The "unsporting" argument falls into the same category as when people claim things are "against the spirit of the rules". It means nothing, and usually comes from people who are bitter that they didn't think of it themselves.
I'm sure most of the midfield teams would welcome the the investment from a top team if any of them think owning more than 1 team is that much of an advantage.
Complete tosh, the former anyway, in the case of Red Bull's wing, every single rule is trying to prevent flexi wings and maintain a minimum height, Red Bull pass the tests with a part that breaches every single intent of the rules. It is against the spirit of the rules. Are Red Bull, or the FIA to blame, bit of both, why didn't EVERY team make a wing that broke the rule but passed the test? Because other people considered it to be against the rules, they were told, don't make a flexi wing, not "make a flexi wing that passes our don't make a flexi wing rules".
It's no different to taking the licence plate off your car and blowing a red light, they can't prove it was your car without the licence plate, you still broke the rule.
Red Bull blatantly and consistently go against every intent of the law with loop holes, most teams do this to a degree, Red Bull seem to do this more than anyone else. While most rules are their to be broken, most people tip toe across the line and try and get away with it, Red Bull go over the line so far they can't see the line anymore.
Article 3.15 covers movable bodywork as follows:
“With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
“Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom):
“Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car:
“Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
“No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.”
Those aren't the current rules(though they may be no/not much different). The intent is patently clear to anyone being sensible, the wing should not move, full stop, they just don't test for it sufficiently, twice that I can recall in the past 3 years they've changed the test in the season to try and catch the Red Bull cheating, they DIDN'T change the rule, just the test, why, because everyone who isn't blind can see Red Bull are cheating, they are just passing the test, nothing more or less. If the FIA didn't think they were breaking the rule, why try and change the test to catch them? For at least 2-3 years they have just constantly said, in every way possible, don't move the damn wing, don't have moveable aero parts, do not flex the wing, do not move the wing, make it rigid. Red Bull have done everything possible to move that damn wing, while passing the ridiculously awful test.
Oh,
Q: How and why have the tests for front wing deflection changed?
CW: The rules state the wings (as well as all other parts of the bodywork) must be rigid. We have halved the permitted deflection. Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load. Our allowances are only a guideline for us and we felt the teams were operating outside the spirit of the rules and clearly designing their wings with flexibility in mind. In our view Article 3.15 takes precedence over Article 3.17 where the deflection limits are quantified. Article 3.17.8 allows us to introduce new tests if we feel our guidelines are not being following in an appropriate manner. The new test therefore moves the pressure point rearwards by 10mm and inboard by 5mm with the permitted deflection reduced to 10mm. We have also told the teams that we may apply the load to just one side of the front wing, an asymmetrical test.
Charlie on the changes to the rules for 2012... he specifically states that teams were operating to the letter of the test to get maximum deflection and the intention of the test and rule was for a RIGID< completely rigid wing, nothing less, the test was to allow leeway, not to be met exactly. Every change in rules on wings, every test change, rigid wings, full stop, that is the rule, that is the intent of the rule, minimum height above the ground and no flex, no tilt, no movement AT ALL is the intent of the rule. Red Bull purposefully break all of those, flex, tilt and reduce min height off the ground. Red Bull are clever, but its hard to know how clever, did they make the best wing, or were the most willing to break the rule, what would other teams have done if they were allowed to make any kind of flexi wing, would Red Bull's be any better than it is, who knows.
FIA needs to get better with testing, took them what 2 years to add slightly better tests, then red Bull just made a tilt wing instead of flexi wing. FIA needs to be able to use video evidence against people who so blatantly break the rules, and also. In regards to teams going for a 19.1mm deflection rather than 20mm, when the rules intended them to aim for 0mm deflection, they need to introduce some kinda fine or penalty for these situations where teams purposefully work against the rules.
I don't actually like the rule, I don't care about flexi wing, I love how innovative Red Bull are, but the field needs to be playing with the same goalposts. Caterham can't afford to spend 5mil developing a flexi wing that might be deemed illegal, so they play within the bounds of the laws, Red Bull can afford to spend 5mil on the wing, and if the FIA judged it illegal at some stage, spend 5mil more on a non rule breaking version, spend money breaking rules simply because they have the money, its unsporting.
Everyone can legally make a flexi wing so everyone develops one, and the best one wins, or there is a rule, and teams get punished for breaking it. red Bull cheat, a lot, and its very very clearly against the rules, but the FIA don't do anything about it. Next year we might have a new test that checks for tilting.
On TR, I do and don't care, I find the whole thing stupid to be honest. THe rules preventing them using the same chassis, for a sport determined to reduce costs, they've substantially increased the cost of running a second team. Yeah they let him pass easy, other teams let other drivers pass easy, friendships, rivalry, revenge for a previous block/race/crash, has always been a part of F1, and any rules to prevent any driver doing it would be unenforceable. Schumi not allowed to let Vettel past, he'll just brake late on a corner, go deep make a "mistake", and let him past, how would you rule on intent there?
