Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
Wow.
So other teams who might have scored more constructors points (along with the $millions that brings) if Red Bull hadn't been cheating...you thing they are equally impressed by Red Bulls "engineering"?
And if Red Bull have the moral duplicity to cheat at one aspect of their cars design then why wouldn't they cheat at others?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer
Go and read the rule. Passing the test, which in inadequate, doesn't mean you are in compliance.
Their wing must remain rigid in relation to the sprung bodywork.
It does not, in situ.
This is a rules violation. The test doesn't matter.
Edit: This is perfectly congruent with VW. They designed a cheat to pass the emissions test but return to pollution mode at speed. RBR designed a wing to pass the static load test but flex at speed. Notice the similarities?
|
I went through the regs and found this wording and am changing my answer.
"Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)."
As MK said. It has no call out for passing a test, the wording is extremely clear that there must be no deflection. So yeah, RBR is cheating. Its not cool like I initially thought before reading the regs.
Another note though. It seems very odd to use the wording "rigidly secure" and "Not having degree of freedom"
That is much too absolute for the real world IMO. Its almost impossible to make any joint or feature experiencing as much force as that rear wing not deflect or rotate at all. I am willing to bet the Merc and every other car also moves, just not as much. I think they should amend the reg to say, "with a 1200kg load in -Z or +X there shall be only 2mm of deflection" or something like that. That is how most automotive industry regulations are. Thoughts?