Among the upgrades Mercedes added to its W13 for last week’s Bahrain tests was an innovative rear view mirror mount concept on the wings of its side impact structure, where a range of paddles appeared.
Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto suggested that while Mercedes ‘ design complied with the current rules, there was a risk that teams could push the limits further and create ‘spaceship’-like designs in the future.
But, ahead of Formula 1’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on Tuesday, it is expected to be an issue to be addressed.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said: “You really don’t want to get into a mirror war.”
“For a long time in those technical meetings over the last 10 years there’s been talk about the function of the mirrors and whether or not they become fins, and that’s probably not the intention.”
“I’m sure in the right place, at the technical tribunal meeting that will be, that will probably be brought up and discussed.”
The FIA’s head of single-seater affairs, Nikolas Tombazis , admitted the problem at the moment is that the wording of the new rules has left some ambiguity over whether or not certain bodywork is part of the mirror design.
In theory, mirrors are not classified as bodywork, so according to article 3.2.2. of the F1 technical regulations its aerodynamic influence: “it must be incidental to its main function. Any design that aims to maximize said aerodynamic influence is prohibited”.
However, the rules also allow teams to declare some pieces of bodywork as ‘permanent mirror’, so they are considered differently.
Tombazis said: “The regulation states that the bodywork declared as a support for mirrors, and there are two types of support, it must meet certain conditions. It must be in that box, it must be anywhere, it must not have sections, etc. The way it is written , assigns the name of mirror support to that body that is declared as such”.
“The regulation could have said that the bodywork declared as a support must be there for that, but it is not, there is no direct association between the name and the function.”
“In other areas of the car, in other areas of the rules, it’s worded differently, like: ‘for the sole purpose of X, you must do XYZ.’ reason for the existence of a certain component”.
“If we see a team obviously doing something different and using that feature as an excuse, we tend not to allow it. On the other hand, for the mirror to stay, that wording isn’t there and so at least at this point, We have formed that opinion.”
While the technical court is unlikely to push for the Mercedes mirror design to be banned, what could happen is that the rules are reformulated by 2023 to ensure the designs don’t become even more extreme.
Tombazis added: “We always evaluate the rules for the following years, and we evaluate if things are clear, if the new rules sometimes contain things that may not have been written as well as intended, etc.”
“I think in general the level of disagreement is quite low on what is intended, but there are some small areas, and we discuss it with the teams. We will have another meeting on Tuesday, I think, to discuss these matters.”
