Mercedes AMG F1 W03 (pre-launch speculation)

[beelsebob]

..... Speaking of logic.

Scarbs:
How can overtly flexing wings, interlinked suspension and front wing f-ducts not be considered moveable aero? They achieve similar aims?

Because no one can prove they're doing it.

[munudeges]

There was an entire thread where it was explained why Charlie Whiting cannot prevent wings flexing. As for Scarbs questioning Charlie's logic on other things he can test and actually prove, that's another story.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ beelsebob
You and I have both seen the wing flex. Let's not go over it again, save the thread. Bottom line is the wing is known to flex.... Something can be done about it beyond the current test.

To ban one but not the other, is a beyond a joke IMO.

@segedunum
I'd rather avoid debate with you, as I'm illogical and scarbs is "another story".

[beelsebob]

@ beelsebob
You and I have both seen the wing flex. Let's not go over it again, save the thread. Bottom line is the wing is known to flex.... Something can be done about it beyond the current test.

Agreed, I can see it flexing, but... I cannot prove that what I see is not an optical illusion. With the RRH system, I can prove the connection between the breaks and altering the aero of the car.

To ban one but not the other, is a beyond a joke IMO.

To me, banning exactly what you can prove is in violation of the rules is entirely reasonable.

[ForMuLaOne]

One have to accept it...the FIA has certain tools to design the outcome of a season in some ways. It is highly contradicting to forbid technologies which are relatively cheap compared to race pace improvement AND as good as implemented already. So, to me there is again some --- going on.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

One have to accept it...the FIA has certain tools to design the outcome of a season in some ways. It is highly contradicting to forbid technologies which are relatively cheap compared to race pace improvement AND as good as implemented already. So, to me there is again some --- going on.

An affirmative +1

@beelsebob

Photographic evidence has been accepted by the FIA in the past and in fact used by them to ban developments.

[munudeges]

In all honesty JET, I'm keen to avoid having another massive thread within a thread just to explain what went on there when it's already been done several times over. If you can actually define what can be done over the current test as you claim then feel free to discuss it on an appropriate thread, otherwise it's all pointless huffing and puffing. If you can't assess and test it statically you can see nothing I'm afraid. It's a little sad to see you persist with this and the 'photographic evidence' nonsense. It doesn't do any meaningful discussion any good.

As for things that Charlie Whiting can test for and assess statically, I think I, Scarbs and the rest of us are a little perplexed as to the logic that the Brabham's ex-spanner man applies sometimes. You can't merely make things up and place quote marks around what you like.

[beelsebob]

One have to accept it...the FIA has certain tools to design the outcome of a season in some ways. It is highly contradicting to forbid technologies which are relatively cheap compared to race pace improvement AND as good as implemented already. So, to me there is again some --- going on.

An affirmative +1

@beelsebob

Photographic evidence has been accepted by the FIA in the past and in fact used by them to ban developments.

Right, but what do the photos show?

Do they show a wing flexing an abnormal amount? Do they show lots of rake? Do they show the front suspension compressing under aero load? ...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The FIA make the tests and ban developments.

If they make a decision I don't like, and by the looks of the vast majority of forums and twitter, then people can voice their displeasure.
Now if you don't mind I have expressed my opinion, you have yours.
Accept it and move on.

[scuderiafan]

This makes me think where Formula One would be if the FiA didn't stifle the ingenuity of the teams.

[beelsebob]

This makes me think where Formula One would be if the FiA didn't stifle the ingenuity of the teams.

Most likely, still in the early 80s and 90s, with rather more Black Sundays

[munudeges]

I sincerely hope Merc haven't been silly enough to delay testing because of this wonder innovation, because I believe it is all smoke and mirrors for other things teams might be doing. I really hope they haven't delayed their testing for that other wonder innovation, the front wing F-duct, either because it's an avenue that won't pay them back.

McLaren got around three or four tenths on average from the F-duct by most estimates, but once it was on the car that was all it gained them all season. Once other teams got it on their cars the advantage was all lost and it then became clear later on in the season what McLaren hadn't done the legwork on - usable downforce.

[MIKEY_!]

If the FIA really wanted to stop flexy wings they would have teams run mini planks under the footplates. End of story. But this is rapidly getting off topic.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I sincerely hope Merc haven't been silly enough to delay testing because of this wonder innovation, because I believe it is all smoke and mirrors for other things teams might be doing. I really hope they haven't delayed their testing for that other wonder innovation, the front wing F-duct, either because it's an avenue that won't pay them back.

How can you say that?

Absoulute no foundation to write this at all. You are not privy to any information coming out of Brackley yet you sit there writing it like fact.

[Mr.S]

@ beelsebob
You and I have both seen the wing flex. Let's not go over it again, save the thread. Bottom line is the wing is known to flex.... Something can be done about it beyond the current test.

Agreed, I can see it flexing, but... I cannot prove that what I see is not an optical illusion. With the RRH system, I can prove the connection between the breaks and altering the aero of the car.

To ban one but not the other, is a beyond a joke IMO.

To me, banning exactly what you can prove is in violation of the rules is entirely reasonable.

Optical illusion. Please spare me. This is getting more & more ridiculous. FIA is Mclaren & Red Bull's li'l puppy now anyway.