Formula 1 2024 – WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS

I think a lot of the problem is that they are trying to find someone with the same driving style/car preference as Verstappen

The issue is that Verstappen has incredible reflexes and can cope with a very nervous rear end on the car. Red Bull didn’t develop the car to suit Verstappen in the way that a lot of people seem to believe, they just developed the car to be fast, but that made the rear end nervous and only Verstappen has been able to drive it on the very limit.

However, in trying to get more downforce out of the car, they seem to have gone too far (maybe like Merc did a couple of years back) and it made the car unbalanced and impossible to drive. Last weekend they tried some new things and it was improved on Friday, but then on Saturday they changed the setup on Verstappen’s car, but not Perez’s. That was a mistake and Verstappen just couldn’t get any pace out of it.

Nothing to see here:

Red Bull – never!   [insert shocked face!]

Are they pissed because their Aero God Newey missed the wing flex trick?

Or did he know it but just didn’t say anything?!

(Seeing as he possibly stopped working for them some time ago)

the-muffin-manFull Member
Red Bull – never!   [insert shocked face!]

Are they pissed because their Aero God Newey missed the wing flex trick?

It’s baffling to me that it’s been deemed legal given what other teams have had to change in the past.

I don’t know if anybody remembers the Red Bull rear wing where the entire assembly kind-of tilted backwards. Not so different and they had to change it despite it passing the flex tests (iirc).

Also as I mentioned Mclaren’s wing also appears to contravene the rule stating that the AoA of the DRS flap must not change except by the DRS mechanism activating.

But hey ho, it wouldn’t be F1 if such things were ruled on consistently. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It will be legal this season. I bet it isn’t legal next season.

Much like Mercedes DAS system.

And I think Red Bull’s issues go a bit deeper than a bit of wing flex.

Or he did he know it but just didn’t say anything?!

He’s not infallible. He missed the double-diffuser trick which three other teams spotted, probably the biggest example.

He’s not infallible. He missed the double-diffuser trick which three other teams spotted, probably the biggest example.

I think the other teams understood the double diffuser, but didn’t believe it would be legal. As I recall, it came down to the interpretation of the difference between a “hole” and a “slot”. Slots, used to channel airflow between different elements of an aerodynamic device, were illegal. However, holes in the bodywork were legal as long as you could look down vertically and see the ground (or something like that.) So, the Brawn diffuser was legal because it had holes rather than slots, even though the holes functioned as slots.

I think the other teams understood the double diffuser, but didn’t believe it would be legal.

The story is that before the regs were signed off Brawn pretty much said “these rules allow you to do THIS, is that what you want?” and the other teams still let them through. So then Brawn did the thing he’d told them was allowed, and it was quick, then the other teams were suddenly questioning if it was legal.

lol verstappen got sentenced to do “accomplish some work of public interest” for swearing in the press session

Also Mclaren have now been asked to modify their rear wing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The FIA aren’t fit for purpose – yesterday they said it was fine, now they say it isn’t.

And now this – petty power-tripping!…

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1s-verstappen-swearing-punishment-is-a-farcical-overreaction/

…they went round lamping one-another back in the 70’s! 🙂

Only in F1, can a legality judgement change within 24 hours!

Only in F1, can a legality judgement change within 24 hours!

McLaren have offered to “proactively modify” their rear wing. The legality judgement hasn’t changed, the wing will change.

Listening to coverage on R5 it was said that that wing wouldn’t be used this weekend anyway as it’s only useful on high speed tracks. So COTA would have been the next possible outing.

thols2

McLaren have offered to “proactively modify” their rear wing. The legality judgement hasn’t changed, the wing will change.

Not according to AMuS/Tobi Gruner.

https://x.com/tgruener/status/1837087623434903593

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:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mclaren-asked-by-fia-to-modify-rear-wing-after-mini-drs-controversy/10656067/

and this

Bending the the F1 rules? The story behind McLaren’s flexible rear wing

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.

if the engineer finds something that isn’t being tested, then it cannot be illegal

Except that’s completely and utterly untrue.

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.

Its a must win race for Lando today if he wants to challenge for the championship