Ferrari front wing legality questioned in Malaysia

endplate

I got myself in trouble on the Ferrari forum (they are only messing) by been the first to notice the front wing flexing and pointing that out. A few hours after a protest was almost started by 8 of the 11 teams.

Honda Racing F1's boss Nick Fry has joined the debate on Ferrari's controversial wings, telling reporters in Malaysia that the FIA are to clarify the rules in time for the Australian Grand Prix.

"The FIA will clarify the situation before we get to Melbourne," said Fry. "That's what we need. All we asked Charlie Whiting is which interpretation is correct. It would be unfortunate if Ferrari's interpretation is said to be right because all the other teams will have to do similar things."

However, it's understood that at least three teams, McLaren included, are running similar flexi-wing solutions. The issue revolves around aerodynamic planes that appear to flatten at speed, allowing air to pass over less restricted than normal, resulting in less drag and more speed.

In Ferrari's case, this is clear from TV images, with the top plane of the front wing separating from the nosecone at high speed, effectively lowering the wing and allowing cleaner airflow.

aidan_dunne

I thought the rules were already made very clear on this whole issue a few years back when one of the other teams (can't remember exactly who it was at this moment; McLaren or BAR-Honda maybe? ) were found to be running a flexi-wing system at the rear. The FIA immediately banned such devices and stated that the wings had to be fixed and do not move under load in such a way as to flatten out and decrease drag, if I recall correctly. Now, I haven't heard of any changes since then regarding that rule so, with that being the case, what the hell do Ferrari, McLaren and any of the other teams running similar systems think they are playing at? If the rule is clear that these things are not allowed, and those teams are using them, then clearly they are breaking the rules and they must have known it would only be a matter of time before it's noticed and protested against so why risk it? I really can't understand it, to be honest. And, if you look at the systems in question, I don't think there really is all that much to be gained by using them so why break the rules in that way, knowing you're going to be caught and protested against eventually, and risk getting severely punished for what is probably only going to be quite a small advantage?

You could defintely see it clearly on the onboard pictures at last weekend's race on the Ferrari. That little front winglet was definitely moving away from the side of the nosecone on the long straights at Sepang. And from the rearward facing camera on the the rollbar you could also see the rear wing moving about a lot more than any of the other cars on the straights too. Wasn't all that clear to my eyes if it was flexing in the way that has been suggested by the other teams but it was definitely moving about a lot. Martin Brundle commented on it but I noticed it a long time before he even said it. Now, if we can see this on the TV, and the other teams can clearly see it as well and are probably analysising the pictures in much more detail than us viewers can, and the FIA can see it for themselves as well, then how the hell did Ferrari think it wouldn't be noticed and protested against? And I can't see how they can argue that it's legal or that it's "within the law" in some way because, as I far as I know anyway, the FIA made the rules on flexible wings very clear several years back based on that previous case.

Suffice to say, I can see this whole issue going on for a bit yet!

aidan_dunne

By the way, has anyone else noticed how much the mirrors on some of the cars seem to be moving about under high speed this year? I copped it on the Red Bulls and the Renaults, in particular, during the Bahrain race and it was the same last weekend in Sepang. Also, maybe it's the camera angle or something, I don't know, but it seems to be the left mirror more than the right that's moving about a lot. Anyone else notice it? I thought to myself during the Bahrain GP that Red Bull and Renault really need to do something to strengthen them up or they'll end up flying off but it was the same in Sepang. I wonder what the hell all that's about?

By the way, I think the way Ferrari positioned the mirrors on their cars this year looks ridiculous. Anyone else think that? The way they have them mounted on the outside edge of the sidepods on high, front-angled stalks. They obviously put them there to give the drivers a better view behind them but it looks silly. And, dare I say it, perhaps even dangerous? I thought that myself when I first saw it in Bahrain. The mirrors seem a lot more exposed in that position. For example, what if a car hits the Ferrari at a bad angle, lifts up in the air slightly and a front wheel or something tears one of the mirrors off and sends it flying into a driver's visor or something and injuring them? Unlikely, I know, and probably a one-in-a-million chance but it's still a possibility. I mean, the piece of carbon fibre from the front suspension wishbone that broke off and went through Ayrton Senna's crash helmet, ultimately killing him, was also seen as a very unlucky, one-in-a-million event too. Certainly gives you food for thought, doesn't it?

Kersh

Ferraris mirrors are put out there to minimise airflow disruption and separation over the bodywork and on to the rear wing. Remember a few years back the FIa banned X wings on the grounds of safety(but really cos they were ugly), ithink ferraris mirrors are similar.
As for the wing mirrors moving about, afaik the wing mirror on some cars houses the beacon by which all the data is sent to pitlane as it goes by, maybe this is why some of them are moving about. Its probably really cos they are flimsily built to save weight.
As for the wings, I only saw Ferraris front wing separating in corners....

aidan_dunne

Kersh wrote:

Ferraris mirrors are put out there to minimise airflow disruption and separation over the bodywork and on to the rear wing. Remember a few years back the FIa banned X wings on the grounds of safety(but really cos they were ugly), ithink ferraris mirrors are similar.

Yeah, I remember those "X-wings" well. Tyrrell debuted them first towards the end of the 1997 season, I think it was, and then some of the other teams (Jordan and Ferrari, in particular) had them on their cars in 1998 up until the fourth or fifth race when the FIA banned them on "safety grounds", as you say, when in reality they were banned because they looked ugly as sin..... thank God!

Kersh wrote:

As for the wings, I only saw Ferraris front wing separating in corners....

I tended to notice it more on the straights, to be honest, and through some of the higher speed corners. Hmmm, I'll have to go back and take a closer look, I think, at my recording of the highlights programme when I get a chance to see if I could notice it anywhere else, now that you happened to mention it, Kersh.

endplate

According to Ross Brawn the FIA have declared the wing legal by there methods of testing. The McLaren front wing can be seen to flatten out on the straights giving the team an aero advantage but that wing is also deemed legal by the FIA too. If the FIA feel the need to change the testing method they have it written in the rule book that they can change it without notice. But for now Ferrari and McLaren will be bringing their wings to Australia

steviec

From watching the race on Setanta the other day Gary Anderson seemed fairly sure the wing is legal. He said there's a certain threshold and all wings on all cars are flexible, and it's simply impossible for them not to be under such heavy loads. It just happens to be more visible on the Ferrari, but nothing outside the accepted range under the rules.

How true this is I don't know, but Gary Anderson is about as knowledgeable a neutral observer as you could ask for.

Kersh

Well he does do an interesting article in Autosport each week as he runs through aerodynamic principles and tweaks that some of the teams use. Very interesting, and I would say he covers it uniformly and sometimes comprehensively.

Blaster99

I think it was in the last race where Schumi got a serious tow down the straight which meant that he could overtake. I would speculate that this wing might allow the Ferraris to follow other cars at high speed. This is what the F1 world has been trying to solve for years, so why not legalise the wing?

endplate

It turns out now that Ferrari's wings are ok but McLaren and BMW Sauber have to change theirs. The funny thing is according to Ferrari they were bringing a revised version to Aus anyway.

Now what I think has been going on is Ferrari saw other teams pushing the bounderies on wing flex and went to explore it themselves and they had a backup plan in case of problems like those which arose in Malaysia. There was a facinating article I read from the Autosport website and it was mainly about Jean Tout's brushes with the wrong side of the governing bodies in sportcars and F1. I'll find it and post it here for ye

Found it

It's long so take some time out to read it

Wings and a Prayer
The 2006 season began with question marks raised over the rear of the Ferrari car. In Malaysia, the accusations moved to the front. Adam Cooper has been following closely the flexi-wing affair, and he brings a first-hand account, with new details plenty of insight

By Adam Cooper
autosport.com contributing writer


Ferrari front wing at Malaysia

Let me take you back to the 1993 Le Mans 24 Hours, and an earlier chapter in Jean Todt's long career. A classic confrontation between the works Peugeot and Toyota teams is in prospect, and Philippe Alliot has claimed first blood for the French manufacturer by putting his 905B on pole. However, after setting his quick lap time he's had a huge crash in the Porsche Curves, slamming the sleek white machine into a concrete wall.

Back in the paddock, the disappointed mechanics load the crumpled remains into a truck and transport them back to the Paris factory for overnight 'repairs.' It's their only option, since substitution of a T-car means starting from the back of the grid, and the enormous PR value of pole will be lost.

The following day the truck returns, and a pristine car is rolled out. The chassis number matches, and the race organisers are happy that all is well. Alliot's pole is safe. But having seen the original wreck up close, and suspecting foul play, I check with a reliable source inside the team. My 'Deep Throat' confirms with a grin that the team has indeed broken the rules by swapping monocoques. And appears to have got away with it.

Armed with this information I set out to challenge M Todt, at that time the all-powerful competitions boss of Peugeot. Is what his boys have done legal, I venture with a smile? He's a little surprised at first, but soon composes himself.

'If it is considered to be repaired, we 'ave no problem,' he insists. I pursue the matter further, and his blue/grey eyes fix with me a steely glare. 'Are you a policeman?' he asks. 'If you are a policeman, you should be wearing an 'at!'

On Sunday night in Malaysia I was once again wearing my policeman's 'at, and once again, I put Jean Todt to the test...

The gathering storm

But let's start at the beginning. The issue of Ferrari's allegedly flexing rear wing had been gathering momentum even before Bahrain, where members of rival teams expressed their doubts. In the race itself Felipe Massa was fastest through the two quickest speed traps.

In essence, what Ferrari's rivals said happens is that the main element of the rear wing is attached very solidly to the rear crash structure. The rest - the endplates, upper element and so on - has its own fixing. Under high loading at speed this box-like arrangement pivots back, allowing the upper element to close the gap to the lower element. And hey presto, you gain speed on the straight.

The problem for the critics was that, contrary to other evidence, the Ferrari passed the deflection tests applied by the FIA in scrutineering checks.

"I think there are a number of teams wondering where the limits lie," said Renault's Pat Symonds after the race. "There's a single measurement that's made on the wing, but wings have a distributed load, not a single point load. Therefore, the measurement doesn't show everything that can happen with a wing. One place, one direction, can be different to a true aerodynamic load on a wing. It needs a bit of analysis, doesn't it? You ought to be looking at the speed maybe of the Red Bull and the Ferrari, as they've got the same engine..."

He also hit the nail on the head: "You just need to know where you are. It's not a criticism of the FIA. You can't write rules that cover everything. The more precisely you write a rule, the easier it is to get around it. Having them a little bit vague sometimes is not a bad thing."

That summed things up. The FIA has a precise testing method, and the Ferrari had passed it - and such a test is black and white, pregnant or not. But in this case it seemed that there needed to be some grey, some room to be a little bit pregnant.

By Malaysia even Ferrari's closest ally in the paddock wanted answers to the conundrum Symonds posed, and on Friday afternoon Red Bull ran third driver Robert Doornbos with minimal wing compared to the other RB2s, in order to gather some data.

That afternoon Ross Brawn hosted his usual Friday press briefing, and inevitable the wing story came up. He made some interesting remarks about his (and most other people's) approach to the rule book, initially in response to a question about the accuracy of the testing method employed by the FIA.

"It's accurate enough," he insisted. "It's a device, they put a load on it, and they measure the deflection. It's an accurate enough process, and we all have a set of rules that we comply to. Within the spirit of the regulations it's up to the F1 teams to take the maximum advantage as they can from the regulations.

"It's been like that ever since I've been involved in F1, and any team that wants to be competitive has to take that approach. And that's everything. You run within a one kilo of the weight limit. You don't run 10kgs within the weight limit because you want to be safe, you run one kilo within the weight limit.

"The FIA defines how stiff they want the wing to be, and you make it that stiff, or slightly stiffer. And they're entitled to change the regulations any time they want, which may be the case.

"Maybe they decide that the wings are evolving in a way they don't like, and they'll change the regulations again. But that's their prerogative. That's how it's laid out in the regulations, and we may well see some new tests evolve in the next few races. But I think what we have now is accurate."

He confirmed that if the FIA chose to use a different method of testing the rear wing deflection, it could be introduced without warning.

"In theory, they can change that today. The trouble is that if they enforce structural changes to something as critical as a rear wing, it's not a sensible thing to do. If people have to modify the rear wings because they impose a test, and they try to impose that during a race weekend, you've got a situation where a critical component - and a very highly stressed component - could be compromised.

"So I don't think it's very sensible. History shows that they've always done it between races, and given people a couple of weeks to react. I think that's the most likely scenario if they choose to change."

At the time it appeared that he was preparing the ground for a move of goalposts before Australia, and it may well be that there had already been some discussions with the FIA along those lines.

The story takes flight

Then everything turned upside down on Saturday afternoon. The German Premiere TV channel captured on-board shots from a nosecam on the Ferrari, and the commentators could hardly miss the unusual lateral movement of the upper front wing element, which created a gap between itself and the nose. The wide-angle lens may have created some distortion, and one well-informed estimate put it at just 2mm - not much, but a great deal in the rarified world of aerodynamics.

The attention of some teams was drawn to the pictures, and their technical guys told their bosses that there was no way this was right - it was clearly constructed as a movable aerodynamic device, and was not just a question of a piece of material flexing.

What did it do? Some felt that, like the upper rear wing element folding down, it allowed the upper front elements to dip out of the airflow and reduce drag.

One leading technical director, and a man with his feet firmly grounded in reality, had a more complex explanation.

He suggested that the opening gap allowed through a flow of air that helped to balance the car. The rear wing stayed in its down position for high-speed corners, the gap helped to adjust front downforce to match.

Then, for slower corners, the rear wing came up and the closed gap balanced out the front downforce. It certainly sounded like an interesting idea.

Whatever the truth, the reaction was quick. Honda and Renault were particularly incensed, and joined by McLaren, put a plan into action.

At one stage the rumour went round that there would be an FIA 'raid' on the Ferrari garage on Sunday morning - one poor photographer waited in vain for some excitement to happen - but it never did.

endplate

Sorry had to split it it was too long

The real action took place in a meeting of team principals on Sunday morning, where a consensus was reached. The now infamous letter was composed - with Honda's Nick Fry taking charge - and then signed by eight team principals. Red Bull's Christian Horner and Toro Rosso's Franz Tost opted out for obvious political reasons.

This letter was presented, apparently by a Honda team member, to Charlie Whiting, who in turn passed it to the stewards. In essence it announced the teams' intention to protest.

It was an unprecedented document, without any formal value within the confines of the FIA procedures. For that reason it probably did not particularly impress Whiting - in some ways the hastily readied message was reminiscent of the teams' request for a chicane in Indianapolis last year - but he must have respected its sentiments, as the FIA has harboured doubts about the Ferrari's compliance.

During the morning there were many conversations up and down the paddock involving various combinations of team personnel and Whiting. Bernie Ecclestone was also keeping a close eye on things. I don't know how involved he became, but he was well aware of what was going on: "The teams just want a level-playing field," he told me.

The key event was when Geoff Willis, Pat Symonds and Martin Whitmarsh met Brawn to outline their objections to Ferrari's wing arrangement, and by all accounts, it was a fairly interesting discussion. Brawn refused to concede that the car broke the rules, and maintained that it had passed all the FIA tests - which it had.

As tensions developed, he went for the attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence strategy, producing a dossier outlining alleged infringements on other cars. The fact that he was apparently so well prepared for such a confrontation came as a surprise to the others.

But perhaps the key event of the day was when Jean Todt received a copy of the protest letter - handed to him, we understand, by Flavio Briatore.

Todt didn't need this sort of distraction on the morning of what had already been a very taxing weekend for the team. Anything involving rivals apparently ganging up on Ferrari was bound to agitate him even more, but he now knew how serious the situation had become.

Ferrari give in

The story took a new turn around lunchtime. After the Brawn meeting, and after further discussions with Whiting, who seems to have acted as a kind of broker, Ferrari made some kind of commitment to bring modified wings to the next race in Melbourne.

In turn, the FIA agreed that no further action would be taken in Malaysia pending checks on those revised wings in Melbourne, and the teams agreed not to launch the threatened protest on the same understanding.

I don't know the details of what was said, but I checked and double-checked the basics just before the start of the Malaysian GP with people who should know. Anything else you may have read or heard is probably smokescreen.

Armed with some good inside information, on the grid I spoke to Briatore:

"So Ferrari are going to be good boys?" I said.

"They are going to be good boys in Melbourne!" the Italian replied.

"And you won't protest even if they win today?"

"I gave my word," he shrugged. "It's difficult..."

After the race I asked Nick Fry for his thoughts on Honda's position, and what Ferrari might have agreed to.

"We're clearly uncomfortable with the Ferrari interpretation of the rules," he said. "And that's in common with most of the other teams. They've really got a different understanding of what can be done from anyone else.

"Before the race we got a commitment from Charlie Whiting that there would be a clear interpretation before Melbourne, so we're all playing on a level playing field, and we accepted his word that that will happen. We're expecting by the time we get to Melbourne that we all have a similar or the same understanding of how the rules are written.

"What Ferrari have agreed with Charlie, obviously we're not party to. But I get the impression that there is an understanding that the interpretation of the other teams is the correct one."

It was only fair to give Ross Brawn a chance to put his views across.

"We'll do whatever the FIA ask us to do," he told me. "And the FIA haven't asked us to do anything yet. There's a procedure to follow, and we'll follow the procedure."

He wasn't willing to take a secondary question. However, a few hours after every Grand Prix Jean Todt discussed Ferrari's weekend with the press.

The most infamous of these meetings took place in Malaysia back in 1999, when Todt was joined by Brawn to explain the ins and outs of the bargeboard problem that had just got Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher disqualified, and apparently handed the world championships to Mika Hakkinen and McLaren.

Brawn duly held up an offending bargeboard and showed us what was wrong with it, where it had gone astray by 5mm. Of course, events moved on apace in the following days, and suddenly the bargeboard wasn't quite so illegal after all. Some of the people pushing like hell last weekend at Sepang have never quite forgotten what unfolded before the finale in Suzuka 1999...

Anyway, here we were, seven years later, in the very same room or one a couple of doors down. But this time with no bargeboards and no Ross Brawn. Todt talked about the race, and when someone brought up the subject of wings, he echoed Brawn's sentiments about respecting the FIA.

The Colombo question

The Q&A session appeared to be coming to a close, and I waited for my moment before putting on my policeman's 'at. Could I ask a direct question - will you be bringing revised wings to Melbourne? Jean made me repeat it before giving his answer, those steely eyes glancing from side to side rather than fixing me with his usual stare.

"We are not in Melbourne. Ask me the question in Melbourne. Myself, I try to be a manager. I'm not a technical director. So my people know much better, and they will then suggest to me what to do. You must know your limits in life. I try to know mine."

So no deal has been done?

"I would never do a deal with anybody in this business. Only people I contract to work with Ferrari. That's the only deal I do..."

Where do we go from here?

Publicly, Ferrari are still maintaining that 'respect the FIA' line, and in the circumstances I suppose they cannot do anything else. There was of course no way that Todt could have acknowledged on Sunday that there was a deal, and that particular word may not have entered his head in respect of any discussions he had that day.

There was also no way that he could even countenance any suggestion that pressure from other teams - either directly or channelled via the FIA - could have influenced the team's thinking. And that policy will no doubt be maintained, whatever happens in Melbourne.

Equally, rivals have no real wish to stir things up any more. There is even a scenario where Ferrari turn up with revised wings, they are approved by the FIA, the eight teams are satisfied that the job has been done, and no more is heard about it. At the other end of the scale, if they turn up with the same arrangement as seen in Bahrain and Malaysia, all hell will break loose.

The interesting thing will be if there is no further communication from the FIA in the coming days in terms of revised standards of deflection testing and so on. If there is a formal change, then Ferrari can point to the new ruling and say look, the goalposts have moved, the wings we think are legal are no longer so, and we've complied.

On the other hand, what if there isn't a formal change, and they still bring new wings? That can only mean that the team have conceded that what they ran before was not going to be allowed to run again, whatever the results of the standard FIA tests.

I have some sympathy for Ross Brawn, a man I've known for some 16 years, and admire a great deal. As he noted earlier, it's the job of every team's technical leader to push the limits, and he's proved better at that than most. He is adamant that the wings are legal, and can point to the car passing the tests as they are written.

Equally, every technical director knows that sometimes an advantage they've found - even if apparently legal - can be taken away at almost any time. Some teams have spent a lot of money going down development paths that the FIA has very quickly closed off.

There may also been an element of the Al Capone syndrome here. For all his more heinous crimes, the Chicago mobster was finally nailed for tax evasion. Who knows, it may well be that the neatly moving Ferrari front wing serves no useful purpose, but its high profile TV appearance has led directly to the team losing the use of thing that really did something - the rear wing...

The bigger picture

What happened on Sunday may have avoided a potentially huge mess. Just think of what happened with BAR at Imola last year, and how that saga rumbled on. Far better to catch something early and relatively painlessly. That could have been done with the BAR fuel tank saga; suspicions had been aroused among rival teams (including Ferrari), the FIA was tipped off, and yet nothing happened until the cars finished third and fifth in Imola. Then it all kicked off.

By indicating their intention to protest, the eight teams didn't necessarily expect the response they got on Sunday, but their letter had the effect of defusing the situation - assuming Ferrari do indeed bring different wings to Australia, and everyone is happy. Ferrari will also surely much prefer a quiet, albeit frustrating, end to the affair.

endplate

and finally

I would have posted the link but it would mean you would have to register with Autosport.com

The bottom line is that other teams wanted to know where the line should be drawn in respect of this particular regulation. They had one idea, Ferrari another. Had the latter interpretation been given the OK, everyone else would have pursued the same direction - and I'm not saying that others haven't already explored the margins in this area - and that would not have been a good thing for the sport.

It must be frustrating for the FIA that despite its carefully drawn up testing methods, a car that's legal in the garage is not when running on the track - shades of the Brabham BT49 that Messrs Whiting and Herbie Blash ran all those years ago!

In this very complex area, there has to be scope for new ways of keeping that playing field level, using official cameras and/or a physical method of measuring deflection at high speed.

There may be greater forces at play here, too. The next week or so will be critical for Grand Prix racing, and the whole issue of who will sign up for 2008 remains in the balance. A huge row was not what certain parties needed to see right now. Renault, Honda, McLaren-Mercedes, Toyota and BMW left Malaysia in rather better mood than they otherwise might have. And who knows? Maybe somewhere along the line there will be a benefit for Ferrari.

A final thought. The Scuderia might be on the receiving end this time, but it wasn't always so. Perhaps Ross should take a look at the F399 bargeboard he keeps on display in his office. After all, Malaysia '99 kicked off seven years of good luck

nikimere

@ endplate: "HOLY SH1T!!!" :eek:

And the longest post in the world goes too....
Nice one though

endplate

ha ha I didn't even write it all copy and pasted