66 replies to this topic

[ARTGP]

Exclusive: FIA to use new video checks for F1 flexi wing tricks at Belgian GP (autosport.com)

 

 

Selected Formula 1 teams will have to fit new video cameras for practice at the Belgian Grand Prix as part of an FIA investigation into flexi wings tricks, Autosport can reveal.

...

Up until now, the FIA had been satisfied that the behaviour of the front wings was in compliance with the regulations, and felt that current static tests were enough to control it.

...

But it has emerged that earlier this week the FIA informed teams that it will be taking action to get a better understanding of the situation – with new analysis to be done at next week’s Belgian Grand Prix.
 

The gathering of the information from teams will allow the FIA to better understand how the front wings of selected squads are behaving and whether or not changes need to be made to the regulations.

 

 

Which teams are they targeting? 

[Yoshi]

You were faster than me. 

 

I assume its regarding the front wing of Merc and Mclaren? 

[ARTGP]

requesting a thread merge  

Edited by ARTGP, 18 July 2024 - 19:01.

[New Britain]

The FIA are only 13 years too late

Why did they not investigate in 2011 when anyone with eyes could see that Red Bull's front wing was flexing all over the place, blatantly in violation of (what was then) rule 3.15? At the time even the mainstream broadcasters were presenting slow-mo video that showed beyond doubt how much that wing was moving.

[Beamer]

The FIA are only 13 years too late
Why did they not investigate in 2011 when anyone with eyes could see that Red Bull's front wing was flexing all over the place, blatantly in violation of (what was then) rule 3.15? At the time even the mainstream broadcasters were presenting slow-mo video that showed beyond doubt how much that wing was moving.

Man, them old grapes sure are sour aren't they?

Edited by Beamer, 18 July 2024 - 19:25.

[P123]

The FIA are only 13 years too late

Why did they not investigate in 2011 when anyone with eyes could see that Red Bull's front wing was flexing all over the place, blatantly in violation of (what was then) rule 3.15? At the time even the mainstream broadcasters were presenting slow-mo video that showed beyond doubt how much that wing was moving.

 

Perhaps they've finally realised that using the eyes is a valid way of checking legality. 

[Clatter]

The FIA are only 13 years too late
Why did they not investigate in 2011 when anyone with eyes could see that Red Bull's front wing was flexing all over the place, blatantly in violation of (what was then) rule 3.15? At the time even the mainstream broadcasters were presenting slow-mo video that showed beyond doubt how much that wing was moving.

To be fair they did change the front wing tests several times during that period.

[Carsey]

Lets see who gets a Nerf this time round.    Wouldnt it be funny if Mercedes and McLaren got it.    Same happened with AMR at the start of the regulation era.   Look how far back they toppled.

[MikeTekRacing]

The FIA are only 13 years too late

Why did they not investigate in 2011 when anyone with eyes could see that Red Bull's front wing was flexing all over the place, blatantly in violation of (what was then) rule 3.15? At the time even the mainstream broadcasters were presenting slow-mo video that showed beyond doubt how much that wing was moving.

In the 1800 I think there was also a case at the King's palace where they did not want to accept evidence.

[ClubmanGT]

To be fair they did change the front wing tests several times during that period.

 

They doubled the stationary load test weight from memory, and it still dragged along the bloody ground. We could all see it. 

 

And there was some speculation there was some sort of threaded cable in the bulkhead tensing up the structure under load, but they would have found something like that and it would have been instanly classed a movable aero device.

 

It was frustrating because they were storming away with races and we all saw the rules getting broken, but just not in way that could be proven as breaching the regulations. 

[New Britain]

To be fair they did change the front wing tests several times during that period.

Yes, and they continued to use only static tests - that was the problem, and apparently still is.

[SCUDmissile]

Probably aimed to target McLaren and Mercedes but Ferrari will no doubt catch a stray

[New Britain]

They doubled the stationary load test weight from memory, and it still dragged along the bloody ground. We could all see it. 

 

And there was some speculation there was some sort of threaded cable in the bulkhead tensing up the structure under load, but they would have found something like that and it would have been instanly classed a movable aero device.

 

It was frustrating because they were storming away with races and we all saw the rules getting broken, but just not in way that could be proven as breaching the regulations. 

I agree with everything you say, except: it could have been proven that the RB front wing was moving much more than what was necessary given the limits of the materials, but it couldn't have been easily measured. The fact that it couldn't be measured was Red Bull's justification, but that was always BS. If I punched Christian Horner in the mouth, would I be innocent of assault on the basis that he could not prove exactly how much force was behind the punch?

 

In 2011/12 a friend of mine working in the RB aero dept told me that his colleagues were quite surprised that the FIA were allowing them to continue with their flexible front wings, and they were laughing about the whole situation.

[New Britain]

Man, them old grapes sure are sour aren't they?

I dislike cheats. The passage of time does not change the facts.

[catent]

I dislike cheats. The passage of time does not change the facts.

And if this new rule emphasis reveals that certain team(s) (perhaps including the one you support) were “cheating”, or bending rules, or pushing boundaries, or exploring grey-area, either explicitly (said team is identified during this new scrutiny, penalized, and/or instructed to change their race car), or implicitly (said team quietly loses form and fades away), what will your perspective on the matter be?

Edited by catent, 18 July 2024 - 22:46.

[catent]

Mercedes, McLaren, and perhaps Ferrari, are the teams that seem the most likely to be impacted among the front-runners.

Any overachieving midfield teams that perhaps are utilizing something similar? Maybe Haas get caught out.

[Wes350]

They'll keep chasing their tails, and the top teams will keep looking for work arounds...

 

Why not just democratize the knowledge?

 

Ask the top teams how they do it, Then release a technical brief telling everyone else how to lay the carbon fibre to do the same thing without "breaking the rules".

 

It'd be better to have it all out in the open than to keep playing whack-a-mole...

Edited by Wes350, 18 July 2024 - 23:13.

[MikeTekRacing]

I dislike cheats. The passage of time does not change the facts.

so if Mclaren and Mercedes are flexing now they are cheats and you dislike them?

[MikeTekRacing]

The FiA has always reserved the right to introduce tests to check for legality. The rules don't change, so a test should not really matter. If a certain part is not supposed to move, it's not supposed to move period (per the rules). If you noticed FiA is only checking it on Monday and you're smart about it, FiA reserves the right to start checking it on Tuesdays...it gives you enough of a heads up but rules are not changing.

They did the same thing in 2022 with the flexi floor thinking that will hurt the dominating car more. It turned out to hurt Ferrari a lot more, it could be the same here

 

the leader is ALWAYS the target. Mercedes have been the target, Red Bull have been the target (they kept increasing the weight in the wing flex test), etc.

[F1 Mike]

I really don't like it when the FIA change tests like this mid-season. I know "rules is rules" but changing the tests halfway through the year is massively unfair as cars are designed and developed from concept to pass the FIA tests as they stand at the time. It's like moving the goalposts halfway through a football match.

Red Bull complaining because they've fallen behind at their own game?

Introduction of new tests and measurements is fine by me, but announce it in the winter for the new season?

Things like this have a tendency to affect the direction of the championship

Edited by F1 Mike, 19 July 2024 - 00:00.

[Nobody]

Video seems a very crude way of measuring something accurately, esp. when this is a game of millimetres, unless they are planning to use a spec camera different to the onboard broadcasts and is precisely mounted.

 

Maybe a Phantom for example 

 

Edited by Nobody, 19 July 2024 - 00:19.

[New Britain]

And if this new rule emphasis reveals that certain team(s) (perhaps including the one you support) were “cheating”, or bending rules, or pushing boundaries, or exploring grey-area, either explicitly (said team is identified during this new scrutiny, penalized, and/or instructed to change their race car), or implicitly (said team quietly loses form and fades away), what will your perspective on the matter be?

 

so if Mclaren and Mercedes are flexing now they are cheats and you dislike them?

It's not quite that binary.

In 2011 the regulations said one thing, in simple English that we all understood, and for decades all the teams had been following those regulations literally as read.

Then one team began blatantly to violate those regulations, those violations were pointed out to the FIA, and the FIA repeatedly chose not to enforce upon that team what their own regulations said. By affirmatively, repeatedly, and consciously choosing not to enforce their regulations, the FIA de facto changed the regulations. After the FIA de facto changed the regulations, it became fair game for all the honest teams to do what the one cheating team was doing.

Back in 2011, it was clear what the regulations both said and meant, notwithstanding Red Bull's (and Adrian Newey's) sophistries to the contrary, and any member of the public could have differentiated between sh!t and shinola. Today, however, it is not clear to the public what has or has not been agreed between the teams and the FIA as to the amount of flex allowed under what conditions. If any team, of course including the one that I support, is now violating what the de facto regulations have recently been, yes they are cheating and should be sanctioned.

[PitViperRacing]

It's not quite that binary.
In 2011 the regulations said one thing, in simple English that we all understood, and for decades all the teams had been following those regulations literally as read.
Then one team began blatantly to violate those regulations, those violations were pointed out to the FIA, and the FIA repeatedly chose not to enforce upon that team what their own regulations said. By affirmatively, repeatedly, and consciously choosing not to enforce their regulations, the FIA de facto changed the regulations. After the FIA de facto changed the regulations, it became fair game for all the honest teams to do what the one cheating team was doing.
Back in 2011, it was clear what the regulations both said and meant, notwithstanding Red Bull's (and Adrian Newey's) sophistries to the contrary, and any member of the public could have differentiated between sh!t and shinola. Today, however, it is not clear to the public what has or has not been agreed between the teams and the FIA as to the amount of flex allowed under what conditions. If any team, of course including the one that I support, is now violating what the de facto regulations have recently been, yes they are cheating and should be sanctioned.

Lmao

[MaxisOne]

The  statement made about not liking cheats regardless of timeline  was quite binary a few lines above ... some peoples answers to cheating by a team they support should be quite simple to answer but whatever...

 

Anyway we will see how this all turns out. It wouldn't be formula one without some regulatory drama.

[krea]

I dislike cheats. The passage of time does not change the facts.

Why don’t I see you angry about Ferrari at all for example

[New Britain]

Lmao

It's not a difficult concept; sorry if it went over your head.

[New Britain]

Why don’t I see you angry about Ferrari at all for example

I suppose that depends on what and when. Over the years, Ferrari have been the most dishonest team in F1, perhaps not unrelated to their contemptible behaviour in the road car business. The way that they cheated the fuel measurement rules in 2019 was outrageous, and equally outrageous was how the FIA (led, just coincidentally of course, by ex-Ferrari CEO Jean Todt ) did not punish them and tried to keep it all quiet. I disdain Ferrari. I am unaware of any significant cheating done by Ferrari in F1 since 2019, which would explain why you have not 'seen me angry' about them.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Don't worry people!

This new video check is for AstonMartin's new upgrades to ban them!

Those who were/are flexing, shall continue to do so!

[FirstnameLastname]

New front wings for FP in spa then?

And then revert to the other ones for quali

[jonklug]

I thought it was widely known that McLaren and Mercedes had front wings that were flexing a bit much but previously the FIA said they don't want to really police this. Never understood why they said that in the first place, was always going to come back to bite them.

[brucewayne]

I suppose that depends on what and when. Over the years, Ferrari have been the most dishonest team in F1, perhaps not unrelated to their contemptible behaviour in the road car business. The way that they cheated the fuel measurement rules in 2019 was outrageous, and equally outrageous was how the FIA (led, just coincidentally of course, by ex-Ferrari CEO Jean Todt ) did not punish them and tried to keep it all quiet. I disdain Ferrari. I am unaware of any significant cheating done by Ferrari in F1 since 2019, which would explain why you have not 'seen me angry' about them.

It seems McLaren got caught with their flexing wings. Also with holes in their brake ducs. Very honest team I guess.

https://www.planetf1...ercedes-mclaren

Edited by brucewayne, 19 July 2024 - 07:43.

[Clatter]

I suppose that depends on what and when. Over the years, Ferrari have been the most dishonest team in F1, perhaps not unrelated to their contemptible behaviour in the road car business. The way that they cheated the fuel measurement rules in 2019 was outrageous, and equally outrageous was how the FIA (led, just coincidentally of course, by ex-Ferrari CEO Jean Todt ) did not punish them and tried to keep it all quiet. I disdain Ferrari. I am unaware of any significant cheating done by Ferrari in F1 since 2019, which would explain why you have not 'seen me angry' about them.

Are you saying only significant cheating is a problem, and insignificant cheating is OK? Whats the definition of the 2?

In 2022 the floor rules were changed mid-season because it was suspected teams were cheating by using flexible floors. Was expected to hurt RB, but Ferrari took the biggest hit. Now was that insignificant cheating?

[Beamer]

I dislike cheats. The passage of time does not change the facts.

 

Ok, so you don't like Ferrari , McLaren , Mercedes, Renault , Williams as they have all been officially caught cheating (google it) and you don't like RBR because you think they should have been caught cheating. Right. So you're a Haas or Aston fan then? 

[Nobody]

It seems McLaren got caught with their flexing wings. Also with holes in their brake ducs. Very honest team I guess.

https://www.planetf1...ercedes-mclaren

 

 

have your box of tissues on hand when there is no drop off in performance

[brucewayne]

have your box of tissues on hand when there is no drop off in performance

Na, just run legal, and everything is fine.

[DevilDare]

Na, just run legal, and everything is fine.

 

I'm still waving away the oil smoke that Ferrari were producing from a couple of years ago.

Edited by DevilDare, 19 July 2024 - 09:04.

[New Britain]

Are you saying only significant cheating is a problem, and insignificant cheating is OK? Whats the definition of the 2?

In 2022 the floor rules were changed mid-season because it was suspected teams were cheating by using flexible floors. Was expected to hurt RB, but Ferrari took the biggest hit. Now was that insignificant cheating?

I meant significant enough that we the public knew it was happening. I don't know exactly what Ferrari was doing with its floor, nor do I know what the teams had been told about that issue prior to the rules change. If you do know, I would be interested to learn.

The FIA opened a giant can of worms back in 2011/12 when the RB front wing was moving much more than the structural properties of CF required and thus was illegal, but they (FIA) bought RB's bogus argument that all that mattered was the static measurement, regardless of whether the eye could see that the wing was in violation of 3.15.

(Another factor would be whether the rule-breaking affected the competition. When Hamilton was (IIRC) breaking the rule about jewellery, it had no effect on competition and therefore was not IMO cheating.)

[New Britain]

Ok, so you don't like Ferrari , McLaren , Mercedes, Renault , Williams as they have all been officially caught cheating (google it) and you don't like RBR because you think they should have been caught cheating. Right. So you're a Haas or Aston fan then? 

I do not recall that the current version of (key people now in) some of the teams that you mention have been guilty of cheating. That doesn't mean that they didn't cheat, but I am unaware of it. If a team blatantly cheated 30 years ago, and all the persons involved at the time are no longer with that team, it would not be reasonable to continue to blame that team for an isolated incident. If however the incident were part of a pattern that has persisted and suggestive of a dishonest team culture, it would be different.

[PitViperRacing]

I meant significant enough that we the public knew it was happening. I don't know exactly what Ferrari was doing with its floor, nor do I know what the teams had been told about that issue prior to the rules change. If you do know, I would be interested to learn.
The FIA opened a giant can of worms back in 2011/12 when the RB front wing was moving much more than the structural properties of CF required and thus was illegal, but they (FIA) bought RB's bogus argument that all that mattered was the static measurement, regardless of whether the eye could see that the wing was in violation of 3.15.
(Another factor would be whether the rule-breaking affected the competition. When Hamilton was (IIRC) breaking the rule about jewellery, it had no effect on competition and therefore was not IMO cheating.)

Lmao

[CSF]

Anyone remember the 2006 Ferrari Flexi wing? That was hilarious. 

[New Britain]

Lmao

Again I can only apologise if these concepts go over your head. I have tried my best to simplify them for you, but it appears that my efforts have failed.

Sorry. 

[pup]

Just a reminder that the FIA doesn’t have any rules about how much anything can bend so long as everything passes their tests. What they’re opposed to are devices that allow the teams to cheat the tests. That’s what AM was dinged for and that’s probably what the FIA is looking for here. It doesn’t mean necessarily that the teams are cheating, just that Horner - sorry, the FIA doesn’t understand how the wings do what they do.

[cpbell]

Lets see who gets a Nerf this time round.    Wouldnt it be funny if Mercedes and McLaren got it.    Same happened with AMR at the start of the regulation era.   Look how far back they toppled.

Thereby esuring that the team that's dominated since mid-2022 returns to dominance?  No thanks!

[Beamer]

I meant significant enough that we the public knew it was happening. I don't know exactly what Ferrari was doing with its floor, nor do I know what the teams had been told about that issue prior to the rules change. If you do know, I would be interested to learn.
The FIA opened a giant can of worms back in 2011/12 when the RB front wing was moving much more than the structural properties of CF required and thus was illegal, but they (FIA) bought RB's bogus argument that all that mattered was the static measurement, regardless of whether the eye could see that the wing was in violation of 3.15.
(Another factor would be whether the rule-breaking affected the competition. When Hamilton was (IIRC) breaking the rule about jewellery, it had no effect on competition and therefore was not IMO cheating.)

I do not recall that the current version of (key people now in) some of the teams that you mention have been guilty of cheating. That doesn't mean that they didn't cheat, but I am unaware of it. If a team blatantly cheated 30 years ago, and all the persons involved at the time are no longer with that team, it would not be reasonable to continue to blame that team for an isolated incident. If however the incident were part of a pattern that has persisted and suggestive of a dishonest team culture, it would be different.

So time passing doesn't change the facts of cheating untill you decide it's been long enough.

Or you decide it's inconsequential because you don't understand or didn't see it yourself.

Ok, got it.

Edited by Beamer, 19 July 2024 - 18:07.

[Sterzo]

Just a reminder that the FIA doesn’t have any rules about how much anything can bend so long as everything passes their tests. What they’re opposed to are devices that allow the teams to cheat the tests.

I'm inclined to think your interpretation may be right, but admit that I find the FIA regs confusing. There are two potential ways to frame rules:

 

(a) To say bodywork must not flex, and also to have specified tests to check. (In this option, it would be possible to pass the check yet still be illegal).

(b) To say the bodywork must pass specified checks and if it does it's legal.

 

Here are some selective quotes from the regs which (I think) imply they haven't made a clear choice between the two approaches.

 

These quotes imply the approach I label (a):

 

3.2 General Principles

3.2.2 Aerodynamic Influence
Except for the driver−adjustable bodywork specified in Articles 3.10.9 and 3.11.6, and
minimal parts related to their operation, as well as flexible seals allowed by Articles 3.14 and
3.17.7, all aerodynamic components or Bodywork must be rigidly fixed and immobile relative
to their defined Frame of Reference defined in Article 3.4.

 

Then section 3.3 is about "Legality Checking." But it's not clear-cut that passing legality checks confirms it's compliant; maybe it doesn't.

 

The next question is: are the new video checks to identify cars which were legal when checked, but not legal now? OR to identify cars which would still pass the static checks but are actually not legal?

[Carsey]

Thereby esuring that the team that's dominated since mid-2022 returns to dominance?  No thanks!

 

What would be the problem?

 

If other teams are using cars that are outside of regulation and/or flexibility tolerances set by the FIA - why should they not be enforced?

[New Britain]

So time passing doesn't change the facts of cheating untill you decide it's been long enough.

Or you decide it's inconsequential because you don't understand or didn't see it yourself.

Ok, got it.

No.

 

If there has been historic cheating by an organisation, it could be assessed in one of three ways:

 

- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating is no longer with the organisation, such as (until recently) Briatore. In that case it would be unfair to associate the current team with the historic cheating.

- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating is still running the organisation, such as Horner. In that case it would be fair to associate the current team with the historic cheating.

- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating has changed, but the cheating has continued, such as Ferrari. In that case it would be fair to impute a culture of cheating to the team.

[NCB619]

I meant significant enough that we the public knew it was happening. I don't know exactly what Ferrari was doing with its floor, nor do I know what the teams had been told about that issue prior to the rules change. If you do know, I would be interested to learn.

The FIA opened a giant can of worms back in 2011/12 when the RB front wing was moving much more than the structural properties of CF required and thus was illegal, but they (FIA) bought RB's bogus argument that all that mattered was the static measurement, regardless of whether the eye could see that the wing was in violation of 3.15.

(Another factor would be whether the rule-breaking affected the competition. When Hamilton was (IIRC) breaking the rule about jewellery, it had no effect on competition and therefore was not IMO cheating.)

The static measurement was all that mattered though.

It's like a speeding ticket - the static measurement is what matters, yes?
Well.. no, not always. In some jurisdictions, the law allows police to use their estimation on the speed (I.e - whether the eye could see that the speed limit was broken, and estimate by how much). BUT this was also written into the law in these jurisdictions (for clarity, this is within Australia). If FIA don't put it in their regulations/written legality tests, then Red Bull is right that they only could lean on the static measurement.

[MikeTekRacing]

No.

If there has been historic cheating by an organisation, it could be assessed in one of three ways:

- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating is no longer with the organisation, such as (until recently) Briatore. In that case it would be unfair to associate the current team with the historic cheating.
- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating is still running the organisation, such as Horner. In that case it would be fair to associate the current team with the historic cheating.
- The team leadership that was responsible for the cheating has changed, but the cheating has continued, such as Ferrari. In that case it would be fair to impute a culture of cheating to the team.

Which team is that? Is it Ferrari that have cheated over the years, kost recetly with the engine
Is it Mclaren that had rear steering and were caught later copying a Ferrari?
Is it the Brackley team that had an extra fuel tank?
Renault that had a driver crash?


Or do you want to try drivers? Say a driver that LIED to the stewards?

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 20 July 2024 - 04:49.

[mclara]

Which team is that? Is it Ferrari that have cheated over the years, kost recetly with the engine
Is it Mclaren that had rear steering and were caught later copying a Ferrari?
Is it the Brackley team that had an extra fuel tank?
Renault that had a driver crash?


Or do you want to try drivers? Say a driver that LIED to the stewards?

Maybe the team that didn't manage to account catering expenses correctly 😋