All 2011 cars are illegal

[volarchico]

This is what happens when we have a week off from racing...people get bored and have to come up with something to say, no matter how ridiculous.

[bot6]

Why not? The bending foils and bending rear wing Ferrari were using a few years ago were disallowed using photographic evidence. Why would it be different for Red Bull?

Why would race film and photography not be admissible evidence?

[myurr]

Further to that the FIA has in the past used video evidence to ask teams like McLaren to strengthen the front bridge wings to stop them flexing. They're also rumoured to have asked Red Bull to stop their rear wing flexing down at speed in 2009.

The FIA are either incompetent at policing their own rules or are manipulating the results by turning a blind eye to a clear and persistent infraction of the rules. There is no other way to skin that cat.

[Richard]

bot6 - the formula is applied in the scrutineers garage, not dynamically on track. Otherwise the wing on every car would fail the rule about not being below the reference plane. So you think every car should be banned. Nice one.

While you are on the subject, did you know that every car picks up marbles on the tyres to ensure they comply with the wight rule when they return to the pits. Many of them would be underweight when they cross the finish line. Should they all be banned too?

I prefer that we go along with the rules as they are currently implemented, everyone understands the context, and it provides stability for the sport.

[horse]

I'm sorry, but even if photographic evidence leads to suspicion of illegal activity, a quantitative rule is supplied to deal with it. Hence the whole point of 3.17 which includes rules for the front, rear and any other body part that is suspected of flexing abnormally.

[Richard]

The FIA are either incompetent at policing their own rules or are manipulating the results by turning a blind eye to a clear and persistent infraction of the rules. There is no other way to skin that cat.

There is another way to skin the cat. The FIA are being consistent in the application of the rule and have told all teams how the rule is to be implemented. The difference is that Todt is promoting stable rules with consistent implementation with FOTA consensus. The F duct,DDD, and use of KERS are examples of this approach.

[Just_a_fan]

The FIA are either incompetent at policing their own rules or are manipulating the results by turning a blind eye to a clear and persistent infraction of the rules. There is no other way to skin that cat.

There is another way to skin the cat. The FIA are being consistent in the application of the rule and have told all teams how the rule is to be implemented. The difference is that Todt is promoting stable rules with consistent implementation with FOTA consensus. The F duct,DDD, and use of KERS are examples of this approach.

The teams themselves banned the f-duct. FIA banned double diffusers. The teams could, if they choose, ban flexi wings too. They could all, except RB obviously, go to the FIA and say "these photos shows the RB wing is flexing excessively and are all the proof you need to slap them" but haven't done so. The FIA's tests were implemented in response to the teams complaining and are obviously insufficient to police the front wing. The result will be that the teams will spend an awful lot of money trying to replicate the RB front wing effect.

I have no doubt that Mosely would have stopped the RB front wing by now purely on economic grounds.

Having said all that, kudos to RedBull for being able to openly "cheat" even in the face of FIA tests. It makes previous teams' cheats (e.g. Benetton's "the TC function is turned off, honest") look amateurish.

Of course, the FIA could stop all cars from running aero parts too close to the ground by simply insisting on continuous height measurement systems in the endplates (or even a simple abradable addition to the endplates). Until they do, though, REdBull and the other teams will continue to try to maximise the effect of the front wing running too close to the ground.

[Tamburello]

Why should it cost teams exorbitant amounts of money to develop? It hasn't done so for Red Bull.

[myurr]

The FIA are either incompetent at policing their own rules or are manipulating the results by turning a blind eye to a clear and persistent infraction of the rules. There is no other way to skin that cat.

There is another way to skin the cat. The FIA are being consistent in the application of the rule and have told all teams how the rule is to be implemented. The difference is that Todt is promoting stable rules with consistent implementation with FOTA consensus. The F duct,DDD, and use of KERS are examples of this approach.

The F duct and DDD were not in breach of existing rules but exploitations of loopholes in the wording of those rules. The bending front wing is in direct contravention of at least one if not two or three rules, whilst being in compliance with the FIA's inadequate tests. Lack of detection does not make something legal.

In 2008, I think it was, when McLaren introduced their bridge wing that went over the nose of the car there were no specific tests to ensure that this piece did not flex. When video evidence suggested it was moving whilst under aero load the team were asked to strengthen that piece.

There are no specific tests on the small wings that McLaren has above the channel in it's L shaped sidepods, however if these were flexing all over the place would you expect the FIA to turn a blind eye and say that the car complies with existing flexing aero tests?

I don't know how KERS usage is monitored out on track, but what if McLaren or another team had devised a system which supplemented the KERS power supplied via the ECU so that the actual power delivered to the motor was twice that of other teams, would that be considered legal and fair game or would it be cheating?

This is nothing to do with rules stability or the other straw man arguments you hold up. Red Bull have been cheating for the last couple of rules by designing aero parts specifically engineered to flex and bend in a very advantageous way, and the FIA have utterly failed to crack down on this forcing the other teams to have to copy. I'm not asking for Red Bull to be banned or stripped of their results or for the rules to be changed to disadvantage one particular team. I'm simply asking for the FIA to enforce their own rules with a degree of competence. They should allow some small movement in the aero parts of the car so that they are practical to build and race, without allowing for parts to be designed to deliberately move several centimeters to gain advantage.

[Giblet]

All wings flex, all carbon flexes. How much has to be determined. This is determined by a test. Same as in life. It is not legal to speed when no cops are around, but I will not be punished if I do, and at the end of the day, I have not been caught for anything, and legally, have done nothing wrong.

The flex wings work the same way. They are breaking the rules, but bending when nobody is looking. If I call the cops and say someone was speeding, and they hold the gun at the stationary car, "well he's not speeding now".

The test to see if rules are being broken is broken. Knowing that they bend more than the rules intended is not the point, and it won't be policed outside of the load tests.

Red Bull were given a system to play in, and found a way to play in the system without failing the tests.

Newey is just like Rain Man. Counting cards is illegal but if someone can do it in their heads and not get caught.......

[bot6]

I'm sorry, but even if photographic evidence leads to suspicion of illegal activity, a quantitative rule is supplied to deal with it. Hence the whole point of 3.17 which includes rules for the front, rear and any other body part that is suspected of flexing abnormally.

Again, remind me again how complying with 3.17 automatically means complying with 3.15? Read the rules, such automatic links are not included in the text. Otherwise, there would be no point in actually having rule 3.15. They could just have only rule 3.17 instead. That is not the case.

Both rules are in the rule book. Both have to be observed. One is observed (3.17) and another one is breached (3.15).

Again, the problem is not that the wing is flexing. It passes 3.17 so I couldn't care less if it was making knots. The problem is the wing, and the whole front end - whatever it's doing - is "bridging the gap to the ground" which is forbidden under 3.15. I don't care if it flexes, moves, dances or spins to reach that result. That's utterly irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is that it bridges the gap to the ground, which is forbidden under 3.15. Therefore, it's illegal.

bot6 - the formula is applied in the scrutineers garage, not dynamically on track. Otherwise the wing on every car would fail the rule about not being below the reference plane. So you think every car should be banned. Nice one.

While you are on the subject, did you know that every car picks up marbles on the tyres to ensure they comply with the wight rule when they return to the pits. Many of them would be underweight when they cross the finish line. Should they all be banned too?

I prefer that we go along with the rules as they are currently implemented, everyone understands the context, and it provides stability for the sport.

What in the wording of "under any circumstances" makes you think rules only applies to parc fermé?

What makes you think the other cars' front wings are under the reference plane? Do you have any evidence supporting such a claim? Do you even know where the reference plane is placed on an F1 car? By the way "everybody cheats so red bull should be allowed to do so" is hardly a valid point, especially supporting the FIA's handling of the matter at hand.

How is tire wear relevant to a conversation about front wings breaching a specific aerodynamic rule? Please stay on topic.

The whole problem with the current rules is that they are not all implemented. So I very much doubt everyone understands the context. I know I don't. I don't understand why some rules are implemented and some are not.

Why should it cost teams exorbitant amounts of money to develop? It hasn't done so for Red Bull.

Did you see Red Bull's accounts? Do you have any evidence supporting that Red Bull did not spend sizable amounts of money developing this technology? Designing and dimensioning such a device would cost many work hours, numerical simulations, prototype manufacture and testing... All that costs money. A lot of money.

[Tamburello]

Have you seen their accounts and therefore know that they have spent an exorbitant amount of money on this? By most accounts, the Red Bull budget is not amongst the highest on the grid.

[Lindz]

Just because you can occasionally jump over a stream in the woods it doesn't mean that you are able to do it consistently and far enough to 'bridge' a river.

'Bridging' the gap to the ground will mean a constant and steady contact.

That is not happening.

[Richard]

How is tire wear relevant to a conversation about front wings breaching a specific aerodynamic rule? Please stay on topic.

This is a thread about legality not flexing wings, read the title!

Whether you like it or not, legality is determined by tests applied to the car in the scrutineers garage. Picking up marbles is just another example of cars potentially being illegal on track (underweight) but not in the garage (with marbles).

[bot6]

The rule does not forbid bridging the gap. It forbids attempts to bridge the gap. Again, read the rules please.

The device is clearly designed to be as close as possible to the ground. That is an attempt to bridge the gap. No way around that. Look at the tape of the last grand prix, the wing gets very very close to the ground regularly and consistently. That is an attempt to bridge the gap. And if the Red Bull engineers use the excuse of "but we didn't do it on purpose" and therefore it's not considered an attempt to bridge the gap, then this will really show how much of a mockery F1's current governing body is.

Again, my problem is not with Red Bull. If the FIA lets them do it, why the hell wouldn't they? My problem is with the FIA selectively applying their rules. It's not the first time and it unfortunately won't be the last. But here, it's especially blatant and it aggravates me.

Tumbarello -> are you telling me that Red Bull is a small budget team?
You affirmed that they did not spend a lot of money on this device. I asked how you can make such a claim. Telling me to prove they did spend a lot of money is not really proving your point.
Work hours, prototypes and numerical simulation all cost money. These are all needed to design, dimension and develop such a device. Maybe Red Bull got it all for free, I can't prove otherwise. But somehow I doubt it.