What is the definition of legal? In a perfect world there would be right and wrong. Black and white. But in competition mankind tends to find what in F1 circles are referred to as “grey areas” where there is an argument as to the rights and wrongs of a concept. Defining legal is not simple because if a part of a car meets all the rules laid down and yet still achieves something that is not desired by the regulators, it is usually considered to be legal because the only way to establish rights and wrongs is to have tests. The Sauber rear wing was tested and was found to be wrong. This had no effect at all on the performance of the car, but the rules had been transgressed and thus Sauber lost its points in Melbourne. It was a tough call, but there is ultimately no argument. If one turns a blind eye to a few millimetres here and there, one must do the same when someone else turns up with something that may relate more to performance. Thus the rules must be applied. The HRT suffered a similar problem before Melbourne because a nose that was due to be on the car just failed a crash-test, by a margin so small that it is impossible to even imagine, but the test was failed and the team was not allowed to run the part.
Red Bull, on the other hand, has front wings that flex under loading. If a part must be rigid, there is a measurement to which it must conform and if the engineers manage to create a part that meets these stipulations then it is legal, whether or not it is able to do other things that the rule makers have not considered. Thus the regulators can change the rules if they wish to close down such loopholes, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal simply because they have not figured out how to police it.
There is a certain amount of bleating going on this week about the Red Bull Racing front wings, which appear to flex rather more than those of some of the other teams. When the Red Bull goes through scrutineering it meets all the requirements and so is deemed to be legal, whether it bypasses the spirit of the rules or not. This is how it is done in Formula 1 – and always has been. Brawn GP won its World Championship in 2009 by cleverly finding a way around the rules regarding diffusers, etc etc etc…
The people who bleat about these things would not be bleating if the boot was on the other foot. But the fact is that they do not have the engineers with the brains to work the system to their advantage and thus bleating is the only option…
Great common sense is what I really like about your site… having lost my virginity on GP+ this year I have started with more data about the season than ever before… thanks.
Red Bull have managed to do very well with technology that passes the scrutineers and long may it continue. I love the background to the sport and beating the rules in a legal way is just another technical advance.
However as many of the team share and check with Charlie I have always assumed RB would have done the same.
But this seems to have got better then that with Red Bull almost challenging the FIA (Charlie) to find a set of tests that will stop the dropped wing effect.
Great start… bring it on.
Can I say huge props to Red Bull and their composites department, on simply being a year (or more) ahead of everyone else when it comes to designing and producing parts that warp under load to optimize performance?
Now sure, what they’ve built doesn’t exactly conform with the intention of the rules, but the engineering they’ve employed, and the results they’ve achieved are simply impressive!
What I wonder about is the position of the other teams. Sure, everyone not having invested in research in this area in the past would probably love to have RBR stripped off that advantage. But wouldn’t you, if in charge of any front-running team, find yourself compelled to start and push research towards equaling RBR’s capabilities at least as a plan B?
How come that no other team has so far managed to bring parts even close to RBR’s front wing? Are they too cheap to invest in the research? Do they find their money better spent elsewhere? Do they still hope to whine the Stewards into ruling RBR’s wings illegal?
I understand the concerns about flexible bodywork and increased failure rates, but I’d love to see a true engineering competition again in the age of homologated this and predefined that.
-
PS: Joe, what ever happened to the 2010 budget numbers that were supposed to be released? Have you heard anything new on that, or was that just a diversion in the winter and has fallen to the wayside now that the racing has once again started? Thanks!
Very valid points once again Joe! If I may though, I have bones of contention. If I can differentiate between the Red Bull wing and the Brawn double diffuser in that Ross B went to the Working Comittee and said there was a grey area in the regs concerning the diffuser area. I can’t see Mr Newey offering up clues to his undoubtedly brilliant use of special materials. The double diffuser was not implicated in accidents after making the car unstable either. I refer especially to Vettel at Spa spearing JB.
shepz,
We do not know whether Adrian has been working with the FIA engineers on this or not.
Hi Joe,
Completely agree that if they can pass the tests and get the advantage at the same time then well done them. On board cameras in Melbourne showed the wings visibly lowering. What I’m more concerned about is does anyone know how on earth they are doing it!?
Brawn involved the FIA all the way with the DD and it was within the rules, if not the spirit. Others too found this loophole, Newey wasnt a happy bunny and bleated plenty. Funny Joe boot and the other foot!
The RB front wing is blatantly outside the rules, when using photo’s and video evidence, but cannot be proved by static testing. RB have at no time consulted the FIA, just played them along. Spot the sutble difference? The wing can be policed but not by traditional methods, video evidence is used for poor driving why not for technical infringments.
So, the way I see it, you defend what RBR have done, and basically tell the rest of the engineering crowd to get a grip and start working on a similar solution ? I would also vote Yes for such move, as long as FIA allows that, and promise not to subsequently ban the solution – otherwise it would be a waste of time and money.
Let’s say that most of the teams create such flexible wing til the mid season, and introduce it after the summer break – FIA says, oh no, I’m sorry, banned for the next year ? Until then, Vettel would become champion in the middle of the season.
I like every technical type of challenge that F1 introduces, but this one (the flexi wing) has to be either governed better (introduce better tests, matched to the other teams, load under pressure), or banned altogether – I don’t want to see another Schumacher era, driven by a few layers of carbon fibers.
Finally! Someone explains why the HRT cars were sporting last year’s front wing (or at least a derivative of)! Not one mention of it anywhere else! Thanks Joe
All the people who are bleating should marinate themseves in mint sauce….
DC was very quick to defend Seb’s off track overtaking manoeuvre. Who pays the most, the Beeb or Fizzy Drinks?
Even though that Reb Bull wing is flexing more than Arnie in his 20s, one has to wander why other teams have not adopted this approach. I believe that the FIA raised the front wing weight test from 50kg to 100kg (why so little?) at some point around Spa last year. I read somewhere that the load at full speed is more like 700kg, thus the FIA ‘test’ is checking for Lucosade instead of nandralone.
Although I’m not a fan of bull semen (I like the cola though), the drinks company is the best thing to happen to F1 in ages, a cat among some antiquated pidgeons, if you like.
I agree Joe, so often in F1 we see people bleat about rivals technology, especially when they struggle to replicate it. Getting the most out of cars within the confines of the rules has always proven to seperate the good from the great in F1 engineering, be it double diffusers, F-Ducts, Flexi front wings or 6 wheeled F1 cars.
With regards the rules, any idea how Hamilton wasn’t excluded post race given the plank wear on his car? I appreciate the damage was almost certainly caused by a failure on one part of his car, but as the BBC correctly pointed out that wasn’t a suitable exemption for people like Michael Schumacher in the past? Not that I wanted to see Lewis DSQ’d but the point remains if his plank wear was beyond tollerances then he shouldn’t have passed scrutineering.
Well said Joe,
I consider myself as impartial as possible when it comes to F1.
I can’t help feel though that team managers are under such pressure to deliver that they cannot help but ‘bleat’ when there is a clear performance difference come race 1. They simply, as a team, have not been as clever, and that doesnt win sponsors coming out and saying that post-race. Although, I do applaud the candour when it does rear its refreshing head.
On the question of front wings though – we all know the RB’s wings flex – but should we, and how would we stop it? Tighten the rules? Surely you could argue then that there is a penalty for being ‘too clever’? The rules are the rules.
Are you able to inform us a little more about the dialogue that goes on between teams and the FIA during the development periods where there must have to be a conversation as to whether a particular part is legal, or not pre-manufacture? Clearly with the front wing there is a test. If it passes, it is legal. However, what about the double diffuser? Is there a test for this? Or is it just a specification for the underfloor which is open to interpretation?
Cheers,
Tom
As you rightly say, “in competition mankind tends to find what in F1 circles are referred to as ‘grey areas’ “. But this was also part of Max Mosley’s legal art as well. He deliberately expressed some rules in general terms, allowing grey areas which the FIA could exploit to bring those clever engineers back into line when they applied the letter of the specific rules in a fashion that the FIA might consider to break the spirit of the rules. Nothing unusual there. Here in Europe, we have adopted a more principles based approach in contrast to the rules based approach favoured in the US (and which encouraged the likes of Enron). Excuse the pun, but this style of rule making was designed to give the FIA flexibility. One such general rule is the rule against “flexible aerodynamic devices” – Rule 3.15 -
“3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
– must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
– must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
– must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.”
Article 3.17 sets out detailed rules governing bodywork flexibility. Article 3.17.1 sets out the tightened rules governing the flexibility of the front wing (tips) –
“3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x 150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.”
By my reading, Article 3.17 is in addition to, and without prejudice to the generality of, Article 3.15 (as the lawyers would say). In other words, even if a car passes the load tests in Article 3.17, it can still be declared illegal for breach of Article 3.15.
For example, as reported on the FIA’s own website on 28th March, 2009 (when the relevant wording of Article 3.15 was the same) –
“The Toyotas of Timo Glock will start Sunday’s Australian Grand Prix from the back of the grid after stewards found their cars to be in contravention of the rules. They had qualified sixth and eighth respectively.
A post-qualifying inspection by the FIA found the TF109s’ to have ‘extreme flexibility’ in their rear wings, thus breaking Formula One racing’s technical regulations. Glock’s and Trulli’s qualifying times were cancelled as a result.
“The Stewards have received a report from the Technical Delegate that the upper rear wing elements of cars No. 9 and 10 are showing extreme flexibility in contravention of Article 3.15 of the 2009 Formula One Technical Regulations,” said the FIA.
“The Stewards have heard the explanation from a representative of Panasonic Toyota Racing and have examined the cars in question.
“The Stewards concur with the opinion of the Technical Delegate and find the cars contravene the requirements of Article 3.15 of the 2009 Formula One Technical Regulations.
“It is the Stewards decision that cars number 9 and 10 be excluded from the Qualifying Session Official Classification.”
Article 3.15 was chosen despite there being a string of specific load test rules to apply.
For me, regardless of whether their wing passes the load tests in Article 3.17, the questions are: does the Red Bull wing “not [have] any degree of freedom”, does it “remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car” and is it “designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground”? The burden of proof has shifted to Red Bull to prove that its wing does not breach Article 3.15.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I applaud Jean Todt’s FIA for not continuing the hyperactivity we have witnessed in the past, allowing the competition to flow and competitors to “play on”. But inactivity can be as decisive as activity. A failure to punish can be as significant as punishment. This is not a question for scrutineers and their tape measures. This is a much bigger question for the FIA. And the biggest question of all is whether the FIA is in charge of F1? If it is seen not to enforce its own rules and to turn a blind eye to a device that appears obviously to be in breach of the rule against “flexible aerodynamic devices”, then it loses its authority and opens itself up to accusations of bias.
So, Joe, I don’t characterise it as “bleating”. As you recently said of the Sauber disqualifications, Rules are Rules, and when Red Bull (and others) appear to be breaking the Rule against “flexible aerodynamic devices” then surely they should be brought to book and penalised … like Toyota in 2009.
I’ll echo what Mr C pointed out on sidepodcast in case it has missed your attention as it was a very good point I never considered before.
If the Sauber part was not legal, it was also not legal on Saturday and Friday as well. Why isn’t scrutineering done at the start of the weekend as well, to disqualify cars that break the rules instead of only disqualifying them long after the race is over and people think they know the results. As a long term die hard fan I don’t mind the result changing after the event, but I can see how this is very frustrating to many people, especially casual fans who don’t seem to realise this is a technical sport.
The new enforced team-members-not-allowed-in-the-paddock-at-night rules (with 4 exceptions) mean that the cars are completely alone and unworked on for large chunks of time during the weekend. Surely this is an ideal time to do scrutineering and filter out any illegal cars at the earliest opportunity before they start the race, and long before the illegal cars finish the race in headline positions.
Obviously scrutineering still needs to be done after the race in case there are components that wear down to give an advantage, or in case damage makes a car illegal, but that process may be made simpler by the fact that scrutineering has already been done earlier in the weekend.
It seems blatantly obvious and very positive step. I don’t know how we can bring this to the attention of the powers -that-be, but bringing it to the attention of journalist like yourself and trying to promote discussion amongst fans is a start I guess.
For once I have nothing more to add Joe, other than to say that I’m in total agreement with you on this issue. Clear, Concise, and Correct.
I agree with everything you say.
But in the race Jenson Button was penalized for going outside the confines of the track – marked by yellow lines – and Sebastian Vettel wasn’t for doing the same thing ( to Button as it happens).
I have copied a forum entry of mine from half an hour ago on RBR Community, as comment to this BLOG:
It is freaky how synonymous the threads of reply are to your own BLOG Joe! Well right is right I guess….
———————————————————
Only my Opinion – but I am passionate over it.
I am bemused how this ‘RBR Wing complaint’ ever gets any traction. Rules are Rules…. and the FIA pass RBR’s parts fully and are totally satisfied that their Technical Regulations are met. If they weren’t, the RB6/7 would have been disqualified at some point.
The only Front Wing tests (or any other Engineering tests) that Redbull Racing (or any other teams) must pass, are the ones that are ‘FIA Prescribed’ in absolute details in the “2011 Technical Regulations for F1″, as used for determining the ‘legality’ of Formula 1 cars in Parc Ferme over the course of the race weekend.
If the RBR Wing passes the FIA prescribed Static Load tests, then it does not matter if the Wing “flaps” whilst on the car in racing conditions/speeds. Until the FIA define Dynamic High Aero Load testing for front Wings (or other parts) as regulatory measures, then how the Wing behaves ‘at speed’ is NOT IN REGULATORY BOUNDS.
The Martin Whitmarsh’s of the pitlane, so perplexed at the technical design of such ingenious composite material designs, are making a FLAWED COMPLAINT. Every team is free to do the same, if they are smart enough. Therein lies Whitmarsh’s real reason to bleat.
The Technical Regulations may describe the INTENT for all Aero bodywork (including Wings) to be ‘rigid’ in the descriptions; but the Tech Regs don’t prescribe that rigidity ‘at speed’ in testable “shalls”, just at standstill with weights under static acceleration of gravity (in Newton Force terms). The onus is fully upon the FIA to define the test criteria by which such term ‘rigid’ is measured/adjudicated/regulated, if they want to control wing behaviour at speed (variable and large aero loads).
If the FIA is too clueless to rationalise that Dynamic High Aero Load testing is needed to pursue their ‘rigid’ intents more effectively, (not just a Static Load test) then it is every teams obligation to take best advantage of that and to Engineer the most effective F1 car parts they can within that test criteria, that PASS. RBR have done just that.
———————————————————
Jack Flash
“which appear to flex rather more than those of some of the other teams”…
… have you seen the pics’s? the ends of the wings are litterally scraping off the ground. Also have you considered the safety aspects of this “bending” of the rules (pardon the pun):
ITEM 1 at 20 secs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW5z415hH0E
ITEM 2 at 45 secs:
John, never mind wether the wing design is leagel, its bloody dangerous.
It seems to me that Red Bull have found a cunning way round the test for legality rather than a cunning loophole in the regulations and this seems somehow less admirable.
Maybe the FIA should make a rule saying “Do not be clever, because you make others feel inferior.”
What’s the difference between unlawful and illegal?
Unlawful is something that is against the law,
whilst illegal is a sick bird…. boom boom!
Seriously though this matter does seem to be rather petty and one wonders if the team who gained from Sauber’s exclusion and subsequent points gain were behind this?
Bleating is part of the competition too. In all sports people try to unsettle others like Hamilton likening Vettel to Mansell at best, etc. To unsettle, you criticize or you bleat against something, the refrees, the rulers, etc..
When a technical device breaches the spirit of the rules and not technically those rules, other teams try to put pressure on the FIA and the team breaching the spirit of the rules.
If it doesn’t work, it causes discomfort to those targeted. If it works, it’s even better and last year it did partially work as the FIA enhanced wing flexing tests.
OK Joe…..so why don’t the FIA scrutineers insist on being able to test parts away from the scene of crime ? Why, for example is it impossible for them to say, in effect,
‘your wing component, when stationary, covers all the bases but we believe we need to test that same wing and it’s mountings inside a wind tunnel where the air moving over the wing at race speeds can be exactly simulated. If, during those tests any excessive movement is detected, then the strict rules applying to flexing components will be rigorously applied’. Or something along those lines ?
Or am I being extremely naive in my old age ?
Not particularly bleating but it does interest me how the wing can pass the load tests and yet be so flexible during the race.
The only technology I can think that works anything like this is the Head Force-i Kers Snowboard. Although this works in the opposite way starting off soft and stiffening up when required using vibrations to power the intelligent fibers which are controlled by a very thin microchip.
If (and admittedly, its a big if) this was the technology being used would it be legal according to FIA rules?
Hello Joe, now that’s a bit unfair – The people who bleat about these things would not be bleating if the boot was on the other foot. –
The FIA figured out how McLaren’s second brake pedal was being used and he ended up banning it – since that clearly went against the spirit of whatever rule was in place back then, or, since the FIA was playing politics and thereby wanted to slow McLaren down for Ferrari.
Now why is the FIA not doing the same? Is this politics again? They clearly have the means to go after RB if they so desire to. There is some part of the nose section flexing downwards under load changing the front wings angle of attack into the wind and that is not desired on any car but RB? It also clearly goes against the spirit of the rules? So, is this politics again, is the FIA now giving Red Bull some real wings? Yes, the darn thing is a clever piece of ingenuity but no it is having us watch a Red Bull runaway series while McLaren and co have to spend even more money aside from the attempt of a budget cap on r&d for their own flex-wing. It makes no sense and McLaren or Renault wining under these trickery wouldn’t make a true fan and sportsman proud. there is no honor ion that just big bucks and bragging rights.
exactly, people only complain when they’re not winning. i was hugely pissed off at Red Bull’s flexing wings last year, and thought it was totally illegal, but that’s because I’m a big McLaren fan. When Brawn did essentially the same thing with their diffuser I declared it as genius, but that was because I wanted Ross Brawn and Jenson Button to win the championships. People will always find something to complain about, otherwise Martin Whitmarsh would have nothing to bitch to the BBC about after races!
I agree with you Joe – a shame, but true that the policing of the rules defines the legality. Just shows the FIA are not thinking broadly enough on how to police this as the wing clearly flexes more than the regulations intend. Perhaps allow the use of on track video footage – fairly simple analysis could determine flex. I’m sure all the other teams are working out how to do it too.
Also interesting that no one (including Whiting) ever answers the question – “does the wing flex?”. All answers are the same – “It is legal”, which, in my understanding, is an answer to a different question.
“If one turns a blind eye to a few millimetres here and there, one must do the same when someone else turns up with something that may relate more to performance. ”
Ferrari in Malaysia a few tears back seems to spring to mind, Barge boards were 10mm too big, 5mm bigger than the tolerance allowed.
Ferrari claimed “No performance advantage was gained”, but the rules stated, “it shall be no defence to claim that no performance advantage was obtained.”
Oh well, poor Sauber.
Karen,
Twelve years ago. Why is it that everyone seems to be living in an another era? The world moves on. What was wrong then is not happening today…
Well said. I agree. When gripes arise, its usually down to either Background Waffle; a Windup Agenda or the honest desire to seek opinion and direction on a perceived point of order.
The third is valid. If you feel a wrong has been done – OK complain to the Sovereign Authority who set – and own the rules. Their opinion and therefore decision is the one that counts.
All the rest is allowable hot air – But please Mister – just don’t bleat!
Jamie,
There are a number of reasons why the FIA don’t do scrutineering earlier on in the weekend.
First and foremost, Friday nights are out because teams can change their set-up willy-nilly until the cars leave the pitlane at the start of Saturday qualifying. A car checked on Friday night might be running different parts come Sunday, and that would be entirely legal.
They could do more in-depth checks on Saturday night, I agree.
But the main problem the FIA has is that their rulebook is now so thick that there are hundreds of components to check on 24 cars if they are to investigate the compliance of every part before the race. There simply isn’t the time, hence the random spot checks conducted.
If questions are raised about the legality of specific parts – as appears to have been the case with the Saubers – then the post-race scrutineering will check out those parts in addition to the standard post-race checks of weight, skid blocks, etc.
The problem I see with a lot of rules, which allows such ambiguity to happen, is describing the exact method of detection within the rule. Rules are equivalent to law, but law doesn’t state the exact method by which crimes will be detected. At least I hope not. You can’t allow a person to get away with a crime because someone found a new method of committing or detecting it which hasn’t been previously listed within the law. Any reasonable and reliable methods of detection should be permitted and all such evidence admissible.
If the purpose of a rule is to stop bodywork flexing but they’ll allow a little for practicality, then the rule should simply be “No bodywork may flex by more than 5mm at any time” or something similar, and any evidence to the contrary be accepted.
I don’t mean to sound like I’m picking on Red Bull, I’m just using this opportunity to voice a long-held annoyance. I always play by the rules and it really irritates me when others don’t and get away with it. More fool me, I guess.
Joe,
I think what irks many people is the inconsistent enforcement that that FIA go in for these days. As Nigel says, the Red Bull is clearly in breach of Article 3.15 of the technical regs. This can be shown many, many ways, and doesn’t require a flawed testing regime to enforce. However, they are allowed to get away with this intentional contravention of the rules yet Sauber’s perfectly innocent and trivial breach resulted in their disqualification. That’s just plain unfair and unjust, and what is the point of sport if it is institutionally unfair?
John C,
I disagree with you. I think the FIA has been very consistent of late. You cannot compare this to the Mosley era.
The test on the front wing in no way resembles the load encountered during racing.
Even the doubled test load this year is only a fraction of the real bend inducing force which lowers the wing, to allow virtual ground effect to be utilised by the lower wing aerofoil.
Hi Joe,
It seems that some of the vast amount of money that Red Bull spends on its F1 activities each year has paid for a couple of very intelligent composite engineers and laminators to produce a flexible wing that can pass these tests!
Fair play to them, its up to the other teams to either make a similar part, or club together and get it outlawed as theyve managed countless times before… eg McLarens fiddle brakes!
P.s, didn’t Ferrari get caught by video evidence a few years ago by the FIA when their bridge wing flexed and told to fix it or else? Think it was 2006 or 2007…
The truth of the matter is that no component in an F1 car is 100% stiff, there is an element of flex in everything, wether it be microns or millimeters, every piece has some give. This is why the FIA has to establish parameters that provide a definition for the rules that it comes up with. So the wing needs to be stiff, as defined by the load test in order to be able to effectively police the rules. It can increase the load on the tests as it did last year, but at the end of the day it cannot deal in an absolute definition of stiff since in the real world such thing is completely impractical and ultimately impossible.
I believe a good portion of those who gripe about this were not complaining about Mclaren’s flexible rear wing las year (F-duct) even though the spirit of the rules was for something like that to be illegal. In my view, they found a way to do it within the letter of the rule as has Red Bull done with their front wing, so, deal with it and go to work on your own version of it.
Joe
Would RBR say if they had been working with the FIA on the wing flex thing to calm the waters, or is it possible they wouldnt to wind the other teams up??
By the way, the FiA applied in Australia the 107% rules against HRT. Okay, rules are rules but the same FiA stated that if a top runner would’be over the 107% or doing no Q-Lap (like Alonso did in Monaco 2010) it would be allowed to participate.
Definitively we are in 2011 the world moves on but the rules are still not rules for everyone.
By ruling the RBR wing legal the FIA is simply saying to the other teams “go for it”, which is in the best interests of F1 as the world’s so-called pinnacle of motorsport.
I’m a McLaren fan, but I wish they’d just focus on figuring the flexi-wing out.
However, I agree with Hamilton – Vettel is another Mansell. I’d dearly love to take away that flexiwing and chuck the RBR cars back in the pack just to see how “Super Seb” would handle it. Composure lost, would be my guess!
THANK YOU. I’d been planning to quote my favorite part of this, but I’d be practically quoting the whole post. Other than the news that SpeedTV might start airing qualifying without a time lag, this is the best thing I’ve read all day!
Smokey Yunick would be laughing his head off if he was alive. He spent his whole life bending NASCAR rules. Good on Red Bull 20/20 hindsight doesnt win you the next race!
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
Ferrari’s Malaysian bargeboards were legal under an obscure reference involving shadows. It was very unusual and a bit of a dodgy interpretation – unfortunately I don’t remember the loophole specifically.
[...] Bleating and being beaten What is the definition of legal? In a perfect world there would be right and wrong. Black and white. But in competition [...] [...]
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
Photos seem to suggest the entire front nose and wing assembly is flexing under load.
What tests are done on the rigidness of the nose cone? Perhaps tests on this, if there indeed is one at all should be increased.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3371/detailgreen.jpg
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/7624/detailred.jpg
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/8314/contouroverlaye.jpg
Of course it’s difficult to say for sure because minor differences in perspective, and other optical factors can account for the differences but it’s a different avenue to go down for teams/fia to investigate into how Red Bull are doing this other than some sort of magical material.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
“Bleating” is your value judgement, and one I don’t agree with.
While I am quite happy to applaud Red Bull’s ingenuity in engineering a way around the very clear intention of the rules, I think it absurd to expect their competitors to applaud it too.
Last season the authorities demonstrated that they were willing to make the flexing test more onerous during the season. It is crystal clear to an inexpert observer that the RB front wing is doing what the rule is intended to prevent. Complaining about the situation is theerfore a sensible thing for any of Red Bull’s competitors to do.
@Nigel Daly exactly! The rules say no flexing is allowed, the fact the FIA cannot properly police it is neither here nor there, the wings are clearly flexing and therefore should not be legal. I understand this rule is there for safety reasons, in which case the FIA should be clamping down on it rather than allowing the others to copy it.
This is the same FIA that declared the mass damper a “moveable aerodynamic device” and banned it, despite the fact it was never exposed to the airflow.
This is different from the double diffuser which stayed within the letter of the regulations, which were poorly worded and allowed for a loophole (that, as has been stated, Ross Brawn pointed out).
Tim.
You know you don’t see Red Bull over-take when they are below P1 and P2?
And when they tried, you had Seb flip into Button AND into Webber?
I am positive that the flex causes massive WRONG directions of air-planing when the air is coming in from the SIDE, i.e. when over0taking another car side-by-side.
I also believe that people in F1 must know this.
Nevertheless… it’s not making as big a difference as last year.
On more-KERS-type tracks, McLaren will be much closer this year because incorporating a full KERS is something that has totally confounded Newey thus far.
Joe, the difference is that with Double Diffusers, F-Ducts etc the teams kept the FIA informed what they were doing all along, and checked it would be ok. Also they were loopholes.
Newey on the other hand simply sticks the stuff on the car and waits to see if the FIA ban it.
To me it’s quite simple, the rules state that it “must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car”
It doesn’t do this. As you say Joe, rules are rules. Its nothing like the f-duct or the DD, both of which were loopholes, not a way to break the very clearly laid down rules.
I don’t think it’s ‘bleating’ as you put it. I think they are quite rightly trying to obtain some clarification from the FIA whether you are or are not allowed flexible wings before they spend lots of money emulating the effect themselves.
Sounds fair enough to me.
Alastair,
How do you know that Adrian did not ask the FIA?
Describing something by what it is not, is a hard trick to pull.
I genuinely do not underdstand, save that it might have suited MM somehow, by what means or at what point did FIA regulations become so literally interpreted? It is the emplacement of strict liability at a sole temporal and physical point, which even Max would identify as causing a disproportionate burden on a single link in the chain of evidence. Quite clearly that disproportion is wide open to attack.
Jack flash is onto what bothers me here, and puts it better, about splitting intent and physical passes. Surely this is not logically commutative, that a test / scrutineering pass means without shadow of doubt that rules were objeyed?
Or is there really some different origin of how this particular permis de conduire came about?
Nothing yet in my mind, answers why the rest of the field should have made such a apposite interpretation. If the wing flexes, and really is an advantage, why, after a good part of a season, are there no copycats?
RBR fans might care to attest composites prowess or a particular design genius (it certainly is no mean feat). I prefer to attribute the lack of follwing to a gentler, more honest to thineself, adherence to the rules. Or, less charitably that no team can afford a technical wild goose chase. If it is a “genuine” cheat, it is very nice to beat the cheater fair and square.
. . .
As to parc fermé rules, i find the recent system absurd. I am quite sure i never missed a quali, when single fastest lap prevailed and there was no penalty for tomorrow’s weather. I’ll file that under opinionated arm waving. The limit to overnight working sounds pretty good, if it were max of every other race, or at least not as few as 4 per season. That on its own creates a parc fermé rule, if extended over saturday night . .
– j
so if an athlete works out a way to take performance enhancing drugs but can still pass the tests by masking or (for example) takes drugs where the chemicals only start to be detectable whilst running then that is ok?
They are still not playing by the rules during the competition even though they are managing to get through the testing. In athletics when a new drug or masking agent is found they make changes to the testing to make sure loopholes are closed off.
Not bleating – just fair play.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
12 years ago? Why is it important?
Consistent enforcement of the regulations is imperative for any sport, because the rules define the sport. Stray outside them and you are not playing the same game any more.
So when the rules categorically state a condition (“bodywork must be rigid” – which is most sensibly interpreted as ‘bodywork must not be designed to flex’ since an infinitely rigid piece of bodywork is impossible), that rule should be enforced. In the past we’ve had rear wings banned on the basis of video evidence that they flex at speed. The situation here is directly analogous and yet we have no action.
Similarly, in Australia we had two overtakes where the overtaking car left the bounds of the track to make a pass stick. Button on Massa and Vettel on Button. Both cars had all four wheels over the limit of the track. Only one of them received a penalty. Yet the regulations state that the cars must remain on the track at all times. That is quite unequivocal and yet we have drivers getting away with breaking a rule to gain an advantage.
The FIA needs to enforce these regulations and enforce them consistently because otherwise you do not have a fair playing field.
Michael
Because everything as changed… The FIA is different. The sport is different. What is the point about harping on about something that has gone and cannot be changed?
Dear all
I would imagine that those bleating publicly are busting their A*#es privately, trying to find (a) what the tecxhnological trick is, and (b) how to replicate it. It would seem that, unlike the double diffuser, and the F-duct, other teams are having problems replicating the flexi wing.
Personally, I think that, under the current stifling technical rules (what does one expect of the FIA when a Barrister headed it up for so long..!!), anyone who can produce a technical innivation deserves a CBE.
Cheers
MarkR
boulay,
different sport, but similar, i’d say more acute, moral dilemmas:
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2010/07/26/lance-armstrongs-tragedy/
ultimately, lovers of any sport just follow who writes and records it with a clear head and unclouded eye.
The sad fact is that we have to do more to understand any sport since they almost universally were intertwined with big money. Equally, cheating is as old as civilisation itself. Just look past it. There are many writers who help!
– j
mark ryan,
having been forced to analyse the behaviour of habitual liars in business, i do not think that smokescreening is a low cost task.
Words may be cheap, but consistency of words, when there is a fundamental overstep of reality, is quite a intellectual burden. Quite apart from who con themselves.
I am not saying this is a burden that runs deep in any team who dismisses a cutting edge innovation in F1. If problems such as i vignette here were rife in F1 teams, they’d all be looking like HRT.
What you mention, and is subject here, is certainly at worst, only the lightest of cases. But, caveat.
I’m tempering the thought however, with my own experience of finding myself once long into a contract selling what underneath was a rotten fetid crock of stangant peat.
The sheer awfulness of unpleasant contradictions which flowed though my company members’ minds, thoughts, and attitude, cost in ways far beyond anything imaginable had we ourselves set out to blag a deal or two. I hardly can scratch the surface of the sickly convulsions we suffered for long after we realised we were inadvertently regurigtating rubbish.
Clarity has value so far beyond the naive’s imagination of the opportunity cost of a fib.
So, flipping off a comment or two to tease the opposition they’re doing no good may be fine. But it obviously can get far deeper, far more quickly. The devastating component would be inadvertent complicity, someone promulgating the fib, and taking in other parts of the business who have to act in good faith. Anyhow, when someone says “due diligence” to me, personally it means so very much more than reading the papers, checking facts, and asking legal.
I’ll end on a much different approach. Some 10 or 11 years ago, a tremendously valued partner of mine departed, in no small way because of a heated slow burning intellectual argument as to our business future. Since then, i realized he was right. But nonetheless, he was wrong on what i was working on, which he had not been working on! So i did not realise he was right, until i had fixed the problems which were my charge!! Amazingly, we are happily reunited . . .
Dismissiveness or obstinacy or indeed virtues in business where outcomes are decided not arbitrarily, are very sharp instruments indeed!
Think of that, when you hear technical heads of teams saying something is not good, illegal, or should not be done. Who are they conning?
all best from me,
– john
Joe,
Consistency doesn’t just mean interpreting the same rule the same way each time, it also means enforcing each rule equally. At the moment they still appear to be arbitrarily deciding which rules are important to enforce even where a transgression is small (see Sauber) and yet leaving others almost entirely unenforced. In the latter category, flexy wings and running all four wheels off the road during a pass seem to be the two most egregious at the moment. McLaren and Ferrari both appear to be able to get their wings to bend as well, placing them outside the rules as well, but the fact that last weekend’s two largest coach and horses being driven through the rules were branded with the same livery does appear to suggest that the FIA are encouraging Red Bull at the moment. Justice must not just be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that. Are you seriously suggesting in this light, even though it was according to the rules, that what happened to Sauber last weekend was just?
John C,
Get over your problems with the FIA. Times have changed. People have moved on. No-one is outside the rules if they pass the necessary tests. You may not agree with that, but that does not make the cars illegal.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
Joe, you say that No-one is outside the rules if they pass the necessary tests, so if a team was clever enough to make a fuel that gave a 20% power boost but passed the necessary tests that would be legal.
mervyn
Of course
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
It does not seem to matter how much the FIA stipulate the load test should be. It could be 100 or 500 kg and the RB front wings, once they are in motion, will flex. RB clearly have some sort of clever system of allowing the wings to flex once the vehicle is in motion. The tests are only for when the car is static. Maybe the scrutineers should have a closer look at the upper nose section, and not just the wings themselves
I don’t know about anyone else, but I would rather see a championship won on real driving talent not due to a ‘grey area’ wing, it diminishes the value of the championship.
Time for a spec series so the talent of the driver NOT the designer can be highlighted.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/ [...]
Joe, So if I found a way round the copyright laws, copied your books and passed them off as mine, you would regard that as legal.
mervyn
There is not a way around the copyright laws and if you did that I would sue you.