Formula 1

9070 readers

39 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series

Rules

Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
No gambling, crypto or NFTs
Spoilers are allowed
Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next

F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location	Date
🇺🇸 United States	21-23 Nov
🇶🇦 Qatar	29 Nov-01 Dec
🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi	06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

[Peter Windsor] Looks as though RBR might have been running a clever rear cross-brake inertia valve before they were obliged to remove it before Miami. This could explain Max's RR brake drama in M... (i.redd.it)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Original Title: [Peter Windsor] Looks as though RBR might have been running a clever rear cross-brake inertia valve before they were obliged to remove it before Miami. This could explain Max's RR brake drama in MEL and his turn-in grief since China.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Are you saying that the rules did not strictly forbid this system prior to Miami and the underlined text was added to the regulations to eliminate the loophole RBR was using to help win?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

By my understanding, it was more of a grey area. It seemed like the system was technically allowed according to the wording of the rule but clearly against the spirit of the rule. Prior to Miami, the FIA made it clear that they would interpret things like this as a breach of the rules, effectively allowing teams to remove them without punishment before they were caught.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

By my understanding, it was more of a grey area. It seemed like the system was technically allowed according to the wording of the rule but clearly against the spirit of the rule.

The FIA is so full of shit sometimes. When Mercedes did the same with DAS, it was outlawed only for the next season, meaning Mercedes could keep its competitive advantage because nobody else was incentivized to develop the same.

Sauber (then confirmed by Vasseur) and maybe RBR had a rear wing that passed all load tests and then the FIA suddenly changed the load numbers the wings had to pass mid-season. Same with the flexing floor: It passed all the tests, everybody confirmed that a slightly flexing design (and everything flexes, otherwise it would be brittle) that such a design would be healthier for the drivers because the floor doesn't crash unto the ground all the time but still outlawed mid-season.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

That seems to be the case. They did add that text to the regulations at that time, which led to public speculations even back then on why that weirdly specific text was added.