See told you it was the fairies

JRS said:
Can someone please explain to me why, if RBR have this wing that everyone says is illegal, have the Ferrari International Assistance brigade not banned it?
Click to expand...

For the same reasons they didn't ban the DD on the Brawn. New teams winning and if there was any previous ferrari bias it's gone.

Skeeter said:
For god sake!

A car is deemed legal if it passes scrutineering and all FIA tests. The Red Bull wing passes all tests, therefore is perfectly legal..
Click to expand...

Clearly that's not true or the michelins wouldn't have been banned and Honda wouldn't have had to sit out two races for having the ability to cheat without actually having been proved to be cheating.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Clearly that's not true or the michelins wouldn't have been banned and Honda wouldn't have had to sit out two races for having the ability to cheat without actually having been proved to be cheating.
Click to expand...

You what? I assume your talking about the Michelins at the US GP, where it was Michelines and the teams choice to withdraw on safety grounds, nothing to do with being illegal? And the Honda second fuel tank was proved to have allowed the car to run under weight during the race (regardless of wether they did or not), making it illegal, and therefore banned.

The Red Bull wing has been tested using the FIA methods, and passed. If its still flexing then clearly the FIA test does not replicate on track conditions, and thats the FIAs fault, not Red Bull.

Get your facts straight before posting rubbish next time. I dont understand how people can't get their head around this?
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
For god sake!

A car is deemed legal if it passes scrutineering and all FIA tests. The Red Bull wing passes all tests, therefore is perfectly legal.

If the wing is still flexing then the issue is the FIA tests.

If the Red Bull was illegal then it would have either not raced or been disqualified (a la Sauber).

What we have, once again, is a case of very clever people producing some very clever engineering, but instead of praising their genius or trying to replicate the development ASAP, everyone is trying to get it banned (a la F Duct)

The FIA rules are broken, Red Bull have exploited this to their advantage. Well done Red Bull.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true - the FIA have let a lot of things go in the last 10 - 20 years since I have been watching that isnt strictly legal (for one team or another)

Either the FIA are being purposefully stupid (wouldnt surprise me) or there is no point at all of all their little methods of making the cars slower over the last few years (tyre wear and formulation / design , limitiing engine revs etc etc)

Some kind of (reversed) hydrolic / powered pivot close to the front wing mounting point (while stationary there is no power/ hydrolics so wing is as high as possible) Must be something like that - Im just surprised it hasnt leaked somehow or another team has worked out over the winter how to do it.

This must be one of the longest running developements that hasnt been discovered / copied by another team
 
JRS said:
Ah, okay.

So once again, the famously pro-Ferrari FIA instructs Ferrari to change their car. Ho hum.

;):D

From your second link:



Indeed. And nothing was 'found' on the Red Bull car. So how come Ferrari had to change their wings and Red Bull don't? ;)


LOL Red Bull International Assistance LOL
Click to expand...

Dont forget that we also passed the more stringent tests set by the FIA due to Ferrari and McLaren constantly whining to Charlie Whiting.
 
FrankJH said:
Not strictly true - the FIA have let a lot of things go in the last 10 - 20 years since I have been watching that isnt strictly legal (for one team or another)

Either the FIA are being purposefully stupid (wouldnt surprise me) or there is no point at all of all their little methods of making the cars slower over the last few years (tyre wear and formulation / design , limitiing engine revs etc etc)

Some kind of (reversed) hydrolic / powered pivot close to the front wing mounting point (while stationary there is no power/ hydrolics so wing is as high as possible) Must be something like that - Im just surprised it hasnt leaked somehow or another team has worked out over the winter how to do it.

This must be one of the longest running developements that hasnt been discovered / copied by another team
Click to expand...


LMAO

this shall be going round the D.O tomorrow :)
 
CS||nuTs said:
Dont forget that we also passed the more stringent tests set by the FIA due to Ferrari and McLaren constantly whining to Charlie Whiting.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show the test itself is wrong rather than anything else :D

CS||nuTs said:
LMAO

this shall be going round the D.O tomorrow :)
Click to expand...

Well Im glad to see Andy Warhol was right - even though in this case I will be lucky if its 15 seconds rather than minutes :D
 
They have solid evidence that the Red Bull wing is flexing. Anyone who watches the TV can see that. But the fact remains, the FIA have regulations about flexible bodywork, and they enforce these regulations with tests. The Red Bull has passed these tests, so it therefore within the regulations, and therefore legal.

As the wings are still flexing, then clearly the issue is with the regulations and/or the tests.

Edit: I love the hydrolic theory! Sounds like the Ferrari rough paint activated by a mercury switch theory! :)
 
Last edited:
dannyjo22 said:
For the same reasons they didn't ban the DD on the Brawn. New teams winning and if there was any previous ferrari bias it's gone.
Click to expand...

Oh, brilliant. So we can drop the tired old notion that the FIA are pro-Ferrari now then? Excellent.

dannyjo22 said:
Clearly that's not true or the michelins wouldn't have been banned and Honda wouldn't have had to sit out two races for having the ability to cheat without actually having been proved to be cheating.
Click to expand...

Skeeter said:
You what? I assume your talking about the Michelins at the US GP, where it was Michelines and the teams choice to withdraw on safety grounds, nothing to do with being illegal?
Click to expand...

Think he might have been referring to '03, when Bridgestone pointed out to the FIA that they thought Michelin were running outside of the spirit of the regulations.
 
Personally think that if Ferrari had been the other end of the Button / Massa incident then the rulling would have been different - but hey ho

(The FIA bias towards Ferrari has been going so long, it will take a VERY long time before its forgotten imo)

CS||nuTs said:
Did make me giggle :D
Click to expand...

Im glad to hear it

You know the REALLY annoying thing - RB would have probably still won the Aussie GP even without the "fllexi" wing (albeit relying more on LH's broken floor rather than plain performance advantage) :D
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
You what? I assume your talking about the Michelins at the US GP, where it was Michelines and the teams choice to withdraw on safety grounds, nothing to do with being illegal? And the Honda second fuel tank was proved to have allowed the car to run under weight during the race (regardless of wether they did or not), making it illegal, and therefore banned.


Get your facts straight before posting rubbish next time. I dont understand how people can't get their head around this?
Click to expand...

Well aint you a charmer, I mistakenly got it mixed up with the exact time of the michelin incident. They never broke any rules but where banned due to the movement of the tyre in race conditions, it passed all tests but was as JRS corrected me against the spirit of the rules so banned.

And you are WRONG about the honda fuel tank being proved to have allowed the car to run under weight. Honda actually proved they had never run underweight by the fuel consumption figures, fuel they started with and fuel they had left. They never proved they ran underweight, they just said they had the ability to run underweight at periods during the race if they wished. So you can ban people for having a system that could cause them to cheat even though you can't prove they have cheated?

So get your facts right hey?

JRS said:
Think he might have been referring to '03, when Bridgestone pointed out to the FIA that they thought Michelin were running outside of the spirit of the regulations.
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry that's the time I was referring to :)
 
Last edited:
Huh? I stated that the FIA proved Honda could have run under weight, not that they did, and as this is against the regulations they were banned?

If you rocked up with a 4.8 litre V16 but showed that you only used half the cylinders through the race would you expect it to be allowed?

I'm not disagreeing that the FIA have made dodgy decisions, and the whole 'against the spirit of the regulations' argument always annoys me. Regulations should be black or white, as soon as you start catering for the spirit of regulations, you just blur the lines.

But back on topic, the Red Bull wing is legal to race according the the FIA regulations and methods of enforcement.
 
Skeeter said:
But back on topic, the Red Bull wing is legal to race according the the FIA regulations and methods of enforcement.
Click to expand...

There is a huge hole between "FIA regs" and "methods of enforcement" imo that the FIA have to be blind to be missing (of course this isnt RB's fault, but the way they exploit it....makes me uneasy)
 
FrankJH said:
There is a huge hole between "FIA regs" and "methods of enforcement" imo that the FIA have to be blind to be missing (of course this isnt RB's fault, but the way they exploit it....makes me uneasy)
Click to expand...

Nail on the head. This is the issue that has got peoples backs up. The FIA regulations say no flexing wings, and yet everyone can see the wing flexing, but all the FIA can do is say they pass all their tests. Understandably this annoys people, the the fact remains the FIA have deemed them legal.
 
JRS said:
The single best thing about that nonsense was the extremely uncomfortable press conference at the Italian (?) GP just after Michelin had been told to change their tyres. Ron Dennis having a go at Ross Brawn. Utterly compelling viewing :)
Click to expand...

Damn, fancied watching that again but can't find it on youtube :D
 
dannyjo22 said:
Damn, fancied watching that again but can't find it on youtube :D
Click to expand...

I apologise, it wasn't Ron - it was Patrick Head. Ross and Ron were in the front row, Patrick and Flavio behind them. Patrick interrupted Ross to query why the tyre issue was being brought up now, Ross gave a pretty decent defence despite Patrick snickering in the background acting like a complete brat :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom