1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUTOS.SPORT.F1

  • Re: Mercs new front wing?

    From Mark Jackson@21:1/5 to XYXPDQ on Sun Oct 23 14:03:25 2022
    On 10/23/2022 1:23 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:
    So is that new front wing with the "eyebrows" legal or not?

    Reviewed and cleared by the FIA; that's not definitive of course and
    some other teams are suggesting it might be protested.

    Did they even run it?

    Shipped to Austin but not planned to be tested until Mexico. Might be
    modified to avoid possible hassles.

    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mercedes-may-modify-new-f1-wing-to-avoid-falling-foul-of-fia/10389164/

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    Honestly, I don't know why anyone is allowed to own a car,
    without a basic understanding of physics.
    - Caulfield (Jef Mallett)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From XYXPDQ@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 23 10:23:07 2022
    So is that new front wing with the "eyebrows" legal or not? Did they even run it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D Munz@21:1/5 to XYXPDQ on Wed Oct 26 05:50:58 2022
    On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, XYXPDQ wrote:
    So is that new front wing with the "eyebrows" legal or not? Did they even run it?

    From the Autosport article:

    "I think if you look at the regulations, there's about 40-odd incidences in the regulations of 'sole purpose'. In this case, it doesn't say 'sole purpose', it says 'primary purpose'.

    That sentence says everything you need to know about the issues with F1 regulation. I wonder if there is a line item in team budgets for a "regulatory word monitor" to comb through the text and find cases where loopholes may exist. (An engineering
    position, not just a lawyer.)

    I'll go back to paraphrasing Ron Dennis:

    Four wheels, runs gas, fits in a box with dimensions X by X by X.

    and

    If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be in F1.

    FWIW
    DLM

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From News@21:1/5 to D Munz on Wed Oct 26 10:20:45 2022
    On 10/26/2022 8:50 AM, D Munz wrote:
    On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, XYXPDQ wrote:
    So is that new front wing with the "eyebrows" legal or not? Did they even run it?

    From the Autosport article:

    "I think if you look at the regulations, there's about 40-odd incidences in the regulations of 'sole purpose'. In this case, it doesn't say 'sole purpose', it says 'primary purpose'.

    That sentence says everything you need to know about the issues with F1 regulation. I wonder if there is a line item in team budgets for a "regulatory word monitor" to comb through the text and find cases where loopholes may exist. (An engineering
    position, not just a lawyer.)

    I'll go back to paraphrasing Ron Dennis:

    Four wheels, runs gas, fits in a box with dimensions X by X by X.

    and

    If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be in F1.

    FWIW
    DLM


    Which explains Audi/Sauber from 2026.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark@21:1/5 to D Munz on Wed Oct 26 15:41:01 2022
    D Munz <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, XYXPDQ wrote:
    So is that new front wing with the "eyebrows" legal or not? Did they
    even run it?

    From the Autosport article:

    "I think if you look at the regulations, there's about 40-odd
    incidences in the regulations of 'sole purpose'. In this case, it
    doesn't say 'sole purpose', it says 'primary purpose'.

    That sentence says everything you need to know about the issues with
    F1 regulation. I wonder if there is a line item in team budgets for a "regulatory word monitor" to comb through the text and find cases
    where loopholes may exist. (An engineering position, not just a
    lawyer.)

    There is always a war between the rule makers and the teams -
    particularly the designers - where the former tries to tighten the
    restrictions and the latter tries to work around them. We really don't
    want rules to say "sole purpose" everywhere as the same pedants would
    look for every rivals' change that might be of benefit to find some
    slight side-effect that would allow them to challenge its legality.

    For most, if the change is clearly 90% about (say) safety or efficiency
    and the other 10% is a very marginal improvement in aero (let's say
    1/100th second) it's not a big deal. On the other hand, if it's 51%
    about efficiency and 49% providing a significant aero advantage (let's
    say 1/10th second), it's a very different situation.

    If we tighten the regulations such that innovation isn't worth the
    challenges, it becomes a wholly spec series which I think most people
    wouldn't like. It misses the point of F1.

    Just IMO.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)