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

[DChemTech]

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

I've said it before here, and in the thread you are linking to.
If someone asks you to drill a hole with 0.01 cm tolerance, you do so, and then they get angry because they intended a hole with 0.003 cm tolerance, is that your fault or theirs?
If the FIA intended to see something else, they should have written different rules. If you stick to the rules that as they were written, it's not an unfair advantage. You cannot expect engineers to objectively act on qualitative intent, only on quantitative regulations.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

That bendy main plane never existed, that's why nothing was done about it. This was demonstrated many times during the season when it was brought up.

[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.

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.

And if the FIA deem what teams are doing goes against what they intend then they have every right too adjust those rules, it’s all part of the game.
The real problem is people conflating technical directives with changing regulations on the fly in order to justify what massi did in AD.

[DChemTech]

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.

And if the FIA deem what teams are doing goes against what they intend then they have every right too adjust those rules, it’s all part of the game.
The real problem is people conflating technical directives with changing regulations on the fly in order to justify what massi did in AD.

So you are fine with rules being changed throughout the season even of that hugely biases the competition. I'm sorry but that just baffles me. What is the point of having what is in essence a design competition if the rules of the design can arbitrarily change, affecting some teams more than others? Where is the fairness in that?

And I don't use it to justifies Masi in AD. If you actually read my contributions you'd see I condemn both!

[Csmith1980]

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.

And if the FIA deem what teams are doing goes against what they intend then they have every right too adjust those rules, it’s all part of the game.
The real problem is people conflating technical directives with changing regulations on the fly in order to justify what massi did in AD.

So you are fine with rules being changed throughout the season even of that hugely biases the competition. I'm sorry but that just baffles me. What is the point of having what is in essence a design competition if the rules of the design can arbitrarily change, affecting some teams more than others? Where is the fairness in that?

And I don't use it to justifies Masi in AD. If you actually read my contributions you'd see I condemn both!

Yes, I think if teams are gaming the rules then TD’s should be used in order to close the “loophole” although I don’t agree with the term loophole to describe circumnavigating regulations that are already in place.

You mention it would bias the completion, but surely allowing a team too run a potentially illegal device for a whole season is also biased?
I didn’t say “you” specifically were using it to justify masi in AD.

[DChemTech]

And if the FIA deem what teams are doing goes against what they intend then they have every right too adjust those rules, it’s all part of the game.
The real problem is people conflating technical directives with changing regulations on the fly in order to justify what massi did in AD.

So you are fine with rules being changed throughout the season even of that hugely biases the competition. I'm sorry but that just baffles me. What is the point of having what is in essence a design competition if the rules of the design can arbitrarily change, affecting some teams more than others? Where is the fairness in that?

And I don't use it to justifies Masi in AD. If you actually read my contributions you'd see I condemn both!

Yes, I think if teams are gaming the rules then TD’s should be used in order to close the “loophole” although I don’t agree with the term loophole to describe circumnavigating regulations that are already in place.

You mention it would bias the completion, but surely allowing a team too run a potentially illegal device for a whole season is also biased?
I didn’t say “you” specifically were using it to justify masi in AD.

Then we might as well just make F1 a spec series. There is absolutely no point in having a design competition where the criteria need to be inferred via telephatic conversation with the FIA. How can an engineer possibly design a wing if they are not told how much it can actually deflect. How is it determined, objectively, what is ok and what is too much? Should we just adopt MB as the standard? Whatever they do is fine, and whoever does more is doing it wrong?

And as I said. If a team does something objectively illegal, disqualify them. It's that simple.

[Csmith1980]

So you are fine with rules being changed throughout the season even of that hugely biases the competition. I'm sorry but that just baffles me. What is the point of having what is in essence a design competition if the rules of the design can arbitrarily change, affecting some teams more than others? Where is the fairness in that?

And I don't use it to justifies Masi in AD. If you actually read my contributions you'd see I condemn both!

Yes, I think if teams are gaming the rules then TD’s should be used in order to close the “loophole” although I don’t agree with the term loophole to describe circumnavigating regulations that are already in place.

You mention it would bias the completion, but surely allowing a team too run a potentially illegal device for a whole season is also biased?
I didn’t say “you” specifically were using it to justify masi in AD.

Then we might as well just make F1 a spec series. There is absolutely no point in having a design competition where the criteria need to be inferred via telephatic conversation with the FIA. How can an engineer possibly design a wing if they are not told how much it can actually deflect. How is it determined, objectively, what is ok and what is too much? Should we just adopt MB as the standard? Whatever they do is fine, and whoever does more is doing it wrong?

And as I said. If a team does something objectively illegal, disqualify them. It's that simple.

How would it make it a spec series? I think it was blatantly obvious RB’s rear wing was deliberately designed too deflect more than the FIA intended so they were well within their rights to invoke article 3.9.9.

Where did I mention MB? They have been subject to TD’s just as much as any other team So it has nothing to do with them being right and other teams being wrong.
It would also seem the FIA are extremely reluctant to disqualify teams even when caught objectively cheating.

[siskue2005]

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.

That bendy main plane never existed, that's why nothing was done about it. This was demonstrated many times during the season when it was brought up.

Even with revised 2022 test introduced at Qatar GP, all the teams passed that test.
It was again lobbying by redbull, there was nothing wrong with the main plane.... just like their other lobbying of pleunum sensor placemnet. They were just attacking mercedes and lewis on track and off track. I wouldnt want to associate with a team like that (escpecially when they attack the opposing team's driver, lobbying in social media, blaming of killing their driver etc). Just like riccordo said "glad i am not part of that"

[DChemTech]

]
How would it make it a spec series? I think it was blatantly obvious RB’s rear wing was deliberately designed too deflect more than the FIA intended so they were well within their rights to invoke article 3.9.9.

Where did I mention MB? They have been subject to TD’s just as much as any other team So it has nothing to do with them being right and other teams being wrong.
It would also seem the FIA are extremely reluctant to disqualify teams even when caught objectively cheating.

You can fill in any team name other than MB, I named them because they instigated the protest.

If you go by the movies clearly MB's wing bends back, too. It has to, physics 101. Yes, less so than the one by RB. But by what objective criterion is the one by MB ok, and the one by RB too much? Tell me. How should an MB engineer objectively know that they are fine, while an RB engineer should know they are over the limit? Not by 3.8, they both fail that. Not by 3.9, they both pass that. So how should they?

I also did not say it would make it a spec series, I said we could just as well make it a spec series. If designs that are within the rules are suddenly being deemed illegal, it's not a fair game, so no point having the game at all.

[Csmith1980]

]
How would it make it a spec series? I think it was blatantly obvious RB’s rear wing was deliberately designed too deflect more than the FIA intended so they were well within their rights to invoke article 3.9.9.

Where did I mention MB? They have been subject to TD’s just as much as any other team So it has nothing to do with them being right and other teams being wrong.
It would also seem the FIA are extremely reluctant to disqualify teams even when caught objectively cheating.

You can fill in any team name other than MB, I named them because they instigated the protest.

If you go by the movies clearly MB's wing bends back, too. It has to, physics 101. Yes, less so than the one by RB. But by what objective criterion is the one by MB ok, and the one by RB too much? Tell me. How should an MB engineer objectively know that they are fine, while an RB engineer should know they are over the limit? Not by 3.8, they both fail that. Not by 3.9, they both pass that. So how should they?

I also did not say it would make it a spec series, I said we could just as well make it a spec series. If designs that are within the rules are suddenly being deemed illegal, it's not a fair game, so no point having the game at all.

I think it’s incredibly naive to think an F1 designer doesn’t know when he’s designed something which deliberately goes beyond what the rules intend.
When looking at 3.8 it’s obvious it’s impossible too created something 100% rigid due to material limitations, it’s also obvious when something has been manufactured to move in such a way that it is not due too material limitations.

The front wing is a good example of this, every teams upper flaps flexed under load because by the very nature of the design, thin CF only rigidly attached at one end, it has to flex or otherwise break. The RW on the other hand is supported at both ends and the middle so any excessive flex must be by design.
Anyway we are getting seriously off topic here.

[DChemTech]

I think it’s incredibly naive to think an F1 designer doesn’t know when he’s designed something which deliberately goes beyond what the rules intend.
When looking at 3.8 it’s obvious it’s impossible too created something 100% rigid due to material limitations, it’s also obvious when something has been manufactured to move in such a way that it is not due too material limitations.

The front wing is a good example of this, every teams upper flaps flexed under load because by the very nature of the design, thin CF only rigidly attached at one end, it has to flex or otherwise break. The RW on the other hand is supported at both ends and the middle so any excessive flex must be by design.
Anyway we are getting seriously off topic here.

I think it's rather incredible to think an F1 engineer exactly 'knows' where such a limit is without it being provided. There has to be a given amount of deflection where the design goes from "Ok" to "not ok". And they should just "know" where this is. How. How should they know that. Just guess and hope for the best? But if you guess too ambitious because you want to design at the limit, well, bad luck then? But guess too conservative and you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to the competition. Bad luck to that too? (Unless you can convince the sporting regulator to change the rules because obviously the competition is not abiding to the spirit of their intentions). That is not how things work. Or not how they should work, at least. I cannot understand anyone that wants to regard F1 as a fair game being ok with that.

[Tiny73]

I think this flexing discussion can be summarised quite simply; if the flexing didn’t directly confer a performance advantage it wouldn’t be there. Ergo, it was designed to flex.

[Csmith1980]

I think it’s incredibly naive to think an F1 designer doesn’t know when he’s designed something which deliberately goes beyond what the rules intend.
When looking at 3.8 it’s obvious it’s impossible too created something 100% rigid due to material limitations, it’s also obvious when something has been manufactured to move in such a way that it is not due too material limitations.

The front wing is a good example of this, every teams upper flaps flexed under load because by the very nature of the design, thin CF only rigidly attached at one end, it has to flex or otherwise break. The RW on the other hand is supported at both ends and the middle so any excessive flex must be by design.
Anyway we are getting seriously off topic here.

I think it's rather incredible to think an F1 engineer exactly 'knows' where such a limit is without it being provided. There has to be a given amount of deflection where the design goes from "Ok" to "not ok". And they should just "know" where this is. How. How should they know that. Just guess and hope for the best? But if you guess too ambitious because you want to design at the limit, well, bad luck then? But guess too conservative and you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to the competition. Bad luck to that too? (Unless you can convince the sporting regular to change the rules because obviously the competition is not abiding to the spirit of their intentions). That is not how things work. Or not how they should work, at least. I cannot understand anyone that wants to regard F1 as a fair game being ok with that.

I would suggest using the FIA’s pull back tolerance as a good place for a designer to start seeing as that would imply the acceptable amount of deflection taking in material requirements.

Anyway, I guess the FIA agreed with you and introduced a TD so there’s no ambiguity now.

[DChemTech]

Changing the limits when there were already limits in place does not remove ambiguity; it just means that legal designs that were made based on the criteria provided suddenly become illegal, with all due resources wasted, based on information that was not available to the engineers when they made said designs.

[Csmith1980]

Changing the limits when there were already limits in place does not remove ambiguity; it just means that legal designs that were made based on the criteria provided suddenly become illegal, with all due resources wasted, based on information that was not available to the engineers when they made said designs.

All of which the FIA were entitled to do