All 2011 cars are illegal

[bot6]

Tumbarello, what you say depends on if you see article 3.17 of the regulations as a description of the application of the rule described in 3.15, or as a separate article. To me, 3.15 is a separate article as it describes different constraints to those tested under 3.17.

For the F-duct, you have to admit that no other solid device on the car than the hand or knee of the driver moves when it is toggled on or off. So as such, there is no movable aerodynamic device. No matter the intent, the letter of the rule is respected.

The bendy wing does breach regulations, if only regarding "attempts to bridge" the contact to the ground described in 3.15. The wing is clearly designed to get as close to the ground as possible, and sometimes makes contact with it (as proven by the wear on the RBR endplates last weekend). So if only in that one respect, the rule is breached. Not rule 3.17 about bending bodywork. Rule 3.15, a different one.

Now for the advantage estimation, I doubt an 0.5 second interval is anything precise, especially in Formula 1. It's a ballpark estimation, an educated guess coming from the feedback from numerous sources about advantage for ground effects and some years of experience in fluid dynamics. Nothing more. But if there was no advantage in it I doubt Red Bull would bother. Newey is smarter than that.

Again, I don't think RBR are the culprits here. I think the fault lies with the FIA, who seem incapable of writing rules which would be clear cut for all teams, not interpretable by one or two in a different manner than the others.
And in that point, we come back to the slot/hole discussion on the DDD. A proper racing rule should not be subject to interpretation, and the FIA need to clean up their act or let someone else do the job.

[Formula None]

If all cars were deemed illegal (lol) what would happen at the race? For example, what if it were found all teams had the Sauber flaw in their RW flap. Hypothetically. Say, all the teams conspired against the FIA and showed up with turbos bolted on one day. Race cancelled or race enhanced by coup d'etat? Or if they all slapped a "Bernie Sucks" bumper sticker on their car. What's the point of FOTA if they're not pulling such hijinks?

[Tamburello]

I will leave this discussion with a quote from Joe Saward, who says quite succinctly what I've been trying tortuously and mostly failing to say in this thread:

"...regulators can change the rules if they wish to close down such loopholes, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal [ed. my emphasis] simply because they have not figured out how to police it."

...as they eventually did with the F-duct and DDD. I guess the next step in the case of the flexi wings this would entail amending the rules to stipulate that "no body work ahead of the front wheels centreline or aft of the back wheels centreline shall be made of a material more "flexible" than granite". That should do it!

[bot6]

Yes, they did for the F-duct and the DDD.
But the bendy wing does not fall under the same considerations: it is already illegal.

[Tamburello]

Yes, they did for the F-duct and the DDD.
But the bendy wing does not fall under the same considerations: it is already illegal.

"bendy wings" (what ever they are) may be illegal, but the Red Bull front wing is not.

[bot6]

How is that possible when the RBR wing is the first example of the said bendy wing? A wing that (in conjunction with the nose and pillars) bends down in order to be as close as possible to the ground, hence breaching rule 3.15?
Again, passing rule 3.17 does not automatically mean passing 3.15. Just like not having run over someone in a car does not mean you have never been flashed over the speed limit. Two different rules.

[Tamburello]

Come on, catch up will you. The Red Bull wing is legal because it meets the requirements of the procedures in place in order to enforce the rules.

The rules are enforced by certain measurements and tests that are carried out on the cars. All cars or components thereof which pass such scrutineering procedures are deemed legal. The RB7 has met and passed every such procedure so far thrown at it and is therefore legal.

Now if you want them to change the rules or procedures used to police these things, that's fine. But so long as the current regulatory framework is in place, the car is legal and all other teams have equal opportunity to find similar solutions.

[Just_a_fan]

I will leave this discussion with a quote from Joe Saward, who says quite succinctly what I've been trying tortuously and mostly failing to say in this thread:

"...regulators can change the rules if they wish to close down such loopholes, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal [ed. my emphasis] simply because they have not figured out how to police it."

...as they eventually did with the F-duct and DDD.!

They have in the past. The mass damper was declared illegal and banned.

I think the reason the FIA haven't sorted the flexi-wing problem is because it's a "small team" showing up the established order teams. I have no doubt that had McLaren, Ferrari or Renault developed the flexi-wing in isolation then it would have been banned.

There're a lot of silly little political games used in the running of F1. I expect that the flexi-wing will be banned during/at the end of this season. Be easy enough for the rules to be altered to specify a certain construction of the front wing e.g. a regulated 'spar' running full width of the wing.

There is no doubt that the flexi-wing fails to meet the requirements of 3.15 in the tech regs because it is "designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground". No need to test - the fact that is designed to do it makes it illegal. The fact that it can be seen to do so on track and yet pass the simple load tests shows that there is design intention and the part is de facto illegal. Now, if they wanted to, the stewards could declare it illegal on the grounds of 3.15 - but they don't want to. It keeps the show interesting.

[bot6]

Or it keeps the show uninteresting, creating a huge gap between the top cars.

Tumbarello -> come on, catch up will you. Obeying one rule does not automatically mean you obey the others. It's like saying it's legal to go in a shop and steal something, because you did not kill the shop owner doing so. So you respected one law, how could you have broken another? See the problem in your logic here?

[Mysticf1]

Since the tightening of the bodywork rules, the front wing is one of the few "visual" components that constantly evolve through out the season, it would be a great shame if standard profiles or similar rules changes came in to restrict development in this area...bending the rules (zing) is all part of the fun. Obviously the RB wing is bending to a degree but its not the whole story. Kudos to them i say.

[Richard]

The FIA's & FOTA's approach shows a consistency and lack of politics. They have created rule stability to allow all teams to develop their own version of the RB wing.

Similarly, the F duct and DDD were allowed to run for season or two. They were only removed at the end of the seasonal, with advanced notice with the consensus of all parties. That's the way it should be. It is the benefit of Todt.

[Tamburello]

Or it keeps the show uninteresting, creating a huge gap between the top cars.

Tumbarello -> come on, catch up will you. Obeying one rule does not automatically mean you obey the others. It's like saying it's legal to go in a shop and steal something, because you did not kill the shop owner doing so. So you respected one law, how could you have broken another? See the problem in your logic here?

They obey both rules because AFAIK, photos provided by bot6 and his ilk are not part of the measuring devices or tests for bodywork in the regulatory framework, whereas the tests and measures that are in fact part of it have been passed consistently and without fail by the Red Bull cars. Do you get it now, or is this logic too difficult as well?

[Tamburello]

The great thing about conspiracy theories is that there's little burden of proof and you can let your imagination run wild on the flimsiest of associations...

[bot6]

Tumbarello, did you ever actually read the regulations? Nowhere in there is it stated that passing flexing bodywork tests in 3.17 allows you to bridge the gap between reference plane and ground.

Otherwise, that would mean that by passing the front wing tests, skirts would be allowed.

Read the technical regulations in full and then you can make a point as to how 3.15 is not breached by the RBR front wing.

[Tamburello]

And what's the measure by which they determine adherence to 3.15? I'm fairly certain photos provided by bot6 and his ilk are not permissible.