This is an important distinction though that sometimes you can have extreme interpretation of rules which do comply with the regulations. I would clarify that the Mercedes front and rear wings were also clearly flexing at speed last year excessively so they were also probably illegal under the definition of the rules but the FIA never really were able to prove it with their static tests for some reason. DAS is also something that was not illegal at any point but a genuine innovation that complied with the rules. The RB flexi wings however were never legal under the interpretation of the rules, they simply were able to pass the tests that were designed to prove that they didn’t comply with the regulations. Is that typo because the general perception is that the new sidepod design is effectively legal by the interpretation of the rules. It was obviously a fairly different concept but that’s for the aero guys and the designers to get into.” “To be honest with you I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to it. “I’m slightly surprised to be reading comments that I’m supposed to have been making,” he told Sky. Horner dismissed claims he had suggested the Mercedes design did not confirm to the regulations. What I think has become a step change for the teams is a lot of new cooler innovations, a lot of new innovation in the heat exchanges and the radiators that have become available and it’s given them more scope to create the designs we’ve got.” “So it’s just fascinating to see such a wide range of solutions. I think they do – our initial impressions are that there’s nothing here that we would be overly concerned about in terms of those objectives of the regulations. “I think we will go back into investigating those solutions and make sure that they maintain the objectives of the new rules. “So some of these solutions quite honestly were never anticipated. Once they get the regulations, you’ve got 1,000 engineers working on all the regulations and how they can use them,” Brawn explained. “I think it’s impossible to anticipate the creative scope of the teams. So I think there’s going to be a lot of debate in the next few days.”Īdvert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-freeį1 didn’t anticipate Mercedes’ radical design, said BrawnBrawn says that he has not seen any designs from the teams that he believes breach the technical regulations or go against the intention of the revised rules package for 2022. From the teams’ perspective, they want to be sure that no one’s taking an interpretation that they don’t feel is correct.
So, from our perspective, it’s largely about does it affect the objectives of the regulations. However hard you try to close off all the options – and believe me we closed off hundreds of them – the innovation in Formula 1 is always extreme.
“That’s what happens with new regulations. “I think it’s a very extreme interpretation of the regulation and I think there’s inevitably going to be a lot of debate about their interpretation. “I think there’s no doubt that the Mercedes concept we didn’t anticipate,” said Brawn. However, these reports were denied by Red Bull, who dismissed the quotes attributed to Horner as “incorrect”.įormula 1 motorsport director, Ross Brawn – who was the prime architect behind the radical overhaul to the technical regulations for this season – said that the Mercedes ‘sidepod-less’ design was an “extreme” concept. The ‘sidepod-less’ design of the Mercedes led to reports that Red Bull boss, Christian Horner, had questioned the legality of the W13’s design. Mercedes have caused a stir in the Bahrain paddock by introducing dramatically redesigned sidepods on their W13 compared to the opening pre-season test in Barcelona.
0 kommentar(er)
