28/05/2021
NEWS STORY
F1 MD and technical boss, Ross Brawn admits that he would be "amazed" if the Azerbaijan stewards declare Red Bull's rear wing to have contravened the rules.
Other than the (hoped for) excitement on track next weekend, fans can be assured of fun and games off track also, as Mercedes prepares to protest its title rival over its rear wing.
Warning that if unsuccessful the case could go to the International Court of Appeal (ICA) - thereby leaving the race result in limbo - Mercedes would probably have to protest Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Alpine also, for all are understood to be similarly contravening the rules.
Other than the legality of the rear wing, Mercedes is also unhappy at the delay in introducing an upgraded test until the French Grand Prix, thereby effectively handing those teams running suspect wings a 'get out of jail free' card in Baku, where such a wing could be significantly beneficial.
However, asked if he is concerned that a protest would leave the race result in limbo, possibly for several months, F1 MD and technical chief, Ross Brawn said: "No, I don't think so.
"I think the FIA have been pretty consistent with their approach," he added, according to ESPN. "I'd be amazed if the stewards go against the opinion of the FIA.
"I think this is probably flexi rear wing version 27," he continued, referring to the numerous sagas over the years. "In 40 years of motor racing, I've been through this many times.
"I can remember Patrick Head jumping on our front wing in parc ferme because he considered that it wasn't stiff enough. He wanted to demonstrate to Charlie (Whiting) that it wasn't stiff enough, so he actually stood on it and bounced up and down to demonstrate how flexible it was.
"There are a set of FIA tests and that's the only way we have been able to determine the limits of what you can do. If you pass the tests and some teams don't like it, the FIA can look at it, say 'fair point' and stiffen the tests and do different tests, so it's perpetual.
"I honestly don't believe there is any case for going in a different route to solve the problem, because I don't know how you quantify it. One person's view of it being too flexible is another person's view of it being OK, and that's why we have the tests.
"If you put a mechanism in there or a hinge in there, I agree that's not correct. But within the normal compliance of the structure, I don't see a problem."