Ok you're right. Harsh on my part. As for complaints being placed forth, I obviously cannot say what other teams are doing at the moment. Regarding the validity of the rule breaking, I believe the evidence to be incontrovertible and have a difficult time in deducing Chuck's position. Especially when it was his own idea to have regulation 3.17.8 for clever teams who would bend body work beyond their testing capabilities.
Indeed - No argument from me - I'm sure he's also seen more pictures ("evidence") than us. But, and this is nothing more than a WAG - Until someone protests officially, he won't do anything other than declare it legal - It has passed all the current tests after all. Again, I don't get why no one has protested..... Cheers, Ian
I think they would have to protest about the way the rules are enforced, AFAIK they can change the rules if they wish to close down a loophole, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal simply because they have not figured out a way to police it.
One thing they cannot do is change the rules (ala taxicab racing ) What they can do is change the tests - As FP noted, 3.17.8 is there pretty much explicitly for this reason: Article 3.15 is the one they appear to be contravening - Edited for brevity; This is clearly not the case with their "floppy wings"..... Cheers, Ian
Perhaps they're too busy trying to copy it. If they can adapt quickly enough I assume they'll do so. If it would mean writing off the season they may try and protest. As of now it looks like RB is safe.
Good calls Ian. Spot on. I believe to officially change a rule during the season, 100% of the teams most vote and agree to do so, when during off-season the agreeing vote is only 80%. But with 3.17.8 they don't require anything to perform additional testing which is baffling. That being said, I can't imagine several teams aren't up in arms over this situation behind the lines. I'm sure the media would love to get their hands on this type of action though......
+1! very true Mclaren's wing is definitely flexing more than it used to. But with the millions RB has invested in essentially applying this technology to F1, I can't imagine many teams would be successful any time soon. This tech has been around for quite some time but of course the structural application for F1 in it's current wing technology has only been done by Red Bull. Ferrari did it back in the late 90s which was why 3.17 was brought about in the first place. I guess several teams believed the new rule regarding the front wing to be inescapable, except Newey of course.
Yes that is what I meant, in other words protest the way the test is done, then if it happens the result is the loop hole is closed, just tweaking the test to adhere to the rules.
Let's not forget the obvious nose deflection as well. It seems an entirely new type of test must be produced to deal with that issue. Point is, the tests are designed to simulate race conditions, but in this case they aren't and it's legalized cheating.
Well its grey areas, I wouldn't go as far as saying it was cheating, more of exploiting flaws in the rule book. ..fair game...
hah! amen I guess. It's legal via 3.17.1 but absolutely cheating 3.15, which in turn is policed by 3.17.1. Why is life and F1 so cyclical at times!
Catch 22 A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions...
John- I understand your position in that clearly Redbull has a huge aero advantage over other teams. What I don't understand is how you see it as a clear violation of the rules. Also- with respect to the reference plane dimensions- isn't this specification limited to to a static car at race weight? I don't believe you could apply or enforce that rule dynamically for obvious reasons. Which goes back to my first point- The only rule that I think applies here relates to the "immobile" specification. Is it fair to say- no ones front wing to completely immobile? I can honestly say I beleive that's 100% true. And- if that's the case, 3.17 defines the range of acceptability and Redbull conforms. Sure 3.18 says they can change the test but I would think altering the acceptance criteria defined by 3.17 would need team approval... no?
Posted above; Article 3.15 is the one they appear to be contravening - Edited for brevity; This is clearly not the case with their "floppy wings"..... That's exactly what 3.17.8 attempts to address: Agreed, nothing under load is completely "immobile", but if it "appears to (or is suspected of) moving" Charlie can change the tests - Without any approval..... [He already increased the existing test from 50 -> 100 Kgs last year IIRC.] As to my comment that he won't do anything until a team protests, the mass-damper was actually protested by Charlie! - The race stewards declared it legal, and it was the FIA that protested! [Source - Wikipedia] - So there is a precedent - He could mess with 'em if he wanted to..... Cheers, Ian
I'm sure Charlie could take a different view, but his current view is fairly clear and is IMHO defensible. I agree he could change the test but what I don't understand is if he can arbitrarily change the criterium of acceptability without all teams approving. For example, the wing test was changed but the criterium, linear deflection based on load, stayed the same or was relaxed as has been previously stated. The test went from 50Kg load to 100Kg so the load doubled. BUT- the allowable deflection also doubled AND the application of the load is arguably positioned closer to the vertical supports which should actually DECREASE deflection when compared to applying that higher load in the old spot. I think the line has been drawn and the correct course of action is- "join them" if you can... and therein lies the rub. McLaren clearly has attempted this and had some success but it falls short of the bulls action. I wouldn't be surprised if other teams also tried with even lower success rates. Clearly the lamination schedule is a well guarded secret and not easily copied... perhaps not even repeatably reproducible as this would explain the Weber Vettel gap?
It's game over boys. Charlie reaffirmed it, but what was missing in the other link, is this final paragraph However, FIA race director Whiting insists there is nothing wrong with the front wing of the RB7. "We found nothing unusual," Whiting told The Bild. "For the front wing, the test conditions were even harder now. Vettel's car was always in order." Going to be a long year unless your a fan of the Red Bull steamroller. (unless reliability problems occur)
It seems that we're all assuming that the wing is the sole source of the RB's advantage. While I'm sure it's a factor I won't bet that there aren't some other things going on as well.
Vizla - totally agree. Remember last year everyone said they had adjustable ride height, because the car looked so low? I don't think anyone ever figured out that trick...... I have had mega respect for Newey for a long time, but he is truly out of this world. Red Bull better hope he doesn't get bored....
Not to worry. He'll just wreck another vintage racer and need more money No doubt Newey has the hot hand now but it tends not to last. Otherwise what hope is there?
I disagree. No car is legal according to 3.15. Not a single car on the grid. RBR might be the 'most illegal', but 3.17.1 is created to to essentially show where the boundaries are. RBR interpreted the boundaries differently from other teams.
"Red Bull, on the other hand, has front wings that flex under loading. If a part must be rigid, there is a measurement to which it must conform and if the engineers manage to create a part that meets these stipulations then it is legal, whether or not it is able to do other things that the rule makers have not considered. Thus the regulators can change the rules if they wish to close down such loopholes, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal simply because they have not figured out how to police it. There is a certain amount of bleating going on this week about the Red Bull Racing front wings, which appear to flex rather more than those of some of the other teams. When the Red Bull goes through scrutineering it meets all the requirements and so is deemed to be legal, whether it bypasses the spirit of the rules or not. This is how it is done in Formula 1 and always has been. Brawn GP won its World Championship in 2009 by cleverly finding a way around the rules regarding diffusers, etc etc etc The people who bleat about these things would not be bleating if the boot was on the other foot. But the fact is that they do not have the engineers with the brains to work the system to their advantage and thus bleating is the only option "