The legality hasn't changed or they would be disqualified and lose points from the races they used it at. They have voluntarily agreed not to do it again.
thols2
Full Member
The legality hasn’t changed or they would be disqualified and lose points from the races they used it at. They have voluntarily agreed not to do it again.
The rule they were violating already existed. The previous ruling that the wing was legal was incorrect.
That they weren't DQ'd from the previous races proves nothing except the inadequacy/inconsistency of the FIA.
The rule they were violating already existed. The previous ruling that the wing was legal was incorrect.
That they weren’t DQ’d from the previous races proves nothing except the inadequacy/inconsistency of the FIA.
It passed the load tests so it's legal. McLaren voluntarily agreed to modify it for the future.
Stuff like this is impossible to police, the teams always find ways to evade the intent of the rules. Nobody wants a championship decided in a courtroom so stuff like this is sorted out by a backroom deal. Best thing for the sport.
thols2
It passed the load tests so it’s legal. McLaren voluntarily agreed to modify it for the future.
No I take your point, it passed scrutineering on that date but I'd say that was because it being tested inadequately. From now on it will be monitored more thoroughly and won't pass.
The wing never met the letter of the rules though, that's what I meant by 'illegal'.
And the change is only voluntary in as much that they are still free to run it if they want, but will be disqualified.
The wing did meet the letter of the rules and it passed the test designed to ensure it did. It almost certainly ignores the spirit of the rules, but there ain’t no test for that. It’s legal by the letter and affirmed by the test.
1) The letter of the law, the spirit of the law, the intent of the law are all open to interpretation.
2) The test is a measurable, repeatable exercise that determines if a part is legal.
3) The trouble is that not all tests can check all aspects of the law so if the engineer finds something that isn't being tested, then it cannot be illegal and can therefore be exploited.
Once the team does something like the flexi-wing to exploit point 3 the law makers either change point 1, the law, or improve point 2, the test, and the engineers go off to find a new point3, the loophole.
those saying it's legal need to read this:
and this
Neither of those links say it wasnt legal (or was legal)
Its just in the grey area between them, which is what F1 has always been about.
The FIA are now just clarifying the rules, removing some of the grey area and McLaren (and others) will be making modifications ahead of using that type of wing again.
Anyway...Lando & Max on the front row for tomorrow. Could get spicy again....
Colapinto making himself look very handy again. 0.01s away from embarrassing his teammate
Lewis for the win then?
Colapinto making himself look very handy again. 0.01s away from embarrassing his teammate
Handy for James Vowels as negotiations for 2026 line-up goes.
What a superb job Nico Hulkenberg is doing right now. Obviously the car is much improved this year but still, that was epic.
those saying it’s legal need to read this:
An article that states “there are no doubts that the wing fully complies with the current regulations, and passes all the static tests”?
if the engineer finds something that isn’t being tested, then it cannot be illegal
Except that’s completely and utterly untrue.
Bez
An article that states “there are no doubts that the wing fully complies with the current regulations, and passes all the static tests”?
Yes, read the rest of the article, autosport believe it passes the regulations but not the technical directive regarding excessive flex or movement outside the plane of the static load tests.
[i]if the engineer finds something that isn’t being tested, then it cannot be illegal
Except that’s completely and utterly untrue.[i/]
But if the engineer can find something that does pass all legal tests it is legal. Hmmm...
It is a bit like the British Cycling 'rule' that states the basic coaching course only qualifies you to coach on trails where "the route is obvious and there are no drops more than axle height" or something similar. It is therefore not against their rules to coach someone to ride along a plank 10m in the air. Obviously not what they meant but still within their rules.
or the London Underground rule that you are allowed to break and most people do break every day "Dogs must be carried on escalators" I don't have a dog but happily use the escalators without carrying one.
Right, but the point is that TfL don’t have a dog-detection machine to test with, and they don’t test by putting a scrutineer at the bottom of every elevator in every station checking that everyone is carrying a dog. So if one of the other people using the tube dobbed you in and said you’d been using the escalators without a dog, then TfL would look at the CCTV recordings and see that indeed you hadn’t been carrying a dog at all this year. At which point they might decide they should take action against you for breaking the rule.
But first they’d need to hear your argument about how you’d interpreted the wording of the sign, and how you thought everyone else was being a bit daft to be lugging dogs around when you’d found an alternative and completely defensible meaning of that sentence.
No. Using the TfL example above, the rule/law can be tested and proven in multiple ways. Under F1 rules, there’s a rule which is tested using a very specific means. As such it’s much more akin to drink driving and a breathalyser. There’s a law regarding drink driving, but the law is enforced by a specific test. Pass the test, you didn’t break the law even through you might knowingly have done something to obfuscate the results of the test.
Colapinto making himself look very handy again. 0.01s away from embarrassing his teammate
And Albon was the only one with the upgraded car as well.
Quite! Colapinto has really shone, shame there’s not really a seat for him next year
It sounds like Vowels is trying to loan him out to Sauber for a year or two. As much as I like Bottas and Ricciardo, I think they should both be dropped to make way for Lawson and Colapinto.
I think they should both be dropped to make way for Lawson and Colapinto.
And Bearman at the very least. There are too many 'place holder' drivers on the grid. It could do with a shake up
Well Bearman definitely has a seat for next year and after quali Ricciardo had the air of a man who'd been told what was needed to keep his seat and hadn't delivered so I expect Lawson to be confirmed before Austin. Colapinto is trickier - Audi is his best option but I think they will be looking for someone who can give accurate feedback on the car, so might go for someone (Bottas?) with a bit more experience in F1.
Audi have already signed Hulk for experience.
Bortoleto was the name being touted for the second Audi seat.
I agree. I would still want bumpers if I was lando. Verstappen causing an incident leaving him out of the point even if it results in no points for max would be a win for him.
Edit - Doh didn't realise race had started! I'll now be avoiding this thread until after the C4 highlights
I'm not as up on tactics as some on here, but seemed to me like McLaren missed a trick not pitting Piastri earlier to give a chance of going for MV and second place?
Very annoying Danny Ric at the end as well!?
Lando delivered, but was lucky not to crash on several occasions.
McLaren were keeping Oscar out as long as possible, to cover off the safety car risk.
(if there had been one Oscar would have pitted and exited ahead of Max, and could have backed him up at the restart to help out Lando)
I'm sure they worked out, that without a SC Max was out of range. 3rd was the best he could achieve under normal racing, so it was worth the gamble.
I don't think Audi or Haas are interested in Colapinto, unfortunately, however Audi might change their mind of he keeps this up. That said, is he keeps outperforming Albon then I'd be feeling a bit twitchy if I was him!
Possibly Danny Riciardo’s last F1 race - if you were given the chance to have your last lap be an all out effort for the fastest lap - I think you’d take it too.
I’ve never stopped watching F1 even when it’s got a bit dull but I’m more excited about it now than I have been for years
Yep 2016 and 2021 are probably the most recent ones.
Slightly gutted my cheap sky deal ended. I’m actually finding myself looking forwards to the highlights, which hasn’t happened for ages.
As much as I want the close championship, I do think watching the onboard today, looking down the nose of Landos car, the front wing flex is looking very suspect.
McLaren really need to keep that livery…
Great drive from Colapinto again.
Have to say it leaves a bad taste in the mouth when Red Bull have the luxury of a second team running way out of the points so they can deploy a car for free to take a point away from their competition. (I mean, I don’t blame them for doing it—I just think owning two teams, or any on-track collaboration between teams, shouldn’t be allowed.)
I thought the extra point for fastest lap was restricted to top ten finishers only. I guess that's another rule change I missed...
I thought the extra point for fastest lap was restricted to top ten finishers only. I guess that’s another rule change I missed…
It is. If someone outside the top ten scores fastest lap, no points are awarded for fastest lap. Ricciardo prevented Norris from scoring one point, he didn't score any points for himself.
At the end of the season that fastest lap point is only significant if Lando misses out by 8 points - that's the 7 that he gave back to Piastri and this potential parting gift from Danny Ric.
Sad to see the Honey Badger looking so broken up at the end of the race - hope he goes on to find success in some other series, and I think he might make a decent pundit too.
At the end of the season that fastest lap point is only significant if Lando misses out by 8 points – that’s the 7 that he gave back to Piastri and this potential parting gift from Danny Ric.
theres another 3 points from where they didn’t swap the drivers in monza too.
Honestly, I thought that was pretty much the best response to the FIA trying to slap his wrist.
I'd love to see a show of solidarity from all the drivers & team principals where they all swear at the start of every response in an FIA press conference.
aw, Daddy says I’m not allowed to swear, I’m LEAVING wah sulk wah ? (streaming eyes emoji)
Does anyone know what he said in the first place for the FIA to get so upset?
[i]Does anyone know what he said in the first place for the FIA to get so upset?[i/i]
IO think he said ***** ** * * **********!
At the end of the season that fastest lap point is only significant if Lando misses out by 8 points
If he’s 8 points adrift then it makes no difference at all, but I’d say it’s pretty significant if they’re tied on points and Max has more wins, or Lando is one point behind with more wins…
Honestly, I thought that was pretty much the best response to the FIA trying to slap his wrist.
I thought it was petty, immature and contemptible. He is earning millions living a very comfortable lifestyle because of the TV coverage his chosen branch of motorsport gets. Don’t screw up the press conference by swearing. Don’t give one word answers to the questions when the FIA tell you off. He is trying to make out that’s it’s ok in other sports - I can’t think of many where swearing in the press conference would be normal. He wasn’t sanctioned for his team radio in immediate response to an incident - he was swearing about his car/team. Even without the FIA sanctioning him I’d expect Horner to have been having a strong word about how a team works. However he’s clearly pissed off and that means the FIA have found a sanction that works! A fine would have been trivial to him.
