Red Bull up to their old flexi-wing tricks

[Somebody]

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/11/22/ricciardo-vettel-face-pitkane-start-as-fia-investigates-wing-flexing/

[driveace]

Well they dont like losing !
SO maybe there is some truth in it .We wait with interest

[Tazio]

I knew Ricciardo was a cheater!! :p: ;) :angel:

[Tazio]

Oh......S P A N K ! !

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAR_F1_ABU_DHABI_GP_RED_BULL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-22-13-11-18


Red Bull said in a statement that although "disappointed that we have been singled out" it nevertheless accepts the decision.

Spanky, spanky! :angel:

[A FONDO]

Shocked to hear that, many teams wings looked flexible on turn 5 but nevermind it's always nice to hear that RB gets penalised :)

[Bagwan]

If he's going to go that far , why doesn't he go all the way and fully rat them out ?

And , speaking of rats , where did the request for inspection on Bull cars originate ?

Rather than insinuate unfairness is happening , would it be better to protest another car's legality , or is innuendo sufficient , when money in the title race is clearly on the line ?
Is there more behind the scenes , or much , much more ?

And , stay tuned , kids , to find out if they actually have another version in the transporter , or whether they will need to alter the existing wings .



And , a sad sorry goes out to Abu Dhabi , as this ruling will likely ruin some of those wonderful titanium skid plate sparks they engineered all special-like for you folks in the expensive seats .

[Tazio]

I'm totally with you on this one Baggie, freakin' Adrian freakin' Newey got his bass hauled in front of the judges and got a little spanky! I personally suspect that the word finally came down from Pierro Ferrari to go ahead and divulge information he was made aware of by Luca di' ie', Ross Brawnie, and McSebabie! :sailor:

[dj_bytedisaster]

awfuly convenient, isn't it? Only non-Merc controlled team in the first3 rows out of the way. They can now stage-manage whatever they want.

[Tazio]

Except at least guys like Felipe, stopped taking team orders, and really are whack. :crazy: ;)

[Doc Austin]

Don't they check these kind of things in tech inspection?

[Tazio]

Let's wait and seeb if it is shown to be multi race specific!

[Doc Austin]

Let's wait and seeb if it is shown to be multi race specific!

If the FIA thinks Red Bull is running an illegal wing, they should have cracked down on them right away to preserve the integrity of the championship.

[Tazio]

Agree! Agenda :eek:

[Tazio]

....

[dj_bytedisaster]

Agree! Agenda? :eek:


Well, apart from joking, there is one option. Everyone knows that Rosberg winning on dbl points would be disastrous for F1. If all goes okay it will not matter, because Lewis will at least be 2nd. Williams will not attack, or they'll have to push their cars next year. But RIC and VET were an unknown. A good start from Seb together with wanting at least one win this year could have meant some agressive antics in the opening laps and you must not count out RIC, he's scored 2nd places before. So, just get them out of the way and with Ferrari, McLaren and STR too slow to threaten, all is well in F1 land and the double points fiasco can be unceremoniously be dropped for next year. They just have to make sure it doesn't make a difference to this year's result.

[rjbetty]

Well, apart from joking, there is one option. Everyone knows that Rosberg winning on dbl points would be disastrous for F1. If all goes okay it will not matter, because Lewis will at least be 2nd. Williams will not attack, or they'll have to push their cars next year. But RIC and VET were an unknown. A good start from Seb together with wanting at least one win this year could have meant some agressive antics in the opening laps and you must not count out RIC, he's scored 2nd places before. So, just get them out of the way and with Ferrari, McLaren and STR too slow to threaten, all is well in F1 land and the double points fiasco can be unceremoniously be dropped for next year. They just have to make sure it doesn't make a difference to this year's result.

Are you just trying to say Lewis can´t win anything on his own? C'mon man, if he does win it, are you just gonna be a sour sport? :(

[Tazio]

Regardless of who ratted out who, and why, it just great to know that Horner, Newey Mateschitz , and the drivers are busted dead to rights.

[Zico]

According to Andrew Benson on BBC news..

"Governing body the FIA investigated all the teams after seeing video footage of some front wings flexing to questionable degrees. But while the three other teams, including Williams, were cleared, Red Bull's wing was deemed too flexible.
"The scrutineers found hidden in the wing what officials deemed to be a leaf spring attached to the end plate and covered in a rubber housing that was painted the same colour as the wing to disguise it. The spring was designed to flex after a certain load had been passed, conferring an aerodynamic advantage. This is why Red Bull were excluded - the infringement was considered much more serious than simply some overly flexible carbon-fibre - about which it can never be certain it was not simply a team going a bit too far by accident - because of its obvious deliberate nature. The Red Bulls will both start from the pit lane after the team decided to change the set-ups to aid overtaking."



Disguised leaf springs hidden in the front wing eh? Much more serious and completely against the spirit of the rules than simply pushing the natural CF wing flex boundaries beyond the limits. Is their back of the grid punishment the only one? They have got off extremely lightly if it is..



Edit- Just heard Horner say they are now going back to their Brazil wing so it seems that it was new for this race... maybe?

[Doc Austin]

Disguised leaf springs hidden in the front wing eh?


That's quite a bit different from Red Bull having a different "interpretation_ of the rules than the stewards. That's just blatant, outright cheating. You gotta wonder what else on the car might be a bit wonky.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Are you just trying to say Lewis can´t win anything on his own? C'mon man, if he does win it, are you just gonna be a sour sport? :(

He would have won anyway, but I think some people wanted to make sure just incase it would have been Lewis's ERS conking out, not Nico's.ROS winning on dbl points would have been disastrous for F1

[Doc Austin]

If you are so convinced that it's all pre-planned and "fixed," why do you even bother to follow it?

[Tazio]

Just blatant cheating, that's all.

[Doc Austin]

Just blatant cheating, that's all.

They really should have a deflection test like Indycar used to use on their sidepods. That way it is not up to the individual team to "interpret" the rules. It should be either black or white, in or out.

[Robinho]

They really should have a deflection test like Indycar used to use on their sidepods. That way it is not up to the individual team to "interpret" the rules. It should be either black or white, in or out.

They used to have deflection test on sidepods in F1 too...Nigel Mansell sat on them

[airshifter]

They really should have a deflection test like Indycar used to use on their sidepods. That way it is not up to the individual team to "interpret" the rules. It should be either black or white, in or out.

Truth spoken.

I'm personally sick of the FIA going out on head hunts depending on who protests or reports something. It's up to the teams to exploit the rules to the full extent possible, and it's apparent RB were doing just that and crossed the line. But to claim it is blatant cheating is IMO just wrong. It's not as if anyone wouldn't properly color match and hide any design element they could, as they don't want the other teams to see it.

In this case if RB crossed the line, the FIA was just in making them change it and having them start from pit lane. But IMO if it wouldn't pass the test doesn't make it cheating any more than the Brawn double decker diffuser or the Renault mass damper. It's a team attempting to exploit the rules, and F1 would be boring and predictable if they didn't.


Personally I haven't seen much information on the entire thing, but I also question the testing methods. Even if one team is reported or protested the only way to be fair IMO is to test ALL teams, and this should be taking place every race regardless, with as stated in Doc's post above, black or white test results.

[Big Ben]

As far as I understand they actually tried to cover it so they were aware they were breaking the rules, no? Exploiting loopholes is one thing... but this seems to be deliberately breaking them. It looks like cheating to me TBH

[Tazio]

They really should have a deflection test like Indycar used to use on their sidepods. That way it is not up to the individual team to "interpret" the rules. It should be either black or white, in or out. If true, what Andrew Benson reported sounds pretty black and white to me mate:


"The scrutineers found hidden in the wing what officials deemed to be a leaf spring attached to the end plate and covered in a rubber housing that was painted the same colour as the wing to disguise it. The spring was designed to flex after a certain load had been passed, conferring an aerodynamic advantage. This is why Red Bull were excluded - the infringement was considered much more serious than simply some overly flexible carbon-fibre - about which it can never be certain it was not simply a team going a bit too far by accident - because of its obvious deliberate nature.
:rolleyes:

[Doc Austin]

It's up to the teams to exploit the rules to the full extent possible,

This is covered under the "moveable aerodynamic device" rules, I believe. I also believe Red Bull came under scrutiny for flexible floors awhile back too.

Yes, it's up to the teams to exploit the rules, but if there is no set amount of deflection allowed they can't know where to start or end. There was slow motion video of one of the Mercs running over a curb and the front wings were flapping up and down pretty violently.

So, what's the difference and how do you police it?


.......and it's apparent RB were doing just that and crossed the line. But to claim it is blatant cheating is IMO just wrong.

If the wing had a spring in it to allow it to flex and regain it's shape, that's deliberately creating a moveable aerodynamic device. Why else would you build a wing like that? I could consider that cheating, but then again, if there is no load test or allowed deflection measurement, how do you enforce the rules?

OK, so they look at video and determine the wings flex too much. Well, what about the Mercs? Is that much deflection allowed or are they illegal too?


In this case if RB crossed the line, the FIA was just in making them change it and having them start from pit lane.

Since there is no specified measurement for deflection, that was about the fairest thing they could have done. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist, can you?


But IMO if it wouldn't pass the test doesn't make it cheating any more than the Brawn double decker diffuser or the Renault mass damper.

First, I am on Red Bull's side on this because the rules are too vague here. Unless you build the wing out of cast iron, it's going to flex at least somewhat. How much of that is allowed? I'm betting the FIA can't answer that.

It's clear that Red bull tried to gain an advantage that was specifically outlawed under the moveable aerodynamic devices rules. If you deliberately break the rules, that's cheating. Newey had to know that eventually someone would catch on. It seems like you can break the rules until you get caught, and that's how you find out what is or is not allowed.

The part that is inexcusable is that the FIA has had to deal with Red Bull's flexible parts before, (and Ferrari too if I remember right), so they know the teams are going to try to get around the rule. Yet, they have come up with no method of policing the this. Almost every year, someone has parts that are too flexible, so why not start testing deflection in scrutineering? I think the FIA needs to come up with a definite boundary for allowed flexing so they would not have to put the teams through this guessing game of what is or is not allowed.

Imagine trying to build a car and the rules don't tell you how much your front wing can flex.


Personally I haven't seen much information on the entire thing, but I also question the testing methods. Even if one team is reported or protested the only way to be fair IMO is to test ALL teams, and this should be taking place every race regardless, with as stated in Doc's post above, black or white test results.

Run them through tech inspection at the beginning of the meeting so the teams have a chance to find out if they got anything wrong. Then run them through again before quails to make sure they are legal for that. This way, no illegal cars make it into the race.

Personally I would prefer it to be more about the racing and less about the cat and mouse games between the teams and the FIA.

[Doc Austin]

Apparently this whole thing is about more than just flexible wings:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mallya-slams-red-bull-as-f1-cheats

The big teams and the little teams appear to be at each other's throats. I think we can expect the whole financial thing to literally explode now that the season is over.

[Tazio]

:stareup: Great freakin' link doc. Mallya is very angry, and Mike Gascoyne called Horner:
"Christian Halliwell" :laugh:

http://sandiego.backpage.com/BodyRubs/sensual-escape-with-busty-babeare-you-ready/17377428



:angel:

[airshifter]

This is covered under the "moveable aerodynamic device" rules, I believe. I also believe Red Bull came under scrutiny for flexible floors awhile back too.

Yes, it's up to the teams to exploit the rules, but if there is no set amount of deflection allowed they can't know where to start or end. There was slow motion video of one of the Mercs running over a curb and the front wings were flapping up and down pretty violently.

So, what's the difference and how do you police it?

You gave an example of one of the other cars and flexing wings, and depending on the race you watch and coverage we know that literally ALL of them flex under certain conditions. And I'd bet money if those end elements flex going over the curbs, they flex in other areas of the track as well. Maybe not to the extent of the RB cars, but can we even be sure of that?




If the wing had a spring in it to allow it to flex and regain it's shape, that's deliberately creating a moveable aerodynamic device. Why else would you build a wing like that? I could consider that cheating, but then again, if there is no load test or allowed deflection measurement, how do you enforce the rules?

OK, so they look at video and determine the wings flex too much. Well, what about the Mercs? Is that much deflection allowed or are they illegal too?

Personally as soon as I saw the story I thought about the Merc and other cars with wings that bounce all over when the drivers are on the curbs. It may have well been an intentional move by RB to prevent the "wing flapping" over the curbs and such, adding aero stability by essentially taking that flex and making it reactive similar to a suspension system.




Since there is no specified measurement for deflection, that was about the fairest thing they could have done. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist, can you?


You CAN break a rule that doesn't exist, and it's just been proven by the way the FIA enforced this incident IMO.




First, I am on Red Bull's side on this because the rules are too vague here. Unless you build the wing out of cast iron, it's going to flex at least somewhat. How much of that is allowed? I'm betting the FIA can't answer that.

It's clear that Red bull tried to gain an advantage that was specifically outlawed under the moveable aerodynamic devices rules. If you deliberately break the rules, that's cheating. Newey had to know that eventually someone would catch on. It seems like you can break the rules until you get caught, and that's how you find out what is or is not allowed.

The part that is inexcusable is that the FIA has had to deal with Red Bull's flexible parts before, (and Ferrari too if I remember right), so they know the teams are going to try to get around the rule. Yet, they have come up with no method of policing the this. Almost every year, someone has parts that are too flexible, so why not start testing deflection in scrutineering? I think the FIA needs to come up with a definite boundary for allowed flexing so they would not have to put the teams through this guessing game of what is or is not allowed.

Imagine trying to build a car and the rules don't tell you how much your front wing can flex.

Run them through tech inspection at the beginning of the meeting so the teams have a chance to find out if they got anything wrong. Then run them through again before quails to make sure they are legal for that. This way, no illegal cars make it into the race.

Personally I would prefer it to be more about the racing and less about the cat and mouse games between the teams and the FIA.

Having a specific test would be far too easy and not allow the FIA to determine when to apply a penalty to a car that is doing well. It's rare that can back of the pack cars have such penalties imposed, yet we see it all the time with the upper level cars.

And the issues you have are the issues I have with this. If all cars aren't tested, who really knows what other cars might have failed the test? Slow motion video proves that a lot of the wings flex, and a lot of the end elements and associated winglets move all over on a regular basis.

In this case the wing is obviously moving, at least that is what we have been told. So I can accept that as a movable aerodynamic device and not protest the penalty. But since we know the other wings flex, and have no tolerance checked in testing, I think justice has not been done to anyone.

What concerns me most about this grey area is where the FIA stretches the rules to apply penalty to a team, and never draws a line in the sand. The Renault mass damper drew penalty under the same premise of a movable aerodynamic device. Yet the damper was within the nose and never subject to any air flow. IMO it was nothing other than a stability supplement that aided the suspension in maintaining attitude better under certain conditions. And the suspension of the car does the same, but these movable aerodynamic devices are allowed an accepted every race. Until maybe the FIA decides that a suspension part might be cause for penalty.....

[Tazio]

You gave an example of one of the other cars and flexing wings, and depending on the race you watch and coverage we know that literally ALL of them flex under certain conditions. And I'd bet money if those end elements flex going over the curbs, they flex in other areas of the track as well. Maybe not to the extent of the RB cars, but can we even be sure of that?




Personally as soon as I saw the story I thought about the Merc and other cars with wings that bounce all over when the drivers are on the curbs. It may have well been an intentional move by RB to prevent the "wing flapping" over the curbs and such, adding aero stability by essentially taking that flex and making it reactive similar to a suspension system.




You CAN break a rule that doesn't exist, and it's just been proven by the way the FIA enforced this incident IMO.




Having a specific test would be far too easy and not allow the FIA to determine when to apply a penalty to a car that is doing well. It's rare that can back of the pack cars have such penalties imposed, yet we see it all the time with the upper level cars.

And the issues you have are the issues I have with this. If all cars aren't tested, who really knows what other cars might have failed the test? Slow motion video proves that a lot of the wings flex, and a lot of the end elements and associated winglets move all over on a regular basis.

In this case the wing is obviously moving, at least that is what we have been told. So I can accept that as a movable aerodynamic device and not protest the penalty. But since we know the other wings flex, and have no tolerance checked in testing, I think justice has not been done to anyone.

What concerns me most about this grey area is where the FIA stretches the rules to apply penalty to a team, and never draws a line in the sand. The Renault mass damper drew penalty under the same premise of a movable aerodynamic device. Yet the damper was within the nose and never subject to any air flow. IMO it was nothing other than a stability supplement that aided the suspension in maintaining attitude better under certain conditions. And the suspension of the car does the same, but these movable aerodynamic devices are allowed an accepted every race. Until maybe the FIA decides that a suspension part might be cause for penalty.....
Sorry mate I believe Craig Scarborough is a little more of an authority than you in this matter . Not only dose he see it as a clear contravention of the rules (possibly flexing four times as much as any other challenger), he believes it has been used for numerous races.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOkdtRaZ_g&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I’ll explain what evidence I saw of the RBR front wing flex…

It is the front wing adjuster that allows the movement, The adjuster pod was pointed out above. In the scrutineering bay a hand pressed down with just finger pressure on the top of the adjuster, this was rigid as you’d except. Then shape of the pod was squeezed, its squashed like the bulb on a bicycle horn! Then the hand pressed down on the slotted section of flap just next to the adjuster, the wing deflected very easily. I mean this was not a hefty push with the palm of a hand, more like moving the lid on your laptop. As the wing deflected the bulb deformed too, both sprung back to their original shape as soon as the pressure released.

As you can see the adjuster pod is all black, but that’s because since China it’s been a part made from metal (alu..?) and something black. Before that it was one material and painted the same colour as the wing. I’ve got pictures of the pod and assumed at the time that as it was matt black that the material was carbon of some 3D resin to create the shape. It seems it is a rubber-like material.

Therefore its proven that
1) the pod is flexible, as its counted as bodywork, that alone is in contravention of 3.15.
2) the top of the adjuster is not rigidly connected to the flap below, what appears to be a fastener running from the hex headed top through the mount on the flap is clearly not. It was suggested a leaf spring was employed within the pod between the top of the adjuster and the flap, I haven’t seen the insides of the mechanism, but clearly some form of ‘sprung’ element allows a large degree of movement for very little force. It was suggested by those who have compared it directly to other teams wings, that the RBR flap is 4 times more flexible than its rivals.Just sayin'. :angel:


The car was designed to have its normal down force setup at higher speed and have more of a low speed advantage. The thing is at low speed the down force level is low therefore the car will have horrible turn in. Turn in is crucial for tight low speed corners such as hairpins and the like. Daniel demonstrated this when he made that massive overtake of Alonso that was the talking point of the USGP . Now as the car gathers speed the front wing will settle into its normal position (deflected under aero load) that gives it its usual down force level at the front for whatever speed it is running.

Sorry mate, this taints everything Danny Boy accomplished tis season. Too bad he was forced to cheat.
I think he still has a future in f1 though.

[Doc Austin]

Personally as soon as I saw the story I thought about the Merc and other cars with wings that bounce all over when the drivers are on the curbs. It may have well been an intentional move by RB to prevent the "wing flapping" over the curbs and such, adding aero stability by essentially taking that flex and making it reactive similar to a suspension system.

It looks like they went to too much trouble to hide it. If it was legal they may not have buried it so deep.

From the link Taz provided, it appears that even light pressure would make the wings flex, so it's hard to believe they were trying to reduce movement.


You CAN break a rule that doesn't exist, and it's just been proven by the way the FIA enforced this incident IMO.

If there is no specified amount of allowed deflection, then every car on the grid has a movable device. Every single piece of footage (especially slo motion) I have ever seen of an F1 car running over a curb has the front and rear wings shaking around. On some of these cars the stuff moves around so much you have to wonder why it does not eventually fatigue and fall off.


Having a specific test would be far too easy and not allow the FIA to determine when to apply a penalty to a car that is doing well.

Which makes one wonder why they did not look harder at the Mercedes cars. After all, no one is doing "more well" than them.


It's rare that can back of the pack cars have such penalties imposed, yet we see it all the time with the upper level cars.

Well, again, since Mercedes blew out the entire season, why didn't they do something like this earlier to slow them down and keep things a bit more interesting?


If all cars aren't tested, who really knows what other cars might have failed the test?

Judging from the slo-motion clips of the Merc hitting the curbs, I would bet they would fail pretty easily.


In this case the wing is obviously moving, at least that is what we have been told. So I can accept that as a movable aerodynamic device and not protest the penalty.

We've seen the FIA slap on even more draconian penalties for anyone who dares to challenge their authority, so at this point, Red Bull had an entire season of points (and money) to lose if they protested too much. I suspect they will keep their mouths shut until they get their check.


But since we know the other wings flex, and have no tolerance checked in testing, I think justice has not been done to anyone.

Completely agree. However, it is pretty clear that red Bull was trying to circumnavigate the rules, so the penalty was probably fair. Considering the draconian penalties that the FIA has handed out before, Red Bull probably got off a bit lightly.


What concerns me most about this grey area is where the FIA stretches the rules to apply penalty to a team, and never draws a line in the sand.

Like I say, it's a cat and mouse game. You dance on the limit until you get caught stepping over it. The problem is that the limit changes at the FIA's whim. You are supposed to push the limits of the rules and then the FIA will tell you when you have gone too far. The fallacy of that kind of thinking is that you are dared to push it without really knowing the limits, and then branded as a cheater if you go over the invisible line.

[airshifter]

Sorry mate I believe Craig Scarborough is a little more of an authority than you in this matter . Not only dose he see it as a clear contravention of the rules (possibly flexing four times as much as any other challenger), he believes it has been used for numerous races.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOkdtRaZ_g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Just sayin'. :angel:


Sorry mate, this taints everything Danny Boy accomplished tis season. Too bad he was forced to cheat.
I think he still has a future in f1 though.


Thanks for the link Taz, that's the most in depth explanation I've seen. Personally I'd like the see the whole thing torn apart to make better sense of it, but have no reason to doubt Scarborough as he usually has good scoop.

But it seems that even him and those that have seen it aren't sure. It might[/] flex four times as much. and he [i]believes that it has been used for multiple races? Don't get me wrong, if they cheated they cheated, and then the penalty was just. But if there was a more clear rule, or testing of the other cars, we might know if any other teams bent the rule or broke the rule. Without clarity of the rule, how can a team know when they are breaking it?

As for Ricciardo and/or Vettel, I take nothing away from either of them, at least unless there is evidence they knew RB were intentionally breaking the reg and giving unfair advantage. Even if grossly illegal, we really can't know how much it helped and if it just brought the car closer to the level of others, or made it superior. Pointing fingers at either driver would IMO be no more fair than blaming Fred for spingate @ Monaco.



I think this below quote from Doc sums up my feelings on the issue almost exactly....





Like I say, it's a cat and mouse game. You dance on the limit until you get caught stepping over it. The problem is that the limit changes at the FIA's whim. You are supposed to push the limits of the rules and then the FIA will tell you when you have gone too far. The fallacy of that kind of thinking is that you are dared to push it without really knowing the limits, and then branded as a cheater if you go over the invisible line.


Often in F1 you are a cheat or genius depending on where the line in the sand in drawn. And I've seen far too many cases of F1 changing rules as they see fit regardless of whether it's in plain site or hidden, such as mid season tire changes. The mass damper had photos all over, suddenly one day it was breaking a rule. And to me really, if they could find something legal and hide it so good the other teams never noticed, more power to them.

[Tazio]

Thanks for the link Taz, that's the most in depth explanation I've seen. Personally I'd like the see the whole thing torn apart to make better sense of it, but have no reason to doubt Scarborough as he usually has good scoop.

But it seems that even him and those that have seen it aren't sure. It might[/] flex four times as much. and he [I]believes that it has been used for multiple races? Don't get me wrong, if they cheated they cheated, and then the penalty was just. But if there was a more clear rule, or testing of the other cars, we might know if any other teams bent the rule or broke the rule. Without clarity of the rule, how can a team know when they are breaking it?

As for Ricciardo and/or Vettel, I take nothing away from either of them, at least unless there is evidence they knew RB were intentionally breaking the reg and giving unfair advantage. Even if grossly illegal, we really can't know how much it helped and if it just brought the car closer to the level of others, or made it superior. Pointing fingers at either driver would IMO be no more fair than blaming Fred for spingate @ Monaco.



I think this below quote from Doc sums up my feelings on the issue almost exactly....




Often in F1 you are a cheat or genius depending on where the line in the sand in drawn. And I've seen far too many cases of F1 changing rules as they see fit regardless of whether it's in plain site or hidden, such as mid season tire changes. The mass damper had photos all over, suddenly one day it was breaking a rule. And to me really, if they could find something (il)legal and hide it so good the other teams never noticed, more power to them.
Until they get caught.
Let me get serious for a minute, I generally enjoy light-hearted convo' around on this forum much more.
I'm also a proponent of:
"It ain't cheatin' unless you get caught," and I agree that the tests, rules, and penalties are weak, vague, and at times somewhat ethereal, which allows one side effect that is utterly inequitable. The larger better funded teams are allowed to develop parts that they can find clever ways to hide, and when they get caught they can afford the consequences, all of which I wont go into now. I think the rules are weak because it suits these better funded teams, who will have ready made solutions once caught.

Horner was quick to call this front wing a "Brazil wing" to deflect further suspicions... But i have a feeling this mechanism was there from at least Monza, and probably all the way back to China.
Remember Monza, the bulls were particularly fast, and I believe this gadget was enhanced there or just particularly effective at that venue.


The way the system operates now I don't think that Red Bull will face any further sanctions. I will also stop short of calling Danny Boy and Seb. "Accessories After The Fact" (see Freds roll in crash-gate). One does have to wonder what the value is of the drives of these RB pilots with knowledge that they may have had an unfair advantage. As far as I'm concerned it is worth considering, and that is about as far as I'm willing to take it, unless other evidence is divulged, but it is enough.
In this case it was a mechanical peice. A fake wing bracket with fake adjuster screw that has some flex.
Aparently the redbull moving flap is a drag reduction device. At low speeds angle of attack is high, at high speeds when the drag penalty is significant the air pushes the flap and the spring progessively and gently moves the flap into a lower angle of attack.

Remember Monza :fasttalk: :laugh: