Ferrari seek clarification on Mclaren Wing

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81832

Explains the sensor scaffold on the back of the Mac.

It's not a hard thing to copy, so probably just Ferrari checking its worth their while expending wind tunnel time on it rather than a claim of illegality.

[Dave B]

Red Bull's Christian Horner thinks it'll be confirmed as legal.

It sounds like a faint echo of last year, when Ferrari and Red Bull failed to spot a loophole and threw their toys out of the pram because some of their rivals were doing a better job.

[Dave B]

Now that McLaren have spoken, it looks more like a storm in a teacup than anything else:



A spokesman for the Woking-based team said: "We're very confident that our car is entirely legal - and we're not aware of any protest. In fact, we've spoken to Ferrari this morning and they're not aware of any protest either."

Ferrari sources have confirmed to AUTOSPORT that the team has no intention of taking the matter further, and have ruled out the possibility of it lodging a protest.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81836

Phew. Crisis averted, hey?

[DexDexter]

The media seem abit twitchy and over zealous in search of a bit of controversy.. Storm in a tea cup indeed.. :)

Or Ferrari already looking for excuses for Alonso not winning every race. ;)

[Saint Devote]

Wait 'til everyone studies the diffusers - Gary Anderson reckons it will raise temperatures.

Why were Mclaren leaping around smiling when Jenson did the 1.18 and a bit at Jerez? Grandstanding? :-]

Should Ferrari be worried given that their car really is different from both Mclaren and Red Bull - the two most radical cars this season?

Is Max correct when he said a few days back that Ferrari is like an old woman now jealous of the fresh pretty young things - the Scuderia DOES give off a staid mothballs image these days don' it'? :-]

[Big Ben]

Or Ferrari already looking for excuses for Alonso not winning every race. ;)

You are kind of stuck there aren't you buddy? What does this have to do with Alonso? And why can't a team question the legality of wing?

[SGWilko]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81832

Explains the sensor scaffold on the back of the Mac.

It's not a hard thing to copy, so probably just Ferrari checking its worth their while expending wind tunnel time on it rather than a claim of illegality.


Ferrari sources have confirmed to AUTOSPORT that the team has no intention of taking the matter further, and have ruled out the possibility of it lodging a protest.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81836

Tea cup and storm springs to mind.

[ArrowsFA1]

And why can't a team question the legality of wing?
No reason at all. It's common practice for teams to seek clarifications and raise any issues of legality, and it's the FIA's role to provide rulings.

[SGWilko]

No reason at all. It's common practice for teams to seek clarifications and raise any issues of legality, and it's the FIA's role to provide rulings.

The 'usual' process is to seek clarification on a design idea for your own car direct with the FIA, usually the interface for this is the uber clear Charlie 'integrity' Whiting. You can take anything he says, ANYTHING, at face value, because his word is his bond......

Another team will come along, see that they've missed a trick, and try to get it banned by seeking re-clarification.

It's worked in the past with tyres and Mass Dampers.

[SGWilko]

The media seem abit twitchy and over zealous in search of a bit of controversy.. Storm in a tea cup indeed.. :)

If only Ron was here to witness the McLaren boys using Tetley instead of PG Tips, he'd go ape............

Press would have a field day.

And that really would be a tea cup originated storm.

Ba dum, tish. :)

[truefan72]

The media seem abit twitchy and over zealous in search of a bit of controversy.. Storm in a tea cup indeed.. :)

Its Autosport up to their usual tricks.

One reason why I view their site with a bit of cynicism

[DexDexter]

You are kind of stuck there aren't you buddy? What does this have to do with Alonso? And why can't a team question the legality of wing?

Well if they spend a zillion dollars to get a driver and things are not perfectly rosy, it's good to have an explanation ready, a rear wing or a diffuser for example. But obviously I wrote it with a pinch of salt so...

[truefan72]

Indeed and thats like most F1 sites on the internet of late. Autosport still seem lightyears ahead of sites like PlanetF1, Pitpass, crash.net, and The Daily Mail however.. :p

indeed

[Hawkmoon]

Red Bull are saying Ferrari are getting worked up over it and they themselves are only mildly interested. McLaren are saying Ferrari are good with it and it's Red Bull who are getting antsy.

Ferrari? They don't seem to care. You gotta love slow news days in F1.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Its Autosport up to their usual tricks.

One reason why I view their site with a bit of cynicism

The story was broke by the Telegraph and Autosport was like the sixth publication that published it. And they were the first ones to ask McLaren and Ferrari about it.

[Mia 01]

The car will be up for scrutening before the quali in Barain.

It´s of no importance before the race starts.

Testing you know.

But MacLaren could be up for a suprise.

[CNR]

i am sure i have seen photos of rebull or toro rosso car with the shark thin attached to the rear wing

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6733/f12010gentm02183e20934.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/f12010gentm02183e20934.jpg/)

http://i46.tinypic.com/1zeb6s6.jpg

[leopard]

The real race doesn't yet start off, I'd rather agree instead of legal claim, while it's not a hard thing to copy, Ferrari just can create the same development and make sure that it perfectly supports their whole aerodynamic system.

[ArrowsFA1]

"We have no concerns with it, but we have been invited by the team to view the car so Charlie is going down to have a look," an FIA spokesperson told the Daily Telegraph.

"The wing is different and innovative, yes," Whitmarsh said. "But we have been in contact with Charlie over a period of several months to check that it complies with regulations. We have been assured that it does."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81858

[Dave B]

Ask Charlie? I'd rather toss a coin.

[I am evil Homer]

How? It's a phrase....offering advice on the legality of a part as the FIA's rep. You're trying too hard to find controversy when there's none. It's no different to talking to a lawyer about the legality of soemthing your company is doing.

[Dave B]

How? It's a phrase....offering advice on the legality of a part as the FIA's rep. You're trying too hard to find controversy when there's none. It's no different to talking to a lawyer about the legality of soemthing your company is doing.
We're suggesting that Charlie's opinion has recently proved worthless and can be over-ruled by the stewards at the race. McLaren are acting sensibly, but sadly Whiting doesn't have the final say.

[I am evil Homer]

Well true...but i'd say that was more a stewarding issue too. I thought that was the idea of Whiting in his current role? To avoid nasty conflicts wherein all of a sudden a legal car at 3 GPs is declared illegal at the next race but a differning interpretation.

[Daniel]

Ask Charlie? I'd rather toss a coin.
True :D

[SGWilko]

Ask Charlie? I'd rather toss a coin.

..but don't ask Charlie to call the result... ;)

[truefan72]

Ask Charlie? I'd rather toss a coin.

exactly, especially when it comes to mclaren

[wedge]

To those who are interested a detailed explanation of the slot-gap:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/blown-rear-wings-seperating-and-stalling/

[wmcot]

To those who are interested a detailed explanation of the slot-gap:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/blown-rear-wings-seperating-and-stalling/

Thanks for the informative link. It's refreshing to get some accurate details instead of the usual Ferrari bashing!

[SGWilko]

No doubt, during scrutinnering in the Bahrain paddock, Charlie will mosey up to the McLaren, perform a sharp intake of breath and declare,

'yep, that's a rear wing alright'.......

[Dave B]

Reports from Bahrain say that the wing's been given the ok. Nothing official yet...

[Dave B]

I've been on the internet and I've found this:
http://en.espnf1.com/bahrain/motorsport/story/10755.html?CMP=OTC-RSS;utm_medium=twitter;utm_source=twitterfeed



McLaren's controversial rear wing design has been declared legal by FIA officials in Bahrain.

...

Germany's Auto Motor und Sport quoted an FIA official as describing it as a "simple but brilliant trick".

[christophulus]

It's been cleared: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81990

Expect to see some copies by the next race :)

[truefan72]

It's been cleared: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81990

Expect to see some copies by the next race :)

yep

although I think it will take a bit longer for teams to integrate that design

[Dave B]

Can't post a link from here but see James Allen's blog, seems the wing is simple but ingenious, the driver's left leg controls airflow through a tube on the engine cover!

[edv]

Cannot be copied at all.
The inlet tube is part of the chassis tub, which requires homologation.
Since teams cannot re-homologate their chassis after the season starts, any copying of this device will be sub-nominal.

It looks like a brilliant masterstroke by Whitmarsh and his boys.

[Robinho]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/

the link Dave couldn't post, plus some other interesting info.

particular interest - McLarens wing, run by a hole in the cockpit, which the drivers can cover with their knee - the other teams cannot copy this as they cannot cut holes in the safety cell once the season has started.

similar is Ferraris whell thingies, which are part of the wheel, made of the same material, and again the other teams cannot copy as the wheels are a homologated items

[wedge]

Ingenius!

But I'd like to see it banned. Far too similar to flexi-wings.

[Dave B]

I can envisage a protest if McLaren score points. :s

[F1boat]

As with the diffuser row, I am happy with the decision by the FIA, as it encourages innovation.

[Dave B]

Bob Bell from Renault is throwing his toys out of the pram, telling Five Live that the wing "breaks the spirit of the rules" (what, like a J-damper for example?) and refusing to be drawn on whether Renault will protest.

[Daniel]

I see his point though Dave. It does conform to the letter of the law but it's clearly not within the spirit of the rules.

[Dave B]

So? Once the green light goes on there is no "spirit", only a black and white rulebook.

[Daniel]

Hmmmmm. I think we shouldn't be throwing this in and costing all the teams countless milions of pounds or euros to do this on their car. As has been said, the rules in black and white can't be exhaustive and that's why we can put new rules in.

[Daniel]

I was on my phone before so long posts are tedious. Here's how I see it.

Back in the 90's you had 2 WRC teams who had "cheats" when it came to getting more air into the engine. Basically the rule in the rulebook said "All air that goes into the engine MUST go through the restrictor"

You had the famous TTE moving restrictor which allowed air into the turbo which hadn't gone through the restrictor. Definite and obvious although difficult to find cheat. They got banned.

Ford had a system on the Escort which involved a bottle which held compressed air. So what happened was that the turbo compressed the air and on pretty much anything but part throttle, the engine was sucking in more air with the turbo than it was actually burning so when the driver did put their foot flat they could have an extra boost from the stored air in the tank. It conformed to the letter of the rules as no air went into the engine that hadn't gone through the restrictor. The FIA still banned it and quite rightfully so.

[leopard]

Assuming that being faster in speed trap is purely results of that wings innovation, teams may assert protests, imo.

What springs to mind if FIA considers it legal, while this innovation is great beneficial for McLaren, and entices more teams to do the same thing, would McLaren claim it their intellectual property that none can copy it from them, except the fact that teams cannot cut holes in the safety cell once the season has started.

[Daniel]

I must admit I applauded the double diffuser advantage last season even though it didn't suit my favourite driver/team, because its nice to see teams being innovative in a sport which has been so heavily curbed with rules.

From what I have seen Mclaren do not have a huge advantage with this feature, and all teams on the grid would not think twice if they had this on their car. Its a competitive sport and everyone wants to win, which doesn't make it surprising when people like Bob Bell get upset when they fail to take an advantage. I know Mclaren along with others complained about the DD last year, and now the boot is on the other foot in this instance. Everyone will complain until it is them with that edge over the others. :)
In an ideal world I'd agree with you henners. I'd love F1 to be all out war, 2 or more tyre brands, less restrictive tyre regs, aero regs etc etc. But that's not possible at the moment. The fact that the FIA will probably either ban this within a few races or make it illegal from next year onwards really says it all about this. It's clever and I aplaud them for this, but it's also not in the spirit of the regs.

[leopard]

Yeah, teams have to take into account all variables, especially the engine, with or without it McLaren runs cars with high reliability.

[Dave B]

It's clever and I aplaud them for this, but it's also not in the spirit of the regs.
I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but there is no "spirit" in the rules. This is a global multi-billion dollar sport / business, not a gentlemans' club race. Teams and drivers will always push the envelope, always have, always will. The rules prescribe a line which you must not cross, and so long as you're just inside those rules you're legal.

Ferrari's wheels may or may not be in the spirit of the rules outlawing hubcaps, but the FIA says they're legal so they stay. It's the same with McLaren's wing, just as it was last year with double diffusers.

Teams can either get bitter and jealous that they weren't as clever, and waste time and energy protesting; or they can knuckle down and work on their own shortcomings.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's clever and I aplaud them for this, but it's also not in the spirit of the regs.
But isn't a spec car the only way to ensure teams adhere to the letter and spirit of the rules?

We are always told that one of the main attractions of the sport is the technology and innovations that the teams come up with year after year. Those come from their different interpretations of the rules governing the design of the cars, and those rules have become more and more restrictive over the years. The "spirit" of the rules is pretty much the only area where the teams have room for manoeuvre, and it's the one area which isn't defined anywhere in the rulebook.

In this case, as with the DD, the interpretation of the rules has been declared legal. The only way for it to be made illegal is for something to be written into the rules and that may well happen for 2011.

Renault may complain about "another arms race" costing other teams money, but that's the way F1 works and always has done. If we don't want it to be like this then I'd suggest a spec-car is the way to go.

[F1boat]

I tired by the constant whining by Renault and Red Bull, honestly. Hopefully, like last year, they will fail.

[Daniel]

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but there is no "spirit" in the rules. This is a global multi-billion dollar sport / business, not a gentlemans' club race. Teams and drivers will always push the envelope, always have, always will. The rules prescribe a line which you must not cross, and so long as you're just inside those rules you're legal.

Ferrari's wheels may or may not be in the spirit of the rules outlawing hubcaps, but the FIA says they're legal so they stay. It's the same with McLaren's wing, just as it was last year with double diffusers.

Teams can either get bitter and jealous that they weren't as clever, and waste time and energy protesting; or they can knuckle down and work on their own shortcomings.
I'm sorry Dave but I have to disagree there.

Did you read my example about the Escort above? It was clearly legal by the letter of the rules but was clearly outside the spirit of the rules. So what happened? The rules were changed so it was then illegal. That's how this will work. McLaren will get their advantage for a while and then the loophole will be closed. Now I'm not saying McLaren should be punished or given any penalty because what they've done IS legal as things stand at the moment. What I'm saying is that the loophole needs to be closed.

Bob Bell said "They weren't asking the right questions" and you have to agree that he may have a point. It's one thing to say "Is this wing OK?" "is this hole in the chassis OK?" and "is this ducting up to the fin with an inlet OK?" rather than saying "Is this system which allows us to effectively have moving aero parts which enables us to stall the wing OK?"

[F1boat]

Maybe it should be closed, but for next season. For this season, McLaren did will to explore the rules and should be awarded from that.

[Mark]

Maybe it should be closed, but for next season. For this season, McLaren did will to explore the rules and should be awarded from that.

Exactly. The rules should be changed only one per year, unless it's for critical safety reasons.

So if one team comes up with an ingenious design that's within the rules, fair play.

The problem comes when you have 'interpretations'. Like the mass damper, which should never have been banned mid-season.

[I am evil Homer]

Sounds like McLaren have come up with an ingeniuous idea that's not even in the same ballpark as the TTE WRC piece which was designed to be hidden when it was taken apart!

This is clear for everyone to see, McLaren aren't hiding anything. And TBH they can't really change the rules as that would surely mean McLaren having to re-submit a car for crash tests given the tub and engine cover would change.

[ArrowsFA1]

Maybe it should be closed, but for next season.
:up:

I certainly don't want to see the kind of mid-season moving of the rules goalposts that we saw, for example, during 2003 over Michelin's tyre width.

If something has been declared legal by the FIA then it's legal. It's not, as Bob Bell says, "totally illegal". It would be better if these kind of things could be resolved before we get to the first race of the season, but once it has been resolved then let's get on with the racing.

[Daniel]

But isn't a spec car the only way to ensure teams adhere to the letter and spirit of the rules?

We are always told that one of the main attractions of the sport is the technology and innovations that the teams come up with year after year. Those come from their different interpretations of the rules governing the design of the cars, and those rules have become more and more restrictive over the years. The "spirit" of the rules is pretty much the only area where the teams have room for manoeuvre, and it's the one area which isn't defined anywhere in the rulebook.

In this case, as with the DD, the interpretation of the rules has been declared legal. The only way for it to be made illegal is for something to be written into the rules and that may well happen for 2011.

Renault may complain about "another arms race" costing other teams money, but that's the way F1 works and always has done. If we don't want it to be like this then I'd suggest a spec-car is the way to go.

I actually agree. But as I've said about a squillion times I don't feel this is illegal because as you read the rules it's not. What I'm saying is that the loophole should be closed because this is going to be yet another area where money will have to be thrown at which is something which is just not needed at the moment.

As I said in reply to Henners I would LOVE a series where things like mass dampers, stallable wings, active suspension etc etc were allowed because it would be amazing to see what the engineers could come up with given free reign but is this actually practical in the long term?

I think this is different to DDD's as well. That was a different interpretation of the rules, this is a very intelligent yet unquestionably legal way of doing what the rules are there to try to stop you from doing.

[ArrowsFA1]

As I said in reply to Henners I would LOVE a series where things like mass dampers, stallable wings, active suspension etc etc were allowed because it would be amazing to see what the engineers could come up with given free reign but is this actually practical in the long term?
Given the way the rules are framed at the moment, probably not. Rather than a spec-series, which I'd hate F1 to be, is it not possible for the FIA to regulate a "box" within which teams & designers can do what they wish?

[ArrowsFA1]

On a slightly different note both Red Bull drivers seem particularly interested in the McLaren :p :

http://cdn.gallery.autosport.com/picture_free.php/dir/2010bah2/image/su_10brn933-2

http://cdn.gallery.autosport.com/picture_free.php/dir/2010bah2/image/su_10brn874-2

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/index.php/id/1959

[Daniel]

I think people are somewhat missing the point. I'm sure if I had the time I could go back through the posts of Arrows, henners, Dave, Mark and I am evil homer and find a post or 3 where most if not all of you complain that the cars have too much downforce and that the FIA should try and lessen the amount of downforce that cars have. I'm fairly certain that each and every one of you have complained at one time or another about the lack of passing and tbh if my understanding is right this system will make it HARDER for drivers to slipstream the car in front on the straights. This system also means that McLaren can run more downforce in the corners and make the cars even less interesting to watch.

Regardless of legalities and the spirit of the rules.... is that what we want? Do we want to make it harder for cars to overtake each other?

IMHO the only option is to ban this system from 2011 onwards and my preference would be for McLaren to be given a reasonable length of time to remove this system from their car this year if it proves to give them a big advantage.

[Daniel]

Given the way the rules are framed at the moment, probably not. Rather than a spec-series, which I'd hate F1 to be, is it not possible for the FIA to regulate a "box" within which teams & designers can do what they wish?
Is that not what's already done? The problem with regulating a box for the engineers to work in is that you've got to always be smarter than the engineer and that isn't always possible.

[I am evil Homer]

True - engineers will always outsmart rule makers who have to play catch up. It's always been that way.

Seems McLaren haven't tried to hide a single thing either..they talked to the FIA throughout, the stewards are okay with it, so its legal. The irony of Renault making such a fuss is hysterical...

[Daniel]

I agree with Dave, Mark and F1boat, the FIA can't be put in a position where a team pushes right up to the limit of the rules and then turns around and say's ok lets ban it. It would be constantly changing the rulebook to keep the sport close, and that suppresses innovation IMO. If they keep doing this, then we are one more step closer to a standardised series IMO, and I don't want to see that. Ferrari have their own talking point in regards to their wheel design which other teams have expressed concern at. The wheels are legal, the wing is legal so lets go racing... :)

BS IMHO.

Engineers and teams will always come up with new ideas. Some of which need to be banned for various different reasons and some which are allowed.

This is why we have the FIA, to enforce the rules but also to edit the rules where necessary. F1 teams are full of very intelligent people and it's sheer idiocy to suggest that you can make a box and get the teams to work inside it. I bet if you have a team of engineers a day or two they could make 2+2=5 and convince the world that Bernie isn't a money grabbing little dwarf who doesn't care about F1.

[Daniel]

True - engineers will always outsmart rule makers who have to play catch up. It's always been that way.

Seems McLaren haven't tried to hide a single thing either..they talked to the FIA throughout, the stewards are okay with it, so its legal. The irony of Renault making such a fuss is hysterical...

Exactly. Hence why i'm not jumping up and down and saying OMFG ban McLaren!!!! They're cheating. The beauty of this and the Ford Escort "cheat" is that they're not.

I can understand why Renno are pissed, but like you say calling it illegal is very much incorrect.

[Dave B]

I'm sorry Dave but I have to disagree there.
Don't apologise. We disagree, but we're being civil. :) Can't wait until more people come on to this thread though.... :erm:

I did see your example, and agree that if the rules need changing then so be it... for next year. Meanwhile McLaren have exploited a loophole, and they deserve to reap the advantage. It may not be particularly "sporting" of them, but until such time as the rules are changed their car is legal.

In fact...


Maybe it should be closed, but for next season. For this season, McLaren did will to explore the rules and should be awarded from that.

... what ^ he said.

[Garry Walker]

I think people are somewhat missing the point. I'm sure if I had the time I could go back through the posts of Arrows, henners, Dave, Mark and I am evil homer and find a post or 3 where most if not all of you complain that the cars have too much downforce and that the FIA should try and lessen the amount of downforce that cars have. I'm fairly certain that each and every one of you have complained at one time or another about the lack of passing and tbh if my understanding is right this system will make it HARDER for drivers to slipstream the car in front on the straights. This system also means that McLaren can run more downforce in the corners and make the cars even less interesting to watch.

Regardless of legalities and the spirit of the rules.... is that what we want? Do we want to make it harder for cars to overtake each other?

IMHO the only option is to ban this system from 2011 onwards and my preference would be for McLaren to be given a reasonable length of time to remove this system from their car this year if it proves to give them a big advantage.People should stop whining about lack of passing. You want passing, go watch Nascar (this is not directed to you personally), F1 has NEVER been much about passing. With the way the rules are now, you think there actually can be passing when the fastest cars are already in front after qualy and everyone will have equal fuel loads? Nope. If you want passing, have lottery draws to pick the grid. But that would not be F1 anymore.

To ban a device on the grounds it does not help passing and gives them a big advantage, but is legal, would be ludicrous and something that for sure should not happen.

[Sonic]

This is F1. Its what its all about, smart people outsmarting the people who made the rules.

I do not like the way F1 teams now, instead of getting their heads down and working out why they didn't think of it, just go to the FIA and b1tch about it!

Good on Mac and good on Ferrari (wheels) for outsmarting the others.

[F1boat]

People should stop whining about lack of passing. You want passing, go watch Nascar (this is not directed to you personally), F1 has NEVER been much about passing.

1 000 000 000 000 000 000% agree. I enjoy the races tremendously and have many times said that I would hate F1 to become like the 125 cc Moto races.

[F1boat]

On a slightly different note both Red Bull drivers seem particularly interested in the McLaren :p :

http://cdn.gallery.autosport.com/picture_free.php/dir/2010bah2/image/su_10brn933-2

http://cdn.gallery.autosport.com/picture_free.php/dir/2010bah2/image/su_10brn874-2

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/index.php/id/1959

The McLaren mechanic should have farted in that time.

[Daniel]

Don't apologise. We disagree, but we're being civil. :) Can't wait until more people come on to this thread though.... :erm:

I did see your example, and agree that if the rules need changing then so be it... for next year. Meanwhile McLaren have exploited a loophole, and they deserve to reap the advantage. It may not be particularly "sporting" of them, but until such time as the rules are changed their car is legal.

In fact...



... what ^ he said.
Civil eh? I'll show you ****ing civil :p

Anyway being serious I think we pretty much agree then.

I said this to Mark on msn


So at some point this thing needs to be banned. Of course it all needs to be done in such a way that everyone knows what's happening next season and McLaren are not unduly punished for finding a loophole

Now whether that means this sort of thing being banned in a few races time with notice given to McLaren so they can make the appropriate modifications to their chassis and not be penalised unduly for finding this loophole. I do hope that whether or not this is going to be banned for 2011 is made clear so that any other teams with a car in the design stages don't have to waste their time and money for no good reasons.

[Garry Walker]

The McLaren mechanic should have farted in that time.

if there is anyone who deserves to get farted at his face, it is for sure vettel :rotflmao:

[F1boat]

Civil eh? I'll show you ****ing civil :p

Anyway being serious I think we pretty much agree then.

I said this to Mark on msn



Now whether that means this sort of thing being banned in a few races time with notice given to McLaren so they can make the appropriate modifications to their chassis and not be penalised unduly for finding this loophole. I do hope that whether or not this is going to be banned for 2011 is made clear so that any other teams with a car in the design stages don't have to waste their time and money for no good reasons.
They should say that it is illegal for 2011 now, although I am unhappy with the way all clever things are banned :(

[ArrowsFA1]

...it's sheer idiocy to suggest that you can make a box and get the teams to work inside it.
Thanks :p

By a "box" I was meaning that outside a few specific parameters i.e. car dimensions, number of wheels etc designers are allowed to be innovative. If they think a front-engined 4-wheel drive car will work then they can race it. If they think a turbo is better than a normally aspirated engine then they can race it.

I only suggest this because there is a conflict here. On the one hand technology and innovation is an attraction for F1 participants and viewers. It's always been a part of the sport. On the other hand the rules have, over the years, increasingly restricted what designers can and can't do to the extent that we could be moving towards a spec-series.

An alternative to that is to make the rules less restrictive and free up what the designers can do.

[SGWilko]

Bob Bell said "They weren't asking the right questions" and you have to agree that he may have a point. It's one thing to say "Is this wing OK?" "is this hole in the chassis OK?" and "is this ducting up to the fin with an inlet OK?" rather than saying "Is this system which allows us to effectively have moving aero parts which enables us to stall the wing OK?"

Actually, are you suggesting the FIA would not perhaps ask;

'what is this duct for, where does the air from it flow, and what affect does it have'?

[Daniel]

Actually, are you suggesting the FIA would not perhaps ask;

'what is this duct for, where does the air from it flow, and what affect does it have'?
I was merely speculating. You are then speculating on speculation :p

[Daniel]

Thanks :p

By a "box" I was meaning that outside a few specific parameters i.e. car dimensions, number of wheels etc designers are allowed to be innovative. If they think a front-engined 4-wheel drive car will work then they can race it. If they think a turbo is better than a normally aspirated engine then they can race it.

I only suggest this because there is a conflict here. On the one hand technology and innovation is an attraction for F1 participants and viewers. It's always been a part of the sport. On the other hand the rules have, over the years, increasingly restricted what designers can and can't do to the extent that we could be moving towards a spec-series.

An alternative to that is to make the rules less restrictive and free up what the designers can do.

But you take my point. Give the engineers a box and they will come back to you saying the box is actually taller, wider and longer than it actually is etc etc.

I would LOVE a series which had cars which were different, some 2wd, some 4wd etc etc. Motorsport across the board has become far to "spec" for my liking. Back in the WRC you used to have Subaru's which were great on gravel and Peugeot's which would break on the Acropolis and Safari rallies.

I'd love it if in F1 the teams could have a different chassis for Monaco or if one team went out and designed a 4wd car which would absolutely ream the others in the wet. They'd be crap at Spa and the other high speed tracks of course but it'd be interesting to watch.

[Daniel]

People should stop whining about lack of passing. You want passing, go watch Nascar (this is not directed to you personally), F1 has NEVER been much about passing. With the way the rules are now, you think there actually can be passing when the fastest cars are already in front after qualy and everyone will have equal fuel loads? Nope. If you want passing, have lottery draws to pick the grid. But that would not be F1 anymore.

To ban a device on the grounds it does not help passing and gives them a big advantage, but is legal, would be ludicrous and something that for sure should not happen.

Fair points I guess. I disagree but I do understand where you're coming from.

Personally don't I think that the current fuel and tyre regs make for good racing but of course that's a subject for a different thread but suffice to say if drivers could choose their fuel loads and the teams could have the option of more than 2 tyres and different options with tyre manufacturers then I feel the racing would be better as this gives more latitude for different strategies. As is it now there are still people trying different strategies but with there only being two different compounds the strategies aren't going to be as varied.

I despise success ballast and reverse grid races because they artificially induce overtaking and punish successful drivers.

[SGWilko]

Is it really possible, that the small amount of air that that vent could hervest, could sustain the rear wing aero, but stall it when cut off by the driver?

COuld this be a white elephant, designed to have other teams focus on this than developing other concepts on their own cars???

[Daniel]

Is it really possible, that the small amount of air that that vent could hervest, could sustain the rear wing aero, but stall it when cut off by the driver?

COuld this be a white elephant, designed to have other teams focus on this than developing other concepts on their own cars???
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't it work in the opposite way?

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/lg-tech-report-part-1-mclaren-wing-ferrari-wheels-and-cool-fuel/

[ArrowsFA1]

But you take my point. Give the engineers a box and they will come back to you saying the box is actually taller, wider and longer than it actually is etc etc.
Yes, I take your point :cool: Clever buggers these engineers, but if they couldn't fit their car in the FIA box they'd be buggered. Either it fits or it doesn't. My point is what's in the box need not concern the FIA. Set the basic parameters and let the engineers get on with it; then we'd see some variety.

I'm sure it's not very practical, and it won't happen though :p


I would LOVE a series which had cars which were different, some 2wd, some 4wd etc etc. Motorsport across the board has become far to "spec" for my liking.
:up:

[AndyRAC]

But you take my point. Give the engineers a box and they will come back to you saying the box is actually taller, wider and longer than it actually is etc etc.

I would LOVE a series which had cars which were different, some 2wd, some 4wd etc etc. Motorsport across the board has become far to "spec" for my liking. Back in the WRC you used to have Subaru's which were great on gravel and Peugeot's which would break on the Acropolis and Safari rallies.

I'd love it if in F1 the teams could have a different chassis for Monaco or if one team went out and designed a 4wd car which would absolutely ream the others in the wet. They'd be crap at Spa and the other high speed tracks of course but it'd be interesting to watch.

Good point - the Premier of any category should never be a "spec" series. Costs are inevitable, but for example, what good do Bridgestone, Pirelli get out of beating nobody? Nothing.....

If you want a "non-spec" series - then ALMS, LMS is were it's at.

[Daniel]

The way I see it is the driver can cover the duct on the straights as the car does not need the addition grip on a straight. Releasing the duct means more air flow goes to the rear wing meaning additional downforce where it is needed in cornering. Is that right, or have I got that mixed up? :)
The way I understood it was that the additional air was fed into the rear wing and effectively cancelled out the low pressure under the element of the wing which then obviously kills the downforce and some of the drag.

[I am evil Homer]

TBH though the idea of a driver covering a duct with his knee doesn't seem that big a deal I mean with the lack of space in a cockpit anyway I doubt it's that practical to use at many circuits.

Interesting blog that...esp as the Ferrari wheel and Mac duct can't be copied due to homologation of those parts.

[Daniel]

I saw on some footage posted on Autosport that the Mclaren drivers were blocking this duct on straights when one foot/leg is idle. I don't know for sure what advantage this has, but you could be right. I just assumed it was a method of reducing and increasing downforce.. :)
It is, but as I said I think it works the other way round if it does indeed work as explained in there.

***Warning -I will teach people how to suck eggs here***

Think of it like this and you can do this next time you're in your car. Put your arm level out the window and hold your palmflat and rotate your arm so the leading edge of the wing (your hand) goes up and down in relation to the trailing edge. Tilt the leading edge upwards slightly and you'll start to feel lift, now tilt this up further and there's more up until the point where you tilt it too far and it will stall. Now when you tilted your hand up the air underneath the hand was getting compressed and was pushing your hand up whilst the air pressure above the hand was lower and therefore sucking the hand up.

[Daniel]

I saw on some footage posted on Autosport that the Mclaren drivers were blocking this duct on straights when one foot/leg is idle. I don't know for sure what advantage this has, but you could be right. I just assumed it was a method of reducing and increasing downforce.. :)

I saw on some footage posted on Autosport that the Mclaren drivers were blocking this duct on straights when one foot/leg is idle. I don't know for sure what advantage this has, but you could be right. I just assumed it was a method of reducing and increasing downforce.. :)
It is, but as I said I think it works the other way round if it does indeed work as explained in there.

***Warning -I will teach people how to suck eggs here***

Think of it like this and you can do this next time you're in your car. Put your arm level out the window and hold your palmflat and rotate your arm so the leading edge of the wing (your hand) goes up and down in relation to the trailing edge. Tilt the leading edge upwards slightly and you'll start to feel lift, now tilt this up further and there's more up until the point where you tilt it too far and it will stall and you'll feel your arm suddenly drop. Now when you tilted your hand up the air underneath the hand was getting compressed and was pushing your hand up whilst the air pressure above the hand was lower and therefore sucking the hand up which is of course lift.

Now of course you want downforce on your F1 car so it's the complete opposite. So in the F1 car you've got the high pressure air on the top and low pressure air on the bottom sucking the car down. Inject some high pressure air to the bottom of the rear wing and voila you've just killed a good deal of the downforce and some of your aerodynamic drag ;)

This should help explain it.
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/blown-rear-wings-seperating-and-stalling/http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/235/

P.S seems you were partially right henners, that blog says that the driver covers up a hole at speed which then means that rather than the air going into the cockpit, it goes through the engine cover and does its thing.

[Daniel]

Good point - the Premier of any category should never be a "spec" series. Costs are inevitable, but for example, what good do Bridgestone, Pirelli get out of beating nobody? Nothing.....

If you want a "non-spec" series - then ALMS, LMS is were it's at.

Agree. I like GT racing and I love the fact that you have V8's, V12's, flat 6's etc etc and some cars with the engine in the front, some mid engined and some rear engined.

Slightly OT but I used to love the WRC when they effectively had 3 different spec cars. One for the Safari which had bits carried over for Acropolis, another for tarmac and another for gravel. It added another dimension and there were always teams who put a lot of effort into their Safari car and were rewarded.

[SGWilko]

Thanks for the clarification Daniel, wheres tamburello when you need him eh.. :p :)

On the boating lake??? ;)

[V12]

I haven't read the whole thread but I'll add my 2p here. I'm getting sick and tired of certain people in the paddock spewing the same old crap along the lines of "Team X has got this new development, Y, and the rest of the teams are going to have to spend a load of money developing their own interpretation of Y and we'll all end up back to where we were, what's the point?"

That's the thin end of the wedge that ends with spec-cars and so on.

It's called being clever. I supported Brawn and co with the double diffuser last year and I'm firmly on McLaren's side with this. Good on them.

[Daniel]

I haven't read the whole thread but I'll add my 2p here. I'm getting sick and tired of certain people in the paddock spewing the same old crap along the lines of "Team X has got this new development, Y, and the rest of the teams are going to have to spend a load of money developing their own interpretation of Y and we'll all end up back to where we were, what's the point?"

That's the thin end of the wedge that ends with spec-cars and so on.

It's called being clever. I supported Brawn and co with the double diffuser last year and I'm firmly on McLaren's side with this. Good on them.
It's true though. In ye olde days when you could rejigger your chassis at any time of the year you could move quickly. IMHO it's either spec or a complete free for all. Anything else is a bit rubbish IMHO.

[ArrowsFA1]

Mike Gascoyne (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82013):
"Everyone is going to go and do it, no one will have an advantage, we will go and spend loads of money – and for what? It will be worth two or three tenths, everyone will go and get it – so it is a complete waste of time. Vintage F1!"
So if "Lotus" were to find a clever interpretation of their own which moves them closer to the front of the grid than the back Mike wouldn't use it because every other team would spend loads of money getting it themselves and things would go back to square one so it would be a waste of time, money and effort.

Really :confused:

[Dave B]

My only issue - as with the engine freeze - is that certain parts can't be changed once the season starts. Do you think that saves money? Or do the teams simply delay spending that money and introduce it on the next car? If we are to allow innovation - and we surely must - then teams must be free to develop their cars during a season.

[Daniel]

My only issue - as with the engine freeze - is that certain parts can't be changed once the season starts. Do you think that saves money? Or do the teams simply delay spending that money and introduce it on the next car? If we are to allow innovation - and we surely must - then teams must be free to develop their cars during a season.

All that happens is that development is more haphazard and results are perhaps a little more random than before.

Personally I'd love some full fat F1 where they're free to develop the car within a silhouette and within certain specifications. You need only look at Group B rallying and the early days of the WRCar format to see how good unhindered development can be.

[christophulus]

I think allowing the driver to affect the airflow might cause some problems if it stays legal. Teams would have to be careful not to make the drivers move about too much in the car, as I doubt many would fancy braking into a corner on a full fuel load while trying to block a vent with their knees, another with their elbow etc etc..

Clever idea, but I think they should close this loophole for next year.

[wedge]

So? Once the green light goes on there is no "spirit", only a black and white rulebook.

Completely agree with Daniel

The 'spirit' of the rules is that the rear wing really shouldn't be allowed to stall to gain to top speed as with the flexi-wings.

The rear wing shouldn't be allowed to alter its loadings from corner-straight-corner. The rules should be re-written to prevent rear wings stalling.


http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/235/

There is no specific working to prevent wing stalling in the rules. There are no moving aerodynamic parts, except perhaps for the drivers foot\leg. It’s a piece of interpretive genius, but perhaps as far removed from the spirit of the rules as you can get.


I saw on some footage posted on Autosport that the Mclaren drivers were blocking this duct on straights when one foot/leg is idle. I don't know for sure what advantage this has, but you could be right. I just assumed it was a method of reducing and increasing downforce.. :)


http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/235/

The snorkel on the top of the chassis feeds a duct passing down inside the footwell, its position is some where around the pedals, most probably it runs down alongside the brake pedal\footrest so as to avoid the mandatory padding inside the cockpit. This duct has a ‘hole’ in it to ‘cool’ the driver inside the cockpit. However the duct continues inside the chassis, past the fuel tank and up and over the airbox (probably passing by the hatch fitted high up on the engine cover), then through the shark fin and into the rear wing flap.

When the driver places his foot\leg over the ‘hole’ the flow is diverted into the rest of the duct and this feeds the slot on the rear wing flap. There is enough airflow through the convoluted duct to disrupt the airflow under the rear of the wing, effectively breaking up the flow around the wing. This is what F1 aerodynamicists term a ’stalled’ condition, although this is different to the term ’stall’ used in aeronautical aerodynamics. In this ’stalled’ state, the strong spiralling flows coming off the wing, that lead to the huge drag penalty a highly loaded F1 wing incurs, break up. With out these flows and their resulting drag penalty, the car is able to get to a higher top speed, by around 3-4kph.

When the driver is ready to brake for the next corner, he releases foot\leg and the airflow passes back into the cockpit and the rear wing flow reattaches, creating downforce and its attendant drag. In this format the car can lap normally with its wings delivering maximum downforce.


If you want a "non-spec" series - then ALMS, LMS is were it's at.

Dear God no. Even the ACO f---d it up with air restrictors and the bias towards diesels, not to mention telling Audi to revise their front wing.


Agree. I like GT racing and I love the fact that you have V8's, V12's, flat 6's etc etc and some cars with the engine in the front, some mid engined and some rear engined.

Nissan GTR & Audi R8 are 4WD but RWD for FIA GTs

[Daniel]

Completely agree with Daniel

The 'spirit' of the rules is that the rear wing really shouldn't be allowed to stall to gain to top speed as with the flexi-wings.

The rear wing shouldn't be allowed to alter its loadings from corner-straight-corner. The rules should be re-written to prevent rear wings stalling.









Dear God no. Even the ACO f---d it up with air restrictors and the bias towards diesels, not to mention telling Audi to revise their front wing.



Nissan GTR & Audi R8 are 4WD but RWD for FIA GTs
Sure the ACO aren't perfect but they're better than the FIA IMHO. The diseas el thing, I don't like it personally but I think it's OK for a few years to show diesel isn't just for tractors etc but I do hope it ends soon and petrol comes back.

[wedge]

Sure the ACO aren't perfect but they're better than the FIA IMHO.

I'd rather IMSA ran Le Mans than the ACO. Only thing ACO has going for them is that we're yet to find out whether they regularly enjoy nights out at SoHo.

[Daniel]

I'd rather IMSA ran Le Mans than the ACO. Only thing ACO has going for them is that we're yet to find out whether they regularly enjoy nights out at SoHo.
Hmmmm I think you've overstepped the mark there. Sure the ACO do chop and change things around a bit but fundamentally endurance racing is still fairly well managed.

[wedge]

Hmmmm I think you've overstepped the mark there. Sure the ACO do chop and change things around a bit but fundamentally endurance racing is still fairly well managed.

IMSA wants a more level playing field.

A few years ago they wanted Audi's diesel advantage reduced and Audi threw their toys out the pram and threatened to leave.

I'm all for diseil technology but P1 has diesel and NA class just as it is in WTCC.

P2 is a bit of joke. P1 & P2 should be more equal in pursuit of LM lap times.

GT1 has been allowed to die miserably but now morphed with FIA GT regs.

[Daniel]

IMSA wants a more level playing field.

A few years ago they wanted Audi's diesel advantage reduced and Audi threw their toys out the pram and threatened to leave.

I'm all for diseil technology but P1 has diesel and NA class just as it is in WTCC.

P2 is a bit of joke. P1 & P2 should be more equal in pursuit of LM lap times.

GT1 has been allowed to die miserably but now morphed with FIA GT regs.
Congratulations for pointing out that not everything is perfect. Here's a cookie for your troubles :)

http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

If the FIA of the Mad Max era is a 10, the ACO is probably only a 4 or 5 in terms of mismanagement.

[wedge]

If the FIA of the Mad Max era is a 10, the ACO is probably only a 4 or 5 in terms of mismanagement.

At least the ACO had the sense to alter the ludicrous GT1/homologation regs into GTP in the late 90s.

[Daniel]

At least the ACO had the sense to alter the ludicrous GT1/homologation regs into GTP in the late 90s.
Whatever. If you want to argue that the FIA of Mad Max vintage isn't the worst mismanaged motorsport body aside from perhaps CART/Champcar for the last 15-20 years then you won't get much support

[wedge]

At least Max improved safety. That is his defining legacy.

Perhaps we should start a new thread along the likes of numpty administrator of the last 20 years?

[Daniel]

At least Max improved safety. That is his defining legacy.

Perhaps we should start a new thread along the likes of numpty administrator of the last 20 years?
All Max did was say "Oi, you! Improve safety" which to be fair is admirable, and at least he did follow it through, but he still mismanaged motorsport in an epic fashion.

[wedge]

All Max did was say "Oi, you! Improve safety" which to be fair is admirable, and at least he did follow it through, but he still mismanaged motorsport in an epic fashion.

Yep

The likes ACO and TOny George have their own series to worry about.

Sorry Daniel but I hardly take much notice of WRC these days. I only watch JWRC to lust over which hot-hatch to buy.

[ioan]

Since teams cannot re-homologate their chassis after the season starts...

Never heard about this part of the rules.

[V12]

Never heard about this part of the rules.

:eek: Me neither! Is this true? If so it takes the yellow stuff...first the stupid engine freeze and now this?!?!

[ioan]

People should stop whining about lack of passing. You want passing, go watch Nascar (this is not directed to you personally), F1 has NEVER been much about passing. With the way the rules are now, you think there actually can be passing when the fastest cars are already in front after qualy and everyone will have equal fuel loads? Nope. If you want passing, have lottery draws to pick the grid. But that would not be F1 anymore.

To ban a device on the grounds it does not help passing and gives them a big advantage, but is legal, would be ludicrous and something that for sure should not happen.

Excellent post.

[ioan]

:eek: Me neither! Is this true? If so it takes the yellow stuff...first the stupid engine freeze and now this?!?!

It probably isn't true.
Last year Ferrari, and probably other teams too redesigned their chassis to make it lighter (in Ferrari's case) and to accommodate the DD diffuser. And I didn't hear about a new rule changing this, as well as I doubt that the teams would agree to something that could put them in the position where they have 0 chances of improving their position if they come up with a under par idea at the beginning.

[Big Ben]

I don´t really know the rules but if they say it´s legal then so be it. I believe it´s a very ingenious idea. I don´t know how effective it is but it´s definitely original. Now leaving that behind it should be banned for 2011. I don´t like the idea of using the driver´s body as some kind of aerodynamic device. Soon enough we´ll see holes in the car for the drivers to use their toes as winglets or something

[edv]

Never heard about this part of the rules.

I was surprised as well. I cannot say with 100% certainty, but a recent autosport article suggests it:

McLaren's chances of holding onto the advantage it has got from the vent concept is boosted by the fact that teams this year have to homologate their chassis tubs – which means implementing the vent will not be easy.

Despite the homologation process, Whitmarsh still felt there was plenty of opportunity for rivals to introduce their own systems.

I took this to mean that a team must keep (unchanged) whatever chassis tub that they submitted for crash testing. I suppose it is possible that a team could develop an entire new tub and re-submit it for testing?

Related: From the 2010 Sporting Regulations: Teams must homologate certain parts of the car,[148] including the driver's survival cell, roll structures, all impact structures and the front and rear wheels,[147] which will mean they cannot be changed over the course of the season without written approval from the FIA on the grounds of safety.

[ioan]

I was surprised as well. I cannot say with 100% certainty, but a recent autosport article suggests it:

McLaren's chances of holding onto the advantage it has got from the vent concept is boosted by the fact that teams this year have to homologate their chassis tubs – which means implementing the vent will not be easy.

Despite the homologation process, Whitmarsh still felt there was plenty of opportunity for rivals to introduce their own systems.

I took this to mean that a team must keep (unchanged) whatever chassis tub that they submitted for crash testing. I suppose it is possible that a team could develop an entire new tub and re-submit it for testing?

I hope it is still possible to develop a new chassis and have it tested and homologated, otherwise I don't see why a team would bother showing up if they have designed a flawed chassis.

I'll check the rules when I get some time to spare.

[edv]

I'll check the rules when I get some time to spare.

I just edited my above post....looks like a new rule is in place for 2010.

[ioan]

I just edited my above post....looks like a new rule is in place for 2010.

Thanks! :up:

What a mess the FIA are making in F1 with the sole purpose of making the sport available to cheapos. :\

[Robinho]

Ferraris clever wheel "crowns" also fall into the homologation thingy, meaning the other teams can't just turn up with copies

[Daniel]

Ferraris clever wheel "crowns" also fall into the homologation thingy, meaning the other teams can't just turn up with copies
and also need to be banned IMHO.

[truefan72]

I agree with Dave, Mark and F1boat, the FIA can't be put in a position where a team pushes right up to the limit of the rules and then turns around and say's ok lets ban it. It would be constantly changing the rulebook to keep the sport close, and that suppresses innovation IMO. If they keep doing this, then we are one more step closer to a standardised series IMO, and I don't want to see that. Ferrari have their own talking point in regards to their wheel design which other teams have expressed concern at. The wheels are legal, the wing is legal so lets go racing... :)

:up:

[ioan]

Ferraris clever wheel "crowns" also fall into the homologation thingy, meaning the other teams can't just turn up with copies

Won't change my opinion about the stupid FIA rules.

[truefan72]

All that happens is that development is more haphazard and results are perhaps a little more random than before.

Personally I'd love some full fat F1 where they're free to develop the car within a silhouette and within certain specifications. You need only look at Group B rallying and the early days of the WRCar format to see how good unhindered development can be.

or look at the prototypes at lemans

[ioan]

or look at the prototypes at lemans

That's not the best example.

[wedge]

I don´t really know the rules but if they say it´s legal then so be it. I believe it´s a very ingenious idea. I don´t know how effective it is but it´s definitely original.

It's no different to flexi-wings. The outcome is the same.

The drag profile shouldn't be allowed to be altered dramatically on straights.

Flexi-wings are banned but its OK to stall the rear wing on straights by other means. It's like banning TC and then allowing teams to develop fuel intake systems to beat the rules.

[CNR]

how safe would this be in the wet from what i have red the drivers use their legs to block the vents so in wet races you would have water mixed with air going in to the tub ?

if they block the vents in the wet would the design become illegal ?

[ioan]

if they block the vents in the wet would the design become illegal ?

No, but they would lose their advantage.

[truefan72]

how safe would this be in the wet from what i have red the drivers use their legs to block the vents so in wet races you would have water mixed with air going in to the tub ?

if they block the vents in the wet would the design become illegal ?

in the wets you would probably want more downforce on the setup and so doubt they would be blocking it at all

[Easy Drifter]

The simpler and less convoluted the rules are the harder it is to find a loophole.
F1 has so many rules and admendments to rules plus myramid interpretations/clarifications that the very clever engineers keep finding loopholes and will keep doing so. Most of the complaints/potential protests really are of the 'sh--, why didn't I think of that variety.'
The only answer is to completely throw out the rulebook and start from scratch with a clean sheet of paper.
We all know that won't happen so all this whining will continue.

[F1boat]

Yes, but as I said, it's good when engineers find loopholes, when there is innovation, where superb technology is used. F1 is not and should not be a 100% driver's series. Technology should remain important.

[Mia 01]

For now we can forget MacLaren.

[airshifter]

I'm personally glad to see such innovations that work within the rules. The rules as they stand don't allow movable aero devices, and in the case of both the Ferrari wheels and the Mclaren wing the aero device itself doesn't move or change.

F1 should be about pushing boundries and making the cars faster with the more restrictive rules, not about producing spec cars.

There was a comment made on the Speed commentary saying that the current cars have now equalled the downforce produced by the cars with movable aero and ride adjustments. That is amazing considering just how much more limited the rules are.

Thumbs up to innovation.