Lotus hit by FiA

If the article below is accurate, then it absolutely sucks! We have been through 3 seasons of the FiA refusing to do anything about the obvious and visible flexing/moving nose and front wing on the Red Bull. The defense generally put forward was that the car didn't fail any test. If the standard is - if you don't fail a test then your car is ok, then stick to it. Don't favor Red Bull with that interpretation and set a completely different standard for all other teams.

This inconsistency absolutely stinks IMO.

 

As you said, "if* true - It appears to come from a solitary blog post. However;

With respect, there's no inconsistency here at all and I disagree with the implication that they're somehow being "picked on" because they're quick.

Yes, we all saw the Cans front wing flexing - Trouble is, as you said, they continue to pass all the tests Charlie can throw at 'em; The load test was increased again for this season and they continue to pass. Move on.

Turning to the claim that their tea-tray & splitter are flexing; Again, they can't flex as measured by Charlie; If it does, it's illegal and must be strengthened. But, I haven't read anywhere else about these supposed comments that this flexing was "measured at Sepang"? (Anyone?)

Further, I'd have to agree that the rubber "boots" certainly fall into the "movable aero aid" trap - They affect aero (or they wouldn't be there) and they move. Not a lot, but they do. Not allowed. This isn't a grey area and is nothing to do with flexing bits and passing/failing any tests. I suspect Charlie will have a quiet word and they'll be gone by China.

Cheers,
Ian
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Next lets ban tires as their sidewall clearly flexes, these parts are in the aerodynamic stream and thus are moveable aerodynamic parts.

 

I think you're missing my point. There is a clear and different standard being applied - and you even described it in your answer, which was a very good summary of what has happened with the Red Bull moving/flexing bits.

1) The Red Bull nose and front wing visibly flex and we know it is for aero purpose - no action is taken on the basis the car doesn't fail any tests applied

2) Lotus have car parts that flex for aero purpose - and for sure their car doesn't fail any tests (just as the Red Bull doesn't) yet the FiA arbitrarily ban the Lotus bits.

That is absolute and utter inconsistency which Red Bull is clearly on the beneficial side of and Lotus are absolute losers.

This is not the first time this has happened - if you recall Red Bull received the benefit of their gurney on the diffuser yet Ferrari's rear wing gurney was immediately banned (Spain a couple of years ago).

You can agree or disagree on how creative and/or good these innovations are for F1, but the FiA's treatment and implementation is irrefutably inconsistent. It's equally clear who is benefiting.

I guess if the FiA were to be consistent, then they should say "we will increase the load on this test" and see if the measured parts move more than allowed on the Lotus, if so, then it could be banned - that's how they treated the obviously moving parts on the Red Bulls. But that is not what the FiA have done.

 

I don't think you are entirely correct in your assessment. The hard aero bit that "flex" under extreme load are meaured as solid under low load (RB wing etc), the flexible grommets Lotus use would move under a very low load (such as a finger poking them) and thus are determined to be flexible.

Hopefully their removal will have limited impact on the E21.

As for FiA consistency... that is a contradiction in terms

 

IMO your assessment is accurate. But, again, I'm not referring to the hows or whys of what is and isn't moving. I'm focused on the FiA and how it reacts. Both cars have parts that clearly move. Both cars pass all tests. Red Bull is allowed to keep theirs while Lotus is banned. And as I pointed out, this is not the only case. My focus is the FiA reaction and implementation which is completely different. Clearly Red Bull benefits while Lotus loses.

100% agreement

FiA consistency - a great oxymoron

 

Not true.

I do understand what you're getting at, but beg to differ with your conclusions...... F1 is a technology race (Many claim said technology is now too restricted of course.)

Go faster than anyone else, without breaking the formula's rules, and you win. Everyone, not just the Cans, must pass all the (self defined!) tests before being allowed to race......

+1

May be the ultimate definition of the word.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

There's more than enough agreement I think here And no problems with disagreement, although I would add that in the short time I've been here, I've come to respect your thoughts and thought process.

That said, would you agree that both the Red Bull and the Lotus have parts that clearly move and do so for aero advantage?

Would you also agree that both cars passed all tests this year?

 

I can't see how these rubber boots can be considered aero aids. The point of this rule was in regards to producing down force, and these don't. They are just a very nice tidy up of an area to ensure the car is clean through the air.

Personally now that we know how to make things strong enough for the air pressure we absolutely should allow moving aero aids. They were only banned because Lotus' kept crashing after their wings failed back in the 60's.

This 'rubber' concept could be expanded to production cars with rubber splats hiding all wheels so cars are more streamlined but the rubber allows the front wheels to still turn by being flexible ... rubbing/heat issue will have to be solved but ...
Pete

 

Jeeez, man, that would be UGLY!!!! Plus I guess it wouldn´t be so easy as you imagine, that rubber wouldn´t last very long.

I´d prefer to just put rigid fairings attached to the wheels.

Edit: after some research, I´ve found that Ford tried that stuff of the rubber covers in a concept of the early eighties, but instead of rubber they used a flexible plastic. And yes, it looked bad. And yes, the plastic covers cracked.

 

Indeed. Even "heated" debates are all good as long as it remains civil.....

Yep. Dunno how the Cans get their wing to do that while still passing Charlie's tests, but that's what they're doing.....

Of course. The *only* thing that matters.....

Not even Charlie (or Bernie!) can change the rules whenever they feel like it. They (the TWG) specified the constraints on flexibility with a pretty well defined load test. Pass said tests and you're legal.

Very true, but also a different debate IMO.

+1

But again another debate....... *Any* "moving aero aid" (even anything that *may* confer such aid!) is banned. That may or may not be "right", but that's the rules.

Cheers,
Ian

 

But, only movable aerodynamic *aids* are banned. A flexing tire offers no aero benefit.

I know this'll get the peanut gallery riled, but I happen to agree that Renaults now legendary mass-damper was indeed a "movable aero aid". That it wasn't in the airstream was irrelevant; It conferred an advantage by virtue of being an "aid" to the cars aero and was hence illegal.

Again, whether that's right or wrong is another debate; The same could be argued about Mercs (and Fauxtus') FRIC system......

Cheers,
Ian
PS - Brief (and somewhat inaccurate!) description of the FRIC; Formula 1® - The Official F1® Website

 

Well as been said before, it comes from a single blog post and nothing is on Autosport yet...Will it have a big effect on the car when removed? Lets hope not...

 

Interesting. An italian magazine had an article claiming that RB, MB and Lotus all had technical infractions after the Malaysian GP post race inspection and that they would all be hearing from the FIA. The article itself was in Italian and very technical; the google translation was laughable. If I find it I will post it. I dismissed the article but now see there may be some truth to it........

EDIT-ARTICLE IS ALREADY POSTED. DUH!

Here is the full article in Italian. In essence, it claims that the RB, MB and Lotus were outside the regs-it seems to say that the cars were probably illegal (flexing wings and trays) in Australia, didn't have the time to make things right for Malaysia and have to put it right by China. IF TRUE, then Todt and Whiting have to be sacked immediately IMHO. Cars aren't a little bit illegal-they are within tech specs or not.

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/26065/f1-il-caso-red-bull-mercedes-e-lotus-nel-mirino-della-fia-

 

I saw something similar to this on twitter.

 

Omnicorse is hit or miss. There has been some twitter remarks from teams stating nothing needs to be changed, but no one is sure if that was an April fool's comment yet! We shall see

 

lol lets just sack everyone. If the cars pass the freaking tests with the parts they race with, they're legal.

Funny how all the teams mentioned in an Italian magazine are all teams that have beaten Ferrari so far this season.

 

Hence my qualification "If true".....

 

Those who define the terms win the argument.
There isn't a part on a race car that doesn't move in the literal sense. When you parse what "move" means all things become possible. Or bannable.

Spinning tires generate huge aero effects that can be manipulated into downforce.

 

Ferrari conspiracy!!!!!

 

I thought the opposite and thought Renault were hard done by regarding the mass-damper.

In the end free thinking looses and that is a shame. Without engineering advanced F1 is nothing ... it is a very fine line for the FIA to tread and in this case I think they went too far.

RB's wings move and they are an aero-dynamic aid ... shocks and springs move and they are an areo aid because they attempt to control ride height ... etc.
Pete

 

Innovation is all but dead in F1

 

What is F1 about these days?

 

More about the "show" than creating godly race cars and pushing the envelope, that's for sure.

 

And what does that say about those of us who still follow it?