FIA are just clownsLuscion wrote:Mclaren has to make changes to its rear wing
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
FIA are just clownsLuscion wrote:Mclaren has to make changes to its rear wing
Because 2 days ago they said it was legal. Then a complaint points out rules they are breaking and now it’s not legal.
No, it was legal then. Just not now.
RB had around 0.3 from their rear wing in 2021 according to Hamilton, which the FIA allowed for 3 further races.pantherxxx wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 14:34I read that Mclaren gained 3 km/h speed in the straights thanks to the tricky DRS. That would be at least 0.2 seconds advantage per lap, and now it's no more.
The discussion is fairly moot now, but if you look at better quality videos, you'll see Mclaren wing is also getting twisted like all others. I do agree that the entire flap structure is bending more than any other wing, but the main element is also twisting and getting under increasingly more negative angle. It's inevitable, both drag and downforce will contribute to twisting, while the single-element beam wing itself is not gonna be able to resist this flexuremwillems wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 09:39The Mclaren's main plane is pretty static, as is the RW Structure. Even the front of the central DRS flap is pinned down so aside from the leading edges, it is still gathering air at the same angle. The only flexing part on the Mclaren is the DRS flap and supporting structure.
The RB Main Plan leans back. The entirety of the Top plane on the RB leans back including the leading edge, reducing drag further. The RW structure leans back. The amount of flex on the RB is much greater, covering more carbon, more drag inducing parts and leaning them in a way that offers more drag reduction than the Mclaren can because the entirety of the RW can be made flatter towards oncoming airflow.
Let's agree to disagree.
I do think the FiA are brushing it away, but I can't see this as an example of inconsistency because the two designs are too different in their scope and in the ultimate effect on the bodywork.
That makes no sense... why would they do anything about it on the 3rd time? Is it because we all saw the effects? Good thing LEC pushed PIA for 30+ laps otherwise I doubt they would've done anything about it.peewon wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 15:26Whats amazing to comprehend is that according to Marko, RB complained 3 times about the McL rear wing which I think they used in Spa and Monza as well. And FIA basically decided to not do anything. When it suddenly gains traction on social media, they decide to crack down on it. Its should be really concerning that FIA's rule enforcement is dictated by public perception rather than sporting principles put in place.
I'm.only talking about current mclaren vs old red bull you posted.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 15:17The discussion is fairly moot now, but if you look at better quality videos, you'll see Mclaren wing is also getting twisted like all others. I do agree that the entire flap structure is bending more than any other wing, but the main element is also twisting and getting under increasingly more negative angle. It's inevitable, both drag and downforce will contribute to twisting, while the single-element beam wing itself is not gonna be able to resist this flexuremwillems wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 09:39The Mclaren's main plane is pretty static, as is the RW Structure. Even the front of the central DRS flap is pinned down so aside from the leading edges, it is still gathering air at the same angle. The only flexing part on the Mclaren is the DRS flap and supporting structure.
The RB Main Plan leans back. The entirety of the Top plane on the RB leans back including the leading edge, reducing drag further. The RW structure leans back. The amount of flex on the RB is much greater, covering more carbon, more drag inducing parts and leaning them in a way that offers more drag reduction than the Mclaren can because the entirety of the RW can be made flatter towards oncoming airflow.
Let's agree to disagree.
I do think the FiA are brushing it away, but I can't see this as an example of inconsistency because the two designs are too different in their scope and in the ultimate effect on the bodywork.
I don't think it was legal per se, the slot gap rule hasn't changed, nor has the rule about the angle of the DRS flap.