Rear wing flex and FIA regulatory test 2021

[SmallSoldier]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

Stickers are on the wings already


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[El Scorchio]

Or maybe a way also of 'encouraging' teams to use the stiffest rear wing they've got.

If dots are actually applied to the wings in known positions, it will make protesting easier.

Absolutely. It's a very interesting development if true. (and I can see from Smallsoldier's post that it is.)
This thread could explode in the next hour...

[peaty]

Or maybe a way also of 'encouraging' teams to use the stiffest rear wing they've got.

If dots are actually applied to the wings in known positions, it will make protesting easier.

protesting a rule that won't be introduce until the next race? Sounds like a plan...

[SmallSoldier]

Or maybe a way also of 'encouraging' teams to use the stiffest rear wing they've got.

If dots are actually applied to the wings in known positions, it will make protesting easier.

protesting for a rule that won't be introduce until the next race? Sounds like a plan...

Not protesting the tests, protesting based on article 3.8 in regards to designs or constructions that bridge the gap to the floor... It will be an interesting weekend off track it seems.

Surprised that FIA is introducing the markings to the rear wings at Baku, since that will probably strengthen any potential protests (will we get some of that footage during practice?)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dans79]

protesting for a rule that won't be introduce until the next race? Sounds like a plan...

This statement is incorrect. The new tests aren't inplace, but the rule they are supposed to be enforcing has been inplace for years.


as I posted earlier see 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.

[RZS10]

Another tidbit: Szafnauer talked about wanting to help the FIA with the rear wing stuff, what if it's just on their car (no other car with any marking so far, right?) and it's just work to help with the measurements etc.

[nzjrs]

protesting for a rule that won't be introduce until the next race? Sounds like a plan...

This statement is incorrect. The new tests aren't inplace, but the rule they are supposed to be enforcing has been inplace for years.


as I posted earlier see 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.

We've gone around in circles so many times. I think you have posted this reply 4 times by now?

The summary of the disagreements are; what you posted applies to front or T wings for example too, so rather it's the test measures that are more valuable, but they pass the test, but something something intent. Rinse and repeat.

I think this thread is about as circular as the famous PZ FIA conspiracy one.

[dans79]

We've gone around in circles so many times. I think you have posted this reply 4 times by now?

The summary of the disagreements are; what you posted applies to front wings for example too, so rather it's the test measures that are more valuable, but they pass the test, but something something intent. Rinse and repeat.

I think this thread is about as circular as the famous PZ FIA conspiracy one.

As I said peaty's post is incorrect, a team can't protest the tests, let alone tests that aren't in place yet. A team could only lodge a protest sitting article 3.8

In other words, no team can protest and reference article 3.9, they would have to reference 3.8.

If RBR decides to protests Mercs front wing flaps, they must protest under article 3.8, not 3.9!



Edit: it would also help if people just looked at the rules and argued them, instead we have far to many people just looking to throw direct or indirect insults, and deny anything, or accuse everything.

[peaty]

We've gone around in circles so many times. I think you have posted this reply 4 times by now?

The summary of the disagreements are; what you posted applies to front wings for example too, so rather it's the test measures that are more valuable, but they pass the test, but something something intent. Rinse and repeat.

I think this thread is about as circular as the famous PZ FIA conspiracy one.

As I said peaty's post is incorrect, a team can't protest the tests, let alone tests that aren't in place yet. A team could only lodge a protest sitting article 3.8

In other words, no team can protest and reference article 3.9, they would have to reference 3.8.

If RBR decides to protests Mercs front wing flaps, they must protest under article 3.8, not 3.9!

b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).

I think Mercedes will need article 3.9 to prove this one...

any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

This will also required article 3.9 to be proven...

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.

If Mercedes argue that it is done through flexing article 3.9 will come into play.

In other words, yes you protest article 3.8 but article goes hand in hand with article 3.9. We have talk about this many many time already. It's not suprise you didn't understand me, that's why you keep repeating yourself over and over again!

[peaty]

We've gone around in circles so many times. I think you have posted this reply 4 times by now?

The summary of the disagreements are; what you posted applies to front wings for example too, so rather it's the test measures that are more valuable, but they pass the test, but something something intent. Rinse and repeat.

I think this thread is about as circular as the famous PZ FIA conspiracy one.

As I said peaty's post is incorrect, a team can't protest the tests, let alone tests that aren't in place yet. A team could only lodge a protest sitting article 3.8

In other words, no team can protest and reference article 3.9, they would have to reference 3.8.

If RBR decides to protests Mercs front wing flaps, they must protest under article 3.8, not 3.9!

b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).

I think Mercedes will need article 3.9 to prove this one...

any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

This will also required article 3.9 to be proven...

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.

If Mercedes argue that it is done through flexing article 3.9 will come into play.

In other words, yes you protest article 3.8 but that article goes hand in hand with article 3.9. We have talk about this many many times already. It's not suprise you didn't understand me (or others), that's why you keep repeating yourself over and over again!

[Blackout]

Another tidbit: Szafnauer talked about wanting to help the FIA with the rear wing stuff, what if it's just on their car (no other car with any marking so far, right?) and it's just work to help with the measurements etc.

[dans79]

We have talk about this many many time already. It's not suprise you didn't understand me, that's why you keep repeating yourself over and over again!

No I understand completely, I think many here don't understand how to interpret the rules. Hence why Abu Dhabi 2014 is such a good reference. In Abu Dhabi, RBR was excluded from qualifying because they were seen to not meet the requirements of what is article 3.8 today. Back then the equivalent of today's 3.9 wasn't even referenced.

In other words compliance with article 3.9 doesn't guarantee your in compliance with article 3.8, nor does it mean you are safe if someone protests you, because article 3.8 is open to interpretation by the stewards, the FIA, and the members of the ICA.

[nzjrs]

We have talk about this many many time already. It's not suprise you didn't understand me, that's why you keep repeating yourself over and over again!

No I understand completely, I think many here don't understand how to interpret the rules.

Oh puh-leeze, school is out for the summer.

Many people just disagree with your interpretation of the relevance of previous decisions *in this instance*.

[dans79]

Oh puh-leeze, school is out for the summer.

Many people just disagree with your interpretation of the relevance of previous decisions *in this instance*.

Then they should state how they think the rules are/will/should to be interpreted!