The suspected Red Bull/Ferrari trick being outlawed in F1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2022
- This video is brought to you by Smartsheet. Achieving a podium starts long before the race. Discover the off-track heroes using Smartsheet to power on-track success at McLaren: bit.ly/3I0WJLE
The designs of the title-challenging Red Bull and Ferrari Formula 1 cars have been thrown under the spotlight by a planned clampdown from the FIA.
In the governing body’s efforts to control the worst of the porpoising and bottoming out suffered by F1 2022’s low, stiff, ground-effect cars, it has stumbled onto something unexpected.
The FIA has learned that some unnamed teams - which we believe to be Red Bull and Ferrari - have built their cars with an aggressive interpretation of rules designed to limit the flexibility of key components underneath.
Like so many arcane F1 technical disputes this case boils down to the rules as written versus the rules as intended. And if some paddock insiders are to be believed, the outcome could have a significant impact on the performance of 2022’s two fastest cars.
#F1 #Ferrari #RedBull
Subscribe: the-race.com/youtube_subscribe
Website: the-race.com/
Twitter: @wearetherace
Instagram: @wearetherace
Facebook: / wearetherace
Podcasts: the-race.com/podcasts
Thanks for watching - please like, share and comment, please also hit subscribe to show your support so we'll keep doing what we're doing.
www.the-race.com
/ wearetherace - กีฬา
This video is brought to you by Smartsheet. Achieving a podium starts long before the race. Discover the off-track heroes using Smartsheet to power on-track success at McLaren: bit.ly/3I0WJLE
I am surprised the video isn't brought to you by Toto Wolff - it sounds very much like his talking points.
And McLaren Race Team. Hehe.
If “no part of the plank should deflect more than 2mm” why didn’t FIA just write it that way in the regulations?
Because ive come to the conclusion the fia loves the idea of teams taking advantage of rules and letting them decide. Aka the no tire may cross the pit exit line… well define cross
Great question
It's a balancing act between strict regulations and allowing teams to have their own interpretations. Regulation too strict? Might as well have a spec-series where every car is identical.
They love being ambiguous, it allows them to shift the goal post when it suits them.
Ok he pulls up
Honestly, if allowing floor flexibility reduces porpoising that much, they should just let all the teams do it. Outlawing it seems counterproductive
Problem is Red Bull and Ferrari, can argue then that FIA just showed their advantage and secret to all the other teams. So they will outlaw it rather, so they not to blame for that.
First Time?
Yep my thoughts exactly…
Even more, because this investigation started, in theory, to find ways to avoid porpoising. But seems like Mercedes is holding the lines on the FIA puppets.
@@victorgraca9267 It is the same argument levelled at Merc with DAS - the difference then was DAS was a genuinely legal exploitation of the rules, whereas the plank issue is illegal - but just a clever adaptation by a small number of teams.
Perhaps fixing this one will bring the pack closer together. Which could make the second half of the season interesting. And oddly as some teams have more or less blown their R&D budgets, perhaps could end up a bit fun for the racing community.
Bending the rules without breaking them has always been part of F1, and other sports.
Unless merc does it first
Talk to the Nascar scrutneers who busted Smokey Yunick. They found 10 violations of the rules, one violation was, iirc, an oversized fuel tank. The tank had been drained. Told of the 10 violations, he got behind the wheel, started the car and said " make that 11". He was using the roll cage as a fuel bladder.
… and the FIA making changes to the rules has also always been a part of F1.
They should keep the same view on the flexibility as they did with Mercs DAS system which was fully legal compared to the plank flexibility
Until you get caught
If flexing the rear of the floor helps with the porpoising or bouncing, wouldn't it make more sense to allow it?
It would make sense, except Mercedes didn't think of it.
To allow flexing of the floor would be a huge rule change. Aren't you all against mid season rule changes?
@@alanjm1234 no... as long as rules apply to all equally its fine .. otherwise, they should have forced Mercedes to remove the DAS system mid-season, and they didn't...
Not when it helps Ferrari, u know how FIA kiss Mercedes filthy ass
They should allow it. Faster cars and more comfortable, safer ride for the drivers.
***Stop porpoising in its tracks using this one weird trick!! The FIA Hates IT!!!***
*pats underfloor* I can get so many porpoises in this baby
*Mercedes hates it and so is the FIA
😂😂😂😂😂
What did the FIA see when they looked closely at this photo that caused them to divorce their rule?
umm u seen the ferrari on a straight?
Double diffusers, DAS, blown diffusers, active suspension, mass dampers... We've been here before.
The teams who don't have the innovative design complain that it's *obviously* against the regulations whilst secretly kicking themselves for not coming up with it themselves.
Yes, we've been here before. Only difference is, most of these (if not all) were outlawed/banned for the NEXT season. Making changes in the regs for the CURRENT season is just unfair.
@@ashishagrawal1406 true
I wouldn’t say this falls under any of the same innovations you’ve mentioned.
The floor and plank have always been under strict regulations to not flex the plank should be solid and only used to determine ride height
@@ashishagrawal1406 Even Mercedes used that highly unusual push-pull steering system to change suspension setup on the fly which was never intended, but was allowed to keep in place till the end of the season. The story is clear here. If Merc comes up with a solution, it's celebrated. If others come up with the solution, it's punished
@@ashishagrawal1406 absolutely, and the flexy floor limit bouncing, but the FIA wants them gone THIS SEASON. It is mad, it's like the FIA purposefully wrote a loophole in the regs, and when that loophole is exploited in order to make the cars safer, the FIA throws a hissy fit.
So in stead of giving the bouncing teams the chance to solve that issue, they force the teams that have that under control to start bouncing?
Yea, at the behest of Toto and Co. FIA is beholden to Merc
Unless, your car is violating the reg to stop the porpoising. What don’t folks understand about a regulation plank? It’s pretty damn obvious why it’s there, don’t even have to look up an acronym? I’m guessing you learned everything you know about F1 from DTS, right?
Everyone who is SHOCKED about this turn of events should remember the great wing flexing drama of last year. Similar issue here, not surprising that the FIA is getting involved...
All the wings flex
yet again ferrari exploit the rules and be told off, only this time red bull are doing the same as them
So it’s safe, reduces porpoising and improved performance? Better outlaw it.
Yep, mind boggling.
Yeah because Mercedes didn't come up with it
Imagine how Merc fans felt when the FIA banned DAS, a safe way of making the car more agile in the corners and faster on the straights - Reducing fuel usage, making the car more efficient and using its rubber more effectively.
Swings and roundabouts pal.
@@kannamustafa6043 Yeah, that's why the FIA decided to outlaw last years suspension system for this season, something Mercedes has pioneered for many years. Last years suspension rules would've made these cars safe to drive, minimal porpoising and improved performance. So your adorable argument fails right there.
And if the FIA wanted of favor Mercedes so bad, Abu Dhabi wouldn't have happened last year.
DAS, active suspension, etc
Newey is right though. If the intent of a rule is to prevent X, it should say that the teams can’t do X.
this was explicitly the subject of conversations. THEY ALL KNEW the rules. Ferrari and Red Bull cheated
@@punishunext5148 the way Horner talk about the topic sound fishy lol
@@punishunext5148 so, its the rules themselves that dont know the rules?😂
@@fgsaramago sounds like the British government
@@punishunext5148 dummy
I agree with RB and Newey in particular about this. It’s the FIAs job to lay out clear guidelines and the teams job to exploit them to their advantage within those guidelines. Merc don’t like it because they didn’t think of it first. It’s that simple.
Just like RBR and then complaining about DAS then….!
@@hiiimralph But they could use that for the rest of the season though. And that was also way more sketchy since it changed the entire geometry of the suspension with driver input.
@@PbPomper DAS was effectively submitted for review, the FIA couldn't exactly miss it when shown the car for testing. If the FIA knew teams were doing this with the plank at the start they would have stopped it there and then.
@@hiiimralph Correct.
If the porpoising is causing genuine harm to the drivers (like with Hamilton's back) and this plank interpretation helps fix it, shouldn't we want it to stay "legal"?
I would hate if it became illegal and we had 4 more drivers with major back problems.
Yeah, I feel like I'm missing something here aswell.
They can just raise their cars and take a performance hit. Isn't that what you people have been saying about the teams who built LEGAL CARS?
@@alanjm1234 "You people?" I'm a McLaren fan haha
I just think we should choose the path that speeds everyone up rather than slows everyone down.
@@abigaillilac1370 if you cannot speed up yours, you must slow down the competitors. That's rule no 1, ask toto or christian
It was NOT causing harm. No driver has had major back problems - or even minor ones. A bit of an ache and that was it. By the standards being implied every rally driver should be in traction or a paraplegic. It was all part of a whine, by certain teams, in the hope of a regulation change.
So there are 2 solutions:
1- The FIA can make sure the floors aren't flexing above 2mm
2- Let all teams exploit this flexi floor trick. Either way the ones who were gaining an advantage of this gray area will no longer have an advantage
.
3) Let them be this season, just like FIA let Merc be with DAS in 2020.
@@megalamanooblol that's just option 2 if FIA doesn't do anything Mercedes will exploit the same thing this year. the FIA is not helping Mercedes whether you liked it or not if redbull did everything according to the rules there would be no FIA intervention
@@addicted2speedtv345 anyone who claims the FIA are biased to Mercedes has a very short memory
@@megalamanooblol Especially given the safety implications. Updating movable aero rules on the fly is just part of the sport, but care needs to be taken when porpoising is doing this much damage to drivers. If I were them, I'd have the new TD take effect for the next season while eliminating the suspension simplifications introduced this year.
So they want to limit porpoising, but the only thing that seems to be coming from this is limiting the fix by the two teams that have mitigated the issue. Makes sense.
Ferrari have not fixed the issue though
FIa being FIA, they never rest when it comes to undermine the sport. Unironically, they aim at the only two teams that have porpoising under control.
¿? Ferrari might be the team with the worst porpoising effect as of today, considering that Mercedes' upgrades reduced porpoising significantly in Silverstone.
red bull have porpoising. the porpoising they face is of lower amplitude and higher frequency.
if u look at the porpoising graphs of silverstone and baralona, merc have l]very little if at all.
also if the 2 teams that have no porpoising have mitigated it by bending the rules, they deserve to penalised.
you know why senna died? floor flexed so much downforce went to zero mid corner. theres a reason please you thy smooth brain
Im just a novice technically in regards to engineering, "i'm just a fan" but, I started seriously watching F1 in 1995, and it always seems to be that the FIA's job has been more about making difficult rules for teams to follow, than making actual innovations and contributions to the sport. They put out these new regulations and demands, but have not even tested whether in practice these demands are attainable, or realistic, and when the teams find out whether the FIA's goals are reachable or not, they are forced to make there own changes to comply, and then get penalized when specs are not exact...."there is something wrong here"...During Mika H and David C's reign in formula 1, there team came up with this braking system that was very innovative, and safe, and gave there team a distinct advantage, but the FIA stepped in and banned the use of these "wonder brakes" which were also safe....I think the FIA members/organizers that other than over seeing the general safety of these events, and other important side functions are really over payed coke heads that serve no real meat and bone importance, and play politics with this sport..."just my opinion"
I love that!
Tldr, but I agree. F1 isn't about innovation anymore. Just cash.
The 24H du Mans is much closer to what is a "laboratory race", were innovations are tested
It’s political in the sense that ex team bosses move into positions at the FIA and inherently still have some bias to the other teams.
F1 fossils roaring wisdom
Yip. Its all just back hands behind the scenes. Ferrari 2018,vettel would have had that year until Hamilton pissed through his eyes that vettel passed him in the grass. You would think that the fia would be happy that a team caught up with the 4yrs of dominance from Mercedes byt no what do we get?, ferrari method is banned and we get a further 3/4yrs of dominance depending how u look at it.
I really HATE when FIA standardize everything. For me there should be a room for teams to came up with their own innovations and techniques. If one team does it better than another, well - then they deserve to win! :)
[UPDATE]: Another point of view is that the team with more money would win every time. That's fair point! SO it seems FIA want to make teams equal, they should put a limit on the team's budget and not on the engineering. And it is probably easier to follow and control it. :)
I, too, feel the regulations have gotten too restrictive. Might as well put every driver in the same car.
i agree. f1 isnt supposed to be like indy car. there a reason why it called a constructor championship and constructor oriented .
We want unrestrictive regulations or close racing? The two things are not obtainable at the same time, so make up your mind
@@joseluislopes3956, what's the point when racing is only close because all the cars are the same and engineers cannot invent new ways to get ahead? There are plenty monoclass racing series already.
@@VioletGiraffe there is plenty of ways to develop cars right now. We have wildly different designs from the start, development is part of the sport, but it can't run wild, or dominating teams will keep dominating. Do you think we would see both Hass in the points this season if not for a cost cap and a comprehensible development target?
Development is part of the sport, but the restrictions need to be in place to prevent domination, and even then, it will happen
there is no such thing as "unfair interpretation". All teams has to push the limits of the rule book to find performance. that always been that way. If one team over smart the other teams, so be it.
Some push to the limit,some slightly over the limit!and that has to be policed!
@@supmikpaddleboarding5871 There is no such thing as slightly over the limit. It's good or it's not.
@@Bearical the "slightly over the limit "was ironic...I have forgot to put the sign up!
Mercedes were smarter than everyone for years, hence the new regs. Double standards
Then according to you, DAS should've never been banned?
I love how innocent Toto is acting when everyone knows full well that, if Mercedes had thought about it, they would have done it.
I feel sorry for the man, how sad a man with all that money and succes reveals what a wanker he really is.
yes, they would. they even admitted that they would. no need to be salty here
He's always been good at politics, maybe since Mercedes came in
maybe they did it but still produce a slow car and now they're crying because they can't figure it out LOL
@@rommelruiz2883 Like Christian did over the years? Shut up Mate
I love how the FIA "helps" the teams with this porpoising issue - by requiring them to fix the porpoising issue, or get penalized
Real great leadership shown by the world's premier sanctioning body
They HELP the issue by outlawing the solution that Red Bull came up with (the one WITH NO PORPOISING), in favor of Mercedes solution that wrecks backs, how does this make any sense?@!
@@timothymartin2137 im so confused
What’s wrong with a safety regulation? If your car is dangerous, you have to change it. 🤷🏻♂️ it makes absolutely no sense to penalize the teams that have figured it out, that really only hurts those teams, and helps everyone else. It’s a joke.
I swear, sometimes F1 and the FIA just feel like one big joke.
Merc complains about porpoising being a safety issue. Then the FIA suggests they’ll just make team raise the ride height … and suddenly Mercs issues nearly disappear.
Then the FIA looks more closely at car designs and finds an interpretation of the rules some teams took to reduce porpoising and now want to outlaw it, potentially making the issue worse for the only teams that had it mostly controlled.
Seriously WTF 😂😂
THIS
They are punishing one of the teams that actually had porpoising under control lol
@@wthgivemeausername01 Two teams even, I'm absolutely baffled how they certified both the RB18 and the F1-75 to race and now, half a season in they had a change of mind that they need to change it. That's 4 cars, ran through testing and 10 fucking races apparently without any FIA Engineer realising it's a "creative interpretation of the rules"
@@fluffyjello Moreover, they let Merc run their DAS all year even though it was an "interpretation" of the rules and only a performance boost.
Yet this year they'll immediately ban an "interpretation" of the rules that will make the cars less safe?
Like, at least be consistent haha
@@KevinKienitz the DAS system wasn’t illegal in the ’20 season if I’m not wrong which I’m very confindent I’m not.
It was illegal for the ’21 seaosn. It’s easy to point fingers mate, but the truth is Mercedes didn’t do anything wrong. Keep up with the agenda tho
@@OG-512 you’re just confirming what I said. They let it fly for that year and made it illegal for next year in response to it.
It wasn’t like the rules explicitly said “DAS is definitely allowed” and Merc was the only team that decided to develop it. It was an interpretation of the regs and protests were submitted when it was unveiled. The FIA chose to allow it to remain for the year. The opposite of they seem to be doing this year.
sounds like this solution needs to be incorporated by the other teams instead of being outlawed.
You could say that for probably every ban in recent years
people forgetting the DAS system
@@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044 So did Red Bull or Ferrari pay the FIA for DAS, engine mods and the floor regulations being outlawed?
This is so dumb because banning this could cause worst porpoising for Ferrari and RedBull. And so making the problem even worse. These rule changes aren't to make the driver safe it's bullshit, it's just a way to make Mercedes get back on top
@@PAstarvideos exactly my thought.
I think Newey’s line of “There is no such thing as the interpretation of the regulations” summs this up perfectly. It’s either in there or it’s not.
If the FIA don’t agree with the intention either change it for next year (If it isn’t against safety) or let it go and let the other teams adapt.
It clearly helps against the porpoising and that was the intention of the investigation in the first place. Since it follows the regulations wording it can’t be changed halfway through the season.
The FIA can change thing whenever and however they want.
Agree with the quote, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. This is a change to how rules compliance is checked, not to the interpretation of the rules.
@@DSQueenie Thanks for this example of interpretation :D. Ofcourse they can, they just shouldn't. That's like saying the FED can't increase rates to 10%, ofcourse they can. They just shouldn't if they follow their own history of doing things.
@@DSQueenie which completely ruins the spirit of the sport
@@morganwilliams2863 Did it ruin the spirit of the sport when FIA effectively banned party mode in qualifying in mid season to hamper a certain team?
Love the work you all do here on this channel! Your explanations and visual info is my favourite way to learn about F1 and what’s currently going on
If two teams independently arrived at this solution, I highly doubt it breaks the regulations as they’re written.
I'm with Newey, the regulations are as written....intent of the regulations is meaningless.
@@Jt7166 Horner at the start of the season In an interview with German publication Auto Motor und Sport “From our point of view, Mercedes went a step too far. That doesn’t correspond to the spirit of the regulations. For us, these wings are illegal.” so Horner clearly believes the spirit/intent of the regs is a thing
@@joelgoddard7813 haha...well...they are all hypocrites
@@Jt7166 yup, so this is fine what they are doing. They can change regs mid season as they’ve done many times before
@@joelgoddard7813 except for DAS. DAS were allowed to survive whole season =)
So the FIA is implementing rules to ensure porpoising is reduced, but when teams come up with a solution to reduce porpoising thats feasibly implementable by other teams, they outlaw it? it all seems backwards to me.
you know why senna died , sudden loss of downforce why? floor flexed so much downforce stopped mid corner
Exactly. Shows Mercedes true colors. Was never about safety.
@@abhaykiran7325 He died because the steering shaft broke not a loss of downforce wtf
Actually it was a suspension arm piercing his helmet that killed him
@@abhaykiran7325 Apart from the fact that thats not true since its just because his steering shaft broke, thats not even what killed him. Its what caused him to crash. The things that killed him were; 1. The wheel that shot up and hit his head in the cockpit (which wouldn't be possible nowadays, due to the halo) 2. a piece of the suspension hitting his helmet and causing trauma and 3. a piece of debris from his car penetrating his visor. And these last two are much less likely to happen today due to improvements in the crash/tyre barriers.
Team finds a way to mostly eliminate porpoising
Fia: can't have that
Yeah fia is pure crackheads
Because Mercedes didn’t figure it out.
@@trevvert9981 If Mercedes suddenly gets faster. The season is rigged
Other teams just can't have things better than Merc
@@tubularcandy812 Rigged? Ah jusy be quiet already.
I'm a massive Merc/Hammilton fan, (I say that just to declare and calify my biases.) The rules are the rules. The FIA spent years writing and reviewing them. They need to stand by their own work and honour the terms they imposed on the teams! If a team is smart enough to spot a loophole, and successfully, and safely exploit it then it should be fair game. Just like the Merc DAS system a couple of years ago...
I want to see my team win by outsmarting, outengineering, outstrategising, or just plain outdriving the competition. I don't want to see the mavric spirit of f1 engineers stiffled by mid season rule changes!
You RB boys have to laugh at how hypocritical Horner and Newey are though.... How many times in the last 10 years have they threatened or lodged complaints and appeals against Mercedes and Ferarri for pushing boundaries and exploiting loopholes 🤣🤣🤣
The thing is, the flexi floor is not a loop hole, the current regulation only mentions flexing limits for the actual two testing points, it doesn't mention any limitation for the whole plank at all, so, technically Horner and Newey are not being hypocritical, because they are not pushing any loophole LOL
@@minimovzEt Well done 👏 You have just perfectly lais out and described a legal loophole. I congratulate any team cleaver enough to circumvent the intent of a law or regulation without breaking the letter of the law or regulation. So thanks for reinforcing my point👍And seriously get off your high horse about Horner and Marco. Toto and all the other team managers try to obfuscate their teams actions, whilst slinging accusations at the opposition. Its part of the schoolboy games they all play! And whenever any one of them is doing it, it's massively hypocritical!
You can be a fan of your team and still laugh at the managers antics and tantrums🤣
@@ET-jv1wm it's not a loophole if it's legal and very clear =D
@@minimovzEt The whole point of a loophole is that it is COMPLETELY LEGAL!!!!! A loophole is when you get around a rule WITHOUT breaking it.
I am a Merc fan arguing that RB and Ferarri did NOT break the rules! They found a cleaver way around the regulations governing flexibility of the plank. I am arguing that its unfair to change the rules mid season, thereby penalising their ingenuity!
@@ET-jv1wm No, a loophole is finding a way to make something illegal to be legal, which is not the case, if the rule says deflection limit for specific points and these deflection limits are being upheld, there's no loophole, it would be a loophole if the rule said that deflection is not allowed at all but tested only some points and both teams went around that, but this is not the case, the rule just mentions deflection limits to both front holes and the rear hole...
F1 engineers have always sought an advantage in the grey areas of the rules. Mercedes is absolutely no different to any other team in that regard. They obviously missed a trick, so Toto Wolfe is falling back on that other great F1 tradition of using politics to slow down your rivals. Really, this is a time-honoured F1 traditional dance. Nobody is actually surprised, least of all Toto.
Mercedes employees now works in fia ..!
Fia giving TD everytime, y.?
Because mercedes are falling back, toto can't win on track.,
So playing politics, therefore gaining advantage.!
Mercedes did like this in last year too, with rear wing Drs infringement.,
If merc do like this, it's ok.!
Others are working hard for there car, now for Merc it's an illegal.!
Feels that way. Toto trying to slow them down so he doesn't have to pay millions to catch up. Could be wrong though.
@@Universal2220 dude don't act as if the other big teams wouldnt do the same if they were behind. Its nothing new
Mercedes didn't miss a trick, the governing body informed all the teams before 2022 car development started they didn't want the plank flexing.
@@donkerslootracing Toto would gladly spend millions to be competitive, just as any other team with the means would, but F1 has a 140 million dollar budget this year.
I always thought F1 was all about the most creative interpretations of the rules 🤔. I understand that if the interpretation leads to unwanted/dangerous situations you'd might want to interfere. If not.... just take the 'L' and learn from it and add clarity to the rules for next season, or let it go and all teams wil have it in no time.
You are right. But the wrong team is winning. Toto can't have that.
Because if theyd allow this , the teams (rb & ferrari) will complain of exposing their "secrets"
Ross Brawn said during Barcelona testing, after the Mercedes was revealed, that if a team was exploiting rules to gain an advantage in a way that wasn't intended by the rules, that they would make changes mid season. Red Bull and Ferrari are doing just that.
The FIA are clamping down on the flexing of the plank to help level the playing field when it comes to controlling porpoising. It’s no surprise that Red Bull who have the least porpoising and Ferrari who only suffer on the straights and not under braking and through the corners are at the front of the field through ‘interpretation’ of the rules.
Besides, letting all the other teams do it would require some considerable changes to the cars which wouldn’t allow the FIA to effectively police porpoising for some races yet. Plus, it’s not plausible asking 80% of the grid to adapt their cars in a cost cap era because they haven’t been thorough enough when wording the regulations.
It will be interesting to see if this makes much difference to the pace of the Ferrari and Red Bull out front.
@@Joe-po8rx How do you know it's Red Bull and Ferrari? What's your source?
So, Ferrari and Red Bull found a trick to use the rules legally but not as the guys who wrote the rules had in their heads which gives the cars more performance and also makes them safer and therefore this should be outlawed because they need to injure their drivers as much as the other teams who weren't as clever?
safer is not a good term. senna dies cus the floor flexed too much downforce hit zero mid corner
Yes. FIA moment.
@@abhaykiran7325 Again this comment? people already explained to you that you are lying
The FIA say that in their meeting with the team bosses prior to the season they made it clear “No part of the plank should deflect more than 2mm” so either the teams forgot that part or knew since they didn’t put in in the regs clearly that they could get away with it .
@@abhaykiran7325 Eehhh, that's not true..
Fantastic content, thank you for the in-depth video and technical analysis.
It's quite double standard though, when Merc introduced no sidepod concept Horner said its against the intention of regulation but now he is saying "there is no such thing as the intent of the regulation."🤔
Wrong.
"described as an ‘extreme’ interpretation of the regulations by F1’s Ross Brawn"
@@droid1008 Horner purportedly told Auto Motor und Sport, “ The new Mercedes violates the spirit of the regulations.”
Agree double-standard in what Horner said... But that's to be expected. However, FIA agreed Merc's interpretation was within the rules (regardless of intentions) and for the same reasons, whatever RB and Ferrari are doing (if legal to the letter of the rules) should continue to be legal until there's an official change next season.
They asked Horner why he said that during the first day of testing in Bahrain and his response was that he hadn't even seen the car yet, so it was as much a surprise to him to hear he had apparently said something.
Except Horner didn't go bitch to the FIA about it to try and force Merc to change their car. Toto is just butthurt that for once Merc didn't find the loophole first.
They should let this be. They allowed Mercedes to use DAS for the whole season. And if this flex helps with limiting porpoising, then why not let every team do it? Isnt this good for safety of the drivers?
Yea that's what's confusing me. Even with damage it's clearly still safer
@@btoiscool exactly, they’ve said they’re gonna intervene for driver safety from porpoising, well this seems like it’s working for the top 2 teams, why not allow other teams to copy it to see if it does help with porpoising?
Merc didn't think of it......so it isn't allowed
The difference is Mercedes got it cleared before the season and was very open about it
if you watch the video it mentions that the regulators said in an early meeting that it wasn't allowed, but it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the regs.
Way I see it the regulators never intended it to be like this and are making an ammendment that fixes it. Can't blame the teams for exploiting it but can't blame the FIA for changing the rule either.
If the intention was sooooo clear then why didnt the fia write it that way?
Did you not listen to the video? Last year it was discussed and agreed upon, during meetings between the FIA and the teams, that the plank could not flex beyond a certain point. How much clarity is needed?
@@jsac3939 Needs to be written down. It's a competitive sport. It's up to the governing body to make what's written down in the rules are clear.
That's the whole point of have the rules written.
@@eduardoprisbrey9157 The necessary tests to ensure compliance to the rules need to reflect the rules as well.
If the entirety of the plank should not deviate by a certain amount, then you measure the entire goddamn plank, not only the front of the plank.
A "discussion" that the entire plank should not flex is irrelevant if that very simple concept was not codified. Instead, there is a very precise rule that specifies maximum deflection at only two specific points, both of which are at the front of the plank. Nobody is claiming that any car has failed inspection, so the internet whinging about "illegal" floors is just disgruntled Mercedes fans who feel they are entitled to wins.
When Mercedes built the zero pods, and made the SIPS into a little canard aero device, Ross Brawn stated that nobody in the technical committee saw it coming. But it wasn't illegal, so its allowed.
From what I've heard, this change won't really affect either team. The concern from RBR and Ferrari is for further additional changes to follow around the summer break that may be designed to more strongly benefit Mercedes. Their stance on this is to lay a platform for consistency so they can more strongly protest the future changes in the pipeline and not seem hypocritical.
From what i see this made sense.
If the FIA wanted the rules to be that specific, then say it in the initial documents. It's like my instructor in college said about drafting and design work "Don't assume the contractor will know what to do, draft and detail everything so that even a monkey could do it".... not really right for the FIA to go after the teams at this stage because the rules they set out weren't explicit enough.
if this does result in RBR and Ferrari suddenly dropping out of the lead, social media against Merc/FIA will be a FIRESTORM.
i think its worse than that.. viewers will stop watching entirely.. even new ones.. NOBODY likes beaurocracy effecting anything in their life..
Its funny how RBR was always seen as the bad guy, when its Mercedes thats the most pathetic team in F1 i ever saw, how can you be one of the most successfull teams in history but at the same time act like a todller that u took toys away from just becouse theyre not the nr.1 team anymore, wich is only their fault becous eof their failed design.
@@meteraphantom9059 Erm the FIA literally created regulations last year to stump Merc and have also accepted everything when Horner lobbied like banning DAS and party mode, you Merc haters have peanut brains when it comes to memory. Second even Merc weren’t aware of the second directive regarding the floor.
already has been for the last few years, with DTS's influence making it worst. If what you say does happen, then FIA is most likely to focus on stamping out online hate/abuse next. Then again, Newey is a genius and he'll find a way around this TD but Ferrari, it'll be worse for them mostly.
the same people had no problem when the FIA caved to horner and banned engine modes which neutered Mercedes' engine.
I find it very sus that Merc cried about safety but right after the TD was mentioned they don’t porpoise nearly as bad, still the 3rd fastest team and even closer to the top 2 and now the teams beating them are under investigation for bending the rules.
They didn't porpoise as bad because of the upgrades they brought and also the tracks surfaces, Montreal and Silverstone.. Spain was the initial showing of their performance
If you are salty now just wait a week or two. LMAO!
I love seeing you cry
@@brandonb.288 Merc fans are the most insufferable people I've seen in F1 and these two comments prove it
@@brandonb.288 not salty, just like to stir things up a little bit. Funny watching people get triggered and assume things.
We will see if it actually makes a difference though. My real guess is it won’t change much if anything. Teams know when they are bending the rules and probably already have a solution for when they are caught. Think about last year with the flexy wing at redbull. Got called out and fixed it with little to no loss.
3:30 Thanks for a good explanation. It would have been nice top explicitly say if the RB/Ferrari plank is assumed to flex towards the ground or away from the ground. I think it's the latter which allows running the rear of the car lower without wearing down the plank.
How has this channel still not hit 1Million subscribers already? Come on people give these guys some support and hit the button!
intentions behind regs and whats written should be the same, if the FIA messed up by not writing it explicitely enough then wait until next year to ammend it
It is laughable that the "porpoising limitation TD" came out as "make porpoising limiting tech illegal". This literally only helps Mercedes and we can see the motivation behind it. If FIA really wanted to limit porpoising they would make other teams use the same solution instead of banning it. This just makes it so that non porpoising teams porpoise more and not the other way around.
A logical assessment.
shhhhhhhhhh don't just blame mercedes for following the rules and suffering for it
@@josiahboatengmyrie the other followed it too
@@sn31t33 them why are only red bull and Ferrari against it and why are only their cars floors flexing too much
Because then all the other teams would have to redesign their cars which would cost money, especailly with the cost cap, rather than just the two teams who fitted an illegal floor...
Controversy aside, It's just funny to see Mercedes on the other side of the argument for once. Last decade it's been the other way around.
let's see how quickly the FIA changes the rule to 'even the playing field'. If its anything like the current turbo engines that suited Mercedes for so long, they won't intervene until 2028
@@Taffsmanlive what regulations did the break on the Turbo engines?
@@Taffsmanlive the current engines are in their 9th season. You can blame the other engine manufacturers for not catching up.
That's not true. You are ignoring times last season when Mercedes questioned the FIA/F1 on some parts on the Red Bull. Then before that, Mercedes and Red Bull both questioned parts of the Ferrari engine, which was eventually deemed to be illegal/not illegal/cover up.
@@dahorn100011 In 2014, F1 changed the engines to a complex hybrid technology that Mercedes had already been working. An extremely expensive turbo unit that had no real world practical application. Mercedes had an advantage from the beginning and I don't doubt that the FIA knew this.
The FIA blatantly favoured Mercedes with the new regulations back then, knowing how the big manufacturers, especially Mercedes, would be at a major advantage due to the resources at their disposal and their ability to just spend there way out of trouble.
Despite knowing how impractical the engine was, these engines have not changed marerially and will not for over a decade since their introduction.
The DAS was a piece of tech that was seen to bend the rules or go against the 'intent' of the rules. Drivers could literally move their steering wheels while turning or travelling at 200mph, and yet Mercedes were allowed to keep this on the car for an entire year.
They were never penalised for putting their drivers through serious pain this year with their poorly designed car, whereas RB are being forced to change their car mid-year, despite probably designing a car that causes their drivers the least amount of physical damage.
It is a clear that Mercedes, on average, have been on the FIA's best side, and the major rules changes until this year were best suited for them.
I have a feeling, had Mercedes come up with this, it had been hailed as innovative and awesome creativity.
or just banned like before...
wolff talking about competitors stretching the meaning of the rules too much is so ironic
No it’s his fucking job. What’s ironic about it.
Toto's team is one of the most compliant team, not having blown diffusers,possibly flexible floors, name them
@@drugoviic You are kidding, right? Mercedes exploits and bends the rules all the time and gets away with it because the FIA is Mercedes lover! DAS is the last example.
@@SA-nb8lj das was agreed with fia before the season, horner complained during that season so they banned it for the next season
So Fia makes rules, ferrari and redbull follow the rules as stated in paper, Fia doesnt like it there for makes it illegal? really? bruh,
and then the enginner basicly admits they will exploit rules bruhhhhh ,FIa and merc once again , never changes
The FIA has only ever hurt Merc when they were ahead and you think they suddenly care ?
If such a simple thing as a flexing plank helps against bouncing, then the FIA should make it legal. It would go against everything they say about sparing the drivers from all the bouncing if they would enforce further restrictions 🤦
FIA: "We really need to do something against porpoising..."
Ferrari: "We have something against porpoising"
FIA: "That is banned now."
It seems that Mercedes' plan worked, cause an uproar about bouncing and safety all the while trying to cut away Ferrari's and Red Bull advantage instead of developing their cars... by the way, I don't believe for a second their "astonishment" about these new directives...
i think im done with F1.. the beaurocracy is just too much..
The FIA literally let Mercedes get away with DAS for an entire season and now other teams have found a clever solution and the FIA are like "ohh calm down now"
And the Academy Award goes to … Lewis Hamilton Baku 2022!!!!!
so what is Mercedes trying to deflect attention from 😏?
You act like merc were the only ones complaining
What a shock. All of a sudden they are not within the rules. Toto is going to get his way or another.
Just like he did in dubai?
They want the cars to be equally awful? I thought the idea of these new Regs was to bring ground effect back and clean up the air around the cars. But it’s added so many vibrations and bouncing…a flexi-floor might help them sit better on straights and tighten up better in corners. Obviously. It’s clearly working for Ferrari and RedBull.
If Redbull and Ferrari have problems they can just raise their ride height like they've been telling Mercedes... 😀 😃 😀
Yeah but not Mercedes 🤣 I think they tried it and it's not working.
Do you think you could make a video about how Redbull's "double diffuser" works (3:18) I haven't seen anyone talking about it since pre season testing and I've always been wondering if it does anything or has any huge effect
It's too bad Mercedes didn't think of it. The Race would've had to cover this topic as a "clever interpretation" of the rules from the "technical geniuses" at Brackley.
Come off it, I’m thinking of DAS, removing material at the rear of the floor in 21, and locking engine modes at the start of qualifying
Agreed, DAS and its continued use is the precedence. Honestly think FIA is being paid under hand by MERC and TOTO. No further investigation on how MERC showed up in Canada with a part that was only approved a day before. What a CROCK. If I was Ferrari, I would say goodbye and tell FIA see you in sportscars. MERC cries and FIA concedes, follow the money.
😂😂😂😂
@@markmata389 I’d agree that changing the reg mid season is unusual, especially with the cost cap, it’s not fair to change it now
@@markmata389 lmao. DAS was approved by the FIA only for them to reverse after Horner bitched. And the part you are talking about them having ready is a length of metal and a few fasteners. I could build one in my garage in 30 minutes. You’d be shocked how crude some race car components are. Not all of them are 6 months in development items.
So what happens to the budget, if a team has built a floor within the rules, but now has to build a new floor because of a regulation change.
There’s no rule change. Just a change in how the rules are tested. If the part conformed to the rules then it’s perfectly fine to keep running.
@@2005StangMan This is not a rule change, there are just making it more clear. The outcome is the same, the plank should not flex beyond 2mm at any point.
@@2005StangMan How the rules are tested is the entire reason they'd have to stiffen the floor, thus adding the costs. If the measurement points were defined beforehand, the measurement limits were defined, and if the teams are conforming to those tests, teams should be allowed to apply their own ingenuity to other areas. Now FIA is talking about "the ruling was meant to be interpreted THIS way and not the way you have interpreted". It is some BS reason to hide the fact that FIA failed to clearly define the rules, again.
Let me rephrase. If they put certain laws in words. And those laws are followed according to the words, and now they want to change the wording to follow their perspective, it means their initial wording was wrong. And if a team used initiative within the wording, they should not now be penalized because FIA is gonna change it. That is what engineering and design is all about. And if the new wording forces them to change their floors, why should their budget cap be affected. Currently they are within the law.
@@jacquesdekock3664 no, currently they are within the technical directive. The rule states that the plank must be completely flat with a max deflection along its length of 2mm. It’s a poorly designed test by the FIA and why it’s changing. That being said, all the teams knew what the clear intention of the rule was and allegedly RB and Ferrari broke it anyway, so cost is on them to redesign it to comply with rules.
So what you're telling me is the plank flexing is a) less uncomfortable for the driver and b) makes the car more durable, and yet somehow the FIA believes this to be the main problem?
Honestly the best F1 Channel outside of SkyF1 because you take the time and effort to explain things in detail but also simply. so thank you
Cant remember this much interference from the FIA when Merc was running away with it for 6 years
Fact
Erm the FIA literally created regulations last year to stump Merc and have also accepted everything when Horner lobbied like banning DAS and party mode, you Merc haters have peanut brains when it comes to memory
@@karthikpenumetch9300 after 6 years
Probably because they were in communication with the FIA about the big things (DAS) and otherwise not in contravention of the regulations.
Funny that Horner doesn’t see intentions of the rules this time round but was happy to see the rules applied differently in December last year, even if they were against the intentions of the rules.
I mean, they took away DAS, outlawed Engine modes, and nerfed Mercedes with the 2021 regs…
If the car complies with what's written in the rulebook, it's legal, end of story. You cannot call a car illegal for not complying with implied understandings...either something is a rule or it is not, if it's a rule it's written in the rulebook, and if it's not in the rulebook then it's not a rule. If you want to change the rules surrounding the skid plate flexibility, then you have to formally change the rules as written and get the required number of teams' approval to do so. With RB and Ferrari already publicly opposed, I don't see that happening. For next season maybe, but not this year.
I just Mercedes aren’t all of sudden gonna start winning because the fia changed the rules for them and because there car is shit
So the FIA are lying when they say that it was explained to all team bosses that none of the plank should deflect more than 2mm ?
@@peterisrael2012 Then why haven't they written it down in the rules? Teams are always trying to spot a loophole in the rules. (Merc sidepods, Merc "Mirror stays" (that everyone has adopted now))
Interesting comment. The problem is that the FIA don’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to things either being a rule, or not.
@@honeybadger3855 True, but when the inevitable dispute goes to court, the court only cares about one thing: what is written in the rulebook?
The plank was originally introduced to prevent the cars getting too low to the ground and should be uniformly stiff to do so. It makes no sense whatsoever that this "safety" regulation should have wiggle room for interpretation by teams just because the measurements currently taken are on the forward 3rd of the plank. I see a lot of people argue both that the restrictions are too imposing, yet in the same breath mention that because it wasn't specifically stated that the rear of the plank was not allowed to deviate more than the front of the plank, then the teams have free reign. Which would you like, more restrictive verbiage in the rules, or more free reign? These two aren't mutually exclusive. That only 2 teams saw fit to skirt the plank stiffness restrictions, while ALL others have not...... seems like it's more of a problem for the 2 teams involved in the dispute.
It took a couple views before I saw all the gravel flying and realized the bottom-view of the plank was Zhou's car rolling, not just a generic shot of the bottom of an F1 car. It's so square-on! You can bet a bunch of other teams are looking very closely at that shot and others like it.
If this helps to stop the bouncing, then shouldn’t it just be implemented by everyone? That would make sense if it’s a driver safety issue. Teams wouldn’t need to lift the ride height and racing would be faster and better for everyone. FIA never makes sense to me.
Because why should all other teams now have to redesign they’re floors for those that cheated?
Merc being one of the key teams to have struggled with the issue but kept within the rules why should they have to take a chunk out of their already capped budget to copy a trick from 2 teams that have created an illegal floor?
@@TrackAndBeyond RB fans cant think that far tbh
@@TrackAndBeyond damn boy you SPITTIN FACTS
If they go that far then they should just provide a BoP car for the teams so they all run equal and nobody gets beat by a better car. Only a better driver. The FIA has been meddling towards that direction for the last 20 years anyway. Nobody can develop anything that gives an advantage because the second they do the other teams are crying about it and trying to get it banned as opposed to developing a better car. It's sleazeball tactics and it's laziness. There's no competition anymore. There's barely any racing. 2022 has been a politics simulator.
That's not what this is saying, they are saying that it's hiding the issues with porpoising, making the problem appearing better than it actually is. Making a monitored part of the car oscillate less means the setup can be run in a way that would otherwise be _illegal_ (I will make it legal)
What is the force that causes the flex under testing I wonder? And I agree with most of the comments, seems counterproductive to abolish designs that limit dolphining.
it's unbelievable how, constantly, F1 and Fia goes out of their way to help Mercedes/Lewis. At this point I should expect it, but I get suprised each and every time
F1 will be 100% better when Lewis retires
Lol 😆 🤣 your salt 🧂 makes me happy 😊
There was a time I idolised Toto Wolf. His childhood, his growth story. A legend to me, a self made man who rose above his problems on his own merit. I almost put his poster in my room.
Now, I see him as just another person who enjoys when they lead a competition (in life, work, race whatever), and whine, crib when their competitors are ahead of them, expecting the 'masters' to dole out a favour.
2021 season really opened my eyes.
Funnily I always saw Christian Horner as a very open man always ready for an interview even mid race but like you last years broadcasted radio contact with Michael Masi lowered my opinion of him.
I would like to hear other seasons race director messages to see how they compared as I doubt last year was too different from the norm.
@@bryanduggan I'm glad F1 decided to restrict communication. I actually feel bad for Masi. He must be under tremendous pressure, it being the last lap of the last race of the season to decide the championship and these team principals putting so much pressure amidst all the chaos....Toto going to the extent of advising Masi that there shouldn't be a safety car. And that "No Michael, no....." Man, unbelievable!
They made Masi too much of a scapegoat. He did what he thought best at the time, i.e. the championship should be decided under racing conditions, not behind the safety car. Still controversial, but debatable nevertheless.
@@luhaarunk3085 If only he had red flag the race and had 5 lap battle with everyone on fresh tyres, I don't think any fans would have objected to that
@@bryanduggan Agree. But maybe conditions were not worth red flagging the race, only safety car worthy. Who can guess....it is the man on the hot seat (eligible & experienced) whose decision matters.
Toto being surprised equals Toto admitting that his engineers weren't as clever as the other engineers in scanning the written rules for any speed gain to squeeze out of.
I believe part of RB not having problems with porpoising has to do with a more flexible floor than their rivals.
I was expecting every team to match Newey's approach to ground effect cars in the long term, not the FIA banning things that clearly RB did right. Matching RB design was clearly the best way to protect the driver's backs.
I hope that this doesn't spark porpoising problems for the quickest teams.
From what I've heard, this issue isn't going to affect Red Bull basically at all. Horner is just trying to define his stance on rule consistency because there are whispers of bigger changes in the pipeline that will more strongly benefit Mercedes, coming around the summer break. He needs to publicly show he is against midseason rule changes now so he can build a platform to defend against these other changes later.
@@bartonez123 Could you explain the summer rule change incoming? Really interested to hear and research on
@@zackmwiti119 Nothing on it, it's a quote from Horner brought up in the video. We'll find out soon though.
ZEROPOD...
I appreciate the explanation of the new skid plate rules. I sure wouldn’t be able to explain it better!
Very nice video. Keep up the good work.
I highly doubt it's as simple as "one little trick". Part of the reason for the Red Bull's relatively smooth ride lies in their floor design and how, if I remember reading the Tech Tuesdays on F1's web site correctly, Red Bull has a much more gradual increase in downforce as you move along the floor towards the rear end, meaning that the car is sucked to the ground in a more level orientation and therefore not putting as much pressure on the rear suspension. You can see this in sideways shots, where the car is almost perfectly level, compared to other cars, like the Mercedes, which almost seem to drag the rear end of the floor across the track.
Or maybe the rb rides like that because of the flexy plank??? We will find out
So what if it works
@@supmikpaddleboarding5871 no that doesn't make sense with the explanation in the video here, because here they are talking about the plank and floor flexing down towards the rear, which doesn't match what the OP has said.
@@RockSolitude well that animation is wrong .....
@@genejordan5652 maybe backfired someday.
So this is the Real Reason Horner was so absolutely over the top angry when they announced that they were gonna introduce some ride height regs. And maybe he and redbull Knew that whatever is going on here would be discovered
so? it's a fair interpretation of the TD and if FIA didn't want this, they should have written it in a clearer manner. F1 is all about finding pace by finding creative ways around the rulebook. Nothing wrong with this.
@@nishilbhartiya RB were one team bitching about the weights of the cars and got it changed, how is that fair to Alfa who had a car at the minimum weight.
The sport is unfair. There are many many rules with lots of loopholes waiting to be found and then closed, this is just one of them.
Horner: There is no such thing as the intent of the regulations. We are in compliance when it comes to the board.
Also Horner: Need to increase the budget
Also Horner: Don't help teams with porpoising...
FIA should only intervene and help teams when it ultimately suits Red Bull. go figure.
Found a merc fan
The engineers of F1 have always tried to ‘beat’ the regulations or try to find alternative interpretations to the regs. That is their job. Just like how Merc came up with the DAS steering. Toto is being a hypocrite, just like all the team bosses are when their team isn’t the one who came up with the ‘thing’.
4:17 Very ironic because the zero pot design was clearly also not intendet by the rules.
You havent read the rules. It breaks no rules. It has always been allowed but teams have always chosen not to do it. Look it up.
@@PregnantSausage Yes, just like with the floors of Ferrari and Redbull.... Thats the point of my comment. Didnt you get that or what is it youre confused about?
The LH back pain was so fake, now I know why
Were you blind
Interpreting the regulations to gain an advantage has been a part and the job of team engineers in f1 since its inception. This isn't a stock series so every team, will and every team has, looked and introduced things that were not the intention of the FIA (if they didn't they wouldn't be in f1). All we should do as fans is hope that the FIA deals with these fairly and consistently.
Are you going to make a video about how everyone lied about this? Red Bull is faster after TD and Merc is slower. Red Bull also passed new TD regulations with the old floor.
I don’t think they should change this mid-season. This is simply crying from Mercedes because they designed a shitty car. And second, it worries me how much the FIA is falling for this Mercedes trap. And what happened with the story about this floor stabilizing rod that Mercedes put on overnight? Maybe somebody should check the bank account of Mercedes and some FIA members.
did the mercedeschecks bounce when the FIA banned FRIC, DAS, oil burn, cutting rear downforce, engine modes
They aren't changing any rules though.
@@jamieboer3466 Changing your interpretation of the rule and implementing penalties is a change to the rule.
cry
Okay calm down, you're foaming on your Red Bull jersey mate
Hmm reminds me of DAS.. that didn't really seem to be in the 'intent of the rules' but wasn't changed till the season after....
But yes that's ofcourse couse it's Mercedes...
DAS was developed in full cooperation and knowledge of the FIA
Party modes too?
I highly doubt other teams were unaware. Teams always have read the rules in whatever way is most beneficial to them.
You use Plank and Floor interchangeably. Is it solely about the plank? I don't get how they could know that red bull and Ferrari have a more flexible plank when we are only talking 2mm. Even a solid steel plank would move more than 2mm
Well DAS was a non intended interpretation of the rules, but Mercedes got to keep it for the season anyway 🤔
FIA Mercedes
Just like the zero sidepods no?
It's not like a tyre you just remove from the car 🤦♂️
@@berkepakbese4447 ..doesn't change the fact they got to keep it for the entire season...
Ah bullocks! Of course Mercedes will cry and play innocent in this instance. If it is true, Wolf is likely upset because his team engineers did not think of doing the same. Its a game. No team is innocent of "interpreting" the rules for advantage.
Cannot trust this channel to be unbiased given your accents.
Wasn't Mercedes mirror mount an 'interpretation' yet they were allowed to keep it? Funny that.
only ferrari complained lul. think before you talk
what interpretation? they weren't allowed to keep anything. if the merc plank flexes, then they will get hit too
@@abhaykiran7325 what does that have to do with anything? So the decision is based on how many people complain? Hilarious. Maybe you should 'think before you talk'. Oh and by the way it wasn't just ferrari, many teams asked for clarification.
@@johnbenoy7532 last time I checked, they are still there.
Flexing mechanics has never been allowed in current FIA regulations. Remember the flexy wing of redbull?
TH-cam Mercedes rear wing to show where that began
@@333mystic Red Bull had the flexi wing long before Mercedes, like 10 years ago
But it has, the current regulations has a rule in the first chapter specifying that every aerodynamic component must be rigid, but yet, they set different deflection limits within geometric boxes, for example, the plank geometric box in this example, if you use logic, it means that within this geometric box, the rigidity rule is out of the picture and it has custom deflection limits, therefore, flexing mechanics has always been allowed but very limited.
If you design your floor to deflect after the measurement zone you can run your car with more rake, the rear of the plank becomes a fulcrum or control surface in ride height control whilst under load
Weird how everyone is speculating it's Ferrari and Red Bull when no evidence has come out stating as much, could be Mercedes or Alpine for all we know. The fact teams haven't made a big fuss about it makes this seem like they already had a fix in mind and that it's a non issue.
Horner has essentially admitted they’re doing this. Not 100% sure on Ferrari
@@lucaslonghurst source ? I’ve just read that Teams like rb Ferrari alpine etc are against the TD but not that they exploit this floor flexing.
@@jon8889 can’t be bothered to dig it up. It was an interview in past week
@@lucaslonghurst You must be right haha no because literally no f1 side postet any quotes regarding this just Horner mentioning that they don’t like the new Technical directive
@@jon8889 gotta read between the lines mate obviously he’s not going to give a quote saying we’ve broken this sporting code and have been all year…
I don't get why the RedBull/Ferrari should be made to suffer when they don't have the porpoising issues. Just to help Mercedes get back into the fray.
The "Interpretation" of the rules is always something that annoys me, since its basically always just the case of FIA being bitter that they didn't think of that. Something they like to be all koi about at the start of the season with praise but then start the politics to manufacture a championship....just leave it be till next year.
This is one area I have had issues with F1 for decades: they make a rule that is 50% specific, 50% vague, then cry “you broke the rule” when the rule doesn’t cover the so called offense
The rules makers for F1 have been doing this for so long, they should know by now that every rule they make, every guideline they make must be down to the specifics, otherwise a team is going to capitalize on what isn’t specifically outlawed or banned
Funny how the FIA outlawed Mercedes’ Push Pull steering system AFTER allowing them to run it ALL season. Yet other teams that interpret the regulations thus preventing porpoising, make their driver safer and are legal within the parameters set by the FIA, get their ideas banned after a couple of races. Incredible.
Wrong. Mercedes had developed DAS for 2020 in the full knowledge that it would be outlawed for 2021.
Also Mercedes developed the DAS system with full FIA knowledge, no going behind their back, no sneaky loopholes, no smoke and mirrors
What “dB” said.
@@gbarnewall1 wrong. They haven't gone behind their back nor smoke and mirrors. The fia scrutinise every car especially new cars under new regs. They have had ample opportunity to oppose it. But its not until Merc not having a sniff at a win and Toto being vocal that they suddenly almost half way through a season have an issue with it? If it isn't "in the spirit of the regulations" then they should have to answer why its taken them so long to find it.
@@bfapple And Redbull & Ferrari have developed their floors for 2022 knowing that what they have designed fits the regulations. Its just they exploited the verbiage of the regs as they aren't specific enough. Which I'm sure you'll agree is a usual Mercedes trick and what makes F1 so interesting is the interpretation of the regulations. As I have stated before, if its not legal, why has it taken the FIA 12 races in to have an issue with it.
So they to crack down on the teams that manage to not break the backs of there drivers. Why not allow all teams to use this. I don't see how this is something that has to be forbidden as it mostly helps to keep the drivers healthy
Rules as written are just that. Those that write the rules are not "idiots" so the intended rules excuse is poor. Kudos to those applying the rule of law
Last race on Silverstone there was a slow camera shot of ferrari's sideway on a fast corner. I was surprised of seeing kinda lot of flexibility on the whole car. I don't know if it was the porpoising or the car flexing.
When Mercedes made the aggressive interpretation for DAS, FIA banned it for the FOLLOWING season. When Red Bull and Ferrari do it with the plank, suddenly it wants to ban it right away? It's hard not to see this as favoritism by FIA towards Mercedes.
They banned flexi wings mid season last season, as well as qualifying party modes in 2020. Doesn’t seem very friendly anymore. Grow up and stop yelling in TH-cam comments
FRIC was banned mid season, but that happened before Netflix started shitting out Drive to Survive, so you wouldn't remember.
@@joelambert7128 The mercedes 3rd damper was never banned, despite it being a moveable aero device.
DAS wasn't in the regs and was added later being deemed illegal. If you built your cars in the rules then carry on, if not you'll pay. Wait for how this plays out at France
@@droid1008 it wasn't a movable aero device, but I'm sure it suits you to pretend it was.
Merc complains and they get what they want. again.
feeling that "influence $$$" for sure from the FIA
Say... Didn't RB complain about the following?
- DAS
- Party Mode
- Racing Point's brake ducts
- Ferrari's fuel solution in 2019
And didn't all of those get banned? Hmmm.
If it doesn't benefit me, i don't like it!!! Screamed Mercedes
Really good explanation of this situation, there have been some very sensationalist stories floating around and this seems to be a case of Ferrari and Red Bull using a clever interpretation of the rules - something that should be celebrated, but excited to see if this will shake up the pecking order and bring Mercedes into the mix.
I think Silverstone showed they're getting into the mix already, for sure. They were "best of the rest" in a very clear way, but they've inched closer now and I think as they bring more upgrades, their big Achilles' heel that they can't fix will be getting power out of the corner.
@@JesseLeeHumphry they havemt inched closer though..ham was easily beaten by ferarri amd RB number 2 drivers who are noticeable slower than their number 1 drivers
Yet again merc benefitted from top 2 teams having damage
It wasnt on pace
@@karl8805 Hamilton never fell farther than 5-6 seconds behind the leader, which is an improvement on the 15-30 seconds it has been, and he had the best long-run pace; I believe the Mercedes also took home the fastest lap.
If Perez received a 5-second penalty for going off track and gaining an advantage on Leclerc, Hamilton gets second.
@@mumulester why would perez get a pen? Clc went past him...do you not understand the rules? Ham didnt fall firther than 5 or 6 seconds because of yellow flags/safety cars happening too close to the end of the race...ham lost 5 seconds in a handful of laps, had there been 40 laps hed have feel 30 seconds back.. simple math...try it
If the rules were not 100% clear and precise, then it was not RB and Ferrari's fault. Good for them they knew how to exploit it. However, that is why they provide clarifications without punishment. If the rule was clear and some teams blatantly violated it, it is not enough to just stop them. They would have severe consequences. This is also the reason they don't want to implement the changes right away in the next GP. They even give them an adaptation period. But once the rules are clarified, there is no excuse. They should consider themselves lucky the issue wasn't fixed earlier and could gain a huge advantage during the first half of the season. It is almost already impossible for any other team to catch them in the second half.
Outlawed because the rules left an area for interpretation? Then make your rules without these loopholes, outlawing within the season is outright pandering to the most politically influential team, Mercs.
Ah yes, the most influential team that the FIA has wanted to slow down for years now, funny guy
The purpose of regulations are to clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Teams should not have to employ mindreaders to determine the "intent" of the regulation - they can only design the cars to what is specifically stated. If this is not acceptable to the FIA, then they should scrap the regulations altogether and just publish their INTENTIONS, and allow the teams to interpret how to meet those intentions with complete freedom.
In Italy there is a said that goes like this:
fatta la legge, trovato l'inganno.
It translate approximately like this:
After a rule is made, they found how to deceived it. Simple.
No matter in what language you want to write regulations, there will always a different way to interpreted at your sole advantage.