Shop
In the minutes prior to Free Practice 2 in Singapore, McLaren issued a statement.
It was the culmination of days of speculation, whispers and accusations. McLaren had an illegal rear wing, the skulduggery went.
Only McLaren didn’t have an illegal wing. As Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris rightly pointed out, the rear wing they used in Azerbaijan was perfectly legal.
The F1 regulations are, for the most part, black and white. There are defined tests which, if a component passes, means it is legal.
Of course F1 being what it is, teams employ a small army of clever engineers who look at the words and read what is not written.
If wings are tested to X to be determined legal, anything from X+1 is fair game.
It’s not that McLaren is suddenly pushing the envelope more than others, just that it’s clever army has found a different interpretation that – at least until now – has been acceptable in the eyes of the F1.
McLaren has worked to the regulations and exploited what was not written. And that, in F1, is fair play.
“They’ve all got their opinions,” said McLaren’s chief designed Rob Marshall of the intrigue from other teams.
“We work with FIA to establish the legality of our car. As long as the FIA happy, that’s the opinion we need to worry about.”
But while the wing may have been legal, there are ways to apply pressure such that it might be outlawed.
While the technical regulations are black and white, at least as much as can be, they are also to interpretation.
The gatekeeper when it comes to deciding if an interpretation is clever or illegal is the FIA.
There is routine dialogue between the teams and governing body as they query one thing or another, be that their own development or one of a rival.
McLaren had that conversation and, even when teams landed in Singapore, McLaren’s rear wing was legal.
“There’s continued dialogue with the FIA,” Marshall confirmed.
“Week-in, week-out, day-in, day-out, with various aspects of the car.”
In the Marina Bay paddock, Christian Horner and Pierre Wache, team principal and technical director of Red Bull Racing respectively, had a conversation with Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s head of single seaters on Thursday evening.
While its unknown precisely what was discussed, there is compelling evidence to suggest it at least included McLaren’s bendy rear wing.
Their argument must have been compelling as, at 20:41 local time on Friday night in Singapore, less than 20 minutes prior to the start of Free Practice 2, McLaren issued a statement confirming it had changed its rear wing.
“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,” McLaren announced.
“We would also expect the FIA to have similar conversations with other teams in relation to the compliance of their rear wings.”
It sounded as though McLaren had, for the good of the sport, made the decision to change its rear wing.
In reality, it was asked to by the FIA. It was not instructed to or told to, it was asked.
Of course, there would have been a consequence had it refused, but that’s a path McLaren chose not to wander down – not with a championship (or two) on the line.
And when we boil it down, that is what this is all about; the world championship battle.
Formula 1 races do not only take place on the race track, but in design offices, wind tunnels, and board rooms.
There is no such thing as ‘spirit of the rules’; an item complies or it does not.
But if there’s a grey area that can be tightened up by way of a clarification such that it hurts a direct rival, well, that’s not only fair game, it IS the game.
Hence Red Bull Racing queried the rear wing and where it was once deemed legal, a new interpretation implies the same solution now would be illegal – a point that will be taken by some as proof McLaren cheated to win Baku.
“It could have been possible, but it’s not so easy to have evidence,” said Ferrari’s Fred Vasseur when asked if he considered protesting McLaren’s rear wing in Azerbaijan.
Again, the wing was tested and passed legal. Since then, a change in interpretation means the same wing now would not be legal, but that ruling does not apply retrospectively.
While the saga surrounding McLaren’s rear wing has played out in the public eye, the process it has gone through is comparatively run of the mill – it’s not even new.
As far back as 1978 there is a clear example of a chance in stance from the governing body rendering what was to a point legal suddenly illegal.
At that year’s Swedish Grand Prix, Niki Lauda drove the Brabham BT46 to victory, a car better known as the Brabham Fan Car.
That race was its one and only appearance as regulation changes following the event rendered it illegal, though by that point team owner Bernie Ecclestone has agreed not to race the car again anyway.
The car was legal, a position changed, and it was illegal, but it was never banned per se, as some might have you believe.
It highlights the fluid nature of what seem highly structured and static regulations.
From the 10 teams, the FIA routinely fields questions, about interpretations on all manner of regulations.
Usually those conversations are private, between the team and FIA, and help shape a development path.
But some find their way into the rules though the creation of technical and sporting directives.
These are typically in response to specific queries or shortcomings in the regulations, such that there is a spreadsheet defined in the Race Director notes at every event, “2024 Formula 1 Appendix – iss 1 – 2024-01-15.xlsx”.
“I think there is a kind of confusion between what’s happened with the front wing and the rear wing,” said Vasseur of the situation.
“The front wing… We all agree that it could be a grey area because in the TD, the first paragraph of the TD is saying that you can’t design part of the car with the intention of the deformation.
“Intention is difficult to manage. The rear wing story is completely different because on the article you have also a maximum deflection.
“This is black or white. It’s no grey, no dark grey, no light grey. It’s black and black (sic). And for me, it’s clear.”
An important distinction to make is that, while the FIA sets out the rules, it is the stewards of the meeting that ultimately deem whether a car is legal or not.
While those stewards are appointed by the FIA, they are empowered to apply the regulations as they interpret them. They are, for all intents and purposes, independent agents while acting as stewards of a meeting.
So, while the FIA might suggest a team makes a change to ensure compliance with the technical regulations, that in itself is not a regulatory requirement; a team can refuse and take its chances.
And it may get away with it, or it may be penalised, and a technical breach, typically means exclusion.
For McLaren, such a price is too high, it cannot afford the risk in the midst of a championship battle, and Red Bull Racing knows it.
Hence it has changed its wing, a move designed to appease its rambunctious rivals as much as satisfy the FIA (and the stewards, not that it will now come to that).
Of course, it’s a fools game as, with the rear wing no longer an issue, another element will appear almost immediately in its place; chatter has already returned to McLaren’s flappy front wing.
