McLaren have confirmed they will change the design of their rear wing after rivals raised questions over its legality.
The MCL38’s rear wing became a focus of attention after footage emerged during the Azerbaijan Grand Prix weekend of the edges of its DRS flap deforming at speed. Rivals claimed this ‘Mini DRS’ could infringe the regulations.In a statement yesterday, the FIA noted no teams had made an official complaint about any of their rivals’ designs. It pointed out any wing was considered to comply with the rules if it satisfied the allowed dimensions and flexibility tests.
However amid rising speculation the FIA was preparing to revise the regulations, McLaren has confirmed it will not run the wing in the same form again.
“Whilst our Baku rear wing complies with the regulations and passes all FIA deflection tests, McLaren have proactively offered to make some minor adjustments to the wing following our conversations with the FIA,” it said.
McLaren also indicated the rear wings on other cars may behave in the same way. “We would also expect the FIA to have similar conversations with other teams in relation to the compliance of their rear wings, they said.
Speaking before McLaren’s announcement, Ferrari team principal Frederic Vasseur said he trusts the FIA to take the right action over the design.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“I’m not complaining about this. I think it’s more than borderline. We all saw the video and the pictures of this.
“It’s a bit frustrating when, if you remember perfectly the situation in Monza, we had five cars in two hundredths of a second and you move from P1 and P2 to P5 and P6 for two hundredths of a second. In Baku we arrive 10 laps in a row side-by-side turn one, you can imagine that we have a bit of frustration.”
He added McLaren was unlikely to run the wing at the high-downforce Singapore track where F1 is racing this weekend anyway.
“We had a look at the previous events and it was only on the low-downforce tracks,” he said. “I’m not sure that they could or they want to use the same trick in Singapore or in Zandvoort for example.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Singapore Grand Prix
- Ricciardo’s brake woe and why Perez thought he had an engine problem: Singapore GP radio
- ‘Perez is only quicker when he has DRS’: How Hulkenberg’s Haas beat a Red Bull – again
- Mercedes explain “clear mistake” strategy call which left Hamilton “so angry”
- “Sometimes I wonder why I do this”: How Hamilton endured a slog to sixth in Singapore
- F1’s rules need surgery as well as sticking plaster after fastest lap controversy
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 14:33
How much difference could a mini DRS make?
I believe a full DRS is worth some 15kph of (top) speed. Lifting the tip of the wing seems to be well less than 1% of the opening, but of course the ‘activation point’ is a lot earlier. And DRS benefit will not be perfectly proportional with opening width either.
But even if it provides merely a 1kph increase over 10s then this equates to about half a car length.
This could come in handy when fighting for position ;)
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 15:01
I’ve seen a difference in topspeed mentioned of around 50 kmph in some publications, though they would not come up with the calculations for it. (Even though the kinematic equations are quite simple.)
The speeds in themselves aren’t all important though: it’s about the gain of your “mini-DRS”, when the car behind, with proper DRS, isn’t able to overtake.
SteveP
20th September 2024, 16:55
What is important to note is that the loudest complainer – Horner – has a car that was not just overtaken easily by McLaren, but also Mercedes and Ferrari. Were they also using mini-DRS? I think not.
Horners problems are a bit closer to home, but he’s thrashing around finger pointing at anything and everything.
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 17:40
Neither Horner nor Red Bull is mentioned in this article.
Something in your head always seems to gyrate towards the same cast in stone storyline :P
SteveP
20th September 2024, 19:50
Solid fact:
…a car that was not just overtaken easily by McLaren, but also Mercedes and Ferrari. Were they also using mini-DRS? I think not.
Which storyline would you like to replace that with?
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 22:56
Seriously?
You’re quoting your own post after my comment.
What’s going on in your head?
You’ll find the answer in my earlier reply.
Hint: (Something in your head always seems to gyrate towards the same cast in stone storyline).
SteveP
21st September 2024, 8:10
Because you’re ignoring the obvious fact – that the RBR is slower, relative to the whole grid, I think.
It isn’t three teams that have lock-step jumped forward by a large amount in front of a previously dominant car, it’s three teams that have improved a little and one car that has taken a large step backwards.
The TP for that team needs to look closer to home for the deficit.
Hinting heavily that someone else is all but cheating won’t fix his car.
notagrumpyfan
21st September 2024, 8:55
Steven,
Evict those rent-free squatters RBR and Horner from your head, and comment on something in this article or what preceding posters wrote.
Repeating your own comment won’t make the first attempt more appropriate or meaningful.
Radoye
20th September 2024, 18:10
My understanding is that rather than like true DRS this works more like the F-Duct once did, where it allows just enough airflow to stall the wing thus reducing drag. The effect is much weaker than full DRS but significant enough to provide an advantage.
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 22:57
That makes sense.
AlanD
20th September 2024, 21:07
Even if it is a small effect, it is not restricted to DRS zones, and not restricted to being within one second of the car in front, so that all adds up to a significant gain.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
20th September 2024, 14:37
I don’t understand why they’d proactively change the design if it was deemed legal. Unless they were never going to use it anyway so it paints the right picture in PR terms.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
20th September 2024, 14:48
There’s not really any low-downforce tracks remaining with long straights to get the benefit of such a thing. Except maybe Las Vegas but probably not worth the scrutiny.
So yeah, PR win is a bonus I reckon.
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 15:19
They never said it was ‘legal’; they merely confirmed that the wing passed the pre-defined flexibility tests. Thus it was ‘not found to be illegal’ (yes, that is something quite different).
And as there were no complaints, there will be no inquiry and past usage is now done and dusted.
Dominique (@tryneplague)
20th September 2024, 15:01
If the FIA says its legal, as I understand it, and McLaren decide to pro actively say they remove it for the reminder of the season, then maybe that’s a smart way for McLaren to make other teams forget about it and then deploy it again next year for low downforce circuits only, IF the FIA doesn’t make it illegal by then.
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 15:04
Isn’t it the reverse?
It now seems they won a race when using something which wasn’t allowed, but got away with it.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
20th September 2024, 17:23
If it isn’t illegal, it’s legal, no? So they raced a legal car and won
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 17:59
Nobody said it ISn’t illegal, FIA said that after the standard test they “are DEEMED to be in full compliance”.
It’s similar when you pass a motorway section with average speed control without being fined. Your average speed will be below the allowed top speed, but you might very well have exceeded it during parts of that section. Even though you are not fined, it is still illegal.
But don’t worry this happens all the time in F1. e.g. if a car is just above the weigh limit at the end of the race after picking up rubber on the inlap, it could very well have been below the limit during the race. The car will pass scrutiny as it is deemed to be legal, even though it was still breaking the rules during the race (i.e. illegal).
SteveP
21st September 2024, 20:07
If only there was a word to describe that, like normal people say – “legal”
To use your speed analogy, maximum average speed UK motorway = 70mph, unless they change the rules and the overhead signs say 50mph, so you’re limited to 50mph average. Both require compliance with the extant standard, as measured at the specified measuring points and averaged.
Meet the measured standard and it’s legal.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 14:44
Scared they’re caught red handed and ‘offered’ to make amends, in the hope to avoid further investigations and possible penalties I’m sure.
The offer is quite pointless though; with the part effective on highspeed circuits, it’s cheap to say you’ll change it when we go to a low speed track.
What bothers me most is that there is zero pro-activity from the FiA.
I’d have liked to see the other teams take their loss and jump on this ‘solution’ as well, instead of complaining about it, but it’s understandable they do for a couple of reasons, like where we are in the season and the type of tracks that are still to come, the costcap, and the unpredictable behaviour of the FiA in these matters.
Ben (@1nkling)
20th September 2024, 14:55
Its not really ‘red handed’ if the FIA and Maclaren are saying it meets all the tests required. Its innovation.
The FIA were making noises about changing the regulations which is all they can do really. I imagine the bureaucracy of everything makes a mid-season change take some time whatever the reason.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 15:09
I’m not saying it is, I’m saying they’re scared of it being that.
Given you can’t ever be sure how the FiA reacts, that’s a pretty straightforward reaction by McLaren.
notagrumpyfan
20th September 2024, 15:14
I wouldn’t call it ‘innovation’ if it is (apparently) contravening the rules.
It might just have slipped though as it still passed the defined load/deflection tests (which all know will never fully cover the blanket prohibitions under the rules.
Also, the regulation doesn’t need to be changed; only the testing procure.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
20th September 2024, 14:54
One wonders how much these things cost only for them to be taken away after a race or two.
An example of everyone jumping on board was the McLaren F-duct.
We’ve seen many bendy wings over the years from all the top teams. Then Ferrari with their fuel consumption “hack” (although that was the better part of a season); Mercedes with their push-pull steering to dynamically adjust front toe.
It’s this sort of rule-skirting and ingenuity that got me into F1 in the first place. I love it.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 15:16
I love it too.
But what I don’t love, is how the FiA is somehow making it black, unwanted, obscure, undesired and effectively is trying to kill it. And for what, I wonder. My dog lifts its hind leg too, every post and sign we pass on a walk.
They could have just stuck to their own testresults as the balance for things being illegal or not, and it would have been clear for all teams. But no, they have to make changes mid season, yell something about it, or clarify, or whatever.
rprp
20th September 2024, 16:19
The rules aren’t that it has to pass the test. The tests are to enforce rules. Clearly the tests don’t enforce the rules enough.
The car doesn’t meet the rules, but the tests don’t prove that. The FIA have a choice to either make more tests and then it becomes and arms race of design vs tests, or they just get the teams to sort of implicitly agree not to take the mickey. I imagine if somebody else introduces a similar concept, there’ll be stricter tests.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 19:16
I get the feeling you’re acusing me of saying something I didn’t -or didn’t intend to- say.
I agree with you -and said so before- that there’s a considerable mismatch between the rules that the FiA wrote, and the tests they use to assess legality.
The FiA however, much to my dislike, choses to not fix the mismatch, but keep the discrepancy and controversy alive.
rprp
20th September 2024, 20:50
Yes, you’re right, that’s a fair point. There’s nothing to stop anyone else doing it, until they close the discrepancy.
Biggsy
20th September 2024, 15:12
FIA says it’s legal, and McLaren says it’s legal. But they will remove it volontarily. Something doesn’t add up. And when something doesn’t add up, it’s usually because we aren’t shown/told all of the “numbers” in the equation.
Either McLaren is hiding something, or FIA isn’t telling us exactly what they told McLaren.
rprp
20th September 2024, 16:20
No, the FIA said it passed tests. That doesn’t make it legal. It’s just that the tests to determine legality do not test for what McLaren are doing.
AlexS
20th September 2024, 19:47
Because it is against the spirit of regulation. But Mclaren already profited from being against the rule spirit.
Mr B
21st September 2024, 7:35
I don’t think McLaren want to risk an official protest from a team and subsequently risk losing any points scored in that race. Remember there haven’t been any official protests yet, just questions raised. There’s also a lot of talk that the only circuit it would probably now be used on is Las Vegas so the downside for McLaren in removing it isn’t that great now.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 15:25
If you need a one on one conversation to clarify the rules on rearwings, and suggest the FiA also has this conversation with other teams, what does that say about how the rules are actually formulated in the first place?
The FiA should take its loss here, and do a better job formulating rules for next season, if that is what they think is necessary. They should also come up with their intentions asap, which includes a timeframe, so that other teams can decide if it is (still) worthwhile to go the same route as McLaren.
Whichever way I turn it, I can’t blame a team for trying to be fastest, when we’re talking racing.
Which leaves me with the FiA responsible for all the mess.
rprp
20th September 2024, 16:25
I wouldn’t say it’s a mess, but I agree that the FIA needs to clarify and introduce further tests, rather than rules. Rules are clear about fixed bodywork.
McLaren have just found a way of flexing the rules without the tests failing.
Cheating is probably too strong of a word. But suppose you had a football team who made the home goal shrink when it was wet, but met all the measurements before the match, when the measurements are made. That’s sort of what’s going on.
Coventry Climax
20th September 2024, 19:30
No, the FiA does not need to introduce further tests, that’s only one of quite a few other options available to them.
However, they choose to go this path, as a need they and only they seem to feel.
Meantime, all I am asking for is that the FiA tells everyone, ASAP, what it’s gonna be for now and the coming seasons.
I’m sure everybody, teams included, are fine with the take that it’s legal if the tests say so. They’re also fine with the FiA coming up with better or additional tests. But then don’t mess with those tests mid season; keep things transparent and the same for everyone, and communicate timely, so the design departments are aware of what they have to deal with.
SteveP
20th September 2024, 16:50
That the rules are written by people with a barely passable grasp of the correct word use.
Scan through the regs and find an instance where “may” is actually the correct word.
There are many others, like “should” where it ought to be MUST.
A half decent, contract law trainee would probably rewrite the regs in a better, more binding form in a day at a cost the FIA would deem pocket change.
Mr B
21st September 2024, 7:40
We always have these grey areas in F1 whereby the brilliance of the engineers finds away around the intention of the rule. The wing passes all the tests but probably sits outside the intention of the no flexible bodywork rule. Very clever by McLaren but am I right in thinking that the FIA introduced wording a year or two back stating that if something wasn’t within the spirit of the rules or their intentions then the FIA have the right to ban it, no tests necessary.
PeteB (@peteb)
20th September 2024, 18:28
Reads to me like the FIA have said “we’re not keen on this so we’ll tweak the rules to make it illegal” and McLaren have said “ok, we weren’t going to use it again this season anyway.”
rprp
20th September 2024, 18:43
Not quite.
FIA: it breaks the rules, but our tests don’t catch it. Stop it or we’ll add more tests specifically to stop what you’re doing.
McLaren: OK we’ll stop.
Coventry Climax
21st September 2024, 2:35
Actually, that’s not ‘Not quite’, but ‘quite exactly’ what @peteb said.
notagrumpyfan
21st September 2024, 9:05
Not quite, there is quite a difference between what PeteB ‘reads’ and rprp subsequently corrects.
OP refers to ‘tweaking the rules to make it illegal’.
Rprp correctly counters that the ‘rules’ do not require tweaking and that it might already be illegal (just not picked under current testing).
Similar to my speed limit example above; no need to reduce the speed limit; just install a speed camera.
SteveP
22nd September 2024, 9:45
The rules say it must pass the tests – it does and therefore is totally legal.
The rules say the tests may be altered if the FIA deem it necessary. Alteration of the static tests would be required to cause the wing to fail the revised tests and thus make the wing illegal.
The static tests are a more easily alterable appendix to the main rules, nevertheless they form a part of the rules and anything that passes the current version is legal at this time.