[allachakb]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85532

Throw them out of championships! Ban them for life. Throw out Red Bull from all motorsports. CHEATERS! ;p

[Drysnyaty]

I'd completely forgotten about that story, overshadowed as it was by Ferrari's team orders.

It's right that the FIA investigate, but as Horner says you can't always tell the whole story from a still photo.

[WhonyGataxott]

Both Ferrari and RedBull are in question. Great, give them a nice 2 race ban.

[larentont]

will be interesting to see if anything comes of this one too, Ferrari seem to be treading a fine line at the moment, RBR and Newey in particular are always out to exploit the rules, its just as well for everyone else in F1 that Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey never found themselves in the same team

[allachakb]

As donKey said about Ferrari's performance on chat: "There is something fishy".

[Drysnyaty]

The wings have passed scrutineering without problems:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85563

Move on, nothing to see here

[asSexate]

Plenty of cars have passed scrutineering and later been declared illegal, its right this is investigated. That said I can't see how Red Bull could have got around the load test.

[larentont]

The wings have passed scrutineering without problems:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85563

Move on, nothing to see here

the report i read indicated that they cleverly get around scrutineering which doesn't lookk for flex in the central section of the wing, only around the endplates. Look for a) a clarification in the rules or b) a new test in scrutineering in a race or 2

[Drysnyaty]

James Allen's (excellent) website has some photos courtesy of Darren Heath which are very interesting:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/0...-for-yourself/

Seems that Red Bull have found and exploited a weakness in the current way the flex is measured in scrutineering. Sneaky, but legal. I expect the load test to be modified in the near future to close this loophole.

[Nikitka]

Borderline legal at best I would say. The rules say something along the lines of: wings must be rigidly mounted and have no degree of freedom. They then go on to detail the various tests that will be used to check for flexibility. According to James Allen's piece, the test uses a 500N force while loads on track might be up to 2000N. And as has been previously mentioned, perhaps the test load is not being applied in the right place. So Red Bull could have a part that has a degree of freedom - and should therefore be illegal - while still passing the scrutineering tests.

I think it's a bit like breaking the speed limit when no-one else is around - it's still against the rules even if there's no mechanism in place to catch you.

[Drysnyaty]

We've seen this before with Renault's damper, Ferrari's floor, McLaren's starter hole and so on. Teams find a loophole, the FIA clarify the rules and close said loophole. As it stands right now Red Bull will pass scrutineering, and I expect them to do so without problems in Hungary. However I also expect the test to be more stringent after the summer break.

[Nikitka]

I think the FIA should take a more, erm, shall we say "rigid" stance over flexible bodywork. I don't like the current situation, where apparently you can make your bodywork as flexible as you like, as long as you can cleverly arrange for it to pass the specific scrutineering tests.

The rules should simply say that bodywork must never flex by more than a certain (very small) tolerance when in use on track - forget trying to specify precisely what it should do in the scrutineering bay. If the FIA suspect a piece of bodywork is flexing in use, they should be able to use any test they like to assess whether that's the case. And if it is, the team should be docked points for the past races where they used that bodywork, even if it passed scrutineering at the time.

[BadbarmrapBef]

The rules will either be clarified or the others will need to adapt their noses to do the same. I can't believe this has taken so long though as we all knew at the start of the season that RBR were able to run very low in qualifying with near empty tanks.

[aLZ9zKsO]

I think the FIA should take a more, erm, shall we say "rigid" stance over flexible bodywork. I don't like the current situation, where apparently you can make your bodywork as flexible as you like, as long as you can cleverly arrange for it to pass the specific scrutineering tests.

The rules should simply say that bodywork must never flex by more than a certain (very small) tolerance when in use on track - forget trying to specify precisely what it should do in the scrutineering bay. If the FIA suspect a piece of bodywork is flexing in use, they should be able to use any test they like to assess whether that's the case. And if it is, the team should be docked points for the past races where they used that bodywork, even if it passed scrutineering at the time.

And why need this testing??? The rules say rigid, and they do this test to check....but they have the photoss showing otherwise---that should be enough.

More cheating----opps, I forgot, how stupid!!!! It ain't cheating, if you do not get caught

But it does explain the big advantage that red bull possesses that has been putting it on the front row, over and over again, and why webber got so mad about who gets the latest wing...and one way that Ferrari caught up with them

so much for cost cutting

[larentont]

And why need this testing??? The rules say rigid, and they do this test to check....but they have the photoss showing otherwise---that should be enough.

More cheating----opps, I forgot, how stupid!!!! It ain't cheating, if you do not get caught

But it does explain the big advantage that red bull possesses that has been putting it on the front row, over and over again, and why webber got so mad about who gets the latest wing...and one way that Ferrari caught up with them

so much for cost cutting

The thing is, every material flexes/distorts to some degree when a load is applied to it. How specific do you want to analyse it?

[Drysnyaty]

The static load tests are designed to replicate the forces a component will experience out on track. It seems that for the front wing the loads test may be inadequate, which can simply be fixed by attaching a heavier load.

[BadbarmrapBef]

The static load tests are designed to replicate the forces a component will experience out on track. It seems that for the front wing the loads test may be inadequate, which can simply be fixed by attaching a heavier load.

Don't think it will.

The test is on the end plate whereas the flex appears to be on the main nose structure. You have all the downforce from both sides of the wing on here so it appears to flex under this increased load.

In effect, you don't want the end plates flexing as their job is to flex the nose itself.

[newspetty]

The static load tests are designed to replicate the forces a component will experience out on track. It seems that for the front wing the loads test may be inadequate, which can simply be fixed by attaching a heavier load.

Which is exactly why regulation 3.17.8 states

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

And for reference

3.15 any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.

So if the wings are bending then they are in breach of 3.15 The scrutineers need to take a much closer look at these wings at the next race and sort this out one way or the other.

[Drysnyaty]

So if the wings are bending then they are in breach of 3.15 .

Yes and no, if you'll excuse me reverting to Sir Humphrey language

Everything flexes to a greater or lesser degree, if it didn't it would snap. F1 being full of clever people you have to specify in the rules how much tolerance you allow. The load test is designed to define this, but clearly in this case it's inadequate.

[Zjohkrbi]

Why does it matter? Why not ALLOW flexible parts? Why can't everybody run flexible wings if they develop them? Why shouldn't the teams get to innovate?