768 replies to this topic

[Nemo1965]

That would require the pivot points on either side of the wing to be in alignment to allow the wing to rotate. I don't believe that is possible with the current designs of any of the front wings on the grid.

Of course not. Because they have designed the inner connection to be a slot where the edge of the wing rests in. But that is not the FIA’s problem, right?

[catent]

Bumping this thread back up. Somehow these details that Tombazis revealed managed to go largely undiscussed here.

 

After McLaren's Oscar Piastri won the Baku race with a flexible rear wing that behaved in such a way that it helped open up the slot gap for a straightline speed boost, rival teams complained to the FIA about what the squad was doing.

 

In the end, with the FIA expressing its belief that the behaviour of the wing in opening up the slot gap to such an extent was not acceptable, McLaren agreed to make modification to that low-drag specification.

 

...

 

Tombazis said that the basic gist of the new guidance was that the FIA would deem any expansion of the slot gap by more than 2mm when DRS was closed to be outside of the regulations.

 

"We don't want the amount of opening there to exceed 2mm," he said. "There's some natural opening, because of the way the wings are mounted and deform and so on, but some teams were deforming more."

 

To help the policing of this matter, the FIA has expanded the fitting of reference dots to the rear wings of cars from this weekend to help it better see what is going on.

 

These dots, when checked through rear-facing onboard cameras, will allow the FIA to judge with some accuracy just how much the wings are deforming.

 

...

 

Asked whether the team would have been reported for a rules breach if it had continued to use mini-DRS, Tombazis said: "Yes, we would have, because we specifically gave a warning to them.

 

"We said, 'Look, we consider that as something you need to change.' If they had ignored us, and they generally don't, then we would have reported them."

 

https://www.motorspo...ponse/10664984/

 

EDIT: I see there was some discussion of this in another thread. The article was released one hour prior to the start of the COTA GP, so naturally it got lost in the activity/excitement of the race and went largely undiscussed. I will say, I find it curious that an article of (seemingly) such interest/intrigue was quietly released an hour before a race, basically guaranteeing the story will go silently into the night without much discussion; that seems a bit odd.

Edited by catent, 22 October 2024 - 12:30.

[sanchez854]

Bumping this thread back up. Somehow these details that Tombazis revealed managed to go largely undiscussed here.


https://www.motorspo...ponse/10664984/

EDIT: I see there was some discussion of this in another thread. The article was released one hour prior to the start of the COTA GP, so naturally it got lost in the activity/excitement of the race and went largely undiscussed. I will say, I find it curious that an article of (seemingly) such interest/intrigue was quietly released an hour before a race, basically guaranteeing the story will go silently into the night without much discussion; that seems a bit odd.

And the headline for the article is

"McLaren not alone in making rear wing changes after FIA's slot-gap tricks response"

Yet you conveniently copy paste certain part of the article and removing parts related to the main context of it.

Article is about other teams also being had to change their rear wing, like Ferrari, if speculations are true.

So going with your logic, they released the article this late and didn't reveal the names of other teams because they wanted to protect those while putting McLaren under the bus.

Being a fan is great, isn't it? 😂

Edited by sanchez854, 22 October 2024 - 14:12.

[pup]

Of course there are other teams.  There are always other teams, according to FIA press releases.

[pup]

I do like this part -

 

 

 

If they had ignored us, and they generally don't, then we would have reported them.

 

So, sometimes they do?  Dish, gurl.  

[jonklug]

Bumping this thread back up. Somehow these details that Tombazis revealed managed to go largely undiscussed here.

 

 

https://www.motorspo...ponse/10664984/

 

EDIT: I see there was some discussion of this in another thread. The article was released one hour prior to the start of the COTA GP, so naturally it got lost in the activity/excitement of the race and went largely undiscussed. I will say, I find it curious that an article of (seemingly) such interest/intrigue was quietly released an hour before a race, basically guaranteeing the story will go silently into the night without much discussion; that seems a bit odd.

 

I imagine that if it were an official statement about something deemed illegal (I think I can safely use this word now and be accurate) on a certain Austrian outfit it would have had a bit more pull but at the same time, we kind of already talked and agreed that the McLaren wings were a nice ingenious try at gaining performance but clearly not what the rules had intended. But it does disprove the narrative that McLaren offered to change the wings out of the goodness of their hearts as some were trying to say around here 

[pup]

Volunteering" in F1 doesn't mean what it does elsewhere.  It just means, yeah, ok, I'll do it if I'm getting punished if I don't.  So, McLaren have been accurate enough in their word choice.  

[catent]

And the headline for the article is

"McLaren not alone in making rear wing changes after FIA's slot-gap tricks response"

Yet you conveniently copy paste certain part of the article and removing parts related to the main context of it.

Article is about other teams also being had to change their rear wing, like Ferrari, if speculations are true.

So going with your logic, they released the article this late and didn't reveal the names of other teams because they wanted to protect those while putting McLaren under the bus.

Being a fan is great, isn't it?

Tombazis stated that two, perhaps three teams, needed to make "tweaks"; it was not the majority of the grid by any means, and McLaren were clearly (per onboard footage) in a league of their own in terms of rear-wing flex / DRS flap opening (when DRS was not activated).

 

The main context of the article absolutely came through with the bits I shared. By all means, though, if you feel I left out important context, please share that context for others to see. I suppose you didn't include that context in your post because there's really no relevant context missing.

 

McLaren wasn't thrown under the bus; they made a decision to develop this rear-wing and then publicly admitted they were required by the FIA to make changes to it. They explored grey-area and pushed the regulations to their limit and then (rightfully) had to amend it once it was discovered that their rear-wing flexed in a manner that absolutely violated regulations regarding the DRS flap opening (when DRS was not activated). 

 

Ferrari had to change their rear-wing according to speculation? If McLaren got wind of Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, or any other team also changing their rear-wing, you can rest assured Zak Brown would be very loudly and publicly letting everyone know that it was not just McLaren making changes; the fact he's been silent on this rear-wing subject should be a pretty good indication that McLaren were by themselves on this one.

 

If Ferrari did change their rear-wing, clearly it had no meaningful impact on their pace relative to the others. 

 

... McLaren, on the other hand ...

Edited by catent, 22 October 2024 - 20:20.

[catent]

Putting aside the rear-wings for a moment, and focusing on the front-wings (which haven't been subject to mandated changes), Ferrari has now clearly brought their front-wing into a similar place as McLaren's, demonstrating A LOT of flex. Unsurprisingly, the gap in pace seems to have closed (at least at COTA). A flexible front-wing, and the way that impacts car balance, setup, and pace, is certainly not insignificant. 

 

YouTube link below to an onboard of Sainz's front-wing at COTA. I timestamped the URL such that the viewer will be immediately taken to that point in the video simply by clicking the URL:

 

https://youtu.be/iNK...w05m9vbaJ&t=517

[sanchez854]

Tombazis stated that two, perhaps three teams, needed to make "tweaks"; it was not the majority of the grid by any means, and McLaren were clearly (per onboard footage) in a league of their own in terms of rear-wing flex / DRS flap opening (when DRS was not activated).

The main context of the article absolutely came through with the bits I shared. By all means, though, if you feel I left out important context, please share that context for others to see. I suppose you didn't include that context in your post because there's really no relevant context missing.

McLaren wasn't thrown under the bus; they made a decision to develop this rear-wing and then publicly admitted they were required by the FIA to make changes to it. They explored grey-area and pushed the regulations to their limit and then (rightfully) had to amend it once it was discovered that their rear-wing flexed in a manner that absolutely violated regulations regarding the DRS flap opening (when DRS was not activated).

Ferrari had to change their rear-wing according to speculation? If McLaren got wind of Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, or any other team also changing their rear-wing, you can rest assured Zak Brown would be very loudly and publicly letting everyone know that it was not just McLaren making changes; the fact he's been silent on this rear-wing subject should be a pretty good indication that McLaren were by themselves on this one.

If Ferrari did change their rear-wing, clearly it had no meaningful impact on their pace relative to the others.

... McLaren, on the other hand ...

My intention was not to claim that Mclaren were thrown under the bus nor discredit the parts you have quoted. It's just, after i have read the article, i felt like you focused on certain part of it while the article is also is about Mclaren is not being the only team who had to make tweaks to their rear wing as it is the headline of that particular article. So maybe your team is also part of that oddity.

But... Who are those other teams? Who knows! How much Mclaren has affected? Who knows! If you consider Singapore it hasn't, if you consider Austin it may have. Or maybe it is all track,setup, temperature related.

Eventually what i am trying to say is before coming up with conspiracy theories it is better to remove those tinted glasses. Whether it is red or blue or papaya.

Edited by sanchez854, 22 October 2024 - 20:43.

[catent]

Here's an analysis (in Italian, so you'll need to use captions to translate unless you speak/understand Italian) comparing top-speeds between Ferrari and McLaren at Baku and COTA, respectively.

 

Obviously it's not entirely apples-to-apples, but the video creator demonstrates that Ferrari and McLaren had comparable top speed without DRS activated at Baku, while McLaren's top speed without DRS activated at COTA was 10 kph lower than Ferrari, following McLaren's changes to their rear-wing.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=0Zer20E-Q1I

Edited by catent, 22 October 2024 - 23:07.

[TheAviator]

Vasseur confirmed Ferrari didnt make modification to RW so there is that...

[BertoC]

Here's an analysis (in Italian, so you'll need to use captions to translate unless you speak/understand Italian) comparing top-speeds between Ferrari and McLaren at Baku and COTA, respectively.

Obviously it's not entirely apples-to-apples, but the video creator demonstrates that Ferrari and McLaren had comparable top speed without DRS activated at Baku, while McLaren's top speed without DRS activated at COTA was 10 kph lower than Ferrari, following McLaren's changes to their rear-wing. That's certainly not a coincidence.

https://www.youtube....h?v=0Zer20E-Q1I

Would be interesting to compare with other teams too. Might be the case of Ferrari running less wing at Austin.

[sanchez854]

Vasseur confirmed Ferrari didnt make modification to RW so there is that...

And Stella confirmed that effect of so called "mini drs" was absolutely zero. So there is also that...

[TheAviator]

And Stella confirmed that effect of so called "mini drs" was absolutely zero. So there is also that...

I sincerely doubt its zero. It was literally visible on telemetry.

[sanchez854]

I sincerely doubt its zero. It was literally visible on telemetry.

That is the point I am trying to make. It is okay to doubt, but it always goes both ways regarding which team do you support. You are sure that what Vasseur has said is the truth while doubting what Stella claims. And it is okay for me to doubt other way around.

I guess I just want fellow users here to be more objective regardless of their supported team believing that it is necessary for having discussions with higher quality. That was what I wanted to point out with my initial post by saying, with all due respect, @catent should evaluate the article with all of its context and not just part of it which suits certain red point of view while creating a conspiracy theory.

And about that YouTube video with telemetry analysis from a user whose a Ferrari fan probably even more than Enzo Ferrari himself. I have watched it and it was good to see there were couple of sane Ferrari fans in the comment section who pointed out that it is just silly to take that as a proof without knowing f about a lot of other variables which we all love f1 for.

[catent]

And Stella confirmed that effect of so called "mini drs" was absolutely zero. So there is also that...

It couldn't possibly be zero; that would defy the laws of physics. McLaren's 'yawning' rear-wing flexed in a way that caused a slight opening of the DRS flap (even without DRS activated); this would objectively reduce drag and improve pace/top-speed, without a doubt. And perhaps equally importantly, it allowed McLaren to carry more downforce and pace through slower bits, without sacrificing straight line speed; it's not only the pure pace they found on the straights as a result of that rear-wing flex, but also the favorable setups it allowed for, too, which would have a positive impact on overall pace. A sort of, 'have your cake and eat it, too' situation; that rear-wing meant McLaren didn't have to make the same setup compromises other teams had to.

 

How much an effect did it have? That's hard to quantify. So perhaps the effect was insignificant or negligible (which I personally don't believe; I tend to think that over the course of a full race, that advantage would absolutely be meaningful/relevant), but it certainly was not 'zero'.

Edited by catent, 23 October 2024 - 09:49.

[brucewayne]

It couldn't possibly be zero; that would defy the laws of physics. McLaren's 'yawning' rear-wing flexed in a way that caused a slight opening of the DRS flap (even without DRS activated); this would objectively reduce drag and improve pace/top-speed, without a doubt. And perhaps equally importantly, it allowed McLaren to carry more downforce and pace through slower bits, without sacrificing straight line speed; it's not only the pure pace they found on the straights as a result of that rear-wing flex, but also the favorable setups it allowed for, too, which would have a positive impact on overall pace. A sort of, 'have your cake and eat it, too' situation; that rear-wing meant McLaren didn't have to make the same setup compromises other teams had to.

How much an effect did it have? That's hard to quantify. So perhaps the effect was insignificant or negligible (which I personally don't believe; I tend to think that over the course of a full race, that advantage would absolutely be meaningful/relevant), but it certainly was not 'zero'.

It pretty much helped them setting up the car with high df levels, and still being extremely fast on the straights. Plus it seems that McLaren had to change all of their RWs, not only the low df spec.

[sterlingfan2000]

I think FIA has to do something next season about flexible Front Wings.