66 replies to this topic

[MikeTekRacing]

Yeah, the minor error, defined by the rules. Maybe that one too

[mclara]

Yeah, the minor error, defined by the rules. Maybe that one too

defined by the rules

 

RB was found to have incorrectly interpretated the rules and fined

Edited by mclara, 20 July 2024 - 11:07.

[New Britain]

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.

If the static measurement were all that mattered, the general rule would be redundant, would it not? Why have a general, overarching rule if you're never going to use it?

The general rule had existed, and been applied, for decades before there was a static test. It must have meant something. When the static test was introduced, the rules did not state, 'And if the car passes this static test, that will be the only thing that matters'. The general, overarching rule was retained for a reason.

[New Britain]

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?

For Ferrari, there would have been (and may still be) such a culture. They certainly cheated across several leadership regimes.

McLaren were not 'caught copying a Ferrari', but nice try.

AFAIK none of the Honda/Brackley leadership from 2005 is still involved with Mercedes, so there would be no continuity.

Until Renault brought back Briatore, the current team would have been, like Mercedes, disassociated from the old dishonest regime. How much influence Briatore has in the current set-up, I could not say.

The discussion here is about teams, not drivers.

[Sterzo]

If the static measurement were all that mattered, the general rule would be redundant, would it not? Why have a general, overarching rule if you're never going to use it?

Agreed, but it's not absolutely clear to me that there is an enforceable general rule because (a) it's beneath the heading General Principles (which implies to me it's the objective of the rule but not the rule itself and (b) the wording “All aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing the car's aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference” defies the laws of physics and would be nonsense if treated as the basis for enforcement.

 

The only thing that is absolutely clear is that the wording of the rules is shoddy and half-baked.

Edited by Sterzo, 20 July 2024 - 12:20.

[New Britain]

Agreed, but it's not absolutely clear to me that there is an enforceable general rule because (a) it's beneath the heading General Principles (which implies to me it's the objective of the rule but not the rule itself and (b) the wording “All aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing the car's aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference” defies the laws of physics and would be nonsense if treated as the basis for enforcement.

 

The only thing that is absolutely clear is that the wording of the rules is shoddy and half-baked.

The thing is this:

- The sport's regulators use judgment, rather than objective measurement, all the time: 'racing incident', 'impeding', unsafe release', et al. It is accepted that critical, championship-deciding rulings can be based on expert and informed yet subjective judgments, and,

- in the case of flexible bodywork (and other matters subject to criteria that can to some extent, but not always or perfectly, be objectively measured), we do not necessarily need to measure it if, alternatively, we can unambiguously see it.

Let us suppose that a team were to come up with a magic formula for causing the front wing to extend forward by a metre and the rear wing to extend backward by a metre. When static, the magic bodywork passed every test, but we all could see it moving a great distance when in motion. Would we really say, 'It can't be measured in the static testing, so it must be allowed'? That would be ridiculous.

 

As you allude, no material is infinitely rigid. True. But when slow-motion video made it absolutely clear that the Red Bull front wing was flexing dramatically more than all the other wings were doing, it was self-evident that the teams' front wing material had an inherent rigidity that Red Bull were bypassing, were deliberately flouting. In that case, it should not have required a static measurement for the FIA to say, 'Although we cannot say exactly how much less your front wing should be flexing, we can say that it is flexing at an order of magnitude that is not being caused by the material's limits, and therefore you have to make it more rigid than it is now. Come back with a stiffer wing and we'll tell out whether it is acceptable.'

[NCB619]

The thing is this:

- The sport's regulators use judgment, rather than objective measurement, all the time: 'racing incident', 'impeding', unsafe release', et al. It is accepted that critical, championship-deciding rulings can be based on expert and informed yet subjective judgments, and,

- in the case of flexible bodywork (and other matters subject to criteria that can to some extent, but not always or perfectly, be objectively measured), we do not necessarily need to measure it if, alternatively, we can unambiguously see it.

Let us suppose that a team were to come up with a magic formula for causing the front wing to extend forward by a metre and the rear wing to extend backward by a metre. When static, the magic bodywork passed every test, but we all could see it moving a great distance when in motion. Would we really say, 'It can't be measured in the static testing, so it must be allowed'? That would be ridiculous.

 

As you allude, no material is infinitely rigid. True. But when slow-motion video made it absolutely clear that the Red Bull front wing was flexing dramatically more than all the other wings were doing, it was self-evident that the teams' front wing material had an inherent rigidity that Red Bull were bypassing, were deliberately flouting. In that case, it should not have required a static measurement for the FIA to say, 'Although we cannot say exactly how much less your front wing should be flexing, we can say that it is flexing at an order of magnitude that is not being caused by the material's limits, and therefore you have to make it more rigid than it is now. Come back with a stiffer wing and we'll tell out whether it is acceptable.'

The difference is, these are all variable scenarios that relate to the judgement of drivers actions.

The movement and size of bodywork is a statement of fact to the stewards, so needs an objective measurement to enforce.
Sure, they can use their eyes, or note movements via camera footage (I believe this is what the fluoro dots on all the rear wings are for, as one example), but there still needs to be something objective.

[jonklug]

Will be interesting to see if certain cars are suddenly a bit slower than they've been recently at Spa. I don't personally think they'll be much difference but curios to see if this amounts to anything.

[New Britain]

The difference is, these are all variable scenarios that relate to the judgement of drivers actions.

The movement and size of bodywork is a statement of fact to the stewards, so needs an objective measurement to enforce.
Sure, they can use their eyes, or note movements via camera footage (I believe this is what the fluoro dots on all the rear wings are for, as one example), but there still needs to be something objective.

Why is seeing something with your own eyes not objective? If the movement is large enough, it is perfectly objective.

What you're talking about is whether something is easily measured. I don't need a precise measurement to know that, whilst I can comfortably walk from my house in England to a shop in the nearby town, walking from my house to Vladivostok would by a huge margin be too far, and in reaching that conclusion I don't need to know the precise distance away of either place.

To measure something meaningfully sometimes requires precision - sure - but not everything requires it.

[w1Y]

Not sure how flexible wings are now a new issue. Not sure stopping flexi wings is why red bull have all of a sudden started having tyre wear and balance issues.

[Mc_Silver]

That's such a good video for monitoring how the FW is flexing.

https://youtu.be/MT7qShczSTw

[F1 Mike]

That's such a good video for monitoring how the FW is flexing.

https://youtu.be/MT7qShczSTw

Perhaps one of the main reasons Mercedes have made up a lot of ground recently? Was it flexing that much earlier in the season?

[pup]

Not sure how flexible wings are now a new issue. Not sure stopping flexi wings is why red bull have all of a sudden started having tyre wear and balance issues.

Well the rumor mill says that one team this season has already been told by the FIA to remove illegal parts, and that team is now *checks notes* having tyre wear and balance issues.

[Yoshi]

First camera spotted by Albert on the Mclaren

https://x.com/Albert...rcOSOxnmbQ&s=19

[kumo7]

Well the rumor mill says that one team this season has already been told by the FIA to remove illegal parts, and that team is now *checks notes* having tyre wear and balance issues.

 

I can't see what car it is, tho it looks like the one from Merc and of Russel, the front wing blades bends so beutifully to fit the center mounted parts when the car reaches at certain speed, something like 150km/h?

Amazing how it does this. Mercedes has a great engineers.

[pup]

First camera spotted by Albert on the Mclaren

https://x.com/Albert...rcOSOxnmbQ&s=19

So Fabrega says this is strictly to see if they need to tighten up next year's regulations, not this year's. 

[brucewayne]

So Fabrega says this is strictly to see if they need to tighten up next year's regulations, not this year's.

FIA as slow as ever.