Mercedes has revised the front wing which it introduced at last weekend’s race but did not use due to concerns over its legality.
The team described the new front wing, last week as having a “reduced camber front wing tip and additional slot gap separators added.”The slot gap separators, which were believed to have attracted complaints from rival teams, have been removed (pictured above). Although the rules state up to eight of them are permitted on each side of the wing, they are permitted “for primarily mechanical, structural or measurement reasons.”
However Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott admitted they also enhanced the car’s aerodynamic performance.
“I think there’s a fuss about it because in the regulations it talks about the primary use being for ‘mechanical’ or ‘measurement’ purposes and clearly there is a secondary benefit of an aerodynamic design that’s in there as well,” he told media including RaceFans on Sunday in Austin. “We’ll decide whether we want to argue that one or not.”
The revised version seen in the pits at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez indicates Mercedes have decided not to push their case. The marks where the separators have been removed are clearly visible.
The wing was part of Mercedes’ final package of upgrades which it brought to the last race, and included revisions to the rear wing endplates and alterations to the floor.
Don't miss anything new from RaceFans
Follow RaceFans on social media:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2022 Mexican Grand Prix
- How many victory chances did Hamilton have in his first winless F1 season?
- Delay in producing new parts held up Alfa Romeo upgrade
- Doohan’s practice run earns praise, but Alpine undecided over reserve role
- ‘I was in the fight, which hasn’t been often this year’: Ricciardo’s Mexican GP transcript
- Verstappen “will continue to break records for the rest of his career” – rivals
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
27th October 2022, 20:08
Mercedes altered the wing. How? It was structural, right…
Fab
27th October 2022, 20:16
Theu used secator 😆
X1Znet (@x1znet)
27th October 2022, 20:37
The last paragraph of section 3.2.2 Aerodynamic Influence of the Technical Regulations clearly makes the unused slot gap separators illegal:
Miguel Bento (@miguelbento)
27th October 2022, 21:18
*cough” mirrors *cough*
SteveP
27th October 2022, 22:00
Well done. How many of the cars on the grid do you want to DSQ?
Every car on the grid has aero tweaks on the mirrors and their support
BasCB (@bascb)
27th October 2022, 20:53
Not surprising in the least. Surely these were only there to establish that this is not allowed (as seems pretty clear from the paragraph highlighted by @x1znet above).
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
27th October 2022, 20:53
Glad we now all agree that Mercedes tried to put an illegal part on their car(s).
Ben
27th October 2022, 21:55
But they didn’t… What is your actual point? Do you have one? Or do you just paste the same comment on every article?
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
27th October 2022, 23:26
I will gladly challenge you to find this same comment anywhere else.
SteveP
27th October 2022, 22:08
Wrong in two respects:
First, you pluralised the statement and there was only one wing of that design present
Second, the wing sat gathering Texan dust for the whole event, placed nicely for media people to see the pretty curvy spacers.
Since Merc run these things by the FIA before making them, never mind shipping them, I’d be more inclined to check to see whether it actually had FIA crash test approval and then wonder why the FIA would test the crash-worthy nature but ignore the aero tweak.
Was the main tweak perhaps to the likes of Kravitz? Or perhaps nudge the FIA to tighten the wording of the rules.
Why does it say primary rather than sole, as with many other elements of the rules?
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
27th October 2022, 23:32
Please re-read what I wrote:
“an illegal part” – singular, on their car(s) – also singular, but acknowledging that a front wing could easily be put on either of their cars, though of course not simultaneously.
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
27th October 2022, 23:33
Please re-read what I wrote:
“an illegal part” – singular, on their car(s) – also singular, but acknowledging that a front wing could easily be put on either of their cars, though of course not simultaneously.
https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/23/mercedes-in-discussions-with-fia-over-front-wing-upgrade-it-will-not-race/
And now everyone decide to agree that what Mercedes brought to the track last week was an illegal part.
Sham (@sham)
27th October 2022, 22:09
It was never fitted to a car in a competitive session, or anywhere at beyond a wind tunnel model as far as I can tell.
No rules were breached, or even bent a little bit.
I imagine removing them cost about 5 minutes of an employees time, so no cost cap implementation – lesson for Red Bull there.
jhg103 (@joshgeake)
28th October 2022, 8:16
They never fitted it. Tbh it kinda feels like they’re still behaving as though they have a superior car – I wish they’d taken the risk and just stuck it on for P1 rather than hesitantly checking its legality.