FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

its not the slot in the rear wing it is McLarens shark fin that joins to the rear wing. Basically it is a tube that starts in the engine air intake above the drivers helmet you can see there are two inlets the one above is said to go to the rear wing and induce stall at top speed thus losing downforce. But at lower speeds the rear wing works as it should. There is even talk that the inlet is driver controlled.
Pretty innovative design if you ask me.

I read somewhere the that snorkel it part of the whole system. The driver can squeeze the pipe feeding from snorkel which changed the air flow over the rear wing.

as for it being a movable aero part. there is no aero part that moves that could potentially weaken the structure.

[vaptin]

This is interesting stuff. It seems clever as well - so was this why McLaren had all their special paints on the car?

[FerrariFan63]

I've read four pages of this thread and I'm still not sure what the rule that McLaren's car was supposed to have broken was. It's a bit boring seeing people saying that the wing must be legal for no better reason than they are McLaren fans, or that it must be illegal because they are fans of a competing teams. Or, that it should be legal or should not be legal for no explained reason.

Are there any rules that make the wing illegal? If so, what are they? If not, what is the fuss about?

[racechick]

I've read four pages of this thread and I'm still not sure what the rule that McLaren's car was supposed to have broken was. It's a bit boring seeing people saying that the wing must be legal for no better reason than they are McLaren fans, or that it must be illegal because they are fans of a competing teams. Or, that it should be legal or should not be legal for no explained reason.

Are there any rules that make the wing illegal? If so, what are they? If not, what is the fuss about?

In very simple terms, cos im not too good at engineering I think there must be no moveable parts.In which case the McLaren is legal. But it may not be as simple as that.

[Jensonb]

I've read four pages of this thread and I'm still not sure what the rule that McLaren's car was supposed to have broken was. It's a bit boring seeing people saying that the wing must be legal for no better reason than they are McLaren fans, or that it must be illegal because they are fans of a competing teams. Or, that it should be legal or should not be legal for no explained reason.

Are there any rules that make the wing illegal? If so, what are they? If not, what is the fuss about?

The debate is about how many elements are in the rear wing and the slots formed between them. The rules stipulate 2 elements with one slot, but for a very specific area at the centre of the wing, it's much more open. The murky question over McLaren's wing is if they have added extra slots or planes with the shark fin and the air fed down it.

[FerrariFan63]

In very simple terms, cos im not too good at engineering I think there must be no moveable parts.In which case the McLaren is legal. But it may not be as simple as that.

It is far from that simple. There isn't only one rule stating that there must be no moving parts. There are also rules, I believe, restricting the size, positioning, and number of elements of the wings.

The debate is about how many elements are in the rear wing and the slots formed between them. The rules stipulate 2 elements with one slot, but for a very specific area at the centre of the wing, it's much more open. The murky question over McLaren's wing is if they have added extra slots or planes with the shark fin and the air fed down it.

Thanks. I believe that, like the diffusers, it will take far more information than we currently have access to in order to decide for sure whether the wing is illegal.

[racechick]

I've read four pages of this thread and I'm still not sure what the rule that McLaren's car was supposed to have broken was. It's a bit boring seeing people saying that the wing must be legal for no better reason than they are McLaren fans, or that it must be illegal because they are fans of a competing teams. Or, that it should be legal or should not be legal for no explained reason.

Are there any rules that make the wing illegal? If so, what are they? If not, what is the fuss about?

The debate is about how many elements are in the rear wing and the slots formed between them. The rules stipulate 2 elements with one slot, but for a very specific area at the centre of the wing, it's much more open. The murky question over McLaren's wing is if they have added extra slots or planes with the shark fin and the air fed down it.

Thought it might not be that simple

[Rusko]

We will just have to wait and see. Although I doubt that it will be banned, I think it will be similar to the diffuser row ie the other teams will implement there own versions.

[Gaz]

Rear wing is legal.

the Fia described it as a: "A simple but brilliant trick."

[bud]

Rear wing is legal.

the Fia described it as a: "A simple but brilliant trick."

[Gaz]

Rear wing is legal.

the Fia described it as a: "A simple but brilliant trick."

Green Light!!

[ivey]

Rear wing is legal.

the Fia described it as a: "A simple but brilliant trick."

brilliant trick and brilliant news

[texasmr2]

Thank god the decision has been made BEFORE the season starts, thanks JT ! I cannot begin to fathom the turmoil if MM was still in charge .

[Mark_Jones]

I wonder how long it will take before ferrari and red bull adopt something similar..

[vaptin]

Did the Fia say it was simple and brilliant? I'm going to sound bad here but I wanna state my point (and its NOT mclaren specific) they're supposed to be the governing body aren't they? They should remain factual and impartial at all instances.