2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[RonMexico]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

[MadMax]

Still, the FIA has prescribed limits to what is allowed in terms of flex tolerance, and as long as you are within that tolerance, you are not breaking any rules. Which was the case for RB until the FIA decided to change the tolerance rules in the middle of an active season, after political pressure from competitors. But yeah, there is another topic for that discussion.

The issue there is that the wing was intended to flex which is a breach of the rule that things should be rigid. Designing it to flex after the test limit is deliberate action intended to get around a rule and thus is cheating (just as Brabhams BT49C's clever suspension got around the mandated minimum ride height rule). It amazes me that RB got away with it as lightly as they did.

I'd happily (for the 100th time) share my thoughts on why "must be rigid" is not a physically realizable rule in the topic that is dedicated to wing flexing, if that is a can of worms that you want to open, but let's not do that here.

That's focussing on the wrong issue - it's the intention to subvert the flexing limits imposed by the FIA by designing and implementing a system that deliberately allowed the wings to flex.

[aMessageToCharlie]

I dissagree, changing a sporting contest to remove the rights of some to contest isnt a sport, it goes against the sporting regulations and the international sporting code. Changing regulations because some one has found a way around them is not the same as excluding 8 of 10 teams and 18 of 20 drivers form competing for the last lap of the last race of a champioship, no matter how you look at it.

If a team found a loophole in the regs and know they shouldnt go their but do because they gain performance, when they eventually lose that advantage, its levelling the playing feild, not excluding most of it. Its " Sporting " not unsporting.

And I disagree with you.

Rules are rules, "no matter how you look at it."

If a team is compliant with the written rules and tests that are in place to enforce these rules, then they are playing by the rules, not getting around them.

[mendis]

The issue there is that the wing was intended to flex which is a breach of the rule that things should be rigid. Designing it to flex after the test limit is deliberate action intended to get around a rule and thus is cheating (just as Brabhams BT49C's clever suspension got around the mandated minimum ride height rule). It amazes me that RB got away with it as lightly as they did.

I'd happily (for the 100th time) share my thoughts on why "must be rigid" is not a physically realizable rule in the topic that is dedicated to wing flexing, if that is a can of worms that you want to open, but let's not do that here.

That's focussing on the wrong issue - it's the intention to subvert the flexing limits imposed by the FIA by designing and implementing a system that deliberately allowed the wings to flex.

FIA should have better definitions and procedures to ensure the rigidity/flexibility of components. If a team builds clever components, it's not the teams to be blamed. The job of an engineer in an F1 team is to find solutions that are clever and performant. There are no scientific procedures to measure 'intent'.
Mercedes using oil burning was obviously an intent to cheat, but FIA couldn't find a way to prove it, while engineers from other manufacturers know. Then FIA had to tighten up the rules around how much oil was allowed to be used.

[diffuser]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

I'm not a big fan of going that far back in F1 history. When Bernie left, F1 came out of the dark ages. We need to make sure that calls keep getting more appropriate for the crime.

[DChemTech]

Could have been worse, Could have changed it for the last lap of the final race...

Indeed, arbitrary deviations by the stewards from point 27.3 of the 2021 sporting regulations during a race weekend and even alterations thereof during a race did affect the outcome of one race. Shame that it's seemingly not possible to set up one set of regulations and role with it for the season, accepting that if a team comes up with a creative interpretation that pushes (but does not breach) the limits, that's simply to be accepted and fixed for the next season, like they did with DAS for example.

More in line with this topic, I do not necessarily agree that changing a sporting regulation during a race is worse than changing a technical regulation during the season: the effects carry through the season (not just one race), and the team loses resources twice: first for the original design (which is now flawed because it did not meet criteria that were not originally communicated), and second for the time and material required to redesign. And that is even more critical in a year with a cost cap - so the introduction of technical directives that fix an omission of the FIA and that hits teams asymmetrically is really to be avoided.

I dissagree, changing a sporting contest to remove the rights of some to contest isnt a sport, it goes against the sporting regulations and the international sporting code. Changing regulations because some one has found a way around them is not the same as excluding 8 of 10 teams and 18 of 20 drivers form competing for the last lap of the last race of a champioship, no matter how you look at it.

If a team found a loophole in the regs and know they shouldnt go their but do because they gain performance, when they eventually lose that advantage, its levelling the playing feild, not excluding most of it. Its " Sporting " not unsporting.

The whole point of any sport is top operate on the edge of what is possible and what is allowed. If you stop pushing boundaries, you stop winning. So, if the sporting regulations leave room to do something clever - you do it (or otherwise your competition will). There is no such thing as a qualitative "spirit of the rules", because everyone will interpret that differently leading to ambiguity and chaos, with teams and regulators disagreeing on what is and what is not allowed and toppling over eachother with accusations of unfair advantages. If the FIA does not want to see a certain thing, they must ensure it's clearly and quantitatively not allowed by the rules - and if they fail to do that, it's not the fault of the team that they used the space that the FIA left available. You cannot expect engineers to adhere to spiritual requirements that were never put to paper - they're engineers, not psychics. Especially in an engineering sport, where the whole point of the competition is to operate on technical boundaries (that are the same for everyone, 'loopholes' or not), it is extremely worrisome if clever use of the room provided is punished - you are being punished for doing your job. And note that is not a 'flexiwing thing', it happened multiple times with different technologies and to different teams over time, and it should not happen.

And yes, deviations from sporting regulations are also not a good thing. But there were more occasions in which that happened than just the last race last year.

[diffuser]

I'd happily (for the 100th time) share my thoughts on why "must be rigid" is not a physically realizable rule in the topic that is dedicated to wing flexing, if that is a can of worms that you want to open, but let's not do that here.

That's focussing on the wrong issue - it's the intention to subvert the flexing limits imposed by the FIA by designing and implementing a system that deliberately allowed the wings to flex.

FIA should have better definitions and procedures to ensure the rigidity/flexibility of components. If a team builds clever components, it's not the teams to be blamed. The job of an engineer in an F1 team is to find solutions that are clever and performant. There are no scientific procedures to measure 'intent'.
Mercedes using oil burning was obviously an intent to cheat, but FIA couldn't find a way to prove it, while engineers from other manufacturers know. Then FIA had to tighten up the rules around how much oil was allowed to be used.

All that is part of F1, Someone will always find a loop hole and then the FIA and all the teams will have to decide if they want to allow it or not. If you're talking about the rear wings flexing thing that happened, last year was it?, it was obvious that didn't really benefit anyone much. The tightening of the regs just forced teams into spending money on new rear wings that they didn't need. It should have been changed after the season's end.


If you're talking about the new front wing flexing that we're seeing with the big three. I think AMR's front wing is also I think... Not sure what they're gonna do about that. I have noticed that Alpine have not changed their front wing, if it was an easy perf advantage, I'm sure they would have made the change. They have instead stayed focused on the floor. It might just be that they'll put it on next years front wing and it doesn't work with this year's car cause of changes they'll be making to A523.

[RonMexico]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

I'm not a big fan of going that far back in F1 history. When Bernie left, F1 came out of the dark ages. We need to make sure that calls keep getting more appropriate for the crime.

Mercedes solved a massive, persistent issue by deliberately breaking the rules and proceeded to dominate the sport for years.

It couldn't be more relevant

[diffuser]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

I'm not a big fan of going that far back in F1 history. When Bernie left, F1 came out of the dark ages. We need to make sure that calls keep getting more appropriate for the crime.

Mercedes solved a massive, persistent issue by deliberately breaking the rules and proceeded to dominate the sport for years.

It couldn't be more relevant

Like I said it isn't relative cause all the players were different. Wolff only Left Williams in Jan 2013, I'd very surprised if he didn't have gardening leave. The major driving force of those first 5 championships was the PU edge and not the tires. Also 2 wrongs don't make it right.

[chrisc90]

I'm not a big fan of going that far back in F1 history. When Bernie left, F1 came out of the dark ages. We need to make sure that calls keep getting more appropriate for the crime.

Mercedes solved a massive, persistent issue by deliberately breaking the rules and proceeded to dominate the sport for years.

It couldn't be more relevant

Like I said it isn't relative cause all the players were different. Wolff only Left Williams in Jan 2013, I'd very surprised if he didn't have gardening leave. The major driving force of those first 5 championships was the PU edge and not the tires. Also 2 wrongs don't make it right.

Isn’t that like a team now doing a test day or filming day with new parts in order to gain an advantage.

Basically constitutes to cheating

[dans79]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

It was a tire eater because the 2012 car was garbage. I'm not sure if I could find it now, but at some point towards the end of the 2013 season Brawn gave an interview, and he said the reason why the 2012 car killed tires, was because the wind tunnel correlation was bad. The coanda exhaust flow was hitting the rear tires directly, instead of flowing down between the tires and the diffuser.

That had a 2 fold effect, overheating the tires, and less rear down force than expected. Bot issues lead to to destroying the rear tires!



And initially the tire test was legal as the FIA signed off on it, its just that the right people didn't sign off on it. So not a lot different to the Masi issue. People making decisions who shouldn't be or are incapable of making proper ones!

[Mosin123]

I dissagree, changing a sporting contest to remove the rights of some to contest isnt a sport, it goes against the sporting regulations and the international sporting code. Changing regulations because some one has found a way around them is not the same as excluding 8 of 10 teams and 18 of 20 drivers form competing for the last lap of the last race of a champioship, no matter how you look at it.

If a team found a loophole in the regs and know they shouldnt go their but do because they gain performance, when they eventually lose that advantage, its levelling the playing feild, not excluding most of it. Its " Sporting " not unsporting.

And I disagree with you.

Rules are rules, "no matter how you look at it."

If a team is compliant with the written rules and tests that are in place to enforce these rules, then they are playing by the rules, not getting around them.

i am not disputing that.... Im disputing how you can feel selectively apply rules to competitors in the same race / giving unequal chances / completely removing the right for a competitor to challange is worse than changing/ defining rules one team may or may not done on purpose to gain an unfair advantage eg Ferrari and its Engine, Redbull and its half a season illegal front wing, Merc and DAS and so on and so on. You cant compare one team going out side the rules to the actual racing director / ref / organisation selectively apply rules to competetitors. A sport that doesnt treat all its competitors as equals is not a sport, its a show.

[RonMexico]

To play the Devil's advocate here, how do people feel about the illegal tyre test that Mercedes held in 2013?

The car went from a notorious tyre eater to winning the next race. Mercedes stopped development of the car and the next season won the first of 8 constructors in a row with just the 7 drivers championships in a row with cars that were near the front for tyre wear.

It was a tire eater because the 2012 car was garbage. I'm not sure if I could find it now, but at some point towards the end of the 2013 season Brawn gave an interview, and he said the reason why the 2012 car killed tires, was because the wind tunnel correlation was bad. The coanda exhaust flow was hitting the rear tires directly, instead of flowing down between the tires and the diffuser.

That had a 2 fold effect, overheating the tires, and less rear down force than expected. Bot issues lead to to destroying the rear tires!



And initially the tire test was legal as the FIA signed off on it, its just that the right people didn't sign off on it. So not a lot different to the Masi issue. People making decisions who shouldn't be or are incapable of making proper ones!

That's a lot of words to gloss over the fact it was illegal and Mercedes were punished for it.

It also cured a massive issue they had immediately, they didn't re design the sidepods between the test and Monaco. Was it just a coincidence that they won that race after the embarrassment at Barcelona?

[dans79]

Was it just a coincidence that they won that race after the embarrassment at Barcelona?

yea, look at Monaco 2012. Schumacher tool pole but was dropped to 6th because of a penalty he got for a collision in Spain. Rosberg was 3rd, with Webber second!

Race result was Webber P1, Rosberg P2

[RonMexico]

Was it just a coincidence that they won that race after the embarrassment at Barcelona?

yea, look at Monaco 2012. Schumacher tool pole but was dropped to 6th because of a penalty he got for a collision in Spain. Rosberg was 3rd, with Webber second!

Race result was Webber P1, Rosberg P2

What in the world does the W03 have to do with the W04.

Costa said himself it was a brand new car and the genesis for their subsequent car development. It still was terrible on tyres until the illegal test. It won races after the illegal test. It won poles before and fell back into the pack, post illegal test it won three (3) grand prix.

Mercedes cheated and benefited from that cheating for years and years.

I can do this all day