So you could say that although Ferrari and Mercedes broke the rules they beat the tests to enforce those rules (i.e. peer review by the other engine manufacturers)? Would you say that's cheating?

Looks like Ferrari has taken it even a step further and designed some massive flexing in the rearwing as well

Because when a team says they are changing something because of reliability, and its actually because they have developed more performance, then that is cheating. And the evidence is certain, because the other teams had a veto over a team making a change. But the other teams believed them. When the change was made, it was too late. And unlike changing a measurement method, with a homologated motor, there is no way back. And recall with Ferrari, their engine became very unreliable, after they made their changes, excused upon their lies about improving reliability.

There is also a long precedent for homologating engines. All the people in racing know how it works. But two engine producers cheated.

One might claim however that the sport was so Ferrari centric - Ferrari did afterall have a rules veto, and Ferrari would see the intended new rules before they were promulgated - that for Ferrari to cheat was no big deal.

Recall too, the view about lesser teams places in F1. Recall earlier, that Honda/BAR's car was said to be light. At the time I had thought Honda BAR cheated. But later I realised they were Set Up. And that other teams ran the same header tanks.

And recall too, that Toyota had developed a V12. When the big teams found out, they were scared. So the FIA changed the rules - you had to have a V10. And so Toyota could not race, despite having finished a car, because they had developed a V12. It cost them a year, the FIA's late rule change.

The engine homologation scandal was really really bad IMO. And to make it worse, Honda and Toyota both developed their homologated engines during the final season. They sacrificed race performance, in order to get good homologated engines. Ferrari and McLaren could not do that, because they were too busy developing their engines (which had different rev criteria and weight and CofG rules) to win the championship.

But after the season, when the homologation date was coming up, the FIA announced that an extension to homologation would be put in place, of several months. So there were the two Japanese giants, with engines finished, and they found out that the rules had been changed. Hardly the Japanese way of doing business. And then after homologation, the two major players kept on developing their engines. It's no wonder both the Japanese teams had had enough. They were both disgusted, right across the company, right up to Corporate Board Level. And you know, Honda know a lot about engines.

So what now park a Challenger tank of the front end to get it to fail the test and achieve the desired hobble

I've seen a figure of 1300kg total downforce mentioned for the front wing, obviously depends on the track and speed though.

Hang an empty F1 car off each side, perhaps.

They might still need a front -> rear force to reproduce the dynamically produced deflection in a static test though.

The Mercedes features a double tray (upsidedown V-shape) now

Well the Friday interview was interesting, all teams of interest claim they haven't had to change anything with regards to the front wing to meet the testing criteria. Also the tray stiffness changes meant little to the teams it was targeting.

Oh well back to the drawing board for the whingers I guess

Would you really expect Newey or Costa to say that it would have a major impact?
Time will tell.

That's the stay ... not the tray. When I saw your first post I was like ... Single Tray??? Why does anybody have double trays?

Anyways tray (or T-tray or bib) is the extension of the floor forward, the stay is the part that connects the tray to the tub and basicaly stops the tray from flexing too much
Orange Circle -> Stay
Red line -> Tray
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3497/p1010561q.jpg

Or any of the other teams represented there, wondering what the hell the fuss was all about.

Here's a bit from the engineer's interview:


So there you have it guys - for those who said Newey was lying. And guess what? Paddy Lowe still wants 10mm. So the engineers were going to have 5mm, but McLaren's Paddy Lowe, he wanted 10mm! Twice the flex than the others were happy with!!! And ... it's Still 10mm!!!

In the wise words of Michelin's Pierre Dupasquier:

Autosports Bira: So really, everything that happened last year was just...

Dupasquier: "Absolutely bullshit, you can say it! Absolutely."

Autosports Bira:: That's crazy...

Dupasquier: "Yes. That's Formula One..."

I'm surprised you say they are 'cheating'. The car has been declared legal at every Grand Prix. They easily passed the revised tests. Given this, I'd say the burden of proof would seem to be on those who claim that RB are breaking the rules. It seems they are not. They have simply been more clever than some others. And that is the name of the game, afterall. Good on them, and especially good on Newey . He is perhaps the single most impressive character in all of F1 (a cast of truly impressive characters if ever there was one). More than 80 Grand Prix wins, multiple titles and going strong. Williams, McLaren, and now Red Bull; it is quite an enviable record. Speed follows Newey more than it does any driver, it seems.

1. Newey and his cronies won't tell you (if) they've made massive changes to their cars.

2. For the umpteenth time... passing the tests does not make those devices legal. The tests are not the same as the (written) law/rule.

The facts are though, that its McLaren who pushed - and got - the increased flex levels. McLaren have simply shifted the focus away from themselves, onto other teams. Just like Ferrari did via Bridgestone, when it appeared Ferrari would be beaten by Williams. They blamed the tyres, and in the meantime, Ferrari adjusted their car and Bridgestone brought out Michelin style tyres. And the smaller resourced Williams, had to interrupt their development program, just in in case a narrower front tyre rule would be instituted.

Its fine to accuse teams of cheating. But its not fine to leave out McLaren. Who are afterall the team who changed the rule to have twice the front wing flex that the other designers - including Aldo Costa and Adrian Newey - were happy with. And note too, that McLaren have had to change their cars over the last two races, both underneath and also their wings. Of course, you think they were not cheating. But if you feel that the rule changes have reduced the cheating, then McLaren are also in the group of those that were cheating. In fact, you would put in most of the F1 teams into that category.

Which is just what McLaren want. They know that their huge resources make rule changes mid season a benefit to them. It hurts the smaller teams, and it takes their eyes of their own development programs. In actuality, if you accuse someone of cheating, and then force the rules to be changed because of your own accusations, and yet all along you were doing the very same thing, well, that sounds like cheating to me.

Nonsense. From capital letter to period. You're more intelligent than that.

No, it seems the tests are clearly not sufficient. Which Red Bull knew.

What are you smoking? Ferrari and Red Bull are happy because they designed illegal shit that passed the tests but weren't conforming to the rules. **** me.

You need to pay more attention. McLaren insisted on double the flex that the other teams wanted. McLaren are the team that has had to change their car and their front wings. McLaren are the team that still want 10mm flex. McLaren are the team that accuse the others, for rules they got put in place. You need to have a good hard look at yourself. As do McLaren.

How do you enforce a law pray tell?

Yes they have conformed to the rules every single race this year! Sour Grapes anyone Now we find out that McLaren by their own admission didn't want stricter rules, this is getting hilarious.

Why don't you try and use some common sense instead or digging in like the typical plebs that abound. Astound us with your higher order of self perceived intelligence and explain how you could enforce the rule that has been in conjecture to the letter, the answer is it can't, it's beyond our known technological capability and will likely never be within our capability due to the nature of the physical world. So what do you do instead, you define it, for purpose via definition. In this case the definition is a test and during these tests all teams have met the definition, they therefore do not operate outside the rule.

I don't understand why Mclaren didn't build there wings and floor according the allowable flex allowed. They asked for double the flex. It is a definate performance advantage.

Anyway, Aldo Costa seems to be peeved at the whole thing. Him and Newey pointing the finger straight at Paddy. I must admit, I had a good chuckle.

I think what it comes down to and again McLaren have been caught without a clue, is they hedged on an idea that both RedBull and Ferrari were using materials that would flex in a non linear fashion. If we care to remember they also hedged on the idea that RedBull was using a ride height adjustment system and even went to develop their own before they were told to stop being bloody silly and crack on with it. In both cases they have come up with naught and in fact have imposed on themselves adjustments they had to make in order to comply with the new definition. I suppose their thinking was if we stop them from producing so much down force at the front they may lose more than us and we will gain a performance advantage in the overall picture. Having Paddy admit that they still wanted to keep the 10mm rule implies they knew exactly what they were targeting, they wanted to retain what they had and call out the non linear wings. Now that its clear that they aren't non linear in terms of flex its backfired on them again.

What is really funny though is how all through this is that RedBull and Ferrari have been bemused by the whole thing, I would love to be a fly on the wall during those teams technical meetings, there must have been some fits of laughter for sure.

You punish those who you catch breaking the law. This is how all laws are enforced.

The unfortunate thing in life is not everyone who breaks a law is punished, many do not get caught, but don't confuse not getting caught with not doing anything illegal. There are many cases of people in the public eye who clearly have broken a law, so obviously so, but for whatever reason the police have never been able to make a charge stick. Again, they get away with it. But again, it does not mean they are not breaking the law, it just means it could not be proven. Being innocent is only a legal definition, it is not an absolute.

Like has already been said here, it is 100% illegal for me to carry a gun on a plane, they even have tests at the airport to catch people trying to sneak a gun on the plane. If I managed to evade the security and walked onto a plane with a gun in my pants am I not breaking the law? Just because the tests failed to catch me it does not change the fact that I am still breaking the law.

There is no discussion here, this is not something up for debate. Breaking a rule is breaking a rule, passing the test is irrelevant to the question of whether a rule is being broken. Passing a test however does mean that the infringer will not be caught.

They say Ross Brawn is a clever man.

F.M. translated the AMuS article where Ross Brawn comments the subject:

- Ross Brawn says he thinks he know how the wing functions: At certain downforce level, the wing twists backwards (around the horizonatal axis). The fiber orientation in the main element is such, that under this twist the wingends are allowed to move downwards.
- The FIA cannot simulate this behaviour in the standardised test.
- Brawn: "It is too complicated to make it work for us this season."

Well, I read about this concept more than 1 month ago. If this will be proved one day (e.g. by the ban on such tricks for next year or a nice flexing on the W02 next year), then I will know my architect fellow is a clever man.

The other thing. Some of you talk about so much crap about that 10mm, what Paddy Lowe and his team asked for the 2009 season. Did you forget the reasons behind it? The narrow 2008 front wings have been changed to freaking wide front wings! Did you notice?

So just because McLaren was logical and sensible about that 10mm, should they be accused for this flexing farce what Red Bull has started with not 10mm flexing but near 100mm flexing!

It is 100% sure, Red Bull is using an architectural trick to achiev this. It is cleverly designed and planned, not by accident.

They are lying cheekily when they say their front wing is linear. Yes, only when the car is static and no frontal load. It doesn't require any special material (it's perfectly doable with carbon fiber composite), just a designed structure to achieve non linear vertical response from the wing when it gets frontal load decreasing inertia.

The tests were quite simply insufficient, the way the car works breaks the letter of the law, it was designed to pass the feeble load test, the wings hardly seem to flex at all now.

Logical and sensible? It seems all the other teams were prepared to stick to the 5mm flex. Hell, Aldo Costa even said we can go with double the current stiffness.

I see nothing sensible about having a regulation changed and then moan about the very same thing. And for the record, according to the static tests the RedBull wing is linear and that is all that matters. Ferrari have had to make changes to their high downforce front wing because the position of test has changed which implies that it was flexing in a non-linear manner.

You obviously haven't seen the picture from Spa of the RedBull which has Whitmarsh's knickers in a knot again. He is now calling for photographic evidence to be allowed.

The way the car works is the same as always, they have just pushed the boundaries a little further. Fair game to RedBull and to a lesser extent Ferrari...

As Hamilton remarked, the wing doesn't seem to be flexing much this week....

It's a low downforce circuit, so they are running reduced wing loads, any real effects of stiffening the wings may not show till a high downforce circuit. Anyway, the 1 second margin over the rest of the field seems to have been eroded. It remains to be seen whether McLarens long runs yesterday afternoon were a smokescreen to hide the fact that they lacked real speed...

I don't think you have a clue what's going on. The 10mm is just a tolerance. What McLaren and Merc wanted, but did NOT get, was a realistic test load - more like 250-300kg.

They had that more realistic test load, but McLaren changed it when they insisted on 10mm deflection for 50kg, instead of 5mm.
So they shouldn't come whining about it afterwards!

10mm is a tolerance. The kgs are the test load, 50 or even 100 are nowhere near realistic.

10mm at 50Kg, 20mm at 100kg, 40mm at 200kg, 50mm at 300kg... It makes no difference. The wings are linear and it has been proven with the current tests. What Whitmarsh now wants is photographic evidence to be used.

It was twice as severe at is right now...

They weren't supposed to flex at all, before this year suddenly.

It seems two teams were prepared not to stick even the 10mm flex toleration and cirumvent its aim.

Is this (P × p = Q × q) say something to you?

Illustration

The move from a 5mm toleration to 10mm was sensible and logical with the new wider wings. That's why all the teams accepted the suggestion, because it was logical and not a way to start to create illegal flexing.

All wings flex to a certain extent. The test is there to ensure they don't flex more under a certain load. It's only natural that it would flex more as the load increases but the new test was introduced to ensure that the wing doesn't flex in a non-linear manner. I.e. 10mm at 50kg but 20mm at 51kg. So what Ferrari and Red Bull have done is design the wing within those tolerances as you have said. If Mclaren had not insisted on the 10mm under 50kg's the wings would have been far stiffer and hence less flex because they would have been designed within the 5mm constraints. To simplify it all, if they had stayed with the 5mm tolerance the wing would only flex 25mm at 300kg's which would be far less visible than what we currently have.

It doesn't however explain how they get the centre of the wing so low.

Only insofar as the tests can tell, Brawn has an interesting theory as to why they might flex more under greater load.

You are missing my point. With the wings being wider and the tolerance doubled it is natural that there would be visibly, by that I mean naked eye, more flex than under the 5mm tolerance.

I think some are under the impression that the wing should only flex 10mm at infinite loads, but that is physically impossible. Hence we have a linearity test.

No the wing was not supposed to flex. The 10mm was a tolerance for that irrespective of load, something perfectly achievable. This year for some reason that has been completely changed to a rate of deflection, ending in 70mm of movement at 350kg.

The linearity has been proven with the vertical load yes. The FIA's static test, however, cannot replicate how the car behaves while in motion.

In order to catch someone you must have standards of proof, in this case its against a defined amount of movement within a test. If you break the limits you break the law/rule. As they haven't they haven't broken the law.

How do you catch someone speeding, what defines the speed limit? A bunch of idiots running around saying he was going to fast, or is it measured against a defined limit? Every single law is measured against a definition, just like this one. If you think the speed limit is too high you lower it, they did and they still aren't speeding.

Rubbish having a wing that does not flex is impossible, now you can suspend physics and explain how it wont flex? Just a tolerance, the tolerance is the allowable amount of flex, get it, they know they can't mandate the impossible so the limit is set. Even if it was .000000000001 of a mm the thing still flexes.

Yes the wing is negligent in denying the test its full disclosure of flex, what a stupid example and complete misrepresentation of judicial principles.

The linearity has been proven only up to the test load.
There is no static test that could simulate track conditions. I can see this becoming a huge issue in the next year or two. Cars are going to be flexing every which way but passing the static tests.

This was my post:



Don't lie about it. If you can't argue honestly...

So what you are telling me is that the wing should only flex 10mm at an infinite load... We don't race in an alternate universe where the principals of physics as we know it are turned on its head. Aldo Costa said in his interview with Autosport that they always design the wings within the criteria set by the FIA, which is 10mm at 50kg's and it was 5mm at 50kg's before. The reason it wasn't this visible before is because the wings were smaller and the tolerance less. If they had maintained that same tolerance the endplates would be nowhere near the ground and that is why he has no idea why a big fuss has been made because they are the ones who pushed for the change in tolerance.

So you admit there is an allowance of flex therefore the test is the definition of the allowance because otherwise the rule can't be enforced in its literal from. Case Closed as it has been for RedBull and Ferrari for some time.

Portable wind tunnel...

Oh I missed that bit in his post, now just making shit up, 10mm irrespective of load, how about I stick a planet on the nose of it, FFS some people just don't think.