New controversy

[mstillhere]

The article = BBC Sport - Formula 1 gossip and rumours from international media (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/17432510) - claims that McLaren's front wing rotates around the horizontal axis using only two bolts for attaching the blade to the nose cone. This modifies the standardized mid profile of the wing to generate less up force. Red Bull is supposed to have noticed the trick and copied it immediately for Japan but now Ferrari have set the FiA on their trail to come up with a new load test for Japan. It is expected that the loop hole will be plugged for the week end. Although the FIA has not taken any official stands it seems that in Japan there would some special tests focusing on the front wing.

It looks like Ferrari can't really win this championship playing fairly. MAybe they shouls also start breaking the rules like thei main competitors.

Before it was RB getting caught cheating in several different ways and now (it seems) ML.

I don't find it surprising I must say, that RB did not complain about it (if true) but rather copied the idea so that could be back into "winning" races but I do find puzzling seing ML breaking the rules so blatantly (again if confirmed).

Who knows, could this be another reason why LH left ML?

[mstillhere]

An other link: McLaren downplays potential FIA flexi wing clampdown - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/103022)

Check this out: "I think the regulations require the wings to be rigid, but of course no wing or aerodynamic surface is infinitely rigid".

Actually beleive it or not this not coming from Hornes, although it sounds like something he would say. It's actually coming directly from Whitmarsh's mouth.

[ShiftingGears]

I don't believe for a second that you were complaining when Ferrari had flexing floors at the start of the 2006 season. Whitmarsh is correct in stating that no wing is infinitely rigid - that is just a fact of materials science.

The FIA deems an acceptable level of rigidity required by the wings by enforcing that criteria of rigidity tests are met.

Or in other words, whether a wing is "rigid" or not is defined by whether teams pass the test. That is completely fair.

[Donney]

Let the FIA test the wings and give us an answer. If they're legal good for them, if they're not, back to the original ones.

[nigelred5]

Ferrari has done plenty of exploroation of the limits of the technical regulations over hte years. Unless you lock down the specs at the start of the season, which I never want to see, teams will always test the limits. They only test the flex if the wing itself in the vertical plane, there is always another way to stall the wing.

[kfzmeister]

Red Bull is supposed to have noticed the trick and copied it immediately for Japan

I have read reports that they already had it in Singapore. People noticed that they had a longer nose with the new wing.

[Tazio]

This new test should ensure that any attempt by teams to utilise the rotating wing principle would be exposed.

AUTOSPORT understands that all teams passed the tests that were conducted at Suzuka.

However, it is unclear whether or not modifications had been made from previous designs that some teams had been running, as the outfits were pre-warned about the new tests.
FIA moves to stop flexi wing potential - Yahoo! Eurosport UK (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/fia-moves-stop-flexi-wing-101205705.html)

We are going to have to wait a little longer for a definitive answer of whether McLaren, and or RB tested their existing or a new FW.

[mstillhere]

FIA moves to stop flexi wing potential - Yahoo! Eurosport UK (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/fia-moves-stop-flexi-wing-101205705.html)

We are going to have to wait a little longer for a definitive answer of whether McLaren, and or RB tested their existing or a new FW.

I love the fact that the FIA gives the teams to be inspected heads up. I whish the IRS would do the same with me and tell me if and when are they planning to come to my office and go through my taxes stuff.

[wedge]

SomersF1: The Flexi Front Wing debacle continues (http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-flexi-front-wing-debacle-continues.html)

[mstillhere]

If i am correct, this article is not excluding at all that actually both ML and RB did that. I loved teh technicale explanation yet I did not see any mention to that fact that it is against the rules having your wings moving.

Since now it seems that no team was founnf in contravention of the rules (with the FIA once again unable to prevent teams from cheating) I wonder if and how these two teams would be impacted at their race in Japan.

If they are going to strugle, that would be a clear indication that they both won or score points irregularly wich would be what? The fourth time for RB?

They both should be stripped of their points or victory.

for those of you talking about what happened with Ferrari 2o years ago, I think thay have been dealt with already.

We are moving on and focus on the new cheaters.

[ShiftingGears]

If i am correct, this article is not excluding at all that actually both ML and RB did that. I loved teh technicale explanation yet I did not see any mention to that fact that it is against the rules having your wings moving.

All wings move to some extent. This has already been established clearly in this thread.


Since now it seems that no team was founnf in contravention of the rules (with the FIA once again unable to prevent teams from cheating) I wonder if and how these two teams would be impacted at their race in Japan.

If they are going to strugle, that would be a clear indication that they both won or score points irregularly wich would be what? The fourth time for RB?

They both should be stripped of their points or victory.

Whether they cheat is defined by the load tests. There is no misinterpretation of the rules at play here.


for those of you talking about what happened with Ferrari 2o years ago, I think thay have been dealt with already.

We are moving on and focus on the new cheaters.

Are you claiming Ferrari were cheating in 2006, and should have been given a race ban then? That would appear consistent with the ill-reasoned claims you are offering in this thread.

[mstillhere]

Talking about what Ferrari did in the past does not absolve the ML nor RB from doing wrong. Or it does?

Responding to your statement claiming that "all wings move to an extent", the rule, for everybody, clearly states that there must not be a more than 20 mm wings flexibility, in any direction.

My question to you is: why are Ferrari, and Sauber, TR and Mercedes etc. wings not flexing but ML and RB are? Their wings need to flex more than anyone else's? And if so, how much is too much? 50, 60, 100 mm?

Is it maybe because that they are about to lose the championship that makes them more "creative" with their wings? Do they put too much peanut butter in them?

I think we need here just a pinch of common sense and honesty and call it for what it is: they tried to win unfairly and in the case of the RB, as proven, they have been caught several times and not punished enough times. That's mainly why they keep in trying. They are repeat offenders. As far ML is concerned, they are being watched closely from now on.

[ShiftingGears]

Talking about what Ferrari did in the past does not absolve the ML nor RB from doing wrong. Or it does?

It does not, if wrongdoing did occur; I am saying the fact that it is a rival of Ferrari that is under scrutiny is a factor in you claiming that they are cheating. That is just my opinion.


Responding to your statement claiming that "all wings move to an extent", the rule, for everybody, clearly states that there must not be a more than 20 mm wings flexibility, in any direction.

That is correct. There mustn't be more than 20mm wing deflection. During the load test.


My question to you is: why are Ferrari, and Sauber, TR and Mercedes etc. wings not flexing but ML and RB are? Their wings need to flex more than anyone else's? And if so, how much is too much? 50, 60, 100 mm?

How much is too much? See the above answer. The FIA can modify the load tests if they feel the tests are that inadequate.


Is it maybe because that they are about to lose the championship that makes them more "creative" with their wings? Do they put too much peanut butter in them?
I think we need here just a pinch of common sense and honesty and call it for what it is: they tried to win unfairly and in the case of the RB, as proven, they have been caught several times and not punished enough times. That's mainly why they keep in trying. They are repeat offenders. As far ML is concerned, they are being watched closely from now on.

It is because technical innovation and pushing the boundaries of the regulations in order to improve vehicle performance is one of the defining points of F1. I honestly don't know why this needs further explaining, so I will leave it at that.

[AndyL]

If i am correct, this article is not excluding at all that actually both ML and RB did that. I loved teh technicale explanation yet I did not see any mention to that fact that it is against the rules having your wings moving.

There used to be such a rule. But the FIA effectively revoked it last season when they decided that the only enforcement of it would be through the static load tests. It was a fundamental change in approach as I see it. Previously, everyone understood that rule 3.15 meant that you were not allowed to design aerodynamic parts to move or flex in order to influence the aerodynamics of the car. The tolerances described in rule 3.17 were purely to allow for the fact that even a part not specifically designed to flex, will nevertheless have some degree of flex. But the FIA decided they couldn't or wouldn't enforce that aspect of 3.15, and gave the teams the green light to design parts to flex for aerodynamic benefit, as long as they work within or around the limits set in the scrutineering tests.

[Knock-on]

Am I the only one to think this is a load of nonsense?

2 (at least) teams are pushing to the extent of the regulations and FIA testing procedures and the FIA will tighten up their procedures to stop them pushing the boundaries.

Neither team is actually cheating (like the Ferrari Damper which sparked Spygate) but are innovating within the regulations.

[wedge]

Am I the only one to think this is a load of nonsense?

2 (at least) teams are pushing to the extent of the regulations and FIA testing procedures and the FIA will tighten up their procedures to stop them pushing the boundaries.

Neither team is actually cheating (like the Ferrari Damper which sparked Spygate) but are innovating within the regulations.

It's nonsense if you understand the rules enough to interpret.

Ferrari are right to question and seek clarification yet considering Ferrari admitted their wind tunnel need recalibration perhaps they should STFU.

And when does pushing the limits become cheating? Many still think Benetton cheated in 1994 with TC.

[Knock-on]

That was clear cheating. TC was outlawed completely and Benetton carried on using it. That's not pushing boundaries, that's doing something thats specifically banned.

[mstillhere]

Ah, ah, ah you guy are so funny. So, chetaing now days found a new definition. It's called: "pushing the regulations". Hysterical!! Bravo for the vibrant imagination you guys have. So, I guess who needs rules anymore, right? If somebody breaks them it's oly "creativity" at work. So, I guess RB was unfairly punished for being creative and punishing Vettel for blocking Button and Alonso was just his attempt to see how far he could "push" the regulations.

Oh man, you guys are so funny. I wish you were on TV or something. I would be watching your comedy religioulsly. Ah, ah... pushing the regulations......Prisons are packed with people who just tried to do that...........incredible.......ah, ah, ah