Hungary's FP1 wing analysis shot. They showed Mclaren's, RB's, and Ferrari's. And it was pretty obvious that RB's was pretty flimsy, while Mclaren's was almost rigid, and ours was somewhere in between. On Speed they only showed the RB's wing flexing, but the world feed of FP1 showed all three cars.
Isn't this the exact same argument that we all had about Ferrari's flexi floor that everybody screams to this day was illegal?. If the wings (and the floor back then), pass all the relevant FIA tests are are passed as being okay to race, then they are legal, end of!. If the FIA then decides to increase the amount of weight used to test the aerodynamic area (be it floor or wing), that doesn't instantly make the previously used parts illegal at the time they were used. If they can't pass the new test then they will no longer be legal to use from that point onwards and will need modifying. It's the same as, if you drive down a 60mph road at 60mph on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and then on Thursday the speed limit is lowerd to 50mph, that doesn't mean you broke the law on Monday, tuesday, Wednesday. However, drive down the road at 60mph from Thursday onwards and yes, you are then breaking the law so the way around it is to modify your speed down to 50mph. It's not rocket science!. The interesting thing will be if the FIA increase the end plate weight and the Red Bull and Ferrari wings still pass the test and still flex, what then, more weight?. What would be really funny is if the FIA increase the end plate weight, the Red Bull and Ferrari wings still pass and the other teams find that the test now breaks their end plates off!
The only way the FIA is going to stop the wings from flexing too much under aero loads is by hanging large amounts of weights to the end plates at pre race inspection.......... ......then add the clause to the rule if the stewards suspect that a portion of the body work is flexing excessively under aero loads during the race the said car will be called into the FIA inspection area for a body work examination. This inspection will place larger weights onto the body work than listed for pre race inspection if the car is shown to have excessive flex then the car will be DQ'ed from the race and the team fined. Now the teams have no grey area to work with as they run the risk of losing track position due to an inspection or getting DQ'ed.
Or they could complain and hope the FIA close a loop hole in the tech regs.. Its cheaper than copying it, then it gets banned
So now the McLarens can get closer to the Red Bulls and the Ferraris and Bernie has his interesting season finale. Nothing new.
Like the wings in question the term "loop hole" is elastic. He who makes the definitions wins the argument
They don't have them because they have been illegal since 1969. (Although well into the mid-80s several teams pushed the limits of the law with front wings which the driver could change the pitch of in one direction as the fuel-load decreased...) When F1 "borrowed" the Chapparal "high-wing" concept, the wings were adjustable by means of rubber straps from the cockpit - there was a pedal which the drivers would push with their left foot when going down the straight in order to flatten the wing.
Check your rule book last season the drivers could adjust the wing on the fly on the track. The issue this year is how they lay up the wings when they are made. they pass the inspection but flex under aero loads.
The same can be asked of the other top teams also.. The fact of the matter the teams that complain the most about Red Bulls and Ferrari's front wings flexing might be covering up a grey area they are exploiting.
Everything flexes. The question is how much and to what purpose. Small and subtle changes can have big effects at speed.
Don't think so. I believe they could adjust them in a pitstop which was a new change. I might be wrong but F1 does not allow moveable aerodynamic aids. Pete
They have always been able to adjust them at pit stops. Last year the driver could move the wing flap angle on the fly a few times per lap. It was part of the changes to increase overtaking along with KERS.. We all know how well that worked out
I can see some movement of the front end of the car, but I am not sure I can say I see the wing flexing. I can see the entire front end lowering and raising: it could be the wing, but it could also be something else. IMO the wing could be a very clever way to get everyone's attention away from something else.
Look at the wing relative to the line across the car. The wing moves down relative to the line. The wheels move up relative to the line which indicates that there is a bunch more downforce working on the front of the car at the same time..... The rulemakers assumed that things would be linear in terms of deflection per unit load. What the designers did (which was clever) was simply make the response non-linear. That can be done very easily by having a preload in the up direction that is equal to the applied test load, but have a very soft spring rate so that higher loads from the wings result in a disproportionate deflection. The people making the rules wanted to control the height of the front wing to restrict the amount of downforce. The engineers were give a set of constraints and measurements and they came up with a design that circumvented the rules. Was it illegal? Well the rules said that the the wings had to be rigidly mounted to the bodywork, and these clearly are not, but they met the "test condtion", so you can't rule them illegal, you can simply redefine the test condition to insure that the original intent of the rules are followed. The "biplane" diffuser of last year is another example of "creative rule intrepertation" that I think should have been ruled illegal, but wasn't. We all used to laugh at NASCAR because the teams would bend the rules to get what they needed and would, on occasion, get caught. Now we have the same thing in F1, the teams aren't cheating, the're just "getting competitive"..... When we have "good guys" and "bad guys" like NASCAR and the WWF, F1 will have fallen to their level. I fear that isn't all that far off.
Come on, guys, you have to think like a lawyer. The rules are extremely simple - all bodywork must be rigid, with no movement. Period. That's the rule, has been the rule for over a decade. Now, the tests for various components to ensure compliance with the rules - THAT's a different thing. Like Ferrari's flexible floor - well, it was never legal, but the tests for floor deflection didn't apply enough load to discover that the floor was flexing illegally. The rule never changed, the TEST to ensure compliance with the rule was changed - and the FIA specifically reserves the right to change the TESTS at any time to ensure compliance with the RULES. There is a huge difference between the RULES and the TESTS to ensure compliance with the rules. Same thing for the wings - the rules specify that they can't flex. Then the regulations specify load tests to ensure compliance with the rules. The FIA acknowledges that nothing can be made absolutely rigid, to it allows a certain amount of flex for a certain load (the compliance test). If it suspects a team has discovered a loophole or workaround to flex more than intended by the rules, then the FIA is entirely within their rights (and the regulations) to change the compliance tests anytime they like. The FIA can NOT change the rules mid-season, period. All that is being changed is the compliance test for the front wing, the rules remain exactly the same. When the cars are presented for scrutineering at Spa, they will have to pass the new compliance tests. Since they passed scrutineering at Hungary, they were legal there, and can't be declared retroactively illegal.
Colin Chapman was doing the same things Newey is doing now in the 60s and 70s. He made the first ground effects cars the type 79 and type 88 twin chassis. He was a genius and the FIA was always banning his inventions.
Good point, Gordon, but ultimately, everything moves when we get right down to molecular level. Nothing is static. So my view is that if a rule is set, then, at exactly the same time, the test for this rule should be specified (but I don't know if this was the case here, however). Anyway, it seems to make sense to me that a rule and its test standard should remain unaltered for a season. Otherwise, for exampl, people could simply design a more sensitive test to measure movement. In the end, I am sure there is a physicist out there who could take a commission to prove that just about anything is moving, even old dionsaur bones!
A prescient point, no doubt. It seems like the rebuttal point would merely illustrate that the test sets the expectations on deflection. A rule of 'no deflection' is nonsensical - so the test is followed. In high end motorsport such as this the test is what teams design to, not the spirit of the rules.
