SINGAPORE GP: WILLIAMS RACING DISQUALIFIED FROM QUALIFYING

Despite seeing their cars finish qualifying for the 2025 Singapore GP in 12th & 13th with Alex Albon leading Carlos Sainz post session checks by the FIA would see both Williams Racing cars disqualified due to issues with the DRS and it's allowable dimensions.

Qualifying for the 2025 Singapore GP had seen the Atlassian Williams Racing Team finish with both Carlos Sainz and Alex Albon not making it past Q2. Alex would finish in 12th and Carlos 13th.

But in post-session checks by the FIA it was announced that for both Williams cars the uppermost rear wing elements exceeded the allowed limits. The FIA confirmed the measurement: “Both cars exceeded the maximum limit of 85mm on both sides of the rear wing outer area.”

The infringement falls under article 3.10.10 g. of the technical regulations, which governs the Drag Reduction System (DRS). The rule requires that, when deployed, the gap between sections of the rear wing must remain between 9.4mm and 85mm across the span.

This would see both Williams cars disqualified from qualifying. The Williams team had conducted their own measurements on both cars prior to qualifying but these measurements were shown to be incorrect based on the FIA's own checks.

The FIA stated: “The competitor did not contest the measurement procedure, the methodology, or the accuracy of the measuring equipment used by FIA.”

Williams Team Principal James Vowles described the disqualification as a setback, emphasising that no performance advantage was sought. (Statement below)

James Vowles Team Principal:

"During FIA scrutineering after Qualifying, the rear wings on both our cars failed DRS slot gap checks. As a result, Alex and Carlos have been disqualified from Qualifying for tomorrow’s Singapore Grand Prix. This is bitterly disappointing for the team and we are urgently investigating how this happened.

At no point were we seeking a performance advantage and the rear wings had passed our own checks earlier in the day, but there is only one measurement that matters and we fully accept the FIA ruling. We have a car capable of scoring points here this weekend and will do everything we can to fight from the back of the grid tomorrow, and will immediately review our processes to make sure this doesn’t happen again."

- Williams Racing - Andrew Hooper

GEORGE RUSSELL: TURNING OFF DRS 'PARK OF THE JOB' AFTER JACK DOOHAN CRASH SPARKS DEBATE

George Russell has said that turning off DRS is “part of the job” of a Formula 1 driver, after Jack Doohan’s crash at the Japanese Grand Prix sparked debate about whether an automated system should be introduced.

Jack Doohan's huge shunt in Japan has launched debate as to whether DRS should be left to manually switch off or not

The Australian crashed heavily at Turn 1 in FP2 at the Suzuka circuit after his Alpine’s Drag Reduction System did not close.

DRS closes automatically when the brake pedal is applied, or if a certain amount of throttle engagement is introduced.

Neither of those occurred in Doohan’s case and he reportedly failed to engage DRS manually after experiments in the simulator suggested Turn 1 could be taken in such a manner.

The consequential crash has opened up discussion about whether automatic DRS closing should be more stringent.

Mercedes driver Russell told select media, including Motorsport Week, that this should not be the case.

“I mean, obviously what happened to Jack was a big shunt and very unfortunate,” he said, “but I think it’s one of those things that you see happen once, and everybody will recognise, and this is probably the only corner of the whole calendar that it’s a problem.

“I think as drivers, you have responsibilities. We’ve got to go flat out down the straight and turn into the corners, and clicking a button to turn the DRS off is part of the job.

“We don’t want it to be automated. We’ve got to leave it down to the drivers. There’s already too many gadgets, assistants.”

George Russell believes that there are “too many gadgets” already

Russell’s fellow GPDA Director Carlos Sainz was quite vocal on introducing an automated system in the face of safety risks.

“I felt I was quite vocal yesterday, saying: ‘I am surprised this hasn’t happened more often’, because I’ve had moments where I’ve mispressed the DRS button and it has stayed open – it gives you a massive snap and a massive fright going into a corner like Turn 1 here, Shanghai Turn 1 or Australia Turn 9,” he said.

“We have too many of these corners where it is down to the driver to close it, down to the DRS to do a good job on the re-attaching, and I’m afriad there hasn’t been enough of these crashes in order to prove that maybe we need to work on this area of safety.

“But I hope the crash shows that we need to do something automatically, 50m, 100m before the braking zone so you don’t get a chance for the driver to make a mistake or the DRS to fail if it doesn’t close.

Leclerc believes automated DRS could be an option

Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc was on the fence regarding DRS, saying that perhaps a revised version of the current system could be considered.

The Moneqasque said: “I feel like if we have [an automated] system like this, I think we can maybe use it and have more DRS,” hinting at the fact that the system could be used on as many straights as possible.

“Like before Turn 1 in Silverstone, I think it’s a good example, and here before 130R there’s a huge straight, and it’s a bit of a shame that we don’t use these kind of straights to do it,” he said.

However, he also considered that leaving DRS activation to the hands of the drivers is a worthy skill challenge.

“But I also feel like it can be up to us,” Leclerc added.

“Like Turn 1 in Silverstone when we had it, I thought it was quite cool because you had to be very brave in Turn 1 to keep the DRS, and there was something to gain out of it. But yeah, I don’t mind anyway.”

- Jack Oliver Smith

WHY ‘MINI-DRS’ WILL NOT BE FORMULA 1’S LAST FLEXI-WING CONTROVERSY

Flexi-wings are a hot topic in F1 again. But it is not the first time, and it won't be the last.

McLaren MCL38 rear wing
Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Formula 1’s off-track political battles can often be as interesting as the action on track.

The fight to get technical innovations approved on your car, and taken off your rivals, has long been the name of the game in trying to get yourself to the front of the field.

One such battleground this year has been flexi-wings, with interest ramping up at both the front and the rear of various cars.

The situation is quite a delicate one, because flexible bodywork operates in a grey area of the regulations. Wings are passing the static load tests in the pits, but it is impossible to make parts that do not deflect to some extent when exposed to the huge aero loads out on the circuit.

At the very heart of the conflict therefore is how much movement the FIA considers to be fair game, and how much it views as blatant exploitation. These are lines that can move around – especially if competitors start lobbying with complaints.

The latest such debate has been about McLaren’s ‘mini-DRS’ on its rear wings. Although the design fully complied with the statutory load tests, politicking from rivals forced the FIA into discussions before it was agreed a change would be made.

While the flexing witnessed on the upper flap of McLaren’s rear wing was extremely obvious, given it was something we’ve not witnessed before, it is not the only trick that has been seen in the pitlane this year.

But, as always happens with these things, the probing of rivals depends on how much flexing is being done, and whether it is viewed as taking the Mickey or not.

McLaren’s rear wing was the main talking point in Azerbaijan, but it was clear that some of its rivals are rotating the rear wing assembly backwards to reduce drag, although some are doing it to a larger extent than others.

Red Bull Racing RB16B reflecting rear wing
Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Ferrari SF21 real wing FP1, Azerbaijan Grand Prix
Photo by: Giorgio Piola 

And, given the FIA requested the teams add target dots on the rear wings in 2021 (see above, right, yellow dots added to the Ferrari rear wing), to allow it to monitor footage from the rear-view camera and see how much flexion was occurring, this behaviour now must mean that it is deemed acceptable.

Nothing new

Controlling the amount of flexion being used by the teams as a means to increase downforce and reduce drag is not even close to being a new issue for the sport.

Each regulatory cycle just ends up posing more questions, as teams attempt to apply their old knowledge to the latest regulations.

For example, we saw teams attempt slot gap manipulation on their rear wings in the early to mid-2000s, in order to reduce drag.

Slot gap separators were seen as a means to prohibit the practice. Meanwhile, constant adaptations have also been made to the static tests conducted on both the front and rear wings to limit the amount of flexion teams built into their designs down the years.

Rear wing flap pullback test
Photo by: Giorgio Piola 

Front wing deflection test loads
Photo by: Giorgio Piola 

Whilst the flexion of the rear wing elements was more noticeable, there was also work being done by the teams to take advantage of flexion with the front wing too.

Its exploitation was fully unmasked as F1 entered a new regulatory era in 2009, as not only were the aerodynamic regulations much more restrictive, footage showing the front wing assembly was much more readily available, owing to the placement of the cameras.

The loss of the larger and more complex bargeboard structures also resulted in the front wing having to provide more support from a wake control point of view.

Its design and flexion were used as a means to push the wake outboard and reduce the turbulence that might otherwise be ingested beneath the floor and cause flow instability within the diffuser.

The governing body fought a protracted battle on this front throughout that period but, just as is the case now, there’s only the static tests in place that the teams must comply with.

This helped provide scope for multiple development directions to emerge, as each team used the wing’s built-in flexibility to support its given aims.

During the aforementioned period in time, the teams were notably flexing their wings in different ways. Some used vertical flexion, so that the outboard section of the wing would bend down towards the track surface, whilst others had their wing assembly rotate rearwards.

The differing approaches obviously suited each of their end goals based around their design configurations both locally and downstream.

It also made it much more difficult for the FIA to police, with them having to find different ways to prevent those various practices.

Similarly, it appears that the amount and type of flexion being utilised with this current generation of front wings doesn’t follow a common theme, with each team finding a way to flex the wing in a way which helps its overall goals.

Moreover, it seems there’s also independent flexion of the components occurring, making it altogether difficult to ascertain where the deformation is taking place and when.

FIA front wing target dot test mockup

In an effort to better understand, and perhaps help the governing body frame the regulations in the future, it has been monitoring front wing flexion more closely since the Belgian Grand Prix.

Teams must now place dots on the front wing elements and endplate, which can be used as a reference in the footage captured by new cameras that are mounted in the usual position on the side of the nose.

It has never really been a question of who is using flexi-wings to improve the car's performance, as they all are to some extent.

However, the issue is more about making sure that the practice doesn’t result in a design that’s clearly working in a way which beats the static load tests but deforms excessively whilst on track.

This not only would lead to another arms race amongst the teams, as they all chase similar constructions, but can create an unsafe development environment, as the boundaries are pushed too quickly beyond the known limits of materials.

- Matt Somerfield

TED KRAVITZ ON RED BULL'S DRS

DRS UPGRADE? | MERCEDES-BENZ HAS A TOP SPEED SOLUTION