating' the issue; I am just saying that FIA has been influenced both ways, and the selective outrage at the last race is actually isolating a single event while omitting the rest of the season.

The difference is lobbying in the last race compared to other lobbying was a small thing called acutal adherence to rules and ineffect breaking the rules. Thats why eveyone are outraged, i dont think its going it end anytime soon, so i wouldnt waste time trying to supress it in a forum over the wast internet. Its happening everywhere in social media.

Its going to explode again when FIA is going to publish their report!

[ringo]

I think the wing thing is a side discussion. Team have always been asking for changes from race to race. Technical regulation is expected to see changes when the intended outcome is not acheived. This is normal and a team has to right to complain if they think another team gained an advantage by circumventing the technical regulations.
So its not news if Toto or any team principal for that matter files a complaint for changes to be made going forward. Remember Racing point and their brake ducts on the pink mercrdes?

What i was arguing is that Toto has never lobbied for sporting regulations to be changed like how redbull have. Worse in mid race.

Redbull have bartered penalties for their driver.
And they have lobbied for SC rules to be warped
Toto has never done this.
They even asked for a race ban for hamilton for a racing incident. That's how redbull "go racing".
Toto is no angel, but he should not be put in the same boat as redbull because he asked for a VSC and not a full SC. That kind of decision does not threaten the wording of the rule.
Asking some cars to pass was just out of order and Masi took the bait.

[SmallSoldier]

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)

There is a whole thread discussing this… No need to bring this one way off-topic:

viewtopic.php?t=29817&hilit=Rear+wing

[nzjrs]

As I've consistently said, I believe Masi would have done the same thing if the positions were reversed, but is ringo suggesting that RB was actually better than toto in that moment and so if the positions were reversed it would have ended differently because Toto prefers a more 'email based' approach with Masi?

I've certainly not heard that being suggested as causal before.

[DChemTech]

Doesn't mean I am 'isolating' the issue; I am just saying that FIA has been influenced both ways, and the selective outrage at the last race is actually isolating a single event while omitting the rest of the season.

The difference is lobbying in the last race compared to other lobbying was a small thing called acutal adherence to rules and ineffect breaking the rules. Thats why eveyone are outraged, i dont think its going it end anytime soon, so i wouldnt waste time trying to supress it in a forum over the wast internet. Its happening everywhere in social media.

Its going to explode again when FIA is going to publish their report!

And you are wrong there. In the last race, Wheatley was suggesting that cars could unlap (all cars, he did not say -some cars-) and due to the short race distance left, did not have to go all the way around before we could resume racing. No different than Toto suggesting 'no safety car please'. That Masi came up with a creative interpretation is not due to RB lobbying. So, suggested and misplaced outrage.

And well, you anyway apparently have no issue with the FIA changing the rules during a season (yes Ringo, Toto -did- lobby for regulations to be changed, just the technical. As they did for the pitstop rule. Stop pretending Toto is a saint and Christian is Satan). You said yourself, they had the right to change the rules for the wings. So why not for the safety car too, then?

For the record, I oppose both. The regulations should be clear and actionable beforehand. No meddling in the season, unless for imminent safety concerns.

[Sieper]

Toto actually requested “Michael, please no safety car” to take gambles with safety. He also used the radio purely for political purposes. That is just abuse, in no way does that help the racing director to make the best decision, or even a decision that might benefit you. I think it is incredibly good for Formula1 as a whole that these kind of radio messages, and e-mails, will be forbidden. The racing director has very little time to decide and no time to waste. This decision seems to have been taken now and I hope they will abide by it.

[Sieper]

Doesn't mean I am 'isolating' the issue; I am just saying that FIA has been influenced both ways, and the selective outrage at the last race is actually isolating a single event while omitting the rest of the season.

The difference is lobbying in the last race compared to other lobbying was a small thing called acutal adherence to rules and ineffect breaking the rules. Thats why eveyone are outraged, i dont think its going it end anytime soon, so i wouldnt waste time trying to supress it in a forum over the wast internet. Its happening everywhere in social media.

Its going to explode again when FIA is going to publish their report!

And you are wrong. In the last race, Wheatley was suggesting that cars could unlap (all cars, he did not say -some cars-) and due to the short race distance left, did not have to go all the way around before we could resume racing. No different than Toto suggesting 'no safety car please'. That Masi came up with a creative interpretation is not due to RB lobbying. So, suggested and misplaced outrage.

And well, you apparently have no issue with the FIA changing the rules on the spot (where yes Ringo, Toto did lobby for regulations to be changed, just the technical. As they did for the pitstop rule. Stop pretending Toto is a saint and Christian is Satan). You said yourself, they had the right to change the rules for the wings. So why not for the safety car too, then?

They only changed the existing rule interpretation for the redbull wing (which was adhering to the limits) the Mercedes bendy main plane was raced all season long. I have seen it at least from France onwards. To me that was the deciding factor in the Mercedes domination of those last 5 races.

[DChemTech]

They only changed the existing rule interpretation for the redbull wing (which was adhering to the limits) the Mercedes bendy main plane was raced all season long. I have seen it at least from France onwards. To me that was the deciding factor in the Mercedes domination of those last 5 races.

Don't know too much about that. But yes, there were some allegations and talk that "well it was too late to change the rules now anyway". Which in effect reveals a problem, too, with the practice of 'if we see undesirable behaviour within the rules, we change the rules'. Timing is a factor (also one of the big talking points when it affected RB).

Which again goes to show how botched the whole approach is. Much better: if a team does something illegal, punish them. Subtract points, or for big breaches, disqualify. If a team does something the FIA does not like but it's perfectly in the rules, praise them for their creativity, give them a cookie, and sharpen the rules for next season.

[Csmith1980]

Doesn't mean I am 'isolating' the issue; I am just saying that FIA has been influenced both ways, and the selective outrage at the last race is actually isolating a single event while omitting the rest of the season.

The difference is lobbying in the last race compared to other lobbying was a small thing called acutal adherence to rules and ineffect breaking the rules. Thats why eveyone are outraged, i dont think its going it end anytime soon, so i wouldnt waste time trying to supress it in a forum over the wast internet. Its happening everywhere in social media.

Its going to explode again when FIA is going to publish their report!

You said yourself, they had the right to change the rules for the wings. So why not for the safety car too, then?

The issue there is, RB were given several races in order too react too the rule change, even too the extent that they were allowed a “tolerance” before they were fully enforced.
Mercedes were given 1/2 a lap.
See the problem there?

[DChemTech]

No, it's about the principle that the FIA can change the rules within the season, opening the door to biased decisions, intentionally or not.

[Csmith1980]

No, it's about the principle that the FIA can change the rules within the season, opening the door to biased decisions, intentionally or not.

Changing rules during the season and changing them during the actual race are not the same thing though.
Personally I think if a team is gaining an unfair advantage by in some way circumnavigating the rules then they should be changed mid season. It’s happened to most teams at one time or another and it’s nothing new within the sport.

[DChemTech]

No, it's about the principle that the FIA can change the rules within the season, opening the door to biased decisions, intentionally or not.

Changing rules during the season and changing them during the actual race are not the same thing though.
Personally I think if a team is gaining an unfair advantage by in some way circumnavigating the rules then they should be changed mid season. It’s happened to most teams at one time or another and it’s nothing new within the sport.

Point is, once again and over and over, if you are operating within the rules, it's not an unfair advantage. Even if it was not the thing FIA intended to see.

[siskue2005]

I think the wing thing is a side discussion. Team have always been asking for changes from race to race. Technical regulation is expected to see changes when the intended outcome is not acheived. This is normal and a team has to right to complain if they think another team gained an advantage by circumventing the technical regulations.
So its not news if Toto or any team principal for that matter files a complaint for changes to be made going forward. Remember Racing point and their brake ducts on the pink mercrdes?

What i was arguing is that Toto has never lobbied for sporting regulations to be changed like how redbull have. Worse in mid race.

Redbull have bartered penalties for their driver.
And they have lobbied for SC rules to be warped
Toto has never done this.
They even asked for a race ban for hamilton for a racing incident. That's how redbull "go racing".
Toto is no angel, but he should not be put in the same boat as redbull because he asked for a VSC and not a full SC. That kind of decision does not threaten the wording of the rule.
Asking some cars to pass was just out of order and Masi took the bait.

Agree, its the same lobbying since silverstone (thats the first time they played the conversions on air), the words used by horner et al was appaling. I was there on the race track and when it was played on the gaint screen, everyone started booing at Horner.
Only after this Toto said i will email my response.

Similarily the constant crying by Jonathan Wheatley "its all about letting them race" and lobbying for penalties for lewis and let them race for Max.

It should have been stopped then and there after brazil.

But the negotiations by Masi for penalty and making deals with team at Jeddha was appalling to hear.

It should have been stopped there itself.

But that all gave redbull the confidence that they can lobby any rule and push any rule and even brake it to win the race. And hence it culminated to last laps of the last race.. thats why we are in this cesspool.

Yes toto is no siant, he also cant sit quite and let redbull lobby whatever they want with Masi. Hence his no sc request in the last race.

[siskue2005]

No, it's about the principle that the FIA can change the rules within the season, opening the door to biased decisions, intentionally or not.

Changing rules during the season and changing them during the actual race are not the same thing though.
Personally I think if a team is gaining an unfair advantage by in some way circumnavigating the rules then they should be changed mid season. It’s happened to most teams at one time or another and it’s nothing new within the sport.

Point is, once again and over and over, if you are operating within the rules, it's not an unfair advantage. Even if it was not the thing FIA intended to see.

It is, as all teams are adhering to the intended rule... hence fia changed their testing procedure, as there are rules stating a team shouldnot intentionally try to break the rules.

viewtopic.php?t=29817&hilit=Rear+wing
Discuss in the aboce thread, as this is race thread this will be my last discssuipn about the wing here, i am happy to discuss it the above thread