Ciro Pabón wrote:Please, guys,
reread the best you can what have been written already in this thread.
(...)
It will be the first time I report a post because it is repetitive.
If I can summarize the thread, it goes like that:
1. RB wing flexes and it flexes more than McLaren and Ferrari!
3.
It complies with regulations
4. That's unfair!
5.
No, it's a new way to make flexing wings that comply with regulations. It happens every year. Remember (insert all the list of gadgets that were used in the same way).
6. That's unfair. We should (insert gadget proposed) to make sure that RB doesn't have an advantage. Let me explain to you the spirit of rules.
7.
Well, maybe, kind of spiritual to me. Take in account this is F1. You can find Mother Theresa orphanage's thread in other forum. FIA already has a way to change testing if they wish to do so. Read regulations, puleehze.
If you can provide another point, welcome. This monstrosity is over 30 pages long, for the love of Pete.
I do not like to menace people (first time in 6 years!) but if I see any other picture showing that wing flexes, I will copy/paste it in the Caption Competition thread and I will add a really CRUEL caption.
OK Ciro, please don't take this the wrong way, I am also getting tired of the discussion going in circles here (having to quote the same piece of regulation three times in answer to the same erroneous comment does aggravate me). But here, you're precisely fueling this by making a selective and biased summary of the thread.
My comments on this (and my version of the summary):
1) Yes, the RBR front wing flexes, the whole front end flexes. The wing flexes, the pillars flex, the nose flexes.
2) missing?
3) The wing does comply with rule 3.17 about the tests used on flexing bodywork. It does not, however, comply with rule 3.15, which it breaches in a number of ways
- The part is obviously designed to attempt to breach the gap between reference plane and ground, which is forbidden "under any circumstances".
- The front wing ends up under the reference plane on straights at high speed, when the back of the RBR squats down due to rear downforce, leveling the floor. Again, forbidden under any circumstances
- The wing does not stay immobile relative to the rest of the sprung part of the car, as its attachments flex
- The wing has a "degree of freedom" relative to the sprung part of the car, albeit a complex one (otherwise the "front wing" part as a whole would not move, that's the engineering definition of "degree of freedom)
4) The other teams were apparently under the impression that the FIA would not turn a blind eye on this like last year, and obviously they were mistaken. Did last year serve as jurisprudence, and as such the other teams should have known better and done the same as RBR? Or is it impossible to "guess" which regulations will or will not be enforced by the FIA, and as such it is unfair that some are enforced and some aren't? That's an open question.
5) It does not happen every year. The front wing problem has been going on for two years, it is a specific problem. Questioning the regulations and pushing the boundaries of those does happen every year, which is kind of the point of formula one too. But the point is to be on the edge of the rules without breaching them. Otherwise they are not rules, just guidelines, and anyone can do what they like.
6) The spirit of the rules is irrelevant, just like the spirit of the law in a court. The rules are or aren't breached. If they aren't then fine, go on with it. If they are, penalties must be decided.
7) Again, F1 is not a charity and rules must be obeyed. Otherwise, there are no rules, no regulations, just guidelines. And you can't be penalized if you don't follow guidelines. But then nobody should be, whatever guideline they breach (like Sauber on the first race for example?).
There, maybe that's a little more complete and less biased way to look at things.
it´s just rediculous to call this legal or compliant to the rules .It is not complying.
