All 2011 cars are illegal

[richard_leeds]

I think we all agree that it is a pretty ineffective test, but that's the test they have to define allowable flexure. All teams abide by it and have had the opportunity to exploit it for over 12 months.

To follow the DDD precedent, any prohibition should be discussed by FOTA & FIA and introduced for next season.

[myurr]

But this isn't like the DDD where it was a technicality in the phrasing used in a rule, flexing aero is expressly forbidden and the test can be updated by the FIA at any time if the teams find a way to get around it. That is explicitly stated in the rules.

Or do you believe that flexing aero is allowed and the FIAs job is to set the level of flex that the teams can use?

[Lindz]

I think the level of flexing is up to the FIA. You can never have a perfectly rigid wing. They can police it however they want, inadequate or not.

[Hangaku]

I think the level of flexing is up to the FIA. You can never have a perfectly rigid wing. They can police it however they want, inadequate or not.

Indeed, but it doesn't make it right.

I'm not being funny, but F1 surrounds itself in drama because of attitudes like this.

It's like saying "Yeah, well it's always been like that". And? Bloody well change it then! Make it work. Ugh.

In a nutshell: either fix the rules or fix the wings, but fix SOMETHING!

[myurr]

I think the level of flexing is up to the FIA. You can never have a perfectly rigid wing. They can police it however they want, inadequate or not.

You can never have a perfectly rigid wing, and yet that is what the rules require. The FIA then modify that to say what they believe are adequate tolerances in accordance with their test, however the underlying principal is that the wings are not supposed to be flexing. That the FIA's test is failing to police that doesn't change that underlying rule.

[Ferraripilot]

I might not be too far off in stating the Fia will do the same as last year and not address the issue any further unless RB are running away with it and no one can copy their technology.

That or a class action contention from all teams is filed to the Fia against RB specifying bylaw 3.17 be reviewed immediately as it pertains to 3.15. I would write it up for free and present the thing. Point is, someone is going to have to go around Whiting if he continues to ignore the issue.

[volarchico]

You won't get all teams to file a contention, because it seems McLaren are close to copying the design.

[N12ck]

But a smart thing for mclaren although they are close, it will stop them (redbull) running away with the championship so early, why dont they mount a sensor on the floor tray pointed at the wing, and if the wing dips more than 10 times during a race then the result is disqualified, that would deal with it.

[MIKEY_!]

Best way to deal with it... fit skid blocks under the endplates.

[gridwalker]

Front wings already have a mandated central section : why not just extend this so that the core of the wing's main supporting structure has to be built around an FIA supplied structure, leaving teams free to add whatever aerodynamic pieces that their design requires.

This would eliminate all arguments relating to flex induced within the wing, though it would just shift the problem to flexing noses and pylons.

[MIKEY_!]

good thinking

[bhallg2k]

[...] why not just extend this so that the core of the wing's main supporting structure has to be built around an FIA supplied structure, leaving teams free to add whatever aerodynamic pieces that their design requires[?]

I think F1 is already "cookie-cutter" enough as it is, and the last thing needed is a further tightening of the rules.

With too much standardization, the cars will require several DRS-like devices for there to be any performance differential at all between the teams.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

In continuation of the Scarbs T tray proposal thread:

Richard

Thats why the FIA have imposed limitations. So We know everything bends, but once it is evidently suspected of going beyond these boundaries the FIA have a responsibility to adapt the test to catch the perpetrators.

Or is the rule extension to 3.17 hot air?

[richard_leeds]

"Reserving the right" is not the same as "obliged" or "shall".

What purpose would be served by changing the deflection tests? All teams would have to re-engineer their cars to comply with new rules, so they'd all suffer.

What would be gained? It would impose ever tighter rules until we end up with no scope for innovation. Better resourced teams would still win, and a well designed car would still win. We'd still have a RB out in front because the car's dominance is more than just one feature.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

How would a non flexing T tray be caught out in a redeployed test?

"reserving the right" is a weakly worded rule I agree.

So who acts on this?

My reasoning here is could there be scope for favouritism to one team over another.
As has been speculated, if a T Tray is moving to help aero this in contravention of the rule, so the real question is why hasn't the test been amended?

As I posted before, it is perplexing to me that a. the FIA havent acted and b. The teams seem mute in wanting "clarification" as the buzzword for this sort of thing is nowadays.

My speculative side suggests all the front running teams have something similar in the works for 2012.