Max Verstappen says last weekend’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix was not the first time McLaren used their controversial rear wing design and wants the FIA to clarify its legality.
The FIA is considering whether to revise its rules on flexible bodywork after images emerged of the MCL38’s DRS flap opening slightly at high speed in Baku.Verstappen, who finished fifth in Sunday’s race, said he’d seen the footage of the wing which appears to deform under peak loads.
“It’s quite clear, of course, that it’s moving, like, it’s at speed,” said Verstappen. “It might be smart, might not be smart, but at the end of the day it’s up to the FIA to decide if it’s legal or not.
“But that’s not only on the rear wing it’s the front wing as well. What is allowed? How much is it allowed to bend? All these kind of things, right? So we just have to wait and see from our side.”
The FIA said in a statement on Thursday all teams are considered to comply with the rules if their wings pass deflection tests. No official complaint against any team’s design has been made, it added.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Oscar Piastri, who won Sunday’s race for McLaren, insisted there is no doubt over the design’s legality. “It’s legal,” he said. “As long as it passes all the tests – we get tested a lot – and it passes.”
While Red Bull haven’t won any of the last seven rounds, McLaren have taken victory in three of the last five events. Piastri said it was “natural” for rivals to question the legality of their car.
“I think you look at any car that’s been competitive and it always gets scrutinised to the highest level,” he said. “You look at the Mercedes a few years ago with their rear wing and the infamous ’50K touch’.
“You look at a lot of the teams trying to work out Red Bull’s DRS effect for the last couple of years. We’ve seen flexi front wings in the past and all sorts.
“So I think naturally there’s going to be scrutiny of just people curious to know why your car is competitive. I certainly don’t think it’s personal to us.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“All the other teams are trying to find [performance] including ourselves, we’re not just thinking that we’re the best out there and we don’t need to learn anything from anyone else. We’re always looking at the other teams as well.
“So I think it’s only natural and when you’re at the front and when you have a car within a second of you for 30 laps and the rear wing camera on there for 30 laps, then naturally people are going to notice it more too.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2024 Azerbaijan Grand Prix
- Verstappen: “Important” for FIA to clarify legality of McLaren’s ‘mini DRS’ wing
- Hamilton explains suspension set-up change behind “miserable” Baku weekend
- Piastri needs “crazy” results to become title contender despite Baku win
- FIA taking new look at flexing bodywork amid intrigue over McLaren’s rear wing
- Norris knew Verstappen broke VSC rules in Baku because he did the same in Melbourne
The Dolphins
19th September 2024, 17:02
Not sure the “it passes the tests” defence works, even Red Bull will argue that now after having a test redesigned to better measure wing flex. Let’s see what the FIA does but they’ve set a precedent of modifying tests mid-season and nobody should be surprised or cry foul if they do so again.
Peyton
19th September 2024, 20:16
It means that previous results are final. Cars were legal. That is what they are saying.
FIA can add a new test to stop these types of wings being used in the future. We’ll see if that happens.
SteveP
19th September 2024, 22:25
As teams, especially RBR, have said in the past if it passes the tests it’s legal.
Team A may not like what team B have done and lobby to get the rules changed to block some clever idea, but while it meets the tested conditions of the existing regulations, it’s legal.
anon
20th September 2024, 8:28
SteveP, many will find it rather ironic for Red Bull to be complaining about flexible wings, given they have a very long history of similar activities themselves, only for Red Bull to get upset when somebody else does to them what they were doing to the rest of the field.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 11:05
They’ve done it alright, they all did at some point in time. And it was forbidden.
But then we get to see a massive amount of flex in Mercedes frontwings for a couple of seasons, and it’s no miracle people start to complain about how the FiA allows some and not others.
So it’s not about the flexing itself, it’s about how the FiA deals with it.
Coventry Climax
19th September 2024, 23:20
It seems there’s a TD34, which states that wings should not flex differently on track versus when tested, and that they are illegal if they do.
There’s basically just two options here: Either the wings are tested and show the exact same flex as in the race footage, or they do not.
There’s also two things I don’t really get here:
– Why wasn’t this in the original rules already? Flexing bodyparts is nothing new, and it’s not exactly rocket science, is it?
– Why would the FiA consider changing the rules, if applying their own rules promptly and consistently also solves the problem. This rule change, by the way, may be just Keith Collantines words, as other sites don’t mention that, but that the FiA is considering a thorough investigation. (Or similar words.)
My oh my; considering. That really sounds like an organisation on top of things, and intent on wiping out controversy, doesn’t it?
Stinks of ulterior motives, I’m afraid. Gaining time to come up with something the larger audience will swallow.
Gerrit
20th September 2024, 2:56
As someone who does a lot of carbon yacht mast testing for mast bend characteristics, you can do a static test and measure deflection between the fulcrum and the load along an axis, it is still basically a single axis test. Even measuring offsets along the axis is not fully representative of what actually occurs in use.
When we test in actual operational conditions where the load is in a 2 axis mode (no mast compression) the results vary tremendous from the one axis static test. Amazing how even a little load (as in wind pressure) can alter a mast bend when we use imaging software to calculate bending coordinates.
That is the beauty of carbon and the ability to orientate fibres (plus volume) to get desired bending characteristics in two axis. Racing car wings can actually move in 3 axis if we build flex in the side support panels.
The testing regime to measure flex in the 3 axis for the total wing structure can be configured but be extremely difficult in a static environment. Engineers are way ahead off the officials ability to measure what can be produced.
You only need to see the forward facing camera shots of the F1 front wing elements flexing under load to see how that flex is impossible to replicate in static testing.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 9:57
Being an engineer myself, it’s interesting to read what you say.
The ultimate conclusion of the FiA running after the facts of what the engineers do though, is no surprise and actually what I’ve been saying before. As is the given that designing for flex is nothing new – unless your name is FiA, ofcourse.
The way to really test the flex of parts, is in a combination of windtunnel, CFD software and real life. Results need to be calibrated from time to time to have windtunnel and CFD match with reality. That’s the exact problem teams have been having from time to time.
With what comparable little means the FiA allocates to their testing teams to do this job, they won’t indeed ever be able to test everything and reliably.
I believe the rules -or that TD- also state that parts may not specifically be designed to flex differently under testing as opposed to in live situations (=on track). That probably has to do with the ‘spirit of the rules’ nonsense, where teams are supposed to make an advance correct guess as to what the FiA might mean at any given point in time.
Typical for the FiA: Being fully aware of the discrepancy between their knowledge and testing tools, and what the teams know and have, they still make up rules they fully well know they can’t ever test in the first place, and then also come up with wording for it such that it leaves massive grey space, literally asking for controversy.
Plus, they are pretty pointless rules too, given there’s a costcap in place. (Which, by the way, also takes up a full season to test and provides a degree of accuracy no one can actually verify.)
It’s getting harder and harder to ignore the inkling that what the FiA, FOM and Liberty are actually hoping to achieve with all this nonsense, is nothing but maximising controversy, clicks, media-talk, advertising space and hence, revenue.
anon
20th September 2024, 10:14
That gives the impression you sought to invent the conspiracy first and then shape subsequent events to fit the pattern you want.
In the past, teams also pushed the regulations in areas such as this, and you’ve lauded many of those past efforts as being “ingenious” or “inventive” interpretations of the rules, rather than claiming they were part of some attempts by Bernie to stir up attention for the sport.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 10:36
Anon, first of all, Bernie was no stranger to stirring up the attention for the sports; some even call him the inventor of it.
And you are turning things around and seem to read from my words what you prefer to read.
Funny comment, when I wrote this:
I’ll be more specific, shorter and concise for you:
I do laud engineering ingenuity. But I condemn the way the FiA handles it, as well as the reasons they come up with as to why they should.
I do not support conspiracy theories. The FiA is making it very, very hard not to, though.
ludewig
20th September 2024, 11:41
Wow, an actually knowledgeable comment. Nice job, sir.
Republican
19th September 2024, 17:31
RBR as always: “if we cannot do it, ban this, ban DAS and eat sandwiches”.
falken (@falken)
19th September 2024, 18:52
Where are these images? Can we get them posted here with some real analysis?
Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles)
19th September 2024, 19:32
@falken Here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkdzUEswUMs
Nick T.
20th September 2024, 0:19
Love RF, but they don’t have any ex-aero guys on staft (few do), but there are a few pubs who do and they explore it in technical terms.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 10:20
There’s likely quite a couple of engineers here, among the commenters.
Slippery slope – I’ll post again without this sentence if this reply is removed because of it: Engineers don’t usually brag about what they do and who they are; that’s more for the financial and advertising guys m/f.
Like in the newspapers, where they started to add that the person that wrote the article studied such and so, worked here and there and has been doing it for this or that long.
Well hey; that applies to all of us.
I’m sure there’s loads of people that fall for it, but as far as I’m concerned, it gives zero weight to what is written if the words themselves have no weight in the first place.
Agree though, in that I would also welcome a more technical approach to things from time to time. We’ve had some of it in the past, but it always disappears again, like it is too expensive and doesn’t add sufficiently to the reader base and revenue. What’s new.
Jojo
19th September 2024, 19:28
My guess is that the FIA will turn a blind eye to McLaren’s rear wing, same as they are ignoring the flexi front wings until the end of the season. F1 is a business, and I think that McLaren winning is probably good for business.
Mayrton
20th September 2024, 7:07
Exactly this. As long as McLaren is behind in their attempt to get the WDC no one will be inclined to look at this. Shareholder value is always more important than anything else.
An Sionnach
19th September 2024, 22:07
If it passes the tests and doesn’t contravene the rules then they should leave any rule changes until next season. While there have been examples of teams withdrawing legal cars (the fan car, for example), let’s not change the rules mid-season.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
19th September 2024, 23:43
Pretty sure we’ve had this exact conversation about both Red Bull and Mercedes’ wings on many occasions.
Would also love to see whether this is Max playing games (doubt) or whether it’s in response to a direct question about it.
SteveP
20th September 2024, 7:22
We have, hence my earlier comment “As teams, especially RBR, have said in the past if it passes the tests it’s legal.”
Can’t be sure without hearing the actual interview in full, but one thing is clear – he’s had coaching on the content of the answer, as the wording isn’t his standard English usage.
MacLeod (@macleod)
20th September 2024, 7:49
Looks like Red Bull wants a answer in black and White so they also can use that ‘feature’ because that is why they pushes the FIA as long the FIA doesn’t confirm things they stuck.
Tristan (@skipgamer)
20th September 2024, 8:24
So much for the FIA saying this isn’t coming from any team.
Rather than you know, formally protest and follow correct channels, Red Bull play the dirty media game (as usual) to disparage their competitors and imply wrong-doing.
Riccard
20th September 2024, 9:16
That’s only true if Verstappen brought it up himself.
If he was responding to a journalist’s question, all it proves is that journos like to stir the pot.
SteveP
20th September 2024, 11:55
I’m pretty sure Tristan wasn’t saying, or even implying, that Max was the source. (There are spin doctors to do that)
As to stirring the pot, the journo’s are following an item of gossip/whispered comment that is almost invariably inserted into the gossip channel by the team spin doctors.
After that, Max can be briefed on what to say “if the subject of unusual flexing comes up in the press conference” – and if it doesn’t come up the spin doctors insert a bit more “rumour has it…”
Sham (@sham)
20th September 2024, 9:42
“It’s important to clarify legality”. This has already been done, the cars have raced and been checked and found to comply with the rules.
It’s also important that competitors accept that the tests are the tests and that if a component passes the tests in force, then it is legal. If the FIA deem it necessary to alter the tests when THEY spot a competitor exploiting an unintended loophole, then it is up to them.
I hate the whining from drivers about what their opponents are doing. I know that it always happened – but there really isn’t any need for any of this to be public. Keep it off the radio, and articles like this should be a private communication between the team and the FIA.
SteveP
20th September 2024, 11:59
WRT the legality – yup.
I’d say that mostly what you see and hear is the drivers uttering either direct quotes of what their team spin doctors strung together, or a paraphrase of it.
baasbas
20th September 2024, 13:35
Verstappen is asked what he thinks about the legality of McLarens rear wing.
Verstappen answers “.. at the end of the day it’s up to the FIA to decide if it’s legal or not.”
RBR gets roasted in the comment section for whining.
The internet makes it hard for me to keep faith in humanity…
We have not progressed since the middle ages. Some halfwit points a finger and starts shouting witch and without fail a good majority of dimwits duly pick up their torches