Mercedes W15

[JordanMugen]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGTK5sSXoAA ... name=small

That's really an open mockery of the front wing rules...

If it meets the letter of the regulations, both with respect to curvature of the top element and using the separator on the lower elements to help set up the vortex too, then fair play to them!

It wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as Y250, would it?

[matteosc]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGTK5sSXoAA ... name=small

That's really an open mockery of the front wing rules...

If it meets the letter of the regulations, both with respect to curvature of the top element and using the separator on the lower elements to help set up the vortex too, then fair play to them!

It wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as Y250, would it?

Well, if it openly defy the purpose of the rule, I do not think it is that smart. If it will be banned that was a waste of money. If it is not banned this year I think it will be banned next year.

[kenshi_blind]

How do we know that it defies the purpose of the rule ? how can people here be so certain of that fact ? am i missing something here ?
we've already seen that overtakes got harder in year 2 of the new regs so all this nonsense about the purpose of the rule can be thrown into a dumpster fire as far as i am concerned

[DChemTech]

Because these things are not set in stone always. The FIA may give you a tentative "there's nothing 100% obviously illegal here" and then change their minds when other teams start protesting and giving their interpretation of the rules. Much of F1 is about teams policing each other's solutions. So clearing the FIA bar is just the first step of bringing a grey area part to the track.

Remember DAS? It flew.

This isn't a grey area. This follows the rules exactly to the letter as spelled. It's exactly the same interpretation as legality panels.

Intent should play no role in these questions, you make the ruleset correctly or you ban it the next year

DAS got banned. If they didn't have a problem with it they could've kept it for 2021. No matter, I can provide you a laundry list of TD changes that have come in-season too.

Anyways, I would like to see the FW in action, it looks aggressive. I'm more reacting to the usual narrative of "if it was cleared with the FIA it's good", and it's not always the case.

They treated DAS how they should treat something they find undesirable; since it did not breach any quantitative rules, it was allowed for the rest of the season, and the rules for next season were adapted accordingly.
But there are plenty of occasions where they did not act in this way, and decided to change the rules mid-season. Like situations where they decided wings were flexing too much and breached 'the (qualitative) spirit of the rules', even though they were fully compliant to all quantitative rules written on paper.

I hope the regulators are just this time, and allow solutions that are legal according to the written, quantitative ruleset that has been distributed for this season, even if it goes against their intent. Props to the teams for finding creative solutions, and let them reap the benefits for this season; the gaps can be closed for the next.

[matteosc]

How do we know that it defies the purpose of the rule ? how can people here be so certain of that fact ? am i missing something here ?
we've already seen that overtakes got harder in year 2 of the new regs so all this nonsense about the purpose of the rule can be thrown into a dumpster fire as far as i am concerned

Outwash is the main thing that the new rules wanted to avoid. Teams were able to get that effect (partially) back, mainly using the fences at the entrance of the floor and the pressurization below the sidepods entrances to do that. This is why overtakes have gotten harder, and teams got away with it because they did not do it in such a obvious way.

Trying to recreate a Y250 vortex in the way this front wing is designed seems way too blunt to me. This obviously a personal opinion and by the way: I have no doubt that it works and it works well.

[kenshi_blind]

How do we know that it defies the purpose of the rule ? how can people here be so certain of that fact ? am i missing something here ?
we've already seen that overtakes got harder in year 2 of the new regs so all this nonsense about the purpose of the rule can be thrown into a dumpster fire as far as i am concerned

Outwash is the main thing that the new rules wanted to avoid. Teams were able to get that effect (partially) back, mainly using the fences at the entrance of the floor and the pressurization below the sidepods entrances to do that. This is why overtakes have gotten harder, and teams got away with it because they did not do it in such a obvious way.

Trying to recreate a Y250 vortex in the way this front wing is designed seems way too blunt to me. This obviously a personal opinion and by the way: I have no doubt that it works and it works well.

I understand where you're coming from, i just don't see why this should be treated in a different way compared to the numerous solutions the teams found (those you've mentioned). whether it is obvious or not should not have any incidence assuming it is legal
then again the FIA has been known lately to crack on innovations coming from Merc so who knows

[michl420]

If that is allowed, the next thing is to do the same with the second and third element, than you really have the 2021 wing, if you want to.

[Matt2725]

If that is allowed, the next thing is to do the same with the second and third element, than you really have the 2021 wing, if you want to.

Perhaps that is the next step.

[edgelo]

Here is an article from the F1 itself (sic) explaining why banning Y250 vortex was the goal of the rules change

https://amp.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... OQtRg.html

IMO it’s gonna be hard to explain if it’s permitted

[kenshi_blind]

If that is allowed, the next thing is to do the same with the second and third element, than you really have the 2021 wing, if you want to.

why wouldn't it be allowed in the first place , do the rules, as written as they are as now, allow for the scenario you're describing to be feasible ? or is it just hyperbole ?

[michl420]

If that is allowed, the next thing is to do the same with the second and third element, than you really have the 2021 wing, if you want to.

why wouldn't it be allowed in the first place , do the rules, as written as they are as now, allow for the scenario you're describing to be feasible ? or is it just hyperbole ?

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

[kenshi_blind]

If that is allowed, the next thing is to do the same with the second and third element, than you really have the 2021 wing, if you want to.

why wouldn't it be allowed in the first place , do the rules, as written as they are as now, allow for the scenario you're describing to be feasible ? or is it just hyperbole ?

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

[NoDivergence]

why wouldn't it be allowed in the first place , do the rules, as written as they are as now, allow for the scenario you're describing to be feasible ? or is it just hyperbole ?

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

I can almost guarantee that if it was allowed, they'd already be doing it. You don't simply think about it for the fourth flap and not look into it for the others

[CMC]

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -04-25.pdf

3.9 Front Wing (FW)
3.9.1 Front Wing Profiles
Bodywork declared as “Front Wing Profiles” must lie within RV-FW-PROFILES.
In any Y plane, the following conditions apply:
a. There must be no more than four closed sections.
b. No closed section may contain any concave radius of curvature less than 50mm
c. The distance between adjacent sections must lie between 5mm and 15mm at their
closest position.
d. The rearmost point of every closed section must be visible when viewed from below.
e. With the exception of the rearmost closed section, the rearmost point of every closed
section must not be visible when viewed from above.
f. Assessing each closed section independently, the part of any closed section visible
when viewed from below may contain no concave radius of curvature.
g. Within 40mm of the rearward-most point of each closed section a line tangent to any
part of the section visible from below must have a positive slope. The slope of this line
will be considered in the Y-plane.
h. Within 40mm of the rearward-most point of each closed section, no part of the section
visible from above may be more than 8mm 10mm distant from the section visible from
below, if outboard of Y=500, or 15mm if inboard of Y=500.
i. Inboard of Y=300, the forward-most two closed sections, must have a maximum
thickness of at least 25mm when measured in the Z direction.
Furthermore, when considering the entire profiles, the following conditions apply:
j. The normal to any point of the profiles surface must not subtend an angle greater than
25° to a vertical plane that is normal to RS-FW-SECTION for the forward most two
profiles and 30° for any other profiles.
k. The rearward most point of every closed section, when projected in Z on to the
reference plane, must produce a single tangent continuous curve with no radius of
curvature smaller than 200mm.
l. The Front Wing Profiles must be arranged such that, when viewed from below, no part
of RS-FW-PROFILES may be visible.
Once the Front Wing Profiles are fully defined Gurneys of up to 10mm may be fitted to the
trailing edge of the upper surface of the rearmost section. These Gurneys are considered to
be part of the Front Wing Profiles and must satisfy the provisions of this Article with the
exception of sections (b) and (h) and, for the inner extremity of the innermost Gurney and
outer extremity of the outermost Gurney, section (j).

... (see link for omitted sections on FW Endplate, FW Tip, FW Diveplane, FW adjustment, and FW auxilliary components) ...

3.9.9 Front Wing Bodywork Group
Once the components defined in Articles 3.9.1 to 3.9.8 have been constructed in accordance
to the provisions of those Articles, and any subsequent operation of sub-assembly described
within those Articles has been applied, the resulting union of these components is defined as
“Front Wing Bodywork”.

3.11.4 Front Wing Bodywork to Nose
Once both the complete Front Wing Bodywork and the assembly referred to Article 3.11.2
are fully defined, the Front Wing Bodywork, ignoring any Gurneys, and the Nose must be
trimmed to each other, such that no overlapping surfaces remain. A fillet radius, up to 25mm,
may be applied along the intersections between these surfaces. Once all surfaces, ignoring
any Gurneys, are trimmed and filleted, only Nose bodywork and fillet and no part of the Front
Wing Bodywork, ignoring any Gurneys, may remain directly above RS-CH-NOSE.

[michl420]

why wouldn't it be allowed in the first place , do the rules, as written as they are as now, allow for the scenario you're describing to be feasible ? or is it just hyperbole ?

I don´t say it is allowed or not, I just take it to the next step. And if I remember correct, the new rules where writen just to have not such vortex generators.

you misunderstood my post.. what i am asking is , do the rules as they are written now allow for the same "trick" Merc use on the 4th element on the W15 launch spec wing to be done on the second and third element ? or is it just a hyperbole reaction from you cos you don't like what the wing might or might not be doing?

It doesn`t matter if I like or not like it. The only thing is that if this is legal than it could be also legal on the other FW elements. Is it allowed? With this complicated rules I don´t know, and I assume 99 percent of people here in the forum feel the same way. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. We'll know for sure on Sunday after the first GP.