I mean, where is the rule that stipulates how much a wing can flex on track?
...Are you kidding? You're kidding right? The rule we've been discussing this whole time is that exact rule. It's just written incorrectly.
Yeah don't try and insult my intelligence with stupid remarks, it's just childish. Not to mention simply incorrect given that there is no rule saying, for example, "surface x must not deflect more than 10mm at 250kph", which is my point there. The cars are and have always been a product of the rules. It doesn't work backwards. The powers that be can change the rules to change the cars, but it doesn't work backwards. How can a rule be written 'incorrectly' based on that?
Here is the particular article i believe so many of you are annoyed with:
Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- 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 skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
So, all well and good right? No... because that rule is so god damn vague that it is completely unenforcable with that wording alone. This is where the load tests come in, to determine a exact and definite point within that immensely grey area where the wing becomes illegal. That, therefore, is the absolute rule that the cars will be designed to, a process involving numbers that allow exact solutions to be engineered under pure logical conditions, rather than vague wording and opinion, as it is the only reasonable thing to do. It's the same process for all other areas of the car, why does the front wing need special treatment?
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 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.
Until this happens, that car is legal and that car will retain this advantage. I'd love to hear a good explanation to the contrary other than it being against the spirit of the rules because really such a reason is a bit of a cop out argument (no offence), as it's just opinion.
The only way they can truly enforce this effectively is to have a windtunnel and measure the deflection, but they can't really do that at circuits all over the world. Alternatively they can ramp up the load tests until such a point where it's simply dangerous due to how rigid the wings will be. Not really gonna work either, right? So, i guess spec materials or wings are the only option remaining as far as i can see...
It's no more illegal than an f-duct or double diffuser. Whether those devices were within the spirit of the rules or not is all opinion but their legality is stone cold fact.
