MCLAREN'S CHEEKY HACK! Opinions on McLaren's Flexing Rear Wings

So it's all legal when the car is standing still, it passes all the tests, but then above a certain speed a tiny gap opens up and the car goes a bit faster. Enough to stop a Ferrari overtaking at a track that has an overpowered DRS zone.
But it's got its critic. People on social media saying it's cheating but cheating or not, that's a fantastic thing to come up with, taking advantage of the aeroelasticity.
The question remains: Is it legal? The rules say sure, because when the FIA does its tests it complies fully... But what about the rest of the rule book? Because there's some wording that says it could be legal, btu at the same time it might not be...
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
Technical regulations: www.fia.com/re...
AFFILIATES:
F1 Store: f1.pxf.io/n19my9
Mick's Garage: www.micksgarag...
-----
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
------
Business enquiries: [e-mail]
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward67
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 5600 @3.7gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce RTX 3060
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim/DIY Ascher D Shape Rim
Pedals: Heusinkveld Sprints

[@AidanMillward]

Looks like the FIA has stepped in and told McLaren to change it. How long before the "WeLL tHIs AgED lIKE mIlK" comments begin? Start the timer!

[@JohnSmithShields]

@@AidanMillward Kurt Angle appreciates this.

[@RMhoneybadger]

Gold. 👍🏾

[@Exponaut_R-01]

I’M JUST A FLEXY BOI (FLEX-Y BOOOOOI~!)

[@squidcaps4308]

You are good here, it does not have significant impact on McLarens performance. They will still dominate.

[@greenlantern7959]

The true sprit of the F1 rules is “here are the rules, everything not explicitly forbidden is fair game.”

[@MIEJ4]

The most important part is what the rules DON’T say.

[@kazefw3834]

​@@MIEJ4the grey area is where the show starts

[@maximilianmitroi8545]

i'm pretty sure nowhere in the rules is it specified you can't have a machine gun mounted on your car and use it to shoot opponent cars down

[@marcelschellekens6386]

while I agree, I would like to remind you that RB came up with a flexi-wing a few years ago that was legal according to the letter of the law, but maybe illegal according to the spirit of the law. And it was banned halfway through the season. this could be a similar situation, and I can't see why the outcome should be different.

[@Moray2023]

Legal but Cheeky hacks are the best part of F1.

[@AidanMillward]

Like a cheeky nandos. 👌

[@the80hdgaming]

That's the kind of thing that's pure innovation... And to be honest, little innovations like that are the OG spirit of F1...

[@matzemunz2827]

Legal but cheeky sound like the absolute opposite of ambitious but rubbish 😂

[@km6832]

Gonna be banned next season

[@jonlamontagne]

Can you imagine if the FIA allowed to gray areas to be pushed to slightly larger level? Imagine the F duct Advantage teams would have gained back before DRS or Red Bull in their flexi wings or they're blown diffusers Mercedes with their Das system and their split Turbo Ferrari with their gasoline engine oil hack that they seem to gain power from. I don't believe Red Bull was doing the asymmetric breaking earlier in the year I just think that was something the teams wanted cleared up before they start really developing the new cars. It just happened that McLaren caught Red Bull with an update and it just so happened a few races later they banned asymmetric braking so everybody just pointed to that because of the weird Australian brake failure of Max. Will never truly know the gray areas that were pushed until decades later when all these guys are old and telling their stories before it's too late but I'm here for it. Help I love gray areas being pushed in racing in general I even called NASCAR in the late 90s and early 2000s to almost 2010 and the way they push the gray areas in modifying their "fenders and hoods" to fit into the templates. It was a fun time in that sport because they were 40 year old technology cars that were trying to incorporate as much F1 ish technology as they could which created huge swings in season between teams and their abilities to win and made it fun

[@Matty-B-on-an-MTB]

Being a slightly older F1 fan, old enough to remember the Senna - Mansell - Prost etc glory days, I remember in the late 90's, seeing McLaren being investigated for having a rear wing that, over certain speeds, the down-force was causing the mount of the wing to flex, causing the whole wing to lean back and flatten out. I'm sure it was seen on Coulthards car on a rear view camera. this was absolutely pre DRS and was the main reason the FIA started to police wing (and wing mount) flex. Funny how it's McLaren again who've found something - history repeating itself!

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

I remember Chapman's Lotus... God I feel old.

[@Fujifilmily]

I remember cheering for coulthard after mikas winning season needless to say you remember him spinning out first lap in alot of races.

[@cee128d]

I'm old enough to remember when they had the engines in the FRONT of the cars.

[@mannacler]

I remember when the tires were skinny and the drivers were fat.

[@cee128d]

@@mannacler I remember those days well

[@niel9612]

In the immortal words of Christian Horner, "if you have a problem, chance your f***ing car"

[@AidanMillward]

@@niel9612 banter if McLaren wins with their special one off livery and red bull finish 9th.

[@_bstr_ct1832]

12mph down to 10mph is a 16% reduction in speed differential. These teams would bite your hand off for a 2% improvement anywhere so I do believe this is pretty clever and significant

[@CyanRooper]

We'll never see the end of these "flexi wings" accusations because teams will always find ways to "bend the rules" Ba dum tiss

[@Br0nzeBar0n]

Nice

[@cornishcat11]

get off boo lol

[@Margarinetaylorgrease]

Are you here all night?

[@freedfg6694]

Not to mention, until they are solid structures. They will bend. That's just physics. And as long as they bend or wobble, there will be fingers pointing.

[@lewiskemp5893]

Da Da Dum

[@NeXMaX]

I can't help but chuckle every time when someone uses the "British Bias" card when describing an entity like McLaren, but somehow conveniently forgetting that a team like Red Bull has a campus in the UK, hires a whole load of British staff, and the key personnel may or may not be British as well, even though the country listed on the team's FIA license isn't 🇬🇧

[@bjarulez]

Add to that the fact that McLaren was technically started as a New Zealand team by a man from New Zealand

[@JohnSmithShields]

Yet Mercedes, a German team is thought of as British.

[@RacinJ]

​Mercedes has Sir Lewis Hamilton. Hence the Britsh bias. Ferrari will be less evil next year with him on-board.

[@2639theboss]

​@@bjarulez And McLaren is owned by the Bahrainian sovereign wealth fund now. Its not even a British-owned team. Or a British-led team.

[@danielhenderson8316]

As an American stuck with British F1 reporting, I've found the biggest cases of "British Bias" has revolved around drivers far more than teams. In 2007, Lewis Hamilton was the 2nd Coming of Christ and Muhammad combined which sprinkled over the Jenson Button for his championship with Brawn GP and lasted for the rest of his F1 career.

[@GregBrownsWorldORacing]

Thanks Aidan, you did my research for me so I didn't have to go watch those Click Baity type videos. Now I understand the Hubbub, bub 💡

[@CrimVulgar]

It does kind of look like the regulations are so heavily legalese that they may have created these loopholes by omission - saying the relationship "can only change whilst the car is in motion" and all that leaves this a bit open (hur hur). I could see 3.10.10.c about "relative movement" being a talking point, but that sounds more about the relationship between the flap and the fixings, rather than the geometry of the flap itself. FWIW, I think part of why this is being called "legal" is that higher speeds still cause more downforce - it's that increased downforce that's bending the flap. While it's less downforce than a totally rigid wing would produce at that speed, the relationship is still "more speed -> more downforce". The usual deployable wing movements usually drop way more force, and leave drivers in dodgy situations should they have to make any turns. I am genuinely surprised there's no further action on it - the FIA seems very committed to certifying cars only at rest, so the teams might cotton on and get a bit silly with it next season.

[@ianwynne764]

Hello Aidan: Thank you for reading the regulations so that I don't have to. Have a lovely day.

[@benjaminchilvers9444]

Cheers Aidan, I enjoyed this ‘story time’ piece every bit as much as all your content which preceded it. Top lad. Excellent balance, worthy of the BBC. Thanks for everything you do for us all out there 👍🏻

[@nehylen5738]

I absolutely love this: at first glance, it feels unfair, but I marvel at the ingeniosity in bending rules with the flap. The competition on-track is great, but having these extra bits off it, thanks to different visions and engineers, is what makes F1 spicy compared to spec series. Effectively, Piastri behind Leclerc would be in his gearbox from the very end of the pitlane, while Charles could only do the same from start-finish line. It's probably a slight difference of 2-3 km/h, but it makes or breaks the race. I hate it for Charles, but I love that it exists.

[@sh-spectrum409]

It’s pretty uncanny that almost at the same time, your vid and The Race’s on the exact same subject goes up!😂

[@peinxd]

This is similar to what Merc did in 2021, but with the drs open, the lower part of the wing would flex down when the drs was open. They didn't need the top of the wing to flex down as seen here because the rear of their car would squat under load, producing a similar effect. Genius designs on both counts.

[@valerierodger]

I love this part of F1. it’s not just the engineers figuring out different ways around the regulations as written, it’s everything that goes into doing so - the imagination, the aerodynamic engineering, the materials engineering. Their engineers had to find an area to exploit, and then play with the composition of the carbon fibre so that it will pass the static test while flexing under the load at high-speed, and make it flex in such a way that it provides the aerodynamic advantage they are looking for without contravening the regulations. Unless the other teams really kick up a fuss, I can see why the FIA wouldn’t want to bother with it too much - it is a very small benefit that they only gain under specific circumstances. Yes, it makes them more difficult to pass with DRS, but I think that effect is somewhat equivalent to Aston Martin’s cheeky little rear end plate a couple of years ago that made following more difficult by creating more dirty air behind them - and they were allowed to keep that for the rest of the season.

[@Sleepy.Time.]

if you are not cheating you are not winning

[@AidanMillward]

Toyota Celica from 1994 wants to know your location.

[@Sleepy.Time.]

@@AidanMillward right after im done installing this 4 meters of fuel line

[@davidcagle920]

shoutout nascar

[@bmstylee]

Smokey Yunik has joined the server

[@JohnSmithShields]

@@AidanMillward the Nigels return.

[@JohnSmithShields]

Smokey Yunick would love this.

[@Erik_The_Viking]

Reminds of some similar mentions of flexible wings in the early 2000's - I don't recall the team offhand but there was someone using it and was quickly banned.

[@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1]

Ferrari were told to change their wings at Malaysia 2006

[@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1]

@@AZ-rv8wp Yup at Suzuka

[@Erik_The_Viking]

@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 Thank you!

[@rars0n]

Yelistener is a great channel; I love seeing the onboards with analysis, often pointing out things I otherwise wouldn't have noticed.

[@theF1oracle]

Hey, your not a fat bloke, your a legend !

[@JohnSmithShields]

@@theF1oracle He's festivaly plump.

[@AidanMillward]

@@JohnSmithShields ho ho fucking ho.

[@fredherfst8148]

Enjoyed tx…PS…saw some early rockin' shredding vids of yours! Good stuff, but I prefer the jazz themes ya got goin..

[@TheZanzaroni]

My understanding is that the dimensional restrictions apply only when the car is stationary. Every component consists of a material and that material will always have flex (nothing can be entirely rigid). The only way the FIA can police the flex trickery is with *static* load tests. Aeroelasticity is an amazingly complex field, and it gets even more complex when you mix in composite materials. You can make a wing that "collapses" above a certain force (or deflects a lot more relative to the deflection shown with less force). If you are the FIA you need to replicate the loading conditions of that part exactly to measure its deflection. Good luck finding a device that can replicate air going around a complex surface. If you are the FIA maybe you can use cameras to verify the wing is within a predefined allowable deflection. Find a camera and measure it. If your limit is 5 mm and you can see that the wing is close to that, the "guilty" team will argue anything from vibrations to image quality causing the deflection to seem like it exceeds 5 mm. If you could have a caliper and show that deflection was indeed 5.0001 mm then you would have undisputed evidence that they broke your rules, but you can't. No matter how hard the FIA tries they will never be able to trully close all the loopholes and that, at least in my book, is a win.

[@karlbassett8485]

McLaren could have done something as simple as realise the FIA measure the deflection by applying a force to the edge of the wing, but the airflow acts on the centre of the wing. They could have built a wing that has an internal structure that allows it to deflect more when acted on in the centre than it does when acted on at the edge.

[@Redskies453]

They would need a wind tunnel at every track

[@MadmaxXxXx23]

I have been waiting on this one - everyone is very creative

[@andysimpson8974]

This is driving carbon fibre technology. It is a good thing 👍

[@robbyk5266]

I believe the Ferrari 488 introduced flexi areo to the masses... has flexi front splitter that moves into high and low downforce at low and high speeds

[@alexandrebrito1414]

Again, i guess the main problem is the FIA iself. Back in 21, they went on to intervene in the rules about the flexing. This opens precedent. As far as i remember, in 21, the wings were legal and yet the FIA intervened. This time, it seems the wing is legal, so it won't intervene. It makes all the more confusing.

[@kevin-l7r7p]

For me I remember the flexi wings crap back to 2006 with the Ferrari 248...they had a double decker front wing right in front of the nose mounted camera and you could see the upper plane separating from the nose cone...think JA was like "yea this isn't the bit everyone is complaining about" and MB was like "err actually this is exactly it"....I think later that season the rearward camera on the Ferrari started showing the entire rear wing assembly moving backwards at speed....my guess at the time this was NOT by design intent but certainly got people thinking what they could do if they did design things like this intentionally..18 years later and 4 thousand flexi wings sagas on...

[@wabba67]

Just another chapter in the never-ending cycle of flexing wings. Wasn't it in the early 2010s when Red Bull was the king of flexing front wings (and again a few years later)? Now it is someone else's turn. I'm pretty sure this will lead to just more force being applied in the FIA testing, and then the clever engineers will come up with something new to combat that.

[@jn1982]

As an engineer I wonder if McClaren (or any other team) actually understands exactly how each and every part on the car moves--in other words, I wonder if they got lucky with this. CFD is mystery sometimes.

[@Slider5320]

I found it interesting recently to hear Willem Toet explain how Benetton found a loop hole to put traction control on the 1994 car. Most teams eventually clocked what they were doing and implemented their own systems for 95 and then the FIA shut the loop hole for 96. After years of speculation and fans on either side accusing Bennetton of traction control and cheating, or defending/denying. It was nice to hear the truth aired. Essentially it was Legal traction control when traction control was supposed to be banned 😂 There’s loads of these examples and there will be more in future as that’s what the engineers do.

[@raptor1672]

It's certainly a brilliant design! Fun fact I drew a under-nose S-Duct in my notebook back in 2003.

[@minibus9]

great video, such a cleaver trick this from McClaren

[@smith2781]

It’s with impressive innovation like this that reminds me of my teens. I lived in America and Germany during most of the 90’s ( my Dad worked for Vauxhall and got promoted to GM, so we spent 3 years in Germany at the GM Europe headquarters, than America for 5 years when he worked at GM headquarters in Detroit). I got my American classmates into F1 and they were amazed at the technology and commented that F1 teams are more like NASA. I told them that if we had a space program like NASA these are the people that would be working there. They came over when we moved back to England and we went to Silverstone in 2004 when they had the V10’s. We were at the last corner so you could see the cars coming round from bridge corner and round to the start finish straight. You could feel it going through your chest as the TC kicked in and the thud from the upshift. It was an experience, they couldn’t believe it.

[@nixtreme2726]

Good Job on the vid!

[@martincull9371]

Frank Williams once said all the teams have very clever people working to take advantage of the rules. If we are behind , it is down to our clever people to be cleverer than the others. I do wish Red Bull would remember this.

[@Thomamps]

If Sky F1 ran the events every non British driver would be disqualified. The FIA doesn't suffer from this problem, they suffer from brown paper bags full of cash.

[@JerryCrow]

Being dyslexic, i do understand the difference between the spirit, and the letter -of the law. As you said, it is all legalize, but umm this is a literal hole in the regulation. Look they got a solid rear wing, but nothing alludes to that rear wing not having its own rear wing. It's the rims, the DOJ case is correlation but yea again the spirit, you gotta break the spirit. Anything for the Michael not to win another one in a row. Sir lewis has too many medals already, he us overencumbered... It's the rims, i'm telling you. "asymmetric braking" :D

[@chrispeck1325]

Hey man!! I'm not a "fine fellow", I'm a "rad lad", get it right next time lolololol.

[@illdeletethismusic]

when Red Bull had a similar concept for the front wing in Abu Dhabi 2014, they immediately had their qualifying results struck, and had to start from the pit lane with a front wing that doesn"t bend in a non linear manner. it was the same exact idea, pass the load test under the specified load, then deform disproportionately more under higher loads. the same exact issue was immediately handled then, and gets ignored now when another team does it.

[@pdparker57]

Remember the Red Bull flexible wing controversy a year or 2 ago? Teams always look for an edge. The FIA just needs to be consistent in how they handle these things that pass their tests, but clearly violate the intent. - Either let them all go, or immediately clamp down on all of them - I don’t care which they choose.

[@Scoots1994]

People who are not technical nuts for F1 don't understand that what the rule INTENDS doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how the enforcement is done.

[@TassieLorenzo]

True, but in this area FIA reserves the right to change enforcement at any time. Just ask Ferrari about their floor in 2022 or Aston Martin about their nose in 2023... So it is a risky area to spend resources on. These flexible wings are perhaps not quite as crucial to McLaren's car concept as Ferrari's flexible floor, of course. But every little helps. It sounds like Red Bull and Ferrari will have their own McLaren-style or Mercedes-style flexible front wings at Austin, the balance shift that wing allows between low speed and high speed corners should be very useful.

[@Scoots1994]

@@TassieLorenzo Yep. The way that usually works is something like this. , your is outside the spirit of the rules and we're going to change the enforcement process to in 2 months. Sometimes when a team argues back then they will end up having a more direct conversation with the team owner and they will get some secret concessions for the team to drop the tech. The other way things happen is if the team fights to keep their "innovation" then they will have an official review and if the team continues to fight and loses then, and only then, will they get some penalties. Most of the time they figure out how to get rid of something with a simple change in enforcement. The one that I found most annoying was the front suspension Renault got banned for a moving weight in the nose, but it was a part completely out of the airflow that was banned for being a moveable aerodynamic device.

[@AidanMillward]

@@Scoots1994 the banning of the mass dampers was a bit of a weird one. But given what happened at Monza that year it’s not beyond the realms of a classic case of FIA

[@Scoots1994]

@@AidanMillward Yes. I think it's because they wanted it gone and Renault fought them on it so they had to find a way to ban it, thus the "movable aerodynamic device" mess. The FIA will ever FIA.

[@fernandoarroyo3889]

I don't understand how McLaren's wing is legal, If the FIA states that Wing deformation has to be equal across the elements. I understand there's no load test for it, but you can see that it's just the ends that flick up. I asked somewhere else but if you have to get any kind of answer.

[@valerierodger]

Because the wing deformation has to be equal across the elements _during the static testing_

[@officialmcdeath]

Yelistener's forensics are a joy \m/

[@OldToothbrush0210]

I feel like some teams hire linguistic experts to find holes in the regulation

[@andygreener3130]

Aiden, I thought the onboards showed the tips of the DRS flap curling up at high speed, allowing air to pass around the DRS rather than actually through a flex induced larger gap between DRS and mainplain?

[@valerierodger]

Yes, it’s just the tips.

[@kevinshort3943]

As someone once said "There is no such thing as a legal F1 car, just not yet Illegal ones".

[@RacinJ]

When will F1 commenters realize that Oscar was the victim in Hungry not. Lando. As the leader, Oscar should have had the first pitstop. To cover off a possible undercut, Lando was pitted first. This and an extra lap on old tires put Oscar at a disadvantage and allowed Lando to take that lead with the fresher tires. If the pitstops took place in the proper order, Oscar would have kept the lead and Lando could have fallen to third. Team orders didn't give Oscar the win. Team orders fixed a team strategy F up. Oscar earned the win. Lando's childish attitude about the swap back, that probably gave him a second instead of third, shows a lot about his character.

[@stefanstenroos6344]

I imagine the teams knew about the McLaren wing races ago. The fact that this becomes a big story the moment they lead the WCC is funny to me. I imagine the FIA also knew. It's a subtle change in the wing but not hidden away at all. It's in plain sight if you know when to look. So, I think it's an area that the FIA knows is a loophole and have no chance to close before 2025. The hubbub now is to push the FIA towards a hasty decision to limit the gap McLaren could build. But I'm a big McLaren Stan so take my opinion with a big grain of salt.

[@orangauvain1121]

The rules of active aero this fails under as its active aero not controlled by the driver. I really don’t know why people don’t look @ it from this angle because under this rule it’s illegal.

[@adem1781]

Love to see this. It's brilliant.

[@maplechill75]

It’s not assumed that Mercedes and McLaren have “got something going on” with their front wing. It’s observed.. like, by everyone.

[@Alex-md6bu]

I love the quest for what a certain motorsport legend refers to as “the unfair advantage” I don’t see how anyone who calls themself a redbull fan can complain when fia litterally let redbull run a wing they’d declared illegal for multiple races during a closely fought championship…. The reason redbull is so hated these days is because Horner wants redbull to receive special treatment as evidenced by all this

[@rossadamdixon]

The other big advantage of the flexing front wing is that it changes the balance of the car at higher speed to a more understeering balance. This is more desirable for looking after the rear tyres. However, having more rear wings is very helpful in low speed as these cars are very understeery. so by flexing the rear wing at high speeds, you get the pointy front end at low speeds and understeer at high speed.

[@simonrook5743]

Force is in Newtons, the ‘60Nm’ mentioned is a torque, should have been 60N. 3:50

[@Dat-Mudkip]

I've never liked the idea of DRS at all; exploits like these are much easier to pull off when you have complicated, multi-layered wings with moving bits and pieces. Just to he clear, I appreciate McLaren getting cheeky with the rules, because it actually makes the sport interesting to watch, and serves as a sign that people can still get creative with the rules despite all the BS regulations. I just wish it was done in an area that only exists due to a gimmick mandated by the FIA. (I don't care what anyone says; DRS is a gimmick.)

[@Mrmayhembsc]

Thank you, McLaren. I'm so glad to see some innovation back in the sport by "bending" the rules. It's been missing.

[@freedfg6694]

Legal but cheeky is exactly the take away. It's a double diffuser, a T-wing, an F-Duct. It's a blind spot that McLaren discovered and exploited. And if unless the FIA can convincingly claim it is a safety issue, I see no reason it can be banned until the end of the season.

[@bobclarke5913]

I assume everyone's cheating, even Alpine. It's more a matter of who's cheating flagrantly.

[@adem1781]

While I agree with the sentiment I can't say this is "cheating" the FIA deem it legal so it's not cheating.

[@fleghel]

Imagine being Alpine, cheating and still finishing races where they do lol

[@KrisRogos]

It "feels" wrong that a mm out under static test can get a driver DSQd, but a deflection that is 10-20 times larger during actual race doesn't. But until FIA mandate reference points and laser or optical measurements during the race I don't expect anyone to get done for this.

[@1FastC5ZO6]

One thing that you can always count on in F1 is more regulations. And more regulations. And then some more regulations. The FIA loves to regulate any creativity in F1. Aside from the current Hoover vacuum engine formula, the constant overregulation of the FIA is the most disappointing aspect of F1. Well... and ticket prices too but that's Liberty Media.

[@dmurphy1578]

Carbon fiber technicians perform magic with the laws of physics. It’s amazing

[@karlbassett8485]

* Does not apply to submarines....

[@EnduringPhoen1x]

Having seen the onboard live on the McLaren back in Monza that front wing definitely bends more than 3mm. I also wouldn't say the measurements that are being thrown out are entirely arbitrary. The teams likely know the dimensions of the other cars and with good enough photos you can measure the difference using given dimensions. 😅 You can blame that knowledge from a forensic photography class I took recently.

[@scrubsrc4084]

They give specific movement under a given load. So if they manage to do it within whose parameters then it's all good. Wonder if they give wither figures for higher loads.

[@Midori_Ringo]

What's the FIA stance on a legitimate DRS failure during a race? Obviously if it's stuck closed it's an active detriment- the only track where it might not be as much of a detriment I can think of is Monaco depending on track position - but say in the event a DRS is stuck open and a driver is succesfully going around the racetrack (in some tracks you could see having an open DRS wouldn't be as detrimental) what's the procedure? Black Flag? DQ after scruteneering? Race results stand?

[@trappenweisseguy27]

When neither the Ferrari or the Red Bull behind it both had DRS and could not pass Piastri on that mega long straight I knew something was up. The straight is too long, and the DRS too powerful during the length of that straight, to NOT blow by him easily without shenanigans going on 👀.

[@CuriousBoyGeorge]

I suspect this flexi wing will survive at least until the end of the season because it passes all the current tests, doesn't seem to provide a dominant advantage, and is helping create a closer and more dramatic title fight. Whether that last point should be something the FIA takes into consideration is a different argument.

[@_NoDrinkTheBleach]

The thing that sucks about this, is that the limited amount of upgrades the teams are permitted a year, prevents other teams from developing similar tech to compete. Instead, they have to run to the teacher to complain that their classmate is cheating somehow.

[@marct7813]

Nothing has changed really in the history of F1, it's not exploiting the rules, it's about exploring them. I remember Ross Brawn saying when the rules were changed, he thought they would have a grid full of identical cars, and all the teams rocked up with different concepts and all within the rules. No one sees the same thing through the same eyes. It's called innovation, and that's the history of engineering. Will always happen, and the rule book will be war and peace..

[@AlbaHart]

When Red Bull had their 2021 flexing rear wing issue, the complaint was that it flexed more than the regulations allowed while out on track. The tests are one thing, but I don't think the rules say they have to pass only the test and its an "an all times" regulation. And the Red Bull wing was measurably flexing more than the regulations allowed for. And to be fair to them, it was a genius design trick to have the wing rotate backwards to reduce drag the way it did, but genius or not, illegal nonetheless. The counter complaint that year was on Mercedes' front wing, with Red Bull fans saying it was illegal and it flexed more than the Red Bull wing did. And that was the argument that had to be explained... It isn't illegal for the wing to flex, it is only illegal for it to flex beyond a certain measurement, and it definitely isn't illegal to flex more than the Red Bull does. We've seen that same argument already this year, the Mclaren and Mercedes wings flex more than the Red Bull and Ferrari wings, therefore they must be illegal. But that isn't the rule. It isn't illegal to flex more than an opponents design. It is ONLY illegal if it flexes more than the rules allow, and I am yet to see any evidence or photo that shows a measurable amount of deflection that meets that criteria. So, with the Mclaren rear wing, it is allowed to flex. It is allowed to flex more than another wing. It has to so it doesn't break. It is only allowed to flex by a specified amount though, an actual measurement, and if Mclaren have designed their wing within that tolerance, then that is legal. If you're complaint is that it flexes more than an opponent, then boo hoo and go to bed, because that isn't the rule. If it flexes more than the regs allow, and that can be measured to be true and not because it might look like it in some still you saw on Facebook, then that is illegal and I believe RBR rules apply.... you can keep running it for a few months while you make a legal one and no more questions asked.

[@f.kieranfinney457]

The issue is that it does flex beyond the rules. Just not when the car is statically tested by the FIA. Same with front wings. The FIA’s test isn’t sophisticated enough.

[@AlbaHart]

@@f.kieranfinney457 As I said, there's no evidence beyond your feelings, that it flexes beyond what the rules allow. Grainy images with no scale or measurement aren't proof. Comparative images of cars on different parts of the circuit aren't proof. As I said, if the wing is proven illegal, then they get the RBR treatment and time to fix it. But the video evidence everyone bashing them loves so much is inconsistent and inconclusive.

[@f.kieranfinney457]

@@AlbaHart well that didn’t age well. You were saying…..?

[@douglasladowski6342]

The channel is so good a boring spec series like f1 is made entertaining.

[@jonlamontagne]

I believe gray areas should be pushed until the point that they might become dangerous. Meaning the FIA needs to step back a little bit and watch what's happening before they step in because something like the 2021 battle between Mercedes and Red Bull could have been decided even sooner or even in a crazier fashion if they were both able to develop their own flexi wings. Or Mercedes being able to develop the Das system better or Red Bull and McLaren in the early 2010s being able to exploit the fucked in blown diffusers better! I don't think Max was dominating because of asymmetric breaking because it did time out that they started to be challenged and beaten when McLaren brought an update. I just so happened that there was a coincidental brake failure on Max in Australia that would make people try to correlate that to their success. I've never held anything against the team that is dominating I may not like them I still have a problem with Mercedes and rooting for them I have a problem rooting for Red Bull right now and it's kind of leaking over into McLaren because if one team has the advantage we're not going to see a competitive season but if all teams are able to exploit their advantages I think it would bring the field far closer because I believe Mercedes could do something that Red Bull can't Red Bull can do something that McLaren can't McLaren can do something that Ferrari can't Ferrari can do something that the next team can't and that can swing to any of the teams

[@aoife1122]

Enough downforce to run upside down along the roof of a tunnel? Surely "downforce" is the last thing you want in this case. Lift would be your best friend, no? Be that as it may... way funnier than the flexibility of aerodynamic devices is that of the British media and their audience. When some Austrian or Thai dudes are flexing their wings they should be burned at the stake but when a British team (Mumtalakat F1 is a Bahraini outfit, but hey) does this then it's pure genius. 🤣

[@Lewythefly]

🤦‍♂️ I agree about the British bias though. If red bull had this rear wing trick, Sky F1 would be outraged, The Race would be running stories with cheating allegations and thumbnails of red bull with "illegal" emblazoned on them

[@AyyFuji]

My issue isn’t with which team is doing it, my issue is with the FIA (yet again). We had this same issue in 2021, both Merc and RB’s wings were flexing pretty hard, and they made them stop it part way through the season. 4 years later, and we are in the same position, yet the FIA isn’t doing anything? Idgaf which team it is, I care about FIA having consistency, and they screw it up, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[@tdyerwestfield]

I don't care about the legality, I enjoy the ingenuity.

[@royferntorp]

Without innovation, F1 might as well be a spec series like IndyCar. I am sure the FIA is aware of that.

[@manat31790]

As long as the cars do not start snapping in the middle of nowhere and getting drivers injured or killed because the rule's become too strict or unreasonable, I'm willing to tolerate whatever nonsensical blame games these teams try to pull on one another.

[@cosmostrek2001]

rubber front wings now rubber rear wings.

[@twlivinginudonthanithailand]

Enjoy your show!

[@aleopardstail]

solution: FIA employ Adrian N. to review rules with the question "so how would *you* work around this?"

[@M1ggins]

I've always loved the genius cheats racers come up with, from the grass tracks of surrey to Monaco, if there's a cheat they can get away with to be had, they'll find and use it. My favourite will always be water cooled brakes.

[@AidanMillward]

@@M1ggins Toyota’s restrictor plate is still in the top three.

[@MIEJ4]

⁠@@AidanMillward Ford also came up with a system during the Focus WRC era, where unused air after the restrictor was redirected into a tank and pressurised, then fed this extra air into the engine when needed and - more power. But was all after the restrictor so didn’t break any rules. Banned shortly after being discovered.

[@photodave219]

This stuff is absolutely within the rules. It’s what separates it from something as lame as a spec series

[@AidanMillward]

@@photodave219 nothing wrong with spec series.

[@TassieLorenzo]

@@AidanMillward The only area of team development in Indycar (shock absorbers) is not visible to fans, which is a shame IMO. At least bodywork is visible to fans.

[@danielhenderson8316]

@@TassieLorenzoThey had Chevy and Honda designed aerokits from 2014ish-2017. They were ditched because the extra downforce made the cars too easy to drive.

[@photodave219]

@@AidanMillward No theres nothing inherently wrong with it, I just miss the days of IndyCar when they had different chassis & engines.

[@edmundisanski982]

Thanks for reading the rega so we don't have to!

[@km6832]

People forget the mclaren speedtail active aero has flexible carbon fiber...just food for thought But realistically what is probably happening is they just made the edges thinner so they flex more when the center portion is under heavy load

[@AidanMillward]

@@km6832 can’t forget if you never knew that to start with.

[@Calilasseia]

This is an arms race that no one will win. It will simply continue ad infinitum. I suspect even Colin Chapman realised that when his antics effectively launched this arms race, but everyone is looking for that advantage they can slip under the regulatory radar. F1 history has been hilarious in this regard. From the early days of ground effect, six wheeled cars, the infamous Brabham Fan Car and the Lotus double chassis, to the modern day hoo ha over asymmetric braking and now this, F1 is basically extremely expensive slapstick comedy for engineers. As in "let's see what bits we can put on our mobile billboard clown cars to stuff the opposition, without the rule makers throwing a hissy fit". At this point, I have a question that I suspect no one else has asked. If the sophistication of F1 racing sims allows you to design your own car, surely there's a market for an F1 sim that allows you to pull the same tricks? A sort of "F1 cheat engineer" sim allowing players to be as devious as possible putting together a new car? I'm pretty sure a LOT of people would enjoy having a go at that :)

[@TassieLorenzo]

Should the Lotus 88 twin-chassis car have been legal then? Chapman insisted it was legal after all. 🤔

[@fixxxer1134]

Technically legal is the best kind of legal

[@King_Ears]

They all have flexing and from what I've seen the Ferrari & RB flex a similar amount. The only difference is the little opening at the edge of the rear wing main plane the McLaren has which the others don't.

[@Scoots1994]

I don't "support" anyone. I just love the technical pressure cooker that is F1.

[@cylonred8902]

If teams do no exploit the rules..... Then it is spec racing which "fans" have said they don't want. It is the only way to "fix" it. Does not mean that it is automatically "cheating".

[@anthonyclarke7081]

Its not just the leading edge corner the whole trailing edge bends down too

[@1MrBryn]

If something passed scrutinized while stationary, but then behaves differently and to the cars advantage at speed, that's not cheating it's good engineering.

[@Javadamutt]

If anyone says someone is cheating in F1 they have failed to understand the entire concept and what the sport is

[@VonBlade]

This is exactly the sort of rules grey area F1 needs more of. Freedom for engineers to ... engineer. It'll be banned next season, but what a clever solution it is for this one.

[@oldieman730]

Maybe the lower section of the rear wing is flexing down, thus bypassing the regs about the top section and DRS ?

[@cbremer83]

FIA makes the rules. Teams bend around them.

[@sheldoniusRex]

Brilliant Everybody knows the only team that can actually cheat is Red Bull. No matter what any of the other teams do, it isn't cheating, it is simply good engineers exploiting gaps in the rules. Especially the British teams. Yes, I know Aiden hasn't said RBR cheated. My comment was in response to the commentary I've seen on other videos and in the comments section basically everywhere.

[@Skydrag.V60]

Colin Chapman would be proud

[@f.kieranfinney457]

McLaren is not a British team. They’re Bahraini owned. And that seems like it’s a major factor in their success at skirting rules.

[@sebastianahrens2385]

I'd argue neither this mysterious asymmetric breaking system (if it ever existed) nor McLaren's flexible wings are "cheating". As Jeremy Clarkson commented on Lancia changing the tires on their 037s mid-stage in 1983: "Now, there was nothing in the rules that said you could do this. But critically, there was nothing that said you couldn't." Also, 8:22 what GP is that from? Baku? I never noticed there's grass anywhere there.

[@AidanMillward]

@@sebastianahrens2385 it’s from Monza.

[@Lewythefly]

I don't get where this narrative came from that if you make them too stiff they will break under load. That's someone trying to justify them bending. If the FiA wanted to they could say the wings under a certain amount of load cannot bend any more than +/- 1mm and that would be achievable and they wouldn't break. They would be heavier

[@valerierodger]

Sure. Let’s just add more weight to these cars. 🙄

[@Lewythefly]

@@valerierodger that's not what I'm saying

[@valerierodger]

@@Lewythefly but it’s the inevitable result of what you’re suggesting. As you yourself stated, they would be heavier - and this in a sport where teams have taken to figuring out how little of their car they can get away with painting because they could save a few ounces by using less paint

[@Lewythefly]

@@valerierodger you miss my point. They can make them stiffer and they won't break like I have heard people say in numerous videos. They are purposely designing them to flex and bend for desired results. It's not that they need to be this bendy or they will break

[@jsma9999]

Well done McLaren' on this wing and such, 4mm is Monet OK if is 3.9mm it's OK but 4.1mm NOT ok. Point i of 3.10.6 is key