Red Bull fly to victory but FIA set to clip their wings (Red Bull race review)

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Hungaroring, 2010

Red Bull’s performance advantage was visible from first practice at the Hungaroring. It reached a peak of 1.214 seconds per lap – the gap between pole-sitter Vettel and third placed Fernando Alonso in qualifying.

But the flexing front wing which helped them achieve such amazing speed is likely to be outlawed at the next race.

Sebastian Vettel Mark Webber
Qualifying position 1 2
Qualifying time comparison (Q3) 1’18.773 (-0.411) 1’19.184
Race position 3 1
Average race lap 1’26.926 (+0.275) 1’26.651
Laps 70/70 70/70
Pit stops 2 1

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Open lap times interactive chart in new window

Sebastian Vettel

Vettel usually looked able to get better performance out of the super-soft tyre than his team mate. So it proved in qualifying, where Vettel claimed yet another pole position.

He kept his lead at the start and disappeared from the chasing Fernando Alonso at up to a second per lap.

But his cruise to victory was interrupted by the appearance of the safety car. Struggling with a radio that was only working intermittently, he failed to keep up with Webber and was handed a drive-through penalty.

That left him third behind Alonso and unable to get close enough to the Ferrari to pass. At one point he had the gap down to just 0.4 seconds but under-steered off at turn four, struggling in Alonso’s slipstream.

His facial expression on the podium said it all as he contemplated another opportunity to take the lead of the championship lost.

Compare Sebastian Vettel’s form against his team mate in 2010

Mark Webber

He was beaten to pole position by his team mate, then beaten to turn one by Alonso. But a smart strategic gamble by his team and a series of red-hot laps by Webber won him the race.

It’s a testament both to the capabilities of the car and its driver that Webber was able to pull out a 22-second lead over Alonso in 25 laps using tyres which covered more than half the race distance.

Webber’s fourth win of the year put him back in the lead of the drivers’ championship.

But the FIA have announced that as of the next race in Spa the teams’ front wings will be subject to new load tests. This may make it impossible for Red Bull to use their front wing which is clearly deflecting greatly at high speed and providing a significant performance benefit.

Compare Mark Webber’s form against his team mate in 2010

2010 Hungarian Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 Hungarian Grand Prix articles

Advert | Go Ad-free


110 comments on Red Bull fly to victory but FIA set to clip their wings (Red Bull race review)

  1. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 2nd August 2010, 1:06

    One question, Keith. You wrote that maybe, had RBR used the F-Duct, Vettel could’ve tried soemthing to overtake Alonso.

    My question is (maybe the technical analysis coming soon surely would be the better place to ask): what’s the disadvantage of using the F-Duct at corners? I thought it only worked on straights, so it was a clean plus and had little to no effect at corners (where drivers don’t tap the tunnel with their hands)…

    Just asking because i don’t know what happens. The broadcast here is rubbish, so commentators don’t talk much about the new bits on the cars. It’s just my mind trying to work out why they take it off the car.

    • US_Peter said on 2nd August 2010, 1:22

      The F-duct is only used on straights, but it adds some drag that reduces aerodynamic efficiency. They weigh the cost vs. benefit and decide whether or not to run it. At Hungaroring presumably they determined that due to the short straight its benefits were less than the benefits in the corners by not running it. McLaren run it everywhere because it’s an integral part of the car and they probably don’t have a version of the wing without it. I’m not really sure why Williams and Sauber ran it…

      • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 2nd August 2010, 2:44

        Ah, thank you! thank you! thank you! (triple “thank you” because “post wasn’t long enough” LOL :P)

      • mateuss said on 2nd August 2010, 6:12

        The fact is that the F-duct is very complicated and probably no one other than Mclaren have got it working 100%, so for the other teams, even when the duct is not deployed the air is spilling a bit so thats why the other teams lose a bit downforce during corners.

        • rok said on 2nd August 2010, 8:11

          The better explanation probably is, that mclaren dont even have a rear wing without the stalling device.. .so their car is a package as a whole with the F-duct, unlike other teams which started with normal wings and than added an atachment with an f-duct wing

        • rok said on 2nd August 2010, 8:15

          End no, there is no spilling of air with other teams, its just that it reduces drag/downforce so its not efficient enough unless you have a long straight

          • rok said on 2nd August 2010, 8:16

            Obviously it creates more drag. But its the corelation betwen the drag and downforce which is wors with the f-duct

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd August 2010, 11:27

          But it was hardly as if Red Bull had to be afraid of losing a bit of downforce (almost a second advantage in sector 2) to make sure they had a better chance if they would get stuck behind someone during the race.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd August 2010, 11:24

        Sauber also ran their F-duct and i think it was part of the reason why Kobayashi was able to get so far in the race following Button.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd August 2010, 7:41

      You can’t actually use the F-duct in corners – the air directed over the wing causes it to stall, which is to say it removes all downforce. And downforce is what provides most of a car with its grip. Using the F-duct through a corner woul simply cause it to run off the road.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd August 2010, 9:52

      Presumably a loss of total downforce. So I can see why they did it from a pure performance point of view.

      Of course, we don’t know how big the trade-off was. But given their straight-line speed disadvantage and the possibility they might get stuck behind someone, it was a questionable decision.

      I wonder if they’ll use it at Singapore? I’m guessing they will, as the straights there are a bit longer.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd August 2010, 11:29

        In Silverstone they felt the need to run the new wing, althoug they were miles in front. Here they did not want to sacrifice a bit of downforce to help their straight line speed.

        To me it seems Red Bull are still a bit unsure about their advantage and to make sure their ahead just bolt on everything they got to blow everyone away on track.

  2. US_Peter said on 2nd August 2010, 1:14

    Keith, once again RBR and Ferrari reviews aren’t showing up in the articles in full listings on the right hand side of the page, only in the Hungarian GP articles, and on the home page.

  3. The F-duct reduces downforce slightly and increases top speed slightly. This is not what you want when going around corners.

    As for why the F-duct was taken off the RB6 this race, who knows?

    • sato113 said on 2nd August 2010, 2:19

      no-one uses the f-duct around corners anyway.

      • Eric said on 2nd August 2010, 4:07

        the f-duct helps remove the down force from the back wing, which in turn helps you go faster down the straight.
        if you used it on a corner your rear end would slide out because you effectively removed the weight the back wing is generating to hold your car down onto the track.

        hope that makes sense.

    • BBT said on 2nd August 2010, 5:58

      Because even when it is ‘off’ it still slightly reduces downforce. When its on it reduces drag (and downforce).

      Mclaren might of ran better without the F-duct but I don’t think they can, as has been pointed out its designed into the car.

  4. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 2nd August 2010, 6:11

    If the FIA ban flexing front wing then will Red Bull & Ferrari be able to keep their points??

    • Todfod said on 2nd August 2010, 6:23

      Yes. They can obviously keep the points, but that throws the ball back in Mclaren’s court. Come Spa and Monza, they will be the quickest cars on the grid.

      • johnno said on 2nd August 2010, 15:16

        this is ridiculous how they get to keep the points, when it is clearly illegal. The double diffusers and f-duct were strictly legal, but having a wing below the minimum height from the ground is just plain illegal, and they should lose their points.

        • Daffid said on 2nd August 2010, 15:55

          They’re not clearly illegal, they’re clearly and unquestionably legal as they’ve passed scrutineering – they do not flex out-with the limits and under the loads proscribed and the FIA will have to change the rules to make them illegal.

          And the f-duct and double-diffuser were just the same – clearly not what the rules intended, but deemed acceptable due to different possible interpretations of the wording of the regulations and as you say, therefore legal.

          Of the three the double diffuser is the one I would have thought was most dodgy, but the legal teams of those protesting put in a really poor performance at the hearing.
          Either way, once they were passed for the first few races it made little sense to then ban them as it would have required rewriting the rules mid-season, and the same is true of Ferrari and Red Bull’s front wings.

          Looks like the FIA have now seen a sort of sense and aren’t intending an out-right ban, just a bit of a tightening of limits, which may or may not make any difference.

    • Yes just like McLaren can keep their points even though the F-duct is going to be banned.

      But do remember, they are NOT banning ‘flexi wings’, they’re making the tests more stringent. Maybe McLaren’s wing won’t pass the new tests either…

      • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:09


        Maclarens rear wing device has been fully passed by the FIA, which is why everyone else scrambled to get one. They used a loophole in the regulations to it is perfectly legal until next year when the loophole will be closed. The flexiwings though are not exploiting a loophole in the regulations, they seem to be exploiting flawed testing procedures. This means that they are illegal, but have passed the required tests, Red bull therefore would not loose any points but will probably not be allowed to run them again (assuming the FIA get their tests corrected properly).

        • Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 9:17

          In this case, the regulations specify that wings can flex no more than 10mm under a 500N load. The Red Bull wing has passed this test, so it’s legal.

          Because the testing procedure is specifically included in the wording of the regulations, there is no space for an “illegal but passes the test” wing. If a wing passes the test, it’s legal. Simple as that.

          So Red Bull has found another loophole in the regulations. I don’t see much difference to the F-duct case, except that flexi-wings are perhaps more of a safety risk.

          • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:25

            I am pretty sure that the testing procedure (ie where the load is placed) is not specified in the regulations (although I may be wrong) However the wings clearly are flexing a huge amount (and in fact touching the floor at some points). I have heard that the FIA do not apply the force to the end of the wings (where the flexing will be greatest) and it is this that they will be changing. This would in fact mean that the wing has been illegal but passing the flawed tests and is exactly the reason that other teams have been asking the FIA to confirm what is and what is not allowed as it was unclear how the red bull wing was not flexing under testing but it was during the race (it is also possible that the wings are generating far more then the 500N during a race which would mean that the FIA have failed to keep pace with developments, however it would need to be generating a lot more than the 500N in order to be both rigid at 500N but flex that much under full load)

          • Paolo said on 3rd August 2010, 9:32

            I agree fully with you.
            Saying that flexible wings are not allowed means nothing, every wing under a load flex, it could have a different stiffness but it will flex. FIA’s rules give a limit and a way to test it, if your wings pass the test you’re ok.
            I think it’s not fair to change the way you test the wings now, it seems a way to keep Mclaren fighting for title…

      • Sam said on 2nd August 2010, 9:24

        flexi wings are banned, redbull just found a clever way around the static test, hence the change in the way they’ll be tested.

  5. wayne south africa said on 2nd August 2010, 7:36

    Did anyone notice how for example when redbull turned to the right their whole front wing kind of moved to the left and then the very left part of it lowered itself?I don’t think its just the end of the wing that bends but the whole wing itself maybe that’s why it failled on vettels car when they tried it out!I think its bending but not in the place where everybody thinks it is.

  6. cheers said on 2nd August 2010, 7:55

    Designers necessarily have to design around a benchmark test, so what better test is there than the FIA’s own? Changing the tests mid season shouldn’t be allowed.

    Legally the FIA would have to be very carefull. It is alright to say that something should be rigid but that is meaningless with rigidity never being absolute. It has no meaning until quantified by a measure of the rigidness. If you were to change what rigid means mid season without consent of the affected party you would be way open.

    • BBT said on 2nd August 2010, 8:51

      Yes it should be allow and is in the regulations that the tests can be changed, (otherwise it is impossible to enforce the rules) how can you know what the test should be until the designer have designed the car? In this case cleverly breaking the rules, the end plates are clearly lower than the regulations allow its just the test isn’t good enough to enforce the rules due to an unorthodox design

    • Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 9:22

      Changing the test mid-season is not ideal and not very fair on Red Bull. The FIA probably feels that flexi-wings are a major safety risk and have to be banned urgently.

      See this article on the troubled history of flexi-wings:

      • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:34


        I do not think that changing the test is unfair as long as the regulations stay the same. I do think that the regulations should no be changed mid season unless it is for safety reasons, but tests are different. If the FIA have discovered that their tests are not fully backing up the regulations then they are perfectly entitled to change the way they carry them out. It is like saying that it is unfair to change drug tests for athletes mid season, ie changing the way they test for an athlete using steroids does not change the fact that using steroids has always been illegal. If their wing has been designed to pass the test while not strictly adhering to the regulations then it will be hard luck if the wing now fails a better designed test. Remember Maclaren had to change their car due to the actual regulations changing early this season, now that is unfair.

        • Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 10:55

          It depends if they are going to change the size of the test load, or merely where it is placed.

          If it’s the latter, I think that’s okay.

          • Well it seems they are going to increase the load linearly. ie the load is increased to 1000N but the deflection is also doubled to 20mm. This is designed to ensure that special materials or designs are not being used to enable non-linear deflection at higher loads. Therefore if the deflection is natural then the wings should pass the test. The teams know that the wings are not supposed to flex beyond a normal amount and the test was designed to ensure the designs were correct. Tests need known parameters which is why they were set at 500N AND 10mm. If a team has designed the wing to get passed this test while still going against the general rule of a non-flexible wing then the FIA are entitled to change the parameters (in fact it states in the regulations that this is may happen) I assume that Red Bull have always thought that they may be stopped from running the wing but I imagine they hoped they would be a but further ahead int he points by now. I do not think Red Bull have done anything out of the norm as they have not strictly broken any rules and other teams have done this before too, notably Ferraris flexi-floor which set off the whole spygate saga (Which they designed specifically to hide from scrutineers).

      • BasCB said on 4th August 2010, 12:16

        From what he writes here ( James Allen feels even this changed tests will not make that much of a difference.

        An interesting pretty deeply researched article, reccomend to read it.

  7. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd August 2010, 8:07

    I’m worried – what happens if the FIA find the wings are illegal? What do they do to the results of the German and Hungarian Grands Prix? Do they strip everyone of their points, or let the results stand? If the wings are found to flex, Red Bull and Ferrari should be punished because they knowingly broke the rules. But the FIA cannot interfere with the race results, because that will just ruin everything. At the same time, the teams cannot be allowed to get away with what amounts to cheating: the rules state very clearly that flexible aerodynamic parts are absolutely banned and with no exceptions.

    Perhaps the fairest solution would be to give both teams a two-race ban (perhaps to be served alternately to keep as many cars as possible in the race). I know it sounds harsh, but the last time I remember something like this happening was when BAR were found to use fuel as ballast in their cars. They were promptly banned for two races. They deliberately designed their cars to be outside the regulations whilst still satisfying the FIA’s criteria. If Red Bull and Ferrari have done the same here by making aerodynamic pieces that hold their shape when stress-tested by the FIA, but flex when greater loads are applied to them, then they should be made to pay. So ban them both for two races (I believe it is unlikely Ferrari will be banned for the team orders incident), and give everyone else a chance to catch up. Make the status quo the way it was before the German Grand Prix.

    • Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 9:10

      The wings were legal for the German and Hungarian GPs.

      They are bringing in new scrutineering procedures for the next race… they won’t be applied retroactively to previous races.

    • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:11

      Although the wings are illegal, they have fully passed the FIA tests (which are seemingly not thorough enough). Therefore Red Bull have not broke any rules and will correctly be allowed to keep their points. If their wing fails the new tests they will simply not be allowed to run them anymore.

    • rampante (@rampante) said on 2nd August 2010, 9:31

      PM, how can it be fair to give a team race bans when they are using cars that conform to all regulations. This sport is about pushing to the limits(and sometimes over). Technical innovation is F1 and you cannot compare BAR here, what they did was cheat.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd August 2010, 9:35

        Because those cars were designed to break those regulations whilst appearing to comply to them. From the sounds of things, Red Bull and Ferrari have created wings that will not flex when tested by the FIA, but will flex under racing conditions. Those wings would not be as efficient as one that flexes all the time, but if they are deliberately designed to mislead the Powers That Be into thinking they are legal, then of course they should be banned because that’s cheating. It’s like a professional athlete taking performance enhancing drugs to run faster, but then using a masking agent so that they look clean when tested.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd August 2010, 10:00

      I don’t expect any retroactive deduction of points.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd August 2010, 11:07

        But you’d agree that if Red Bull and Ferrari deliberately designed parts to mislead the FIA, then action should be taken? When BAR did it using fuel for ballast, they were banned for two races. I don’t see how this is much different other than that it applies to a different part of the car.

        • David BR said on 2nd August 2010, 12:40

          I agree, designing round a test and round a regulation are two separate things. Exposing a loophole in the regulations happens all the time, but the regulations here expressly outlaw wings that flex more than a certain distance without specifying under what conditons (as far as I know). Getting round a test for a performance enhancing drug, say, in another sport doesn’t mean the regulation banning the drug doesn’t apply. I’m not really asking for RBR’s points to be deducted if they really are found to have a front wing contravening the regulations, since it’d heap too much controversy onto the season. Just pointing out a difference exists.

        • Daffid said on 3rd August 2010, 0:16

          Using fuel for ballast was in clear breach of the rules as they were written. No changes, modifications or clarifications were needed. BAR were cheating by pretending their car was empty of fuel when it wasn’t.

          Red Bull are not in breach of the rules as they’re written. They’re not designed to appear to comply with them, they DO comply with them. The rules specify the degree of flexing allowed, they comply with those rules. Ferrari’s lawyer has made this point before in battles with McLaren regarding the barge boards – that there is no such thing as an attainable absolute with the technology currently known to man. Therefore the degree of flexing must be quantified in some manner. It was and Red Bull comply with it. That the FIA were too dumb to write the rule to say that the wing must flex no more than x amount at all times during all sessions, is their problem, not Red Bull’s.

          The precedent is that points will be kept. Remember Ferrari running a flexible floor in Australia 1997? That was a real breach of the regulations, as it was later deemed illegal with no changes to the regulations required, merely a clarification. So it would be a scandal if Red Bull were docked points for this when their wing passed scruntineering and may pass the new test as well.

      • bosyber said on 2nd August 2010, 11:08

        I agree, it will be like the 2007 flexwing/floor stuff, and the Michelin tyre thing: results will stand, but the equipment can’t be used unchanged due to more stringent tests.

        FIA isn’t really doing anything (and probably wouldn’t, shouldn’t want to) to prove that any part of a car was illegal at earlier races, they just realized their tests didn’t check properly for some of the requirements in the rules and decided to upgrade the tests. Up to the teams, as always, to make sure they pass the tests before the race.

        One could think that FIA waited with the new tests until after Hungary so that Red Bull and Ferrari got closer to McLaren in the championships. But they could just say that the summer break gives teams time to check they comply to the more stringent tests.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd August 2010, 11:32

          To be fair, it was raising a lot of questions in public only since Ferrari brought theirs in Hockenheim.
          Only now have the other teams got into full gear to get clearance from the FIA.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 2nd August 2010, 12:02

            Actually, they don’t have clearance at all – the FIA is ramping up testing proceures ahead of Belgium. I seriously doubt that any of the teams are going to pour money into developing a part that could well be deemed illegal before they’d even have a chance to use it. Especially if they’re the teams calling for it to be tested in the first place because they believe it is illegal.

    • Paolo said on 3rd August 2010, 9:38

      Dear Prisoner, every wing under a load flexes, FIA set a limit and a test method and RBR/Ferrari are ok with it. It’s not fair to change rules now.

  8. martin said on 2nd August 2010, 8:55

    The new tests make things very intresting.
    a)Red Bull wings may still turn out legal – meaning all the other teams still have to copy them.
    a1)Mercedes teams find that they have just waisted 3 weeks that could have been used to catch Bulls and Ferraris…
    b)Wings are declared illegal and there are no (Red Bull) wings that will pass the test – (Red Bull) have to sit out till they get “legal” wings This may apply to all teams.

    I say that this is the worst result possible as no one knows what will come next. Are the tests made so that Red Bull must fail them or will they just increase the load?

    • Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 9:09

      I’m pretty sure (b) isn’t going to happen!

      Red Bull will have some old front wings on standby in case they need them.

      • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:17


        I am not sure red bull have any non-flexible old wings as they have been using them since last year. However I am sure they could just make their current one more stiff to enable them to race.


        The tests will not be designed to fail the red bulls wing. They will merely be designed to test front wings properly. Currently it is thought that they may not be applying as much load as the wings generate during racing and I have also heard that they are not applying the load to the end of the wings either (which seems a bit stupid)

        • Eric said on 2nd August 2010, 12:37

          i am hearing they are also going to test the nose section as well.

          why did RBR remove the camera mountings from the front off the car anyone have any theories about that?????

          just may have been to get rid of any evidence.

          • They also are rumored to have a flexible floor. I am not sure how true that is but it may explain why their car always seems so close to the floor, even when it has got no fuel in it. It may however just be an optical illusion due the new suspension. The FIA have said that they are going to change the tests for the floors too though so perhaps there is something in it.

          • Daffid said on 2nd August 2010, 15:58

            They didn’t remove the camera mountings, they simply shifted them a bit, for better aero efficiency. Whether or not it also disguised the degree of flex I don’t know, but the cameras are still there as they have to be.

          • Eric said on 2nd August 2010, 18:08

            cant see any cameras mounts anymore on the front RBRs. check it out here.
            photo from Hungaroring GP


          • Daffid said on 2nd August 2010, 23:54

            Interesting photo, I can’t see them either! When they showed the difference between the wings on TV, the cameras on the new wing were mounted right in the middle on that central strut hanging down from the nose. The mystery deepens…

  9. Jonathan said on 2nd August 2010, 9:27

    I assume the current test was designed when front wings were considerably narrower. The clever Red Bull guys have realized that you can now have a wing that passes the test yet still flexes at the ends.

    A nice innovation, but they must have always suspected it would be banned as soon as it was spotted.

    • Lee said on 2nd August 2010, 9:39

      This is exactly my point. This would suggest that the wings are of an illegal design but RB have been clever in spotting that the test is not very good. I don’t think they should be punished though (and it would be ridiculous if they were) as it is the FIAs fault for not designing good enough tests.

      • Patrickl said on 2nd August 2010, 11:26

        Indeed it’s weird that teams can build an essentially illegal car and know that they will get away with it without a penalty.

        The FIA should either use more stringent tests (put the car in a windtunnel before allowing it to race) or have broader rules. For instance “no part of the bodywork shall flex more than 10mm at any time”

        Then the camera evidence could be used to penalise them and teams would think twice before trying to circumbent the rules like this.

  10. BBT said on 2nd August 2010, 9:39

    RBR and Ferrari will keep their points from all races even IF they fail future tests, and rightfully so. They were told they were OK to race and so didn’t revert back to a rigid wing, it’s not their fault the test wasn’t good enough.

    It is possible that the test will still be passed *won’t be the same wing IMO, see below*. It is more likely that the present Ferrari wing will pass than RBR as it doesn’t flex anywhere near as much.

    No need to worry about RBR and Ferrari not competing at the next race, you can guarantee they have rigid wings available as a back up (just like Mclaren could have run another floor and legal non F-duct rear wing at the first race if their car had been deemed illegal, remember they car was only given the final OK on the Thursday of the first race)

    *Reading between the lines the FIA have effectively warned RBR and Ferrari that their wings should not flex that much (change it), I don’t think you will see the same wings as in the last two races, they will quietly be changed without making a fuss about it. Unless the media dig we’ll never know if it’s the same wing as this weekend that is tested in future, they will probably change it and say ‘there you go, passed, it was legal all along, even with the new test.’ The FIA have given them a chance to back out of it gracefully, just like Mclaren and Mecedees and their over sized starter / access holes in the diffuser after a few races in at the beginning of the season.

    As has correctly been pointed out there is a danger that the wing could still pass the test even though they break the height regulation while in use, but if you can’t measure it statically its hard to ban or rule as illegal. This puts the other teams in a difficult position, do they waste resources on it? knowing its only the test deficiencies that retain its legality, and the test loop hole might now be closed. Tricky.

  11. Nick said on 2nd August 2010, 11:05

    What a scam. Now that Mclaren have been caught up in both championships, the flexi wings have no benefits for the FIA anymore and now that drivers and teams are bunched up at the top of both classifications we can return to a level playing field by eventually enforcing what has been illegal for a while. Fans who understand (a little) about F1 are being robbed for the sake of the masses who don’t have a clue and think it’s a tight championship when in fact it’s being massively manipulated by the powers that be to maximise revenue. I thought I was cycnical but I am now convinced it’s a fraud.

    • outstanding. In a story that has absolutley nothing to do with McLaren or any sort of conspiracy, someone has worked thought of a McLaren related conspiracy.

      You must be some kind of genius.

      • bosyber said on 2nd August 2010, 11:15

        Not really McLaren related – more Bernie/money rules F1 cynical. I couldn’t help thinking this either, although I think it is more likely inertia and the summer break coming up.

      • Nick said on 2nd August 2010, 11:41

        And you must be a thicko. The fact that it’s Mclaren is incidental, it could have been any other teams. If you can’t see that in my post, then frankly, I must be a genius…compared to you anyway.
        See bosyber’s reply as it may also help your 2 brain cells to work. Cheers. Nick.

    • @NICK,

      There are some strange things that go on in F1…. This in my opinion is not one of them…

      Or perhaps the FIA were also involved in making Sutil and Kubica crash and perhaps an FIA official quickly loosened Rosbergs wheel nut before he left the pit box and perhaps the FIA used some hacking tech to slow vettels car down before the restart and disengage Hamiltons gearbox (Note I would have included the Schumacher Barichello incident but we have seen Schumacher do this sort of thing so often that it was clearly his own doing). It all added up to great (although worrying) viewing.

  12. bosyber said on 2nd August 2010, 11:14

    adamcooperf1 tweet earlier today: BTW, I found out that the FIA decreed Vettel was 110m, or about 22 car lengths, behind Webber. More than double the limit…

    He was really sleeping if the team didn’t tell him to back up so much (and then someone there was sleeping instead of checking the new SC car rules).

    So where was this, does anyone know? Was it on the straight on the lap before the SC came in, with SC and Webber far on the straight while Vettel hung back before the final corner?

    • I think it is measured from the first safety car line. Even the Christian Horner said that the drivers and teams are made aware of this particular rule before every race so Vettel should not really have needed telling. However I am surprised that the team did not radio to him. Perhaps they were thinking he would speed up before the restart.

      • Eric said on 2nd August 2010, 12:27

        i think the front car can start to accelerate once the safety car has left the track.
        if thats the case then Vettels was way behind at that point.
        here is a Pic of the safety car leaving and were is Vettel.

      • Mike said on 2nd August 2010, 12:28

        As I understand it his radio had failed…

        • I still don’t understand what the radio failing has to do with Vettel ending up too far behind the safety car. He’s got eyes, doesn’t he? How is it he’s not using them to gauge his distance to the safety car, instead of the radio? Or rather, how does he manage to gauge his distance to the safety car with his radio? And why didn’t anyone question this when he made this claim?

          I’m not saying I am firmly behind this thought, but perhaps he _was_ given an order to give Webber space and _then_ the radio failed. And he panicked, unsure how much space he should give or he got distracted trying to get the radio to work again and took his eyes off the road.

  13. juanfanger said on 2nd August 2010, 11:46

    The FIA can outlaw the Red Bull front wing from dragging on the ground but is there anything that can prevent Vettel’s bottom lip from doing it?

  14. Steph90 (@steph90) said on 2nd August 2010, 12:08

    If the wings break the rules then there must be some punishment. However, how bloody long has it taken? The RBR has had this since China apparently. Yes, it’s illegal and they were wrong but really the FIA and the tests were too thick to notice which has allowed certain team(s) to have a huge advantage all season. With the factory shut down it’s going to potentially really hurt RBR and Ferrari too. That may be deserved but it’s taken the FIA months to act against the blindingly obvious.

    • I do agree that if it is found that a team has purposefully tried to circumvent tests then they should be punished. However it would be quite hard to prove that is was purposeful and also other teams have not been punished in the past (notably ferrari) so I can’t see that it would be fair to start punishing them now half way through the season.

    • They defiantly did NOT have it a Canada, I’ve re-watched the GP and took note of the RBR front wing it was not flexing, not visually anyway. The after China story I keep hearing is more smoke and mirrors to justify the illegal wing, i.e its been like it for ever… but it hasn’t 3-4 races at most.

  15. jochenrindt said on 2nd August 2010, 12:19

    How likely is i that the flexible wing will be outlawed?

    Does anyone have any evidence that this is happening?

    • The FIA have said that they are making the test more stringent in order to prevent any over flexing. If they get the tests right then I think we can expect the flex-wings to be fail the test and therefore be banned.

      • Daffid said on 2nd August 2010, 16:00

        As the new limits allow even greater flexing, I expect the opposite! But we’ll see, all seems like a piece of Bernie engineering to me ;p

      • Daffid said on 2nd August 2010, 16:05

        Having read Patrick Head’s description, i’m now not so sure! Still think it’s championship gerrymandering… mass dampers anyone?

    • HewisLamilton said on 2nd August 2010, 16:18

      I don’t think any front wings are going to be outlawed. The FIA test is definately being altered to ensure that a higher force on the wing will not allow it to flex.

      It seems that the “wing is going to be deemed illegal in Belgium” is based on the speculation of the outcome of a more stringent flex test and people who want it to be deemed illegal feel it will fail.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.