Quote:
Originally Posted by Ngilbe36
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?
|
Thanks! You are the kind of F1 fan I absolutely love! Performs research and seeks additional knowledge.
This is a simple thing to see and, like in all things human, there has to be a degree of freedom.
That said, the car must comply with the rules and that MUST be proven to the FIA by THE TEAM!! This is one of the reasons I respect Merc with the DAS situation. They got approval from the FIA and ran the device.
Apparently RBR has been doing this since last year and is being called out for it. They have a history of this exact malfeasance. That is the reason I'm a little vexed about it.