TD018 2023 - clampdown on flexible wings

[vorticism]

True. As someone else mentioned, this (and the new floor rule clarification) is more about the FIA altering their test protocol, not about anyone failing tests.

The RB10 adjuster is worth considering. Journalists claiming there was a hidden leaf spring is probably poor wording--the device itself is composed of three leaf springs integrally. The long pass through arm, the cantilevered torpedo, and the tension screw. So, take your pick. The three obvious leaf springs or the mystery hidden one. We know which one will get more clicks. Regardless, the device bent too much during testing.

(Photos below from an inaccessible broken link Matt Sommers blog post.)

[Cs98]

I do not understand this TD from the FIA.

If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits, why has the FIA not disqualified the team where in this device was found? How is that they allow it to happen on multiple occasions, and now issue a TD as to say it is unacceptable now, but was ok in the past 15 race weekends?

It's hilarious (and a bit insane) we have this discussion every time there's a TD. The clarification came for a reason. If a team passed through FIA scrutineering in 15 races previously the FIA can't come in now and say "you're disqualified". The team can just say, "well, there's your FIA signature saying our car was legal to race". New rules are not retroactive.

If concealed parts and hidden mechanisms were found with sole purpose of flexing the wing beyond the test limits

They clearly weren't flexing "beyond test limits", then they would've been caught by the test. As is usually the case with these TDs, the FIA realised their test was inadequate.

Not talking about DQ now, but at the event where the mechanism was found on inspection of the car.

https://www.f1technical.net/news/19827

Last time it happened a team was disqualified

You're bringing up an example and passing it off as equivalent despite RB failing their deflection test in 2014. No one has failed any deflection tests in 2023. People may have circumvented the tests with clever designs that flex in a manner that the tests don't account for, but that's the classic cat and mouse game between the teams and the FIA. So there's no need to go bringing up DQ or the C-word every time there's a new TD, it gets old having the same discussion every time. Teams were exploiting a grey area, the FIA clarified, the teams re-design, we keep moving.

[dialtone]

It's hilarious (and a bit insane) we have this discussion every time there's a TD. The clarification came for a reason. If a team passed through FIA scrutineering in 15 races previously the FIA can't come in now and say "you're disqualified". The team can just say, "well, there's your FIA signature saying our car was legal to race". New rules are not retroactive.
They clearly weren't flexing "beyond test limits", then they would've been caught by the test. As is usually the case with these TDs, the FIA realised their test was inadequate.

Not talking about DQ now, but at the event where the mechanism was found on inspection of the car.

https://www.f1technical.net/news/19827

Last time it happened a team was disqualified

You're bringing up an example and passing it off as equivalent despite RB failing their deflection test in 2014. No one has failed any deflection tests in 2023. People may have circumvented the tests with clever designs that flex in a manner that the tests don't account for, but that's the classic cat and mouse game between the teams and the FIA. So there's no need to go bringing up DQ or the C-word every time there's a new TD, it gets old having the same discussion every time. Teams were exploiting a grey area, the FIA clarified, the teams re-design, we keep moving.

Love how this is classic cat and mouse game but when Ferrari passed all tests for fuel flow they were cheaters.

For what it’s worth I don’t think what’s going on is worthy of any DQ but the double standard is blatant.

[AR3-GP]

Not talking about DQ now, but at the event where the mechanism was found on inspection of the car.

https://www.f1technical.net/news/19827

Last time it happened a team was disqualified

You're bringing up an example and passing it off as equivalent despite RB failing their deflection test in 2014. No one has failed any deflection tests in 2023. People may have circumvented the tests with clever designs that flex in a manner that the tests don't account for, but that's the classic cat and mouse game between the teams and the FIA. So there's no need to go bringing up DQ or the C-word every time there's a new TD, it gets old having the same discussion every time. Teams were exploiting a grey area, the FIA clarified, the teams re-design, we keep moving.

Love how this is classic cat and mouse game but when Ferrari passed all tests for fuel flow they were cheaters.

For what it’s worth I don’t think what’s going on is worthy of any DQ but the double standard is blatant.

Ferrari was not DQ'd from any race.

[dialtone]

You're bringing up an example and passing it off as equivalent despite RB failing their deflection test in 2014. No one has failed any deflection tests in 2023. People may have circumvented the tests with clever designs that flex in a manner that the tests don't account for, but that's the classic cat and mouse game between the teams and the FIA. So there's no need to go bringing up DQ or the C-word every time there's a new TD, it gets old having the same discussion every time. Teams were exploiting a grey area, the FIA clarified, the teams re-design, we keep moving.

Love how this is classic cat and mouse game but when Ferrari passed all tests for fuel flow they were cheaters.

For what it’s worth I don’t think what’s going on is worthy of any DQ but the double standard is blatant.

Ferrari was not DQ'd from any race.

I didn’t say they were. I said that people here called them, and still do, cheaters. Other teams called them cheaters as well, remember Max’s comments at COTA “what happens when you stop cheating”.

So which is it? When it’s a british team it’s brilliance and FIA is oppressive but when it’s Ferrari they are cheaters?

[denyall]

It's a lot easier for people to call the Ferrari thing cheating because it was handled in secret.

I am unaware of a TD being released regarding the specifics of how they used more fuel than allowed which opens the door.

Fuel flow is also a much more concrete line in the sand, similarly to dimensions and openings, much easier for people to see a threshold was crossed in clear violation of the regulations.

With moveable aero it is less clear as all aero devices move in some way and to some degree. FIA can't check everything and can't even imagine everything to write a rule for, classic unknown unknowns. So the TD regulates a newly known unknown.

I view it as grey until the TD clears up the issue. I also view 101 greater than 100, clear violation.

[PlatinumZealot]

The RedBull certainly has levers in the floor. Highly visible once the engine cover is off. The levers don't solely secure the floor but acts like internal strucrual stressors that deform the floor when its under load. "assymetric bending"

[organic]

The RedBull certainly has levers in the floor. Highly visible once the engine cover is off. The levers don't solely secure the floor but acts like internal strucrual stressors that deform the floor when its under load. "assymetric bending"

To me they look more like supportive struts to aid rigidity which we heard was a big problem for most teams in 2022. Mercedes w14 has almost identical struts, as do many cars on the grid.

Top is w14 bottom is rb19

[AR3-GP]

I love a good conspiracy.

Anyway, the relative silence of Mercedes, compared to their vocalness in 2021 and 2022 says a lot about who has an who has not been affected.

[dialtone]

The RedBull certainly has levers in the floor. Highly visible once the engine cover is off. The levers don't solely secure the floor but acts like internal strucrual stressors that deform the floor when its under load. "assymetric bending"

How can you possibly deduct all of this from looking at a couple of struts?

More importantly, if it’s so obvious how did FIA and other teams wake up in september to fix this loophole?

[catent]

It's a lot easier for people to call the Ferrari thing cheating because it was handled in secret.

I am unaware of a TD being released regarding the specifics of how they used more fuel than allowed which opens the door.

Fuel flow is also a much more concrete line in the sand, similarly to dimensions and openings, much easier for people to see a threshold was crossed in clear violation of the regulations.

With moveable aero it is less clear as all aero devices move in some way and to some degree. FIA can't check everything and can't even imagine everything to write a rule for, classic unknown unknowns. So the TD regulates a newly known unknown.

I view it as grey until the TD clears up the issue. I also view 101 greater than 100, clear violation.

In an effort to dispel the notion of a double-standard in how these various offenses are discussed, you have in fact provided (yet another) capstone example of that very double-standard.

[denyall]

It's a lot easier for people to call the Ferrari thing cheating because it was handled in secret.

I am unaware of a TD being released regarding the specifics of how they used more fuel than allowed which opens the door.

Fuel flow is also a much more concrete line in the sand, similarly to dimensions and openings, much easier for people to see a threshold was crossed in clear violation of the regulations.

With moveable aero it is less clear as all aero devices move in some way and to some degree. FIA can't check everything and can't even imagine everything to write a rule for, classic unknown unknowns. So the TD regulates a newly known unknown.

I view it as grey until the TD clears up the issue. I also view 101 greater than 100, clear violation.

In an effort to dispel the notion of a double-standard in how these various offenses are discussed, you have in fact provided (yet another) capstone example of that very double-standard.

Not a double standard to say that a TD clears up the grey between the spirt of the rule and what the tests done during scrutineering actually test vs bypassing a flow meter (in car testing device) to use more fuel then is allowed by rule. The absence of a TD on bypassing the fuel flow meter is the telling part here. If there had been a trick that was previously unknown and still technically complied with the rules the FIA would have issued a TD to specifically ban it. Since they didn't, I assume it was clearly a rule violation and isn't the same thing as TD gamesmanship.

[dialtone]

It's a lot easier for people to call the Ferrari thing cheating because it was handled in secret.

I am unaware of a TD being released regarding the specifics of how they used more fuel than allowed which opens the door.

Fuel flow is also a much more concrete line in the sand, similarly to dimensions and openings, much easier for people to see a threshold was crossed in clear violation of the regulations.

With moveable aero it is less clear as all aero devices move in some way and to some degree. FIA can't check everything and can't even imagine everything to write a rule for, classic unknown unknowns. So the TD regulates a newly known unknown.

I view it as grey until the TD clears up the issue. I also view 101 greater than 100, clear violation.

In an effort to dispel the notion of a double-standard in how these various offenses are discussed, you have in fact provided (yet another) capstone example of that very double-standard.

Not a double standard to say that a TD clears up the grey between the spirt of the rule and what the tests done during scrutineering actually test vs bypassing a flow meter (in car testing device) to use more fuel then is allowed by rule. The absence of a TD on bypassing the fuel flow meter is the telling part here. If there had been a trick that was previously unknown and still technically complied with the rules the FIA would have issued a TD to specifically ban it. Since they didn't, I assume it was clearly a rule violation and isn't the same thing as TD gamesmanship.

The absense of a rule about how to measure wing torsion shouldn’t give teams the ability to find ways to bend wings when it’s been literal years of fighting wing deflection. If it were physically possible to mandate rigid wings they would have.

There is no difference whatsoever from fuel flow never breached to wings not measured in the way they deflect.

[denyall]

The absence of a rule about how to measure wing torsion shouldn’t give teams the ability to find ways to bend wings when it’s been literal years of fighting wing deflection. If it were physically possible to mandate rigid wings they would have.

There is no difference whatsoever from fuel flow never breached to wings not measured in the way they deflect.

I agree that if they could they would mandate fixed wings, but since they cant they have to write a ruleset and testing procedure that is specific and measurable. Because it is nearly impossible to account for every movement they have relied on the TD process to clarify and ban specific types of movement for years.

Bypassing the test (fuel flow) is not they same thing as the test being inadequate for the job (wing deflection).

[dialtone]

The absence of a rule about how to measure wing torsion shouldn’t give teams the ability to find ways to bend wings when it’s been literal years of fighting wing deflection. If it were physically possible to mandate rigid wings they would have.

There is no difference whatsoever from fuel flow never breached to wings not measured in the way they deflect.

I agree that if they could they would mandate fixed wings, but since they cant they have to write a ruleset and testing procedure that is specific and measurable. Because it is nearly impossible to account for every movement they have relied on the TD process to clarify and ban specific types of movement for years.

Bypassing the test (fuel flow) is not they same thing as the test being inadequate for the job (wing deflection).

Literally the same. There is no way to measure continuous fuel flow, and there is no such thing as a 28khz pump. Whatever Ferrari was doing it wasn’t violating the fuel flow. The rule wasn’t specifying how much fuel per injection or other things of that nature, there were rules about engine construction to avoid reservoirs post sensor and they placed multiple sensors (requiring at least a 56khz pump to sidestep) including investigating the ERS deployment due to the split battery approach from Ferrari, and having Ferrari fuel system with blueprints on a test bench, all of this without even a TD going on. When was the last time that this level of “investigation” happened to any other team in F1.

As I said, imho this is part of the sport and not deserving a DQ. I love the sport for this. But let’s call a spade a spade. If Ferrari was cheating, this is cheating.

To write a TD (which is your criteria) someone needs to know what’s going on and nobody knew for Ferrari. The simple inability to believe they built a great engine was enough to start the hunt. I bet $1000 that if you applied that level of scrutiny to any team on the grid you would find something.