Observing ever increasing flexibility in rear wings of some Formula One cars, the FIA has decided to try to reduce this flexibility by introducing new deflection tests.
Well, there has been a lot more going around going on than coming around. I am surprised at the enormous speed this is being done at and even more so that that short timeframe is not enough. It leaves me feeling a bit peeved that apparently the team that I support does not seem to have that leverage.
Red Bull has had a lot of coming around in the past, The various hot and cold blowing solutions that didn't get banned right away. The mid season move back to 2012 rubber, when all they needed to do was increase tire pressures and mandate that the teams couldn't rotate the tires (what they were doing that was causing the failures).
Most everything plays out on an extended time table in F1. Some stuff gets changed quickly, but a lot of stuff doesn't.
You've already spent a lot of time convincing everyone here that RB, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine are cheating.
Where does that obsession come from?
No criticism, because from me you may feel free to do that . Just a sincere question.
A lot of us are technical people, so figuring out the how is a very interesting subject area for us!
RZS10 . Most active topic:
Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021
(76 Posts / 5.68% of user’s posts)
You've already spent a lot of time convincing everyone here that RB, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine are cheating.
Where does that obsession come from?
No criticism, because from me you may feel free to do that . Just a sincere question.
Huh ... I did not know that my motivation is the topic at hand
I really just provided a better translation because the other one was simply off here and there and embedded the quotes in the context in which they were said, anyone who speaks the language can watch the video and confirm it (or call me out if there's some mistake), the content or what was said hasn't changed, it's just more precise - you wouldn't disagree that there's a big difference between a wing tilting 'easily' or 'slightly', right?
Hollus pretty much said it all but i want to add that not once have i claimed any of the teams you mention were or are cheating, on the contrary even:
So yea i've invested some time into this topic, however not to do what you claim but to put together the images and gifs and whilst there has been a lot of "it's illegal/cheating" vs. "no it's not" in here i stayed out of that part of the discussion, actually.
Maybe your own bias made you read things into my posts that simply aren't there? You wouldn't even be the first to do so.
I can only quote something i have written here already:
"Not everyone sees the world in [terms of] 'us vs. them' - i'm mostly making observations and posting the results."
And lastly, i don't really think there is anything "obsessive" about how i post? The (not all that) high percentage of posts about this topic relative to total posts is easily explained with me usually not being all that active on this forum and if i recall correctly 'most active' was another technical topic previously.
RZS10 . Most active topic:
Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021
(76 Posts / 5.68% of user’s posts)
You've already spent a lot of time convincing everyone here that RB, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine are cheating.
Where does that obsession come from?
No criticism, because from me you may feel free to do that . Just a sincere question.
.
Huh ... I did not know that my motivation is the topic at hand
I really just provided a better translation because the other one was simply off here and there, anyone who speaks the language can watch the video and confirm it (or call me out if there's some mistake), the content or what was said hasn't changed, it's just more precise - you wouldn't disagree that there's a big difference between a wing tilting 'easily' or 'slightly', right?
......................................
First of all I want to thank you for the comprehensive and very enlightening answer. I really appreciate that.
Just for clarification. I only quoted the first sentence of your post because otherwise it would have been such a long post.
I have nothing against you just providing a better translation. On the contrary.
It was just to quote the first line of your post.
Since you have posted a lot of gifs and images and quotes here in response to people claiming very strongly that flexing the wings was not legal, I assumed you did that for confirmation and thus agreed with this statement.
I didn't understand that you only did that to provide everyone with information. My sincere apologies for my misinterpretation of your posts.
Because you kept doing that over and over again, I called it obsessive, because I thought you continued to make everyone understand what it was all about.
Again, I misinterpreted your "burden of proof" and I'm sorry.
There is a key difference between an engine and a rear wing. One is massively controlled with limited numbers allowed, penalties given out if changes made, etc., and the other is the rear wing. Any team can change the rear wing penalty free from race to race if they wish, not so the engine. And weren't the oil burning changes as a result of Red Bull complaining? Just like with the qualifying modes. Both were changed mid season. Goes around, comes around, as they say.
A bigger difference is that teams can't stock up on pre-French GP "flexy wings" and use them to their advantage for the remainder of the season.
[...] My sincere apologies [...]
I didn't understand that you only did that to provide everyone with information.
All cool, no need to apologize, really, but it's appreciated so ty.
I think i managed to keep any subjective comments out of the posts that contained the gifs and i used broken lines specifically so that they wouldn't completely cover the edges, that way anyone could point out or see if i had placed them too high or too low despite trying to be as precise as possible, basically tried to pre-empt possible "the line is wrong" comments.
And yea ... what anyone else does with that info afterwards isn't up to me and i guess some would argue this or that way irregardless of the footage ... hehe
______________________________
Funnily enough i found some footage of one of the still missing cars as a reply to the interview you posted
(starts at 1:49, two runs down the straight)
It's really interesting that Haas, who say that did not really do any work on this year's car, have a wing that seems to have Alpine/Ferrari levels of tilt going on, especially since they weren't named in any of the articles as one of the teams who are suspected of having a wing that could not pass the new test (?) and the team also hasn't said anything regarding that matter, right?
Here's the gif:
And added to the comparison
I've mentioned it before but it's weird how McLaren seemingly are fine, or at least they were one of the teams complaining about the grace period and also weren't named as a team with a 'too flexible' wing, when theirs doesn't appear to behave all that different from Ferrari's who have admitted to exploiting the rules and having to change it.
This really shows that the line between what is still fine and what isn't is very blurry and things might get complicated if/once the FIA uses the cameras.
Anyways ... now it's just Alpha Tauri, Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo which i haven't done yet - iirc AT supposedly has a wing that should be fine, Alfa says they have two versions (one less and one more flexible, would really like to compare them) no clue about AM.
I've mentioned it before but it's weird how McLaren seemingly are fine, or at least they were one of the teams complaining about the grace period and also weren't named as a team with a 'too flexible' wing, when theirs doesn't appear to behave all that different from Ferrari's who have admitted to exploiting the rules and having to change it.
This really shows that the line between what is still fine and what isn't is very blurry and things might get complicated if/once the FIA uses the cameras.
I think a lot of that comes down to how senior management wants to approach the situation. Some teams are open about playing in the grey, some teams aggressively deny, some teams say nothing.
I think a lot of the talks about how much it will cost or how much work it will be is either blown well out of proportion or fake drama. Any team that went down this path and didn't have a fallback plan in place, should roll some heads. As history has shown its not a question of if the FIA will make changes, but when.
At least that's my contention, please explain where intent is assessed in such matters, either through precedent or explicit regualatory text - I haven't seen it explained so far.
Intent implies cheating in some minds.
Yes, that comes off in the tone or attitude of some of the commenters who wish to see Red Bull's points erased. No team has been accused of intending to cheat or proven to be this season. Ross Brawn certainly doesn't think any team is cheating and reinforced the notion of the teams passing the tests up until this point as legal parts.
"If you put a mechanism in there or a hinge in there, I agree that's not correct.
"But within the normal compliance of the structure, I don't see a problem," said Brawn.
Since the new tests are from June 15, whatever happens in Baku should not be subject to the new test requirements, so Toto really doesn't have a case to make, but let's see if he tries to coax or buddy up with Masi and the stewards. Basically from the French GP on it's Season 2021b.
Since the new tests are from June 15, whatever happens in Baku should not be subject to the new test requirements, so Toto really doesn't have a case to make, but let's see if he tries to coax or buddy up with Masi and the stewards. Basically from the French GP on it's Season 2021b.
If Mercedes protests it won't be about the new tests, it will most likely be about Mercedes believing Red Bull is violating the spirit of the rules. They will most likely site article 3.8!
Who knows, If you sit down and go through the rules, you will see the are written horribly. They jump around a lot, and are vague in a lot of cases.
They read like they were written by someone who wanted' to do the least amount of work possible. Not to mention almost any time they change them, it's a knee jerk reaction to something, so they just get messier.
This.
I've run civil engineering / construction projects in excess of $120mil, both on the owners side and on the field side. The rules are terrible written, not "tight" at all, contradict themselves, etc. If we had issued a RFP, design specs, a proposal, etc. written like that, the projects would have been disasters.
Thank you for that post. It’s one of the most revealing and therefore clarifying I’ve read in this thread.
Since the new tests are from June 15, whatever happens in Baku should not be subject to the new test requirements, so Toto really doesn't have a case to make, but let's see if he tries to coax or buddy up with Masi and the stewards. Basically from the French GP on it's Season 2021b.
If Mercedes protests it won't be about the new tests, it will most likely be about Mercedes believing Red Bull is violating the spirit of the rules. They will most likely site article 3.8!
Considering what that rule states (as opposed to any ‘point of view’ about what is intended), that would be very short-sighted....
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
I've run civil engineering / construction projects in excess of $120mil, both on the owners side and on the field side. The rules are terrible written, not "tight" at all, contradict themselves, etc. If we had issued a RFP, design specs, a proposal, etc. written like that, the projects would have been disasters.
Thank you for that post. It’s one of the most revealing and therefore clarifying I’ve read in this thread.
Since the new tests are from June 15, whatever happens in Baku should not be subject to the new test requirements, so Toto really doesn't have a case to make, but let's see if he tries to coax or buddy up with Masi and the stewards. Basically from the French GP on it's Season 2021b.
If Mercedes protests it won't be about the new tests, it will most likely be about Mercedes believing Red Bull is violating the spirit of the rules. They will most likely site article 3.8!
Considering what that rule states (as opposed to any ‘point of view’ about what is intended), that would be very short-sighted....
I'd have to disagree with that considering the bold.
3.8 Aerodynamic influence
With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view
mirrors described in Article 14.3, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic
performance:
a. Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to
minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4,
11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the
car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of
the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.11, 3.7.12 and 3.7.13, may under any circumstances be
located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any
car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.
