FIA failed again?

[DChemTech]

The floors have a defined allowance and an initial set of test locations. If the floor flexes elsewhere from those test locations, it's an illegal floor.

If you want a falsification of competition, I give you the removal of qualifying maps - done specifically to help Red Bull compete with Ferrari and Mercedes.

Then you need to specify tolerances for those other locations, because it will flex there. That was not done, so it cannot be judged as illegal according to the rules as were provided.
And I agree, the removal of quali-maps was also competition falsification.

No, the requirement is that the plank may not move by more than 2mm. That's the requirement. It doesn't matter if it's measured at position A or position X, nor does it matter if it's not measured at all - it's not allowed to flex more than a certain amount.

It's the same as a speed limit on the road - if you exceed the limit then you are acting illegally. It doesn't matter whether a policeman catches you - your actions are illegal as soon as you carry them out.

That's not what is written in the rules. What is written in the rules is '2mm at position x'. It does not say anything about the plank in general. But let's continue this in the appropriate topic.

[SmallSoldier]

No, flexible wings were always illegal but the teams gamed the tests. So the tests were altered to capture more data points to check compliance. Just as is happening with the alleged flexi-floors.

DAS was always legal.

And then, as discussed ad nauseam in the dedicated thread, all wings are illegal because every material flexes. Without providing tolerances, the rule 'wings cannot flex' is void. The only tolerances that were provided were those contained in the tests, which were passed by the teams, hence the wings were legal. When the tests changed, the tolerances changed, hence the rules changed, which in my view is competition falsification if it happens in the season. And the same applies for the alleged flexi-floors.

The floors have a defined allowance and an initial set of test locations. If the floor flexes elsewhere from those test locations, it's an illegal floor.

If you want a falsification of competition, I give you the removal of qualifying maps - done specifically to help Red Bull compete with Ferrari and Mercedes.

The overarching rule is that body work has to be rigid… Since 100% rigidity isn’t achievable, there are rules that state maximum deflection tolerances at certain points… The problem for me is when Teams “design” flex into their parts, that’s not intrinsic to materials but a design feature… And if they are designing flex (and getting performance from it), then it goes against the rules (there for illegal).

Since FIA isn’t smart enough to come up with all the tests they would need to check on this, they have to add them as complaints, protests or suspicion of performance driven through exploiting loopholes, they are doing the right thing by intervening and adding tests / parameters.

[ispano6]

I know it’s a bit of a old one, but did anything ever get mentioned about the main wing on the merc flexing last year under the DRS flap?

I only joined between seasons so missed everything from last year on discussions

I know there was footage of it moving quite a bit

It was discussed here at length and shown to be made up rubbish. Lots of analysis with lines on videos showing no movement, that sort of thing.

Sure turn a blind eye when the team is Mercedes, despite all the footage that the shark wing flapped, the t wing flapped, and front wing flapped. It's just that RedBull's flexing wing that is not allowed by your interpretation of the rules. Mercedes and their second stay for their flexing floor was proof enough for me that there are some backdoor shenanigans happening that Mercedes enjoys or is trying to exploit. And don't give us the crap that "the second stay didn't work anyway", that was insider information. Lobbying as Horner puts it.

[Just_a_fan]

[Sieper]

Justafan, we have seen that picture before and you are doing yourself no favor with posting it.

Floors cannot be rigid and neither are they, teams are all trying to make them as stiff as they can in places where that benefits performance and as flexible as they can in places where that suits.

No floor is solid, I see them all twisting in the corners.

The rules are the rules. Games are being played at the moment and Toto even literally admitted it. “If you are behind you try to get the rules changed”.

[RZS10]

Chris, go back in the W12 thread. All the pictures are there. Especially around Brazil race time.

Cheers, I’ll have a look for it.

Dunno if you got around to go through the thread ...
Starts on page 80 viewtopic.php?t=29672&start=1185 car thread
also in the team thread for a few pages viewtopic.php?t=29590&start=3435

How far it would have needed to bend to create the so called scratch marks
viewtopic.php?p=1012825#p1012825
Why such excessive bending would be unlikely due to the shapes involved
viewtopic.php?p=1012887#p1012887
No visible change in the curvature which would be apparent if the above bending was happening
viewtopic.php?p=1014553#p1014553
Regulations regarding that part being tested
viewtopic.php?p=1012884#p1012884
The entire wing moving in the footage which was supposed to show that only the main element moved
viewtopic.php?p=1014738#p1014738

At the end of the day there will still be people who will continue to yell "It’s clear to see" and believe there's some agenda or bias towards one team or the other but there was never any watertight evidence or visual proof which could have shown anything, it was conjecture at best - most supposed observations of the main flap moving relative to the entire wing were easily shown to be reflections, shadows, the entire wing moving and other visual phenomena - so the logical conslusion was that there was nothing untowards going on with that rear wing, at least when trying to look at it without any preconceived notions, something one would expect from users of a technical forum.

Since the rules changed it doesn't matter anyways as the new wings can't really have such a feature and there's no outliers in how much the FWs or RWs bend (and i made some visual comparisons which i did not post as there's no reason to.)

edit: used a wrong word.

[Sieper]

Yet Mercedes is now behind. We have one piece rear wings now. And no hydraulic suspension.

[hollus]

Too many blind fans, both ways, all ways. No way to debate anything. Locked.