Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
Tufty
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Tufty »

A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
Anyone in or near North Wales interested in an RC car racing tournament?

pokerman
Posts: 37502
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by pokerman »

Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:54 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
Basically if Red Bull have an advantage with this then there's a need of some people for them keeping this advantage which includes being able to fool the stewards with their inadequate tests.

Like you say in the real world we can see what's actually happening and so can the stewards, it's seems to be too much for some that cars run within the written rules.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 99 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 172 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

User avatar
Tufty
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Tufty »

pokerman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:04 pm
Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:54 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
Basically if Red Bull have an advantage with this then there's a need of some people for them keeping this advantage which includes being able to fool the stewards with their inadequate tests.

Like you say in the real world we can see what's actually happening and so can the stewards, it's seems to be too much for some that cars run within the written rules.
Yes. Those "some people" shouldn't include the FIA or Liberty/FOM though. and that I feel is where the problem might lie. If the show is more important than the rules, the new approach wouldn't be taken (unless now the secret is out, it's a matter of saving face). Same as with the Ferrari changes after they seemed to have the best engine in 2019.

That said, that it takes a protest from another team before things change is an oddly reactive way of enforcing the rules.
Anyone in or near North Wales interested in an RC car racing tournament?

pokerman
Posts: 37502
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by pokerman »

Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:30 pm
pokerman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:04 pm
Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:54 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
Basically if Red Bull have an advantage with this then there's a need of some people for them keeping this advantage which includes being able to fool the stewards with their inadequate tests.

Like you say in the real world we can see what's actually happening and so can the stewards, it's seems to be too much for some that cars run within the written rules.
Yes. Those "some people" shouldn't include the FIA or Liberty/FOM though. and that I feel is where the problem might lie. If the show is more important than the rules, the new approach wouldn't be taken (unless now the secret is out, it's a matter of saving face). Same as with the Ferrari changes after they seemed to have the best engine in 2019.

That said, that it takes a protest from another team before things change is an oddly reactive way of enforcing the rules.
Indeed you have to wonder given that they must have been perfectly aware what was going on because of the cameras and it was also pointed out to them last year, why it took a protest for them to do anything about it.

It seems to be a similar thing with the tyre pressures, things were being done with the tyre blankets that apparently is not allowed and again they must have known about, but again it takes a protest for them to do anything about it and I guess they also never foresaw the possibility of there being tyre failures.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 99 (1st)
Pole Positions: 100 (1st)
Podiums: 172 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:54 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
And that's all that I and EPROM and others have been arguing - if there is a way to test the regulation, then do it, as otherwise the regulation is meaningless. People can't go around claiming cars are "illegal" or some such thing if they pass all the tests that are designed to check for legality.

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

pokerman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:04 pm
Tufty wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:54 am
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:40 am
If the regulation/law cannot be tested for, then it quite simply a terrible regulation, and might as well not exist.
Is that not the whole point of the new dots on the rear wings? To test the deflection in the real world rather than in isolation? Clearly it can be tested for, it just hadn't been in this way before. That's all.
Basically if Red Bull have an advantage with this then there's a need of some people for them keeping this advantage which includes being able to fool the stewards with their inadequate tests.

Like you say in the real world we can see what's actually happening and so can the stewards, it's seems to be too much for some that cars run within the written rules.
Jeez, please give your persecution complex a rest - nobody has said any such thing, and for you to claim it is preposterous.

Has the Red Bull car been declared illegal? Has it failed any of the tests designed to check for legality and compliance? If not then there is nothing more to see here - if RBR (or any other team) fails the tests then feel free to come out and say it. Until then you are doing nothing more than making baseless allegations ("fool the stewards" - ??) against Red Bull Racing and a British national treasure in Adrian Newey.

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4352
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically, what if a dinosaur ate Hamilton?

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4352
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:30 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically, what if a dinosaur ate Hamilton?
a) as previously mentioned, the what if meme was not to say hypotheticals could not be discussed
b) This is not even the type of 'what if' scenario the what-if meme refers to, it refers to changing the outcome of eventualities, this is discussing the application of rules and laws. Obviously such a teleporter is impossible in the real world, but that is irrelevant, it's to see up a situation that everyone is probably in agreement on - that an underweight car is objectively illegal, but what would happen if a car could be legal for the test but illegal in operation in such a way that the illegal state can never be proven.
c) You know both of these points
d) You are avoiding the question.

User avatar
EPROM
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:59 am
Location: USA - Maryland

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by EPROM »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically... No. The rule is the rule. Technical creativity that enhances performance within a concrete specification is the essence of engineering - and a good thing (IMO).

As an engineer, I'd laud such a creative engineering solution to a hard specification - as it might have very useful application in other areas. That's how we make progress.

People who fail to see such advances as useful might be seen as Luddites - against progress because of antiquated values. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

In my view, F1 is a clear instance of the promotion of the progression of engineering and technology advancement. To be against that proposition seems simply bizarre to me - and against the entire purpose of the sport. YMMV.

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Exediron »

EPROM wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:52 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically... No. The rule is the rule. Technical creativity that enhances performance within a concrete specification is the essence of engineering - and a good thing (IMO).

As an engineer, I'd laud such a creative engineering solution to a hard specification - as it might have very useful application in other areas. That's how we make progress.

People who fail to see such advances as useful might be seen as Luddites - against progress because of antiquated values. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

In my view, F1 is a clear instance of the promotion of the progression of engineering and technology advancement. To be against that proposition seems simply bizarre to me - and against the entire purpose of the sport. YMMV.
While I agree with your general point of view here, I take the opposite stance on this hypothetical. To me, I see the hypothetical example as a clear-cut case of cheating, not simply innovation. It's a technically very impressive (impossibly so) way of cheating, but still cheating.

Similarly, Ferrari's engine performance from 2019. The way they got that performance was by fooling the ability of the FIA mandated sensor to accurately read their fuel flow. The rules were black-and-white on the subject of how much fuel can be burned in a given period of time, and they quite simply violated that rule while developing a means to avoid being caught doing it.

Now, going with the concept of decreasing the weight of the car every time it enters the pit lane -- we can assume it's by some method other than teleportation, it doesn't matter. The relevant rule here is:
4.1 Minimum weight
The weight of the car, without fuel, must not be less than 752kg at all times during the Event.
Again, this is a rule without a grey area. It specifies that the weight must be no less than 752kg at all times during the event; it does not lay out a test and specify a burden to satisfy that test. If Mercedes designs a system that allows their car to be underweight while on track (during the event) they are breaking the rule. It's no more clever or laudable than what VW did when they designed their cars to cheat on the emissions tests.

However, I see the flexible rear wings as different. Here, we have a rule (the wing must be immobile in relation to the car) that can't be literally true. As Ross Brawn once famously stated, everything on the car is a movable surface. So instead, we have a test that must be satisfied.

If what Red Bull have done is designed a wing that actually performs differently while being tested compared to how it performs on the race track, then I think they're cheating. But if (as I believe) they've designed a wing that performs the same in both situations and is able to satisfy the FIA tests while still delivering an advantage, then we have good engineering. Cheating isn't good engineering.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (7 wins, 21 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4352
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

Exediron wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:24 pm
However, I see the flexible rear wings as different. Here, we have a rule (the wing must be immobile in relation to the car) that can't be literally true. As Ross Brawn once famously stated, everything on the car is a movable surface. So instead, we have a test that must be satisfied.

If what Red Bull have done is designed a wing that actually performs differently while being tested compared to how it performs on the race track, then I think they're cheating. But if (as I believe) they've designed a wing that performs the same in both situations and is able to satisfy the FIA tests while still delivering an advantage, then we have good engineering. Cheating isn't good engineering.
To be clear, I wasn't positing this as a suggestion that this was an analogy to what Red Bull has done with it's rear wing but rather in response to some of the suggestions in this thread that if a regulation is stated that cannot be tested then it is a pointless regulation.

I think your final point pretty much hits the nail on the head, however I would be curious as to how you would feel about if the wing was designed to flex under vibration, but not while static (hypothetically, if the resonance of the car at speed causes the rigidity to be lost) - the wing would pass the test but the test conditions wouldn't match the conditions of the race track. It would not be the same as Ferrari interfering with the sensor (the equivalent in this situation would be if Red Bull was tampering with the scales)

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Exediron »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 pm
I think your final point pretty much hits the nail on the head, however I would be curious as to how you would feel about if the wing was designed to flex under vibration, but not while static (hypothetically, if the resonance of the car at speed causes the rigidity to be lost) - the wing would pass the test but the test conditions wouldn't match the conditions of the race track. It would not be the same as Ferrari interfering with the sensor (the equivalent in this situation would be if Red Bull was tampering with the scales)
I'd be inclined to say that was a failure on the part of the FIA to accurately reproduce race conditions in their test, and an example of clever grey-area engineering.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (7 wins, 21 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
EPROM
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:59 am
Location: USA - Maryland

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by EPROM »

Exediron wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:42 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 pm
I think your final point pretty much hits the nail on the head, however I would be curious as to how you would feel about if the wing was designed to flex under vibration, but not while static (hypothetically, if the resonance of the car at speed causes the rigidity to be lost) - the wing would pass the test but the test conditions wouldn't match the conditions of the race track. It would not be the same as Ferrari interfering with the sensor (the equivalent in this situation would be if Red Bull was tampering with the scales)
I'd be inclined to say that was a failure on the part of the FIA to accurately reproduce race conditions in their test, and an example of clever grey-area engineering.
That's exactly my point - I support clever (aka elegant) engineering, as it's the epitome of engineering practice. I want engineering developments to advance the science and application thereof to motor cars (the ones we drive).

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

.

It is NOT "clever", "grey", or elegant engineering. The "bendy" wing could be visibly seen (and recorded on video) as breaking the regulations.

People who try to argue otherwise are merely biased.

.

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by tootsie323 »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:18 am
.

It is NOT "clever", "grey", or elegant engineering. The "bendy" wing could be visibly seen (and recorded on video) as breaking the regulations.

People who try to argue otherwise are merely biased.

.
With something that is (presently) subjective there will be an element of bias in either argument.
Yes, it's visibly apparent that the wing is flexing more than it should but, until the FIA can quantify that with a sufficient, objective, method of measurement, they cannot prove beyond doubt that the wing has contravened the regulations.
In a sport where money talks and engineers seek to get every last millisecond out of the cars, teams are (and have) going to find ways around the regulations where they can get away with it.
On the one hand, it's unsporting. On the other hand, it's clever. One might even agree with both of those.
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

.

Rubbish - the "bendy" wings were visibly flexing and breaking the Regulations - a clear bit of cheating.

Calling it "clever" is merely exposing your bias.

This was all sorted out a decade ago with the flexing front wings.

.

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by tootsie323 »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:00 pm
.

Rubbish - the "bendy" wings were visibly flexing and breaking the Regulations - a clear bit of cheating.

Calling it "clever" is merely exposing your bias.

This was all sorted out a decade ago with the flexing front wings.

.
Visibly flexing? Yes. Breaking the regulations. Almost certainly.
Can the authorities measure this? That's the crux.
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

.

NO IT ISN'T !

This was sorted out a decade ago.

Stop being biased.

.

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by tootsie323 »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:13 pm
.

NO IT ISN'T !

This was sorted out a decade ago.

Stop being biased.

.
How am I being biased..?
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

tootsie323 wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:15 pm
Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:13 pm
.

NO IT ISN'T !

This was sorted out a decade ago.

Stop being biased.

.
How am I being biased..?
Apparently disagreeing with him means you're biased.

Waiting for people to come on here with hypotheticals in terms of how he is correct if the earth were flat :uhoh:

User avatar
EPROM
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:59 am
Location: USA - Maryland

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by EPROM »

I have a bias for clever engineering. Everything is an optimization problem - maximize the objective function within a set of clear constraints. It can't get more pure than that.

If you want subjectivity, perhaps figure skating or gymnastics is a better spectator sport...

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by tootsie323 »

A.J. wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
tootsie323 wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:15 pm
Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:13 pm
.

NO IT ISN'T !

This was sorted out a decade ago.

Stop being biased.

.
How am I being biased..?
Apparently disagreeing with him means you're biased.

Waiting for people to come on here with hypotheticals in terms of how he is correct if the earth were flat :uhoh:
Ironically, I'm not actually disagreeing. I'm pretty sure that the wing is flexing more than it should and that it is, as a result, contravening the regulations.
The point I am putting forward is that the authorities do not have a formally adopted method to measure this and quantify the discrepancy (and therefore ban the wing). If that is somehow exposing bias on my part then I fear my biggest problem is lack of comprehension.
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:30 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically, what if a dinosaur ate Hamilton?
a) as previously mentioned, the what if meme was not to say hypotheticals could not be discussed
b) This is not even the type of 'what if' scenario the what-if meme refers to, it refers to changing the outcome of eventualities, this is discussing the application of rules and laws. Obviously such a teleporter is impossible in the real world, but that is irrelevant, it's to see up a situation that everyone is probably in agreement on - that an underweight car is objectively illegal, but what would happen if a car could be legal for the test but illegal in operation in such a way that the illegal state can never be proven.
c) You know both of these points
d) You are avoiding the question.
One can discuss all the hypotheticals one wants, but the argument is a nonsensical what-if one at the end. If Mercedes developed this device, you can bet your bottom dollar they will use it (given that it's Merc, they will probably do it in 20 kilo buckets to give the illusion of close competition). A more relevant example is what BAR tried in the early 00s with their hidden fuel tank to make their cars run underweight - and they were found out and penalized as that wasn't clever engineering, it was a way to cheat.

As to whether the rule would be meaningless - yes, it entirely would be, as there is no way of confirming compliance. If you could break the laws of physics then the laws are not laws after all.

Seriously, what if RBR hypothetically developed a device that allowed dinosaurs to time-travel, and said dinosaur ate Hamilton...?? What do the rules say about that?

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

EPROM wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:21 pm
I have a bias for clever engineering. Everything is an optimization problem - maximize the objective function within a set of clear constraints. It can't get more pure than that.

If you want subjectivity, perhaps figure skating or gymnastics is a better spectator sport...
.

It is NOT "clever" - it is cheating. The Regulation is no flexing - NOT "pass the tests".

Trying to avoid the basics is not "pure".

.

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

[quote="tootsie323]
...Ironically, I'm not actually disagreeing. I'm pretty sure that the wing is flexing more than it should and that it is, as a result, contravening the regulations.
The point I am putting forward is that the authorities do not have a formally adopted method to measure this and quantify the discrepancy (and therefore ban the wing). If that is somehow exposing bias on my part then I fear my biggest problem is lack of comprehension.
[/quote]

.

HOW MANY TIMES ?

The Regulations are what matters ("the law") NOT the tests.

This was settled a decade ago.

.

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4352
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

A.J. wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:35 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:30 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically, what if a dinosaur ate Hamilton?
a) as previously mentioned, the what if meme was not to say hypotheticals could not be discussed
b) This is not even the type of 'what if' scenario the what-if meme refers to, it refers to changing the outcome of eventualities, this is discussing the application of rules and laws. Obviously such a teleporter is impossible in the real world, but that is irrelevant, it's to see up a situation that everyone is probably in agreement on - that an underweight car is objectively illegal, but what would happen if a car could be legal for the test but illegal in operation in such a way that the illegal state can never be proven.
c) You know both of these points
d) You are avoiding the question.
One can discuss all the hypotheticals one wants, but the argument is a nonsensical what-if one at the end. If Mercedes developed this device, you can bet your bottom dollar they will use it (given that it's Merc, they will probably do it in 20 kilo buckets to give the illusion of close competition). A more relevant example is what BAR tried in the early 00s with their hidden fuel tank to make their cars run underweight - and they were found out and penalized as that wasn't clever engineering, it was a way to cheat.

As to whether the rule would be meaningless - yes, it entirely would be, as there is no way of confirming compliance. If you could break the laws of physics then the laws are not laws after all.

Seriously, what if RBR hypothetically developed a device that allowed dinosaurs to time-travel, and said dinosaur ate Hamilton...?? What do the rules say about that?
I don't know where to begin with this, either you are being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand the point of discussion I am trying to raise. Other posters have understood the point without confusion, only you seem to be delving in this absurdism.

Either way it seems futile to continue to entertain your discussion, nevertheless, I will explain it one final time - but if you jump back in here with some ridiculous reference to the dinosaur meme - or something equivalent - I will not even attempt to respond further as you will have made your intentions perfectly apparent.

It was put forwards (when I looked back to check the quote, it was by you) that regulations that cannot be enforced by tests are meaningless.

To test this assertion, I took one of the rules I think that everyone would agree is black and white, with no grey area, the one of a minimum weight. Everyone can agree that that regulation is perfectly clear - the car must weigh no less than the weight specified in the regulations.

Therefore, what I was asking, is whether that rule would be meaningless if a team developed a way to have a car weigh less than that on track, but in such a way that it was always the correct weight when being scrutineered , in such a way that they weren't violating the testing procedure.

It could have been anything, the teleporter was just to give some mechanism that would fit the definition. A better example would be if the team developed carbon fibre that weighed half as much when it was travelling faster than 30kph. Either is not possible in real life - but it doesn't matter, the point isn't about the technology it's about exploring people's opinions about where they feel something stops being in the grey area and starts being cheating. The salient points are:

* Team develops way for car to be the correct weight when in the scrutineering environment, but 200kg lighter when on track.
* The system is perfect and will never fail any test.

Therefore:
* does this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless regulation?
* would this 'technology' be cheating?

The BAR device you mention before does not fall into this definition because when the car was scrutineered correctly, it did weigh below the minimum weight.

User avatar
Tufty
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Tufty »

I wonder how some of you would have reacted if Smokey Yunick was an F1 engineer. Never stuck to the spirit of the rules, only the letter. Probably would have made a fair lawyer with his ability to exploit loopholes. Very unsporting but also an absolute godsend if he was engineering your car.
Anyone in or near North Wales interested in an RC car racing tournament?

User avatar
EPROM
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:59 am
Location: USA - Maryland

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by EPROM »

Tufty wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:04 pm
I wonder how some of you would have reacted if Smokey was an F1 engineer. Never stuck to the spirit of the rules, only the letter. Probably would have made a fair lawyer with his ability to exploit loopholes. Very unsporting but also an absolute godsend if he was engineering your car.
I am not a fan of lawyers (subjective), but of engineers (objective).

Which (I think) brings us back to the salient point:

What is the nature of the sport? We have a constructor's championship and a driver's championship. Without deconflating the two aspects (difficult), how do we agree what is proper? Constructors are charged with improving the technology available to drivers. The drivers are charged with driving fast to within the limits of each track.

If you have some really good way to unambiguously determine what's proper in the cars themselves other than using mechanical (or electrical) measuring devices, please let me know. But otherwise, subjective measures are just that, subjective - meaning that each person has their own interpretation of the regulations. And that just encourages this kind of non-productive disagreement. I would argue that such support of subjectivity is a fool's errand. It would be better to argue for more objective measures (as I have here).

Whether subjectivity or objectivity is or is not the case in F1 today is not the issue - it's "what is the best approach to the sport?" If Greenman wants to argue the former (subjective), that's fine, but if that's the case, there's no reason for any further conversation - we choose to disagree on principle. I "reserve the right to get smarter" as a general approach. If you want to live in some decades old technology, perhaps you should follow some other sport that caters it's rules to that time period. If you want to follow a sport that continues to stretch the envelope and pursue the epitome of performance, you might consider joining my perspective. (I really think it's a much better place to be...)

I would argue that Greenman is the one who is "biased". I support the objective rules. Greenman supports - but so far refuses to cite - some unambiguously "correct" interpretation of subjective regulations.

Subjective measures are of course unavoidable (because objective specification down to the quantum physics level is nigh impossible), but to be avoided whenever practical. That's the underlying principle of the sport.

I applaud teams that creatively stretch the envelope but stay objectively within it. That behavior advances the state of the art. Should their approach be judged as not properly advancing the sport (e.g., invoking onerous costs for some strange benefit (DAS might be so judged), then the rules making committee can have as it, but the first principle should be to allow whatever is not measurably prohibited. That advances technology.

The contrary view is a Luddite view - designed to eschew technological advances. The F1 rules making committee is not God (holding eternal insight); the teams provide the seminal technological advances.

Greenman and I evidently cannot be further in philosophy from each other. I am an engineer, and that's how I view the world - I want to make it better.

But I expect another round of "but that's cheating".

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4352
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

Luddites were people who protested against the mass adoption of machinery putting them out of work during the industrial revolution, a time when being a person in poverty was among the worst in history.

The fact the word has gone on to be a pejorative says more about the fact that history is written by the victors (ie, those who profited and became insanely rich and powerful as a consequence) and the way in which history is taught. Obviously, advancing the economic output of the British industrial machine did wonders for the country at a macroscopic level, not so much if you were one of thousands of manual workers put out of work and left destitute or imprisoned in a workhouse.

It has very little to do with wanting to halt technological progress, that is just how it was spun, and how the story then went on to be told. And that's how the story is always spun - groups will protest automation taking their jobs, and they will be accused of wanting to stop technological progress, when they don't care about the "progress" they just don't want to be left on the street.

It certainly has nothing to do with debating the nuance of the Formula 1 technical regulations. And while you are certainly applying a rigorous objective philosophy to the debate, and your position is certainly a valid one to hold, it is far from being the only objective philosophy on how the technical regulations should be enforced. For starters, even the very concept of mathematics at an abstract level cannot be proven to be completely consistent (and this - rather ironically - has been proven) - so the notion that there is one true objective philosophy regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the Formula 1 technical regulations is certainly an impossibility, even if it was to be adjudicated by a being of perfect logic, rather than the FIA.

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

EPROM wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:25 pm


.... Greenman and I evidently cannot be further in philosophy from each other. I am an engineer, and that's how I view the world - I want to make it better.

But I expect another round of "but that's cheating".
It is you that arbitrarily calling the Regulations "subjective" - it's a joke.

The Regulations say that the rear wing should not flex - the Red Bull wing did flex at speed - hence it broke the Regulations - very simple, and an engineer should easily understand that. Red Bull know, from a decade ago, that the Regulations are "the law" - they have no excuse for creating a structure that knowingly broke the regulations. Would you knowingly design something that broke the law (without a legally acceptable reason) ?

.

User avatar
Tufty
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Tufty »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:54 pm
EPROM wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:25 pm


.... Greenman and I evidently cannot be further in philosophy from each other. I am an engineer, and that's how I view the world - I want to make it better.

But I expect another round of "but that's cheating".
It is you that arbitrarily calling the Regulations "subjective" - it's a joke.

The Regulations say that the rear wing should not flex - the Red Bull wing did flex at speed - hence it broke the Regulations - very simple, and an engineer should easily understand that. Red Bull know, from a decade ago, that the Regulations are "the law" - they have no excuse for creating a structure that knowingly broke the regulations. Would you knowingly design something that broke the law (without a legally acceptable reason) ?

.
Zero flex is a physical impossibility. The regulations are asking for either a physical impossibility, or an implied tolerance exists that isn't explicitly stated. Meaning that due to the poorly written quality of the rule, there are multiple theoretically valid interpretations. The new testing method has written out those grey areas, but that grey areas existed at all made the rule accidentally subjective.
Anyone in or near North Wales interested in an RC car racing tournament?

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Exediron »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:54 pm
EPROM wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:25 pm


.... Greenman and I evidently cannot be further in philosophy from each other. I am an engineer, and that's how I view the world - I want to make it better.

But I expect another round of "but that's cheating".
It is you that arbitrarily calling the Regulations "subjective" - it's a joke.

The Regulations say that the rear wing should not flex - the Red Bull wing did flex at speed - hence it broke the Regulations - very simple, and an engineer should easily understand that. Red Bull know, from a decade ago, that the Regulations are "the law" - they have no excuse for creating a structure that knowingly broke the regulations. Would you knowingly design something that broke the law (without a legally acceptable reason) ?
I'm going to take a stab at explaining the fundamental flaw with your argument, although I fully expect to be belligerently called biased.

Your argument seems to revolve around the concept that there is a clearly defined rule at play (bodywork cannot flex at speed) which the teams (or one team in particular) are violating in a way that can be observed but not proved. As I intend to demonstrate, this is false for multiple reasons.

1) What is the actual rule on bodywork flexing?

There are two entries in the FIA rulebook that deal with the issue of flexibly aerodynamic devices: one to define what is and is not allowed, and another to set out the tests to measure it.

Section 3.8 -- Aerodynamic influence (click to show)

I've colored the relevant paragraph in blue.

Now, here we encounter the first problem with your line of argument. The rule as literally stated -- 'any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car' -- is impossible. As famously stated by Ross Brawn back in the 2000s, every part of the car is constantly moving and flexing in relation to every other part of the car. Watch a slow motion replay of an F1 car taking a turn, and the whole thing is bending and torquing as it travels across the track.

To repeat for emphasis: It is impossible to enforce the letter of this rule literally. Every car on the grid would be disqualified.

Therefore, the FIA needs a prescribed test to determine if a part of bodywork falls within acceptable boundaries of flexibility. Conveniently enough, that's what the very next section deals with -- in great detail.

2) How is it policed?

Section 3.9 -- Bodywork flexibility (click to show)

Again, I've colored the part actually dealing with the rear wing in blue.

Here we have the objective test. The FIA, recognizing that the letter of the rule is impossible to enforce without disqualifying the entire grid, has outlined a test to determine legality.

This test -- and this test alone -- is what determines if a car is legal. A part that is designed to fairly satisfy the requirements of this test is legal. A part that somehow contravenes one of the elements of the test is illegal.

Red Bull has designed a wing that does not deflect beyond the set amount when the test force is applied to it. That is what Red Bull is required to do by the regulations. If the FIA believes the Red Bull wing behaves in a manner on track that they do not believe satisfies the spirit of the rules (as it clearly does) it is up to the FIA to create a test that will limit its ability to behave in that manner.

Hopefully, this explains the difference between the stated objective of the rules (the aerodynamic surfaces must remain rigidly fixed in relation to the car) and the test that determines if said aerodynamic surfaces fall within the allowable range. Red Bull's wing clearly does flex -- as does every other wing on the grid. But if it can pass the tests, it is legal.

For now.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (7 wins, 21 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

Greenman
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Greenman »

.

Silly. Whilst you are right about Absolute rigidity, you are extending that into total silliness to try to claim visually extreme flexibility is somehow acceptable.

And, for the countless time, the Regulations are "the law", not the tests, this was established a decade ago. What part of that do you not understand ?

.

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Exediron »

Greenman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:16 pm
Silly. Whilst you are right about Absolute rigidity, you are extending that into total silliness to try to claim visually extreme flexibility is somehow acceptable.

And, for the countless time, the Regulations are "the law", not the tests, this was established a decade ago. What part of that do you not understand ?
To be honest, I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated with your style of debate.

'Visually extreme' flexibility is wholly meaningless. That wing could droop like it was made of rubber if it somehow passed the FIA-mandated tests.

As for your second paragraph, that's actually nonsense. I just quoted the technical regulations for the 2021 season. The tests are an article of those same regulations. They are indeed the law. The FIA has the right to introduce new tests (as it says in the regulations), but under no conditions will an eye test be the test of the law.

It is clear that the Red Bull wing was not doing what the spirit of the regulations wants it to do. But what you don't seem to understand is that there are two separate things here: what the regulations want, and what the regulations actually say. The second one determines what gets to race on track.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (7 wins, 21 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
Mod Aqua
Site Admin
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:10 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by Mod Aqua »

We are putting a stop to the incessant accusations of bias. Technically everyone is 'biased' in some form of another, but simply having a different interpretation of how the regulations should be enforced is NOT being 'biased'

Shouting down anyone who disagrees with you is not constructive to the thread and if it continues, it will not be tolerated.

A.J.
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am

Re: Red Bull's Bendy Rear Wing (split from FIA and Mercedes)

Post by A.J. »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:35 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:42 pm
A.J. wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:30 pm
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Hypothetically, if Mercedes invented a teleporter that teleported 200kg of ballast onto their car when it entered the pitlane and 200kg off of the car when it left the pitlane - and there was no way to test the car for if it had had ballast teleported on and off - would this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless rule?

The tests would always be passed, there would be no way of checking that the car was in breach of the rules when on the track, but it would unambiguously be underweight when on the track and gaining an advantage because of it.
Hypothetically, what if a dinosaur ate Hamilton?
a) as previously mentioned, the what if meme was not to say hypotheticals could not be discussed
b) This is not even the type of 'what if' scenario the what-if meme refers to, it refers to changing the outcome of eventualities, this is discussing the application of rules and laws. Obviously such a teleporter is impossible in the real world, but that is irrelevant, it's to see up a situation that everyone is probably in agreement on - that an underweight car is objectively illegal, but what would happen if a car could be legal for the test but illegal in operation in such a way that the illegal state can never be proven.
c) You know both of these points
d) You are avoiding the question.
One can discuss all the hypotheticals one wants, but the argument is a nonsensical what-if one at the end. If Mercedes developed this device, you can bet your bottom dollar they will use it (given that it's Merc, they will probably do it in 20 kilo buckets to give the illusion of close competition). A more relevant example is what BAR tried in the early 00s with their hidden fuel tank to make their cars run underweight - and they were found out and penalized as that wasn't clever engineering, it was a way to cheat.

As to whether the rule would be meaningless - yes, it entirely would be, as there is no way of confirming compliance. If you could break the laws of physics then the laws are not laws after all.

Seriously, what if RBR hypothetically developed a device that allowed dinosaurs to time-travel, and said dinosaur ate Hamilton...?? What do the rules say about that?
I don't know where to begin with this, either you are being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand the point of discussion I am trying to raise. Other posters have understood the point without confusion, only you seem to be delving in this absurdism.
You can begin with getting rid of this weird God-complex you seem to have. You raise hypotheticals, but when someone else does it it's apparently wrong - you somehow continue to believe that your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking, and I don't really understand why.
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
Either way it seems futile to continue to entertain your discussion, nevertheless, I will explain it one final time - but if you jump back in here with some ridiculous reference to the dinosaur meme - or something equivalent - I will not even attempt to respond further as you will have made your intentions perfectly apparent.
So let me get this straight - the person creating hypotheticals about teleportation devices is accusing someone else of indulging in absurdism, and then trying to climb the high horse. Pot, meet the kettle.

Respond or not, your intentions on this are also perfectly transparent (seeing as I have not seen a single post from you ever criticizing anyone fawning over Hamilton/Mercedes).

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
It was put forwards (when I looked back to check the quote, it was by you) that regulations that cannot be enforced by tests are meaningless.

To test this assertion, I took one of the rules I think that everyone would agree is black and white, with no grey area, the one of a minimum weight. Everyone can agree that that regulation is perfectly clear - the car must weigh no less than the weight specified in the regulations.

Therefore, what I was asking, is whether that rule would be meaningless if a team developed a way to have a car weigh less than that on track, but in such a way that it was always the correct weight when being scrutineered , in such a way that they weren't violating the testing procedure.
And I have answered this directly - perhaps you missed it in my last post. My stand on this is entirely consistent, and I am not trying to create absurd what-if scenarios simply because of which team/driver I support.
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:05 pm
It could have been anything, the teleporter was just to give some mechanism that would fit the definition. A better example would be if the team developed carbon fibre that weighed half as much when it was travelling faster than 30kph. Either is not possible in real life - but it doesn't matter, the point isn't about the technology it's about exploring people's opinions about where they feel something stops being in the grey area and starts being cheating. The salient points are:

* Team develops way for car to be the correct weight when in the scrutineering environment, but 200kg lighter when on track.
* The system is perfect and will never fail any test.

Therefore:
* does this make the minimum weight rule a meaningless regulation?
* would this 'technology' be cheating?
As said, I have answered this already in my previous post.

"As to whether the rule would be meaningless - yes, it entirely would be, as there is no way of confirming compliance. If you could break the laws of physics then the laws are not laws after all."

Any rule that cannot be tested for is largely meaningless. At best it can be de jure, but not de facto. My stance on this is clear and consistent, and I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or trying to create a strawman.

Post Reply