[Insider]

I am aware that the FIA sees no problem with the rear wing design of the MP-25 and has been consulted on a regular basis throughout it's development. However, experience tells us that though the design may be considered to be within the spirit of the regulations by the FIA, the appendage in question has yet to pass muster at Bahrain. For Charlie Whiting to have declared the part legal after a visit to Woking and then to have the Bahrain scrutineers throw it out would have left the FIA with egg on their face. They have had enough of that in the past few seasons and Jean Todt would not wish it repeated on his watch. Anyway, it wouldn't have happened. Charlie can only really advise the teams, he cannot rule on design matters universally. That will always be the domain of the race stewards and scrutineers or the WMSC. I am surprised that the FIA agreed to make an inspection at the factory at all. Their technical team must have seen it the wing at Barcelona. The simple effect of McLarens design is that it creates an aerodynamic 'stall', so allowing more straight line speed. I've seen it on a hundred F1 cars over the years. The fact that the design 'intentionally' interferes with airflow is in that area is certainly not a breach of any current regulation I know.

My take on Woking's invitation to Whiting is that they wished to achieve two things. A: They want to shut Horner and the Scuderia up, once and for all. B: They wanted a firm 'yes' from the FIA as a defence against any adverse ruling by the Bahrain officials. The point is, even if the wing is deemed to be illegal [which, IMHO it is not], McLaren will appeal and probably be allowed to race with it anyway. With so many large, last minute upgrades promised by a lot of the teams, the Bahrain scrutineers are really going to have their hands full - that's for sure.

[maurethegreat2]

*sniff sniff* ooo I can smell a mclaren victory followed by either jenson or lewis winning the wdc & everybody complaining that mclaren had an illegal car for the 1st 5 races! Wait didn't that happen already??

[medilloni]

Innovation or Skullduggery? I'll go for the first one, with a small chance of the skullduggeryness.

The betting seems to be McLaren are employing the use of Fluidics; the concept of using one airflow to act as switch at pre-determined pressure levels to alter another flow of air (the air fed over the wing). This seems to be the biggest bone of contention.... but it's not a 'moveable aero device'

Other bones for them to chew over are....
the slots in the rear wing, but they were on cars last year, so the assumption would be they are OK, and....
the inlet on top of the bodywork (left hand side, just in front of the driver) - some seem to think it's for pressurising the inside of the penispit (can't say c#ckpit can I?!) to improve airflow over the car, and there are other guesses to do with the driver's leg controling the flow of air through it when he brakes. That could make it illegal! Or it could simply be for cooling the driver's nuts.

[Insider]

medilloni, on 09 March 2010 - 02:55 PM, said:

Innovation or Skullduggery? I'll go for the first one, with a small chance of the skullduggeryness.

The betting seems to be McLaren are employing the use of Fluidics; the concept of using one airflow to act as switch at pre-determined pressure levels to alter another flow of air (the air fed over the wing). This seems to be the biggest bone of contention.... but it's not a 'moveable aero device'

Other bones for them to chew over are....
the slots in the rear wing, but they were on cars last year, so the assumption would be they are OK, and....
the inlet on top of the bodywork (left hand side, just in front of the driver) - some seem to think it's for pressurising the inside of the penispit (can't say c#ckpit can I?!) to improve airflow over the car, and there are other guesses to do with the driver's leg controling the flow of air through it when he brakes. That could make it illegal! Or it could simply be for cooling the driver's nuts.

I thought Fluidics were appendages ravished by chronic male incontinence! Seriously though, McLaren must be confident to let the matter ride until Friday. I am reliably informed that there may be an even more effective rear wing upgrade coming to Bahrain and that it what they wanted Charlie to run his eye over. We will see.

[AleHop]

F1 Teams are stupid, aren't they? There's no point complaining before the start of the season unless the device in question is clearly illegal that it's explicitly mentioned in the rulebook. I remember the mass dumper affaire, had Ferrari complained about the device before the start of the season it would have been declared legal but once Renault got a good advantage in the championship they decided to balance the fight. On the contrary, had the teams complained about the double diffuser after the first five races they'd have got a good chance of declaring it illegal.

I think F1 teams should have learned something already.

[JHS]

Based on the fact there has been no uproar from other teams about it (unlike the double diffusers), I'd say it's nothing.

[Quiet One]

I agree. There was no big fuzz, although I am quite sure Ferrari is doing one of their classical "behind the scenes" lobbies and inquiries.

In any case, Macca seems to be playing safe too, and bringing in two different aero packages to Bahrain...just in case...

And well, part of the F1 fun resides in finding loopholes, and that always means playing with fire because there is a fine line between a loophole and cheating. It is a calculated risk for any F1 team trying to "pull a Brawn", imho.

[The Professor]

It seems absurd that the FIA can give "guidance" on legality before the season, yet this advice can be completely overturned at the first Grand Prix. A better system would be for the FIA to either 1) give no guidance pre-season on the legality of designs (other than the regulations which are available to all entrants), or 2) allow teams to make requests on the legality of designs, with the FIA making a "ruling" pre-season or as quickly as possible.

At the moment I think the teams/FIA have an awkward compromise where guidance is given by one party but a decision is made by another.

Of course it wouldn't matter so much if the rules were stable, whenever you get a new set of rules in any environment you usually get people pushing against them and testing what they can get away with, no different in F1 I suppose.

[JHS]

You really have to question the FIA about this once again though, sorting it on the weekend of the first race. I mean, how long have they had to inspect it and inform McLaren to change it if needs be? They've had pretty much the whole of Feb. It was the same with the double diffusers. If the FIA had got on with the job it would have long been clarified before the first race.

[Insider]

JHS, on 10 March 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

You really have to question the FIA about this once again though, sorting it on the weekend of the first race. I mean, how long have they had to inspect it and inform McLaren to change it if needs be? They've had pretty much the whole of Feb. It was the same with the double diffusers. If the FIA had got on with the job it would have long been clarified before the first race.

The problem is, they do not have enough staff on the ground. Charlie Whiting is FIA Formula One Race Director, Safety Delegate, Permanent Starter and head of the F1 Technical Department, in which capacities he generally manages the logistics of each F1 Grand Prix, inspects cars in Parc fermé before a race, enforces FIA rules, and controls the lights which start each race. That's it, basically.

Alan Donelly and Tony Purnell got the elbow from Todt but theiy were only 'advisors' and Mosley 'yes men'. I do not know if Peter Wright, one of the architects of budget-capping is still a Technical Advisor but Todt has recently appointed Bernard Niclot, former Research and Development Manager at PSA Peugeot Citroën, as a senior Technical Adviser and Gilles Simon, former head of the Engine and Electronics department for the Ferrari Formula One team, has been appointed to a new FIA position as Director of Powertrain and Electronics. Either way, Charlie is a 'one-man' band.

[Max Mosley]

Yeah it does seem ridiculous. How come they don't have enough staff? When the teams have hundreds of employees each, Whiting does seem to be doing a little too much himself. There should be (another?) tax on the pesky teams...

[Schumikonen]

When are we suppose to hear something about this "wing" or whatever it is that is in question right now? today? tomorrow? afeter the race?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Looks like a 2008 spec rear wing to me....

[Insider]

Freakazoid, on 10 March 2010 - 04:06 PM, said:

When are we suppose to hear something about this "wing" or whatever it is that is in question right now? today? tomorrow? afeter the race?

Friday morning before free practice, I would say.

[JHS]

Not long to wait then. I'd put a £1 on no action taken.

[Autumnpuma]

Well, Charlie looking at the wing is a bit of a waste of time for him considering the teams can, after Bahrain, appeal the stewards' decision of legality (yes, I think they'll deem it legal).

As to the legality, that would depend on one thing: is there a driver-controlled airflow regulator somewhere in there? There would have to be, to cause the wing to stall on the straights, thereby reducing all of the drag. If there's no driver control then it becomes a highly-efficient slot that reduces drag, which is legal. Trouble is, without the driver controlled bit, why would you direct the airflow like McLaren has done with it's design when you'd get the same reduction of drag with with a more conventional shark-wing and slot?

[la force supreme des mclaren]

What is up with the 2008 rear wing....i seem to come across references to "the wing" . can anyone fill me up on what that is? i seemed to have missed the memo....

[Autumnpuma]

Autumnpuma, on 10 March 2010 - 10:26 PM, said:

Well, Charlie looking at the wing is a bit of a waste of time for him considering the teams can, after Bahrain, appeal the stewards' decision of legality (yes, I think they'll deem it legal).

As to the legality, that would depend on one thing: is there a driver-controlled airflow regulator somewhere in there? There would have to be, to cause the wing to stall on the straights, thereby reducing all of the drag. If there's no driver control then it becomes a highly-efficient slot that reduces drag, which is legal. Trouble is, without the driver controlled bit, why would you direct the airflow like McLaren has done with it's design when you'd get the same reduction of drag with with a more conventional shark-wing and slot?

Well, Mike, you buffoon, it must add something more to the drag reduction or why else would they be using it? They know far more than you do about aero.

Also the airflow controller needn't be driver-controlled. A simple flap that opens up with higher windspeeds would accomplish the same thing. Really, do you think Hamilton or Button would be a party to so blatant a rule-breaker as a driver-controlled airflow device?

[Autumnpuma]

Autumnpuma, on 10 March 2010 - 11:04 PM, said:

Well, Mike, you buffoon, it must add something more to the drag reduction or why else would they be using it? They know far more than you do about aero.

Also the airflow controller needn't be driver-controlled. A simple flap that opens up with higher windspeeds would accomplish the same thing. Really, do you think Hamilton or Button would be a party to so blatant a rule-breaker as a driver-controlled airflow device?

Amen.

[Autumnpuma]

Max Mosley, on 10 March 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

Yeah it does seem ridiculous. How come they don't have enough staff? When the teams have hundreds of employees each, Whiting does seem to be doing a little too much himself. There should be (another?) tax on the pesky teams...

You have a fine government career in your future.

[Autumnpuma]

Seriously, though, can anyone post a link to exactly what the theories are for that wing? I've read scarb's blog about it, but there must be something else.

[Quiet One]

Autumnpuma, on 10 March 2010 - 11:54 PM, said:

Seriously, though, can anyone post a link to exactly what the theories are for that wing? I've read scarb's blog about it, but there must be something else.

There was an article on F1 technical that even included a nice little diagram on how it worked. Of course, I couldn't understand a thing.
All I could get is that it was a passive device. And even that I might have gotten wrong.

Again, my technical knowledge is so limited I even thought "The McLaren Wing" should be some TV series about the US Governement. Heck, don't look at me like that, if this argument had arisen when McLaren was still being sponsored by West...

[Insider]

Autumnpuma, on 10 March 2010 - 11:54 PM, said:

Seriously, though, can anyone post a link to exactly what the theories are for that wing? I've read scarb's blog about it, but there must be something else.

It is a 'passive' device. Someone mooted that driver leg movement could alter the flow of air and would therefore be 'illegal'. They have barely enough room to use the brakes and gas in practice. Here's some info:

http://www.formula1....2010/0/720.html

[Max Mosley]

This is just a guess but the way air flows around/through the cars can suddenly change once you go past a certain speed. I'd have thought most teams would exploit effects like this. Then again, maybe it turns out to be risky if it's hard to predict.

[aussief1]

The teams can do whatever they like during testing it's only when they rock up to the scrutineers office at Bahrain do the cars have to be 100% legal. The teams in my opinion should have no avenue of appeal outside a GP season to question competitors cars. Nor should a team be able to question the FIA in respect to the legality of the concept they are designing. Read the rule book and read it well, without running to the teacher every two seconds to ask if you are doing it right.

Insider, on 11 March 2010 - 07:04 AM, said:

It is a 'passive' device. Someone mooted that driver leg movement could alter the flow of air and would therefore be 'illegal'. They have barely enough room to use the brakes and gas in practice. Here's some info:

http://www.formula1....2010/0/720.html

They managed to fit the infamous brake steer pedal in the cramped c#ckpit back in 1998.

[medilloni]

The Macca is legal, inspected today.........

http://translate.goo...en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

[maurethegreat2]

Max Mosley, on 11 March 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

This is just a guess but the way air flows around/through the cars can suddenly change once you go past a certain speed. I'd have thought most teams would exploit effects like this. Then again, maybe it turns out to be risky if it's hard to predict.

Oh DOF!!!!!!!!!!!

[Schumikonen]

medilloni, on 11 March 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

The Macca is legal, inspected today.........

http://translate.goo...en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Good news, my "money" is on Mclaren this season.

[AleHop]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 10 March 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

Looks like a 2008 spec rear wing to me....

Exactly, clearly illegal.

[JHS]

medilloni, on 11 March 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

The Macca is legal, inspected today.........

http://translate.goo...en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Predicted as much. What next? Diffusers? Actually......I wouldn't put it past them.