Mercedes and McLaren have different targets and tactics in F1’s “bendy” wings row

2021 Monaco Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

The row over Formula 1’s “bendy” wings blew up on Thursday in Monaco.

Almost every team principal weighed in on the FIA’s decision to toughen up its test to stamp out the deflection seen on Red Bull’s rear wing – and those of some other teams – at previous races.

As with any contentious development in F1, the paddock is split into ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Mercedes and McLaren are foremost among the latter, but it was clear from their words yesterday both have different targets in mind and are tackling the issue in different ways.

While the matter was extensively debated in the FIA’s press conference, McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl set things in motion earlier in the day. While stressing their support for the tougher tests, he took issue with the timing of it, pointing out teams will be allowed to continue using their current designs for the next two races.

“They had the advantage already for several races, which is something we’re obviously not happy with. But now allowing them to have further advantage for some more races is clearly something we strongly disagree and we’re already in conversation with FIA,” he said.

McLaren are “not happy” with the timing of the change
McLaren is surely less concerned about the television pictures of Red Bull’s wing deforming at speed than Ferrari’s rear wing apparently doing the same. McLaren and Ferrari are locked in a tight battle for third in the constructors championship.

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto admitted yesterday they will have to make changes to their cars as a result of the new test. Naturally, he sought to downplay its potential consequences.

“We will need to slightly adapt,” he said, “but I don’t think it’s impacting Ferrari much. Certainly on the lap time from what we’ve seen, very, very little.

“There are some redesigns just needed which need to be carried over somehow to comply fully to the technical directive. Again, I think that, as Ferrari, it’s not impacting us much but still, a redesign is required.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

At a maximum-downforce track like Monaco, a rear wing which flexes slightly at top speed to reduce drag will be of minimal benefit. It is not the reason Ferrari ended yesterday first and second on the timing screens.

But McLaren are likely far more concerned about its potential value at the next venue on the calendar, Baku City Circuit, which features several long straights and the second-highest top speed of the year.

Ferrari will have to change its design, Binotto admitted
While McLaren has downplayed the possibility it might protest Ferrari’s rear wing, the potential they might is there. And both teams know it: Last year the two served notice of an intention to appeal a penalty handed down to Racing Point.

McLaren may be hoping the threat of a penalty dissuades Ferrari from running the same rear wings at Baku for fear of being protested. Similar scenarios have happened before: In 2018 Mercedes stopped using a controversial new rear wheel design following rumblings of discontent and insinuations of illegality from rivals.

Seidl made his case clear: McLaren’s rear wing is legal under the current and future tests, and just because a tougher test is being introduced does not mean wings that pass the current test conform to the regulations.

“We don’t have to change anything on the car. Our car was compliant with the regulations for the first races, it’s compliant now and I just want to make it clear as well that the technical directive is not a new regulation, it’s just an additional or different test, but the basic regulation, especially article 3.8, which is the key one, doesn’t change.”

While McLaren have Ferrari in their crosshairs, Mercedes is naturally preoccupied with its rival for the championships, Red Bull. But their approach is different, and is more a matter of ‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’.

Mercedes CEO Toto Wolff said yesterday the team first raised concerns over the FIA’s enforcement of its wing rules last season.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“We have been left in a limbo since a long time,” he said. “We have flagged the flexible rear wing situation last summer, without having received any feedback.

Wolff said the issue “should have been tackled much earlier”
“I understand some of the teams’ frustration when, making the concept of this year’s car, that this was an area that should have been tackled much earlier.”

Wolff indicated the team intends to produce a ‘softer’ rear wing – i.e. one which flexes more. “We will need to modify our wing,” he said. “We need to soften it.

“Our wing is extremely rigid, complying to the famous article 3.8 that it must remain immobile. The new test that has been introduced is a half-baked solution which is giving us opportunity and the whole thing can soften and can bend more in the future.”

Whether they intend to use this only as a one-off in Baku before the revised test comes into force, or expect they will be able to continue using it after the new rule comes in, Mercedes clearly consider this enough of an opportunity that they are prepared to commit resources to it. That is striking given the tight financial limits they are operating within, which just yesterday led them to confirm they are pulling out of a planned test next week.

Red Bull CEO Christian Horner, whose team will have to revise its rear wing to comply with the rules, put a value on the cost of redesigning a rear wing within a month.

“The impact of something like this is probably about half a million dollars,” he said. “That will prevent something else from happening, so that’s the juggling act that we’re now having to make with the budget cap and financial regs.”

While Mercedes and McLaren seek to turn the row to their advantage, the consequences will be felt throughout the grid. “It’s not just Ferrari and Red Bull that are affected,” said Horner. “I think Sauber [Alfa Romeo] are quite badly affected by this as well.

“But that’s Formula 1. That’s what happens when technical directives get issued that change things like the tests that the rear wings are subjected to.”

Advert | Become a Supporter & go ad-free

2021 Monaco Grand Prix

Browse all 2021 Monaco Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

57 comments on “Mercedes and McLaren have different targets and tactics in F1’s “bendy” wings row”

  1. FIA needs to sort themselves out. Horner says that their car has been examined and it has been deemed as legal. Last year, the FIA examined the RP-20 by Racing Point which was known as the Pink W10, and the FIA confirmed it was legal until Renault and other teams continued to insist for its investigation, leading to a penalty for Racing Point.

    FIA needs to sort this out so that teams do not gain an early advantage if in any case there is a breach of regulations. I am honestly not enjoying seeing this.

    1. @krichelle

      Very different situatiosn tho. One had a very deep root, which was the intellectual property. This one is much simpler… a car is deemed legal when it passes the tests, which Red Bull did. If the tests are changed, and the cars still pass, it’ll still be legal. Even if it flexes a meter on the telly, it’s legal.

      The only way to stop wings (or any bodywork) flexing is to force them to be rigid in any situation, which is impossible in the real world. That’s usually the argument from an engineering point of view.

      The same thing happened in 2012 with Red Bull’s front wing, and the FIA changed the tests. And the wings kept flexing. Was it legal? yes. Does it go “against the spirit of the rules”? maybe, but what is that anyway?

      I see it as an innovation, like the article we had last wednesday. That’s how tiny the margins are these days, we’re not going to see something big like a wing chasis or 6 wheel cars. The tiniest of things can be developed to the extreme and make a remarkable difference if you tie them with other tiny things.

      1. @fer-no65

        Even if it flexes a meter on the telly, it’s legal.

        It’s not so easy though.

        The actual rule is still that body work should not flex. It’s clear that they have designed in some flex on purpose. If another team protests this then the actual rules will be applied and I would suspect these can go further than just the current tests.

        1. If the rule says that ‘body work should not flex’, then it is a vague and pointless rule that needs to be rewritten anyway. As the poster above said, every material flexes to some degree under loading (carbon fibre certainly does). So the way they currently determine how much a wing flexes is through a static load test. If it passes the test, then it is within the regulations.

          If in future they develop a better more accurate way of testing which better relates to how the wing behaves in racing conditions then by all means they should write that test into the new regulations for future seasons. But until then, the static load test is the only measure and as long as the cars comply with it, then they are legal.

          They should not be changing a test mid-season imo because it is effectively a regulation change, which shouldn’t be done for non-safety reasons.

          1. If the rule says that ‘body work should not flex’, then it is a vague and pointless rule that needs to be rewritten anyway.

            @keithedin You are exactly right, and, as far as I can tell, that is in fact what the rule says.

            The problem is that Article 3.8 and Article 3.9 contradict each other. Article 3.8 says aero parts must be immobile relative to the sprung mass, no qualifiers or caveats. Article 3.9 says aero parts may bend up to a certain limit. Nowhere do the rules say that the deflection limits specified in Article 3.9 constitute the mechanism by which the immobility requirement of Article 3.8 is enforced. One can reasonably assume that—it is arguably the only reasonable interpretation because everything will flex somewhat—but the rules do not say that it is so. So as the rules are written, Article 3.8 stands as its own (physically impossible to satisfy) requirement.

            That’s why Wolff and Seidl can complain about violations of Article 3.8 and everyone else can point to Article 3.9 and say they are compliant. Technically, both sides are right.

            But if I were Red Bull, I would lodge a protest against every other team on the grid for violating Article 3.8 as well. If the immobility requirement is to be taken literally, every team should be disallowed.

          2. The FIA should easily be able to see if a team is “engineering” a level of flex “on purpose” or “by design”.
            That is a breach of 3.8 . The 3.9 alowance should be a linear flex, if it is very clearly not linear flex just beyond the 3.9 test load, it is clearly a design which they are engineering flex into the part. If you are engineering flex into the part “by design” i would say that is a legal slam dunk in a protest on rule 3.8. Its intentional flex by design.

          3. @keithedin Sure, but so what? Every team knows how the FIA responds to flexing bodywork

        2. @f1osaurus

          As @keithedin says. 100% agree with him. Nothing more to add, really.

          1. @fer-no65 Your stance is still knee jerk nonsense based on a fan oriented look on things though.

            Bodywork can not be 100% rigid, but it should not flex on purpose. Perhaps the FIA can word that better in the rules, but everybody knows that’s how it actually works.

          2. @f1osaurus my stance isn’t knee jerk nonsense. I gave my argument, which others also agree with. I couldn’t care less about either team so it’s not fan based either.

            If you want to keep discussing, you better respect those you’re talking to.

          3. @fer-no65 You are not “discussing” you are lamely rejecting that the rules should be applied, because you insist they should have been worded better. Like that even matters. At all.

          4. @f1osaurus nevermind then, mate. Cheers.

          5. @fer-no65 Nooo please lets’ “discuss” some more how they should just not enforce the rules because they could be worded differently.

          6. @f1osaurus I never said that. But it’s okay!
            Once you grow up, we can keep talking! Can’t see it happening anytime soon tho…

            See ya in 2050! remember to tag me then!

    2. just shows the fia is just pandering.
      The cars with more rake are the ones that are probably going to flex more at the rear.

    3. @krichelle The RP20 itself was legal, which is why it was allowed to run in the rest of the season without changes. What was illegal was the method of RP designing the car, I believe making it a sporting infringement not a technical one, and that was only covered by the Renault protest.

    4. The FIA actually has not deemed any car legal as such @krichelle. That is not the way this works. Until/unless a team either gets protested and the stewards have to look at the wing and decide on its legality, it is just declared to comply by the teams themselves.

      Last year, until Renault protested the RP, while we could all see that the car was almost certainly not legal, it needed a FIA/Stewards ruling to decide on that point. That the car hadn’t been legal even before that is logical, but also not proven. The same pretty much goes for these (rear?) wings from several teams. They surely seem to be in conflict with the rules from the videos we’ve seen. But the team is right that nobody has even tried to prove that these wings are illegal until they either do not pass scrutineering (which would likely happen as soon as the regular tests are upped) or if/when another team protests them and the FIA has to judge whether the wing has flex (i.e. more than could be expected of such a wing if a team was doing its best to make it rigid as the rules require).

  2. I just want to make it clear as well that the technical directive is not a new regulation, it’s just an additional or different test, but the basic regulation, especially article 3.8, which is the key one, doesn’t change

    Lots of people, including Christian Horner, seem to find that difficult to understand. Convenient non-understanding, of course. Mercedes clearly just want clarification. They obviously have a similar wing modelled and ready to go. The issue is whether teams running wings found to be non-compliant after the new tests will be contested over previous races where they used them.

    1. They should just protest and make sure points for team and driver are docked for the events where rules were broken granted FIA has courage to do the right thing and not accept more “settlements”.

      1. That seems to be what Mercedes want to know: fudge or no fudge this time? Obviously fudge. It’s difficult to know the dynamic and timeline of these issues, but if Merc flagged it as an issue last year and FIA did nothing, that in turn was probably a signal to Red Bull (and others) to push the flexibility a little further still. Playing surprised now really doesn’t cut it.

        1. @david-br Is Horner playing surprised? I think he’s just taking this in stride. He knows his wings comply to the current tests. He understands that teams are free to ask for clarification on anything, just as he did last year with DAS. If FIA wants to take what has been presented to them and decide to do an investigation, and in the case of DAS make it legal for one season only, and in the case of wings make a different test mid-season, that is there prerogative as Horner has acknowledged.

    2. Think about it this way drunk driving is not allowed but there is a permissible level of alcohol in your blood before you are deemed to have broken the rules it is the same for the flex of the wing on a Formula 1 vehicle – “bendy” wings are not allowed but there is a test to decide if a particular wing is “bendy” or not and if the wing passes the test it has not broken any rules same would apply if you would have a blood alcohol level within the allowed threshold. It is funny how many find Ferrari/RBR and such guilty for all sorts of things while Merc was allowed to use oil burning powertrain uncontested for 3 years before Ferrari caught on and Mercedes protested the design solution they had been applying for 3 Championship years without a single word from other teams or the governing body. If rules apply they apply to everyone.

      1. I’m not for penalizing teams for running a retrospectively non-compliant wing. However the regulations do state (a) bodywork should be immobile/nonflexible and (b) FIA reserves the right to introduce new tests if infringement is suspected. Obviously some flexibility is inevitable and structurally necessary. But deliberately developing flex under heavier loads than the tests to gain significant advantage on straights is an obvious (deliberate) breach. If discovered. Mercedes can probably go either way, i.e. introduce the same kind of wing if FIA allow it. However, developing a deliberate regulation breach and being allowed to get away with it entails an unfair advantage against other teams (McLaren etc.) who have stuck to the regulations. To take your drink-driving example, where I live there is no drinking at all when driving. There’s a certain (low) margin of tolerance for error, or maybe for residual alcohol, I don’t know, but if you decide to have a half a beer and get caught, that’s really your problem for deliberately pushing the regulation and going too far. The ‘margin’ is there for practical reasons, not to be exploited.

        1. But you do know that very many places allow for a descent amount of alcohol in blood before you are deemed drunk driving? At the same time unless you are talking about criminal law offence, then it is not really important whether you are doing it deliberately or not would you penalize someone if they try to make a “bendy” wing and fail at it? knowing that they fully intended to make a flexible wing but it just isn’t doing so or alternatively imagine if it were by accident is it illegal then? What if all of the teams doing so said that it was never designed to do so and it was just an accident, should we let them of the hook? As you pointed it out the wording “bodywork should be immobile/nonflexible” does not mean that there is not flex at all so the tests are there to elaborate what will be deemed as such (flex) and if the device does not fail the tests then it is for the letter of the regulations a “flexible” bodywork. The new tests will remedy the situation probably but as of now they are very much good and there is no reason for calling them names.

          1. This is more like having too much alcohol in your blood and quickly drinking something that masks that alcohol on your breath when you are up for an breathaliser check by police.

            You are still illegal, but the police didn’t notice. Unless they see that you cannot walk and go for some better tests.

        2. There’s a certain (low) margin of tolerance for error, or maybe for residual alcohol,

          So there we have it. Even when you use the rigid approach there still is a bandwidth.
          Nothing new there and teams will always look for the right approach.
          The McLaren back is on the brink of Legality. not what the rules intended but still within the rules.

          1. McLaren is the one to talk, after given a special exemptions from the 2020-2021 chassis carry over regulation regulations altogether.

          2. Sam Collins and Ctaog Scarborough have made the very important point that nothing can be infinitely stiff. To have no flex at the speeds the vara run at, they would need to be made out of concrete. There is always going to be some degree of flex at loads on the wings.

    3. @david-br

      Mercedes clearly just want clarification. They obviously have a similar wing modelled and ready to go

      I doubt that because in this case they will be contradicting their selves when they said they won’t be upgrading their car for the whole 2021 season and that they gave up a simple tyre test for fear of budget cup breach. My personal opinion is that Mercedes are all in bluffing by not revealing their intention in any case. They have been politically correct (Toto’s modus operandi).

      They cannot replicate the bendy wing because it needs to be incorporated in the design philosophy of the car and not as a standalone part and by protesting it they could gain more by scrapping RBR development plans free of charge. After all why spend all that money to gain 3 tenths, they are already mighty quick on the straights even unrivalled in race conditions with the DRS.

      The reason why they dropped the Pirelli tyre test is that they don’t have any resource available to waste because they are pushing flat out on both 2021 and 2022 cars.

      1. @tifoso1989 Maybe! I’m just going by what Wolff was reported to have said yesterday. Funnily enough, today has Horner saying Lewis is delving in ‘mind games’ over his reply to a question about him and Max battling on track (“Lewis loves all that rubbish so will just let him get on with it”) while Wolff is “more focused on our rear wing than he is on next year. I don’t know what’s going on in their business but Toto knows what’s going on in everyone’s business.”

        Someone sounds a bit rattled.

        1. Yes, Horner ‘Ill leave it up to Toto to know everybody’s else’s business, I just concentrate on RB.’ Followed by Christian slagging off half the grid for the rest of the interview.

          1. Wolff must be a difficult rival, he doesn’t get snappy and erratic when rattled, he just gets angrier and more focused.

        2. Someone sounds a bit rattled.

          Yes!! But not the one you mean. It obviously is Toto.
          (and Lewis following his example)

    4. @david-br “The issue is whether teams running wings found to be non-compliant after the new tests will be contested over previous races where they used them.”

      Is it? I envision that FIA has no choice but to cede that all wings met or will meet their own testing parameters up until there are new parameters introduced. As well, the teams will be made aware of the new parameters and will have a chance to comply to them. So unless teams are going to put an ‘old wing’ on a car and expect it to pass the new test, how will the FIA find a team’s wings to be non-compliant? What proof will they have of wings so far being non-compliant, when indeed they comply to current tests? By hearsay? By video footage? Is that scientific? Do they have exact video footage on all cars wings under exactly the same speeds and conditions? And that they can measure? Is there a measurement for amount of flex at a certain speed, or is the measure that which they apply with their existing testing?

      No I’m quite sure there will be no repercussions to RBR, AR, or any other team for having wings that passed the existing tests, and as well I’m quite sure that these teams will adjust their wings accordingly to meet the new tests. I’m also quite sure FIA doesn’t want to decide the Championships by going to litigation retroactively when they themselves deemed existing wings legal by their own inaction via sanctions otherwise, and by teams complying to existing testing. Especially when according to TW this goes back to last year. FIA seemingly has had months and months to insist teams comply to a more stringent test. They haven’t changed a thing in that regard and will only do so in some short weeks from now. For now, the teams’ wings are deemed legal therefore.

      1. @robbie To clarify, my reading was that Mercedes are expressing concern that they may be protested against if they use a similar wing in Baku, not that they intend to protest. However it may be just leverage to get Red Bull (and Ferrari maybe) to use less flexible wings there. As we’ve been here before, maybe you’re misunderstanding me. I don’t want to see retrospective penalties either, if that’s the issue. And I agree it would be difficult for FIA to apply them. However neither do we want to see championship points being distributed ‘subject to protest’, it’s negative all round for Formula 1.

        1. @david-br No that’s clear and I responded to you elsewhere in that vein on the other article related to this topic with Vasseur’s quotes. As I said there, Mercedes shouldn’t fear being protested for I would assume if they make a ‘softer’ wing for Baku it will still have to comply to current tests. There should be no protest over that, just as there should be no protest over RBR’s wing that also complies to current tests.

        2. @david-br @robbie
          Whole bendy wing stinks. It should be banned period!

          It is in conjunction with the high rake concept, lowering rear at speed due to downforce, which in return changes the angle of rear wing, added with the bending wing further flattens the rear wing and makes it a FREE DRS at speeds above 180kmh (check videos, wind and suspension works perfectly sync above those speed on RB). It is clear as day what the intentions of this design. Likewise what the intention of Ferrari engine/fuel control systems around testings. Ferrari did cheat despite passing controls and checks during fuel flow tests, but noone ?? could prove it, but new sensors/check process came about for this! It doesnt change the fact that Ferrari complied with fuel flows (when checked, but didnt comply obviously when not checked!)

          RB has a history of denying wing flexes, and using these areas of tests vs rule check loop holes…

          Red Bull were one of the first to protest Mercedes’ rims despite having no aero effect on the car other than pure temperature control unlike their own concepts…

          Red Bull was the first to protest Mercedes DAS system which is used to heat up the tyres, rather than aero.

          I wonder why Horner or Red Bull surprised at all for such a blatant bending of rules being protested?

  3. The delay is odd, but I’m not holding my breath for there to be sufficient competence at FIA to tackle the issue. I expect it to be another case in which they are outgunned and outfoxed by the worst offenders and end up making a patchwork deal. I mean the only real way to satisfactorily resolve this would be to perform some form of reliable, live monitoring of deflections in at least 2 planes…

    1. I think they should try to enforce the rule better, but I’m not mad about the delay. I think it’s probably not easy to organize the equipment and technical support for the new test and then have it ready to fly to some far away country on a week’s notice.

  4. While Mercedes and McLaren seek to turn the row to their advantage

    That’s an odd way of saying that they are hoping the FIA will stop the cheating.

    1. It seems you already found the narrative for the moment Mercedes/Lewis looses the championship ;)

    2. @f1ocheaters
      Yeah, they should stop the cheating and only focus on bringing back more goodies for Mercedes, like special request tires, a new front wing lay out, free tire tests (don’t forget to wear black helmets) and a refusal to properly police excessive oil burn, right?
      Btw, the video you posted showing the merc/rbr comparison; I couldn’t keep my eye of the very bendy sharkfin on the merc. If one didn’t know any better, one might actually think the geniuses of mercedes found a very clever way to reduce drag………

      7 cheat titles in a row, lol.

      1. Absolutely right. Seven years of cheating, 7 years of having Liberty and the FIA in their pocket, seven years of buying off the stewards, seven years of dictating to the Mercedes engined teams what they can and can’t do. Stroll senior, Zac Brown, Frank Williams, Seidl and the like all dancing to Toto’s tune. Weak nobodies like Vettel and Alonso having to praise Ham the fake, and to top it all even RB and Max now having to go along with Mercedes by claiming the Ferrari looks competitive this week And don’t get me started on all the conspiracies we all know to be true.
        F1 must be scratching their heads on why you all keep coming back for more?

      2. Well that’s a new one!

    3. Do you agree that flexing wings on f1 cars are illegal?

  5. I just can’t help but think that if Charlie Whiting was still here we wouldn’t have this debacle, it would’ve been sorted before the season start.

    1. Charlie Whiting had is fair share of things like this and F1 being F1 a fair share of them went into debacle mode.

    2. @mantresx Whiting presided over the worst of the front wing cheating that Red Bull was allowed to continue with for years.

  6. Seidl: “I just want to make it clear as well that the technical directive is not a new regulation, it’s just an additional or different test.”

    Vasseur: “It’s not the introduction of a new test or a new way to do the test.”

  7. If it’s going to cost RBR half a million to do a new wing then that thing must bending like crazy. It seems that if it’s only a marginal bit of non-compliance some buttressing with a bit of aluminum or a CF bracing should do the job. If they have to do a whole new lay-up and mounting, then they really got a bit greedy. This seems typical Newey work to me though, going back to the MP4-18 and the cooling issues on the old Renault engines and even the Leyton House March cars. He takes things right to the margin of the design spec, then pushes a bit more.

    1. @dmw I think you are likely quite oversimplifying, as Vasseur has implied it will cost everyone quite a bit, as they all design to the allowed limits based on the FIA tests. Aside from the redesign to meet the new tests, they will all have to make likely at least four wings right off the bat, two for each car, with one being a spare. Perhaps they might even like to have a fifth or a sixth nearby in case of incidents that see them needing to replace rear wings during a race weekend. I think you are underestimating the precision that has to go on here in order for all teams to be as competitive with each other as they need to be. A bit of aluminum or a CF brace sounds like something more doable in Indycar, no offence to Indycar.

  8. Seidl references article 3.8 of F1’s technical regulations, which state that ‘any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.’ That’s in addition to the earlier definition ‘rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom’.

    Thing is, this is not possible within the weight constraints of an F1 car. There’s rigid and there’s technically rigid, which is what the FIA tests are for. Now it wouldn’t be the first time that the FIA has been outsmarted by the teams, and that the tests need to change (which is what is happening now), but even the new tests don’t really take rigid as 100% rigid. The tests are the benchmark, not the wording of the regulations. Seidl knows this as well as anyone, so it’s a bit silly to refer to the rules on this. So for now there’s nothing wrong with either Ferrari or Red Bull’s wings.

  9. To tie this up into a neat little bow, we need Mercedes to turn up at Baku with a bendy wing that blitzes the opposition; and RB to protest it.

    1. Toto already mentioned they tried it but were unable to create an advantage. So the 0.6 sec by the Red Bull engineers show there is a lot more engineering power there.
      its probably just jealousy then ;)

      1. Yes, glad you are now seeing that Mercedes are relying on the skill of Ham to make up the difference. If only the others would follow your lead with their baseless claims that the Mercedes is the better/faster car.

  10. Lol, just amazing. It will be banned in two races. So Mercedes will design a wing just for Baku, to gain advantage until the ban. Amazing mentality.

    This is why McLaren are not champions, right now.

    Granted in Baku McLaren might protest, and win after all frontruners are disqualified.

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.