Poll: Spanish Grand Prix 2021, Catalunya - Race 4/23

Rate the 2021 Spanish Grand Prix out of ten

  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
Just seen that video elsewhere, kudos to Red Bull for implenting it but kinda inevitable seeing that that the FIA would start looking at it, again. The front wings as well, across all teams, are clearly flexing down/back at speed, no idea if the FIA care about that yet...

On the Russell to Red Bull stuff, why? Why would Russell go for that when he's basically assured a Merc seat sooner or later, hell he's probably a definite for next seasons, probably alongside Hamilton. Red Bull are less likely to provide a winning car, given the last decade 7-8 years or whatever, this is the first time they're close and it's not looking great already. Yes it's new rules and all that but I'd still bet on Merc...
 
Steampunk said:
RBR again. They have always been the masters of breaking the rules while managing to pass the tests designed to enforce those rules.
Click to expand...
At what point are they breaking the rules? because the Mercedes is clearly flexing as well, about half as much, but they'll undoubtedly be benefiting from it.
 
SKILL said:
On the Russell to Red Bull stuff, why? Why would Russell go for that when he's basically assured a Merc seat sooner or later, hell he's probably a definite for next seasons, probably alongside Hamilton. Red Bull are less likely to provide a winning car, given the last decade 7-8 years or whatever, this is the first time they're close and it's not looking great already. Yes it's new rules and all that but I'd still bet on Merc...
Click to expand...

This kind of domination is unprecedented in the sport. Serial WCC teams fall eventually. With the rule changes and the budget cap it's far from certain Merc will carry on being the car of choice. Meanwhile Russell is wasting his time at Williams.

The choice between RB now and staying at Williams in the hope of Merc later is surely a no brainer.
 
this_is_gav said:
Certainly Hamilton is that good, a definite great of his generation at least, but Bottas isn't a rubbish driver - he's just up against one of the best.

Bottas has shown he can be as quick as anyone on the grid, but it's a whole other level to repeat that lap after lap for the duration of a race, and that's where Hamilton has improved dramatically in the hybrid era. I do think that, like Vettel, Hamilton lost a bit of his outright speed in the switch to these heavy buses, but unlike Vettel Hamilton has added a steely relentlessness and consistency to his race pace, a bit like how Alonso was, especially on his return to Renault and at Ferrari.

I don't think Russell will pose too much of a threat to Hamilton if Mercedes require that, on the condition that Russell has it written into his contract that he becomes at least an equal within a certain time frame or whenever Hamilton retires. Russell would be stupid to ruin the chance of a long contract at Mercedes by posing a risk to both cars for some short-term marker against Hamilton in likely his last two or three seasons.

No, the risk with Russell is that his race pace is still a massive question mark. Sure, he performed well at Sakhir compared to Bottas, but as I've said that's was a unique race which shouldn't be used as a yardstick, and his Williams performances hardly scream a master of race pace, as he's often not always that far up the road from Latifi and inevitably slipping down the order after a brilliant qualifying. That's almost certainly down to the supposed Williams flaws as much as it is the driver's style, but from a Mercedes point of view you can see why they might have reservations.
Click to expand...

I've said it before but I still think Russell could do with some extra "seasoning" at a mid-level team (AMR maybe?) before getting put into the front-running Merc. As you say his race pace is a question; partly because Latifi seems more able to be close on race day this season. His attitude after the incident at Imola wasn't great either.

If Merc really want a tame, quickish second driver then I'm sure there are other candidates on the grid they could go for (I actually wonder about Ocon to be honest he's looking good v Alonso); personally I don't think Russell is the Brit most likely to be the next World Champion anymore; I reckon Lando looks like given a fast enough car he could really challenge the likes of Max, and Charles the front.
 
Steampunk said:
RBR again. They have always been the masters of breaking the rules while managing to pass the tests designed to enforce those rules.
Click to expand...

The 'rigidly' attached front wing flaps that turned out to be mounted with rubber come to mind. Really surprised they got away with only having their quali result removed from them for that. Deliberately breaching the rules like that normally results in an exclusion at the minimum.

Calm said:
At what point are they breaking the rules? because the Mercedes is clearly flexing as well, about half as much, but they'll undoubtedly be benefiting from it.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at the FIA Technical Regs.

3.8 Aerodynamic influence

With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view mirrors described in Article 14.3, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

a. Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance 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 parts referred to in Articles 3.7.11, 3.7.12 and 3.7.13, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.


3.9 Bodywork flexibility

3.9.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 15mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it at points 700mm and 1000mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 895mm from the car centre plane. The load will be applied symmetrically to both sides of the car, and in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram on a rectangular adapter measuring 400mm x 150mm. This adapter must be supplied by the team and:

a. Have a flat top surface without recesses.
b. Be fitted to the car so as to apply the full load to the bodywork at the test point and not to increase the rigidity of the parts being tested.
c. Be placed with the inner 400mm edge parallel to the car centre plane and displaced from it by 820mm.
d. Be placed with its forward edge 1050mm forward of the front wheel centre line.

The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.

The same test described in the present Article will be also applied asymmetrically (i.e. on the one side of the car only), and in this case the bodywork may not deflect more than 20mm.

3.9.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 8mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 600mm from the car centre plane. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.9.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 825mm above the reference plane and 20mm forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate at 825mm above the reference plane.

3.9.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.9.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 4000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre plane and 100mm either side of it.

Each of these loads will be applied in an upward direction at a point 480mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre plane.

Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.

Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to:

a. Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b. Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c. Buckling members or any component or design which may have any non-linear characteristics.
d. Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.

3.9.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 870mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.9.7 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 630mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically. The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width.

The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which:
a. May be no more than 50mm wide.
b. Which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge.
c. Incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

3.9.8 Any part of the trailing edge of any front wing flap may deflect no more than 5mm, when measured along the loading axis, when a 60N point load is applied normal to the flap.

3.9.9 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.8 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
Click to expand...

Straight off it quite likely falls fowl of 3.8b - being rigidly mounted to the car. Another test or tests can be devised by the FIA to test for this. Obviously passes the load tests as is, but if the loads on the rear wing were to double the day of the next inspection?

And 3.9.9, FIA can create any test they want.
 
Mr Jack said:
This kind of domination is unprecedented in the sport. Serial WCC teams fall eventually. With the rule changes and the budget cap it's far from certain Merc will carry on being the car of choice. Meanwhile Russell is wasting his time at Williams.

The choice between RB now and staying at Williams in the hope of Merc later is surely a no brainer.
Click to expand...

True, Merc could fall, but that's not to say RB will take their place and/or not suffer as badly.

I probably didn't put it across properly but I personally believe Russell will get (may already have!) the seat at Merc next year, it just makes sense. In that case it's a no brainer, but sure if they offer Bottas another year or two and Hamilton re-signs then
if RB offers it's better than Williams. I just don't think it will come to that.
 
Flibster said:
The 'rigidly' attached front wing flaps that turned out to be mounted with rubber come to mind. Really surprised they got away with only having their quali result removed from them for that. Deliberately breaching the rules like that normally results in an exclusion at the minimum.



Let's take a look at the FIA Technical Regs.



Straight off it quite likely falls fowl of 3.8b - being rigidly mounted to the car. Another test or tests can be devised by the FIA to test for this. Obviously passes the load tests as is, but if the loads on the rear wing were to double the day of the next inspection?

And 3.9.9, FIA can create any test they want.
Click to expand...

Almost everything after 3.9 suggests there's an allowance for a certain amount of movement in these supposedly rigid parts.

I'm sure if they just randomly changed the test procedures (doubled loads) they'd catch out a fair few teams, but it would hardly be fair considering the rules allow for a certain amount of flexing under load.

The revised testing (in June), where they use onboard cameras and marking on the wing seems like a good way forward, with real world behaviour being assessed instead of (as well as) sticking a bunch of weights on the wing.
 
I prefer this video, as it has a reference line. The amount that the RB wing bends is incredible.

 
SKILL said:
I probably didn't put it across properly but I personally believe Russell will get (may already have!) the seat at Merc next year, it just makes sense. In that case it's a no brainer, but sure if they offer Bottas another year or two and Hamilton re-signs then
if RB offers it's better than Williams. I just don't think it will come to that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Russell replacing Bottas for next season is surely more likely than not.
 
Steampunk said:
But they get to use an outlawed bendy wing for the next three races? That seems out of order. If it's an illegal part on the car, it's an illegal car.
Click to expand...
They passes all the current tests so it's not currently illegal.

Don't make the mistake that it's just Red Bull though. The article, while swayed against Red Bull, says that "multiple teams are thought to be exploiting a potential loophole in the rules that allows the rear wing to bend to generate less drag and a higher top speed". Judging by the video comparison posted earlier Mercedes are among them, it just doesn't appear to be as extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom