Revised Mercedes front wing, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2022

Mercedes alters new front wing after questions over legality

2022 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Mercedes has revised the front wing which it introduced at last weekend’s race but did not use due to concerns over its legality.

The team described the new front wing, last week as having a “reduced camber front wing tip and additional slot gap separators added.”

The slot gap separators, which were believed to have attracted complaints from rival teams, have been removed (pictured above). Although the rules state up to eight of them are permitted on each side of the wing, they are permitted “for primarily mechanical, structural or measurement reasons.”

However Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott admitted they also enhanced the car’s aerodynamic performance.

“I think there’s a fuss about it because in the regulations it talks about the primary use being for ‘mechanical’ or ‘measurement’ purposes and clearly there is a secondary benefit of an aerodynamic design that’s in there as well,” he told media including RaceFans on Sunday in Austin. “We’ll decide whether we want to argue that one or not.”

The revised version seen in the pits at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez indicates Mercedes have decided not to push their case. The marks where the separators have been removed are clearly visible.

The wing was part of Mercedes’ final package of upgrades which it brought to the last race, and included revisions to the rear wing endplates and alterations to the floor.

New Mercedes front wing, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2022
Altered front wing, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2022
Earlier Mercedes front wing, Circuit of the Americas, 2022
Mercedes front wing, Circuit of the Americas, 2022

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 Mexican Grand Prix

Browse all 2022 Mexican Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

14 comments on “Mercedes alters new front wing after questions over legality”

  1. Mercedes altered the wing. How? It was structural, right…

    1. Theu used secator 😆

  2. The last paragraph of section 3.2.2 Aerodynamic Influence of the Technical Regulations clearly makes the unused slot gap separators illegal:

    The Aerodynamic influence of any component of the car not considered to be bodywork must be incidental to its main function. Any design which aims to maximise such an aerodynamic influence is prohibited.

    1. *cough” mirrors *cough*

      1. *cough” mirrors *cough*

        Well done. How many of the cars on the grid do you want to DSQ?
        Every car on the grid has aero tweaks on the mirrors and their support

  3. Not surprising in the least. Surely these were only there to establish that this is not allowed (as seems pretty clear from the paragraph highlighted by @x1znet above).

  4. Glad we now all agree that Mercedes tried to put an illegal part on their car(s).

    1. But they didn’t… What is your actual point? Do you have one? Or do you just paste the same comment on every article?

      1. I will gladly challenge you to find this same comment anywhere else.

    2. Glad we now all agree that Mercedes tried to put an illegal part on their car(s)

      Wrong in two respects:
      First, you pluralised the statement and there was only one wing of that design present
      Second, the wing sat gathering Texan dust for the whole event, placed nicely for media people to see the pretty curvy spacers.

      Since Merc run these things by the FIA before making them, never mind shipping them, I’d be more inclined to check to see whether it actually had FIA crash test approval and then wonder why the FIA would test the crash-worthy nature but ignore the aero tweak.
      Was the main tweak perhaps to the likes of Kravitz? Or perhaps nudge the FIA to tighten the wording of the rules.
      Why does it say primary rather than sole, as with many other elements of the rules?

      1. First, you pluralised the statement and there was only one wing of that design present

        Please re-read what I wrote:

        “an illegal part” – singular, on their car(s) – also singular, but acknowledging that a front wing could easily be put on either of their cars, though of course not simultaneously.

        As far as the rest of your post, may

      2. First, you pluralised the statement and there was only one wing of that design present

        Please re-read what I wrote:

        “an illegal part” – singular, on their car(s) – also singular, but acknowledging that a front wing could easily be put on either of their cars, though of course not simultaneously.

        “We are thinking of running it and we had an exchange with the FIA so maybe we need to tweak a little bit here and there,” he added. “But it’s not yet decided.”

        https://www.racefans.net/2022/10/23/mercedes-in-discussions-with-fia-over-front-wing-upgrade-it-will-not-race/

        And now everyone decide to agree that what Mercedes brought to the track last week was an illegal part.

    3. It was never fitted to a car in a competitive session, or anywhere at beyond a wind tunnel model as far as I can tell.

      No rules were breached, or even bent a little bit.
      I imagine removing them cost about 5 minutes of an employees time, so no cost cap implementation – lesson for Red Bull there.

    4. They never fitted it. Tbh it kinda feels like they’re still behaving as though they have a superior car – I wish they’d taken the risk and just stuck it on for P1 rather than hesitantly checking its legality.

Comments are closed.