The five F1 technical accusations and what the FIA found with each

F1 2024 has seen numerous accusations made regarding technical developments and secretive processes – particularly amongst the leading teams. Here are five of the main accusations made.

Of course, accusations don’t translate to reality and, indeed, quite a few of the accusations made this season have ended up going absolutely nowhere. Let’s look back over the F1 2024 season and revisit, in no particular order, some of the controversies which kicked off during the year.

Brake drum hole – McLaren

Ahead of the Hungarian GP weekend, German publication Auto Motor und Sport reported that Red Bull had spotted a brake drum hole on the McLaren MCL38 which was required to be covered after practice to comply with the regulations, but McLaren and another team had not re-covered them at recent races.

The holes were said to have been re-covered by tape at the Austria and British rounds – team boss Andrea Stella confirmed this to Sky F1, whilst also validating talk that the FIA had been in touch to clarify that the holes needed covering.

Red Bull had reportedly alerted the governing body, fearing an extra cooling mechanism was being created against the regulations. The theory was that the hole potentially allowed McLaren to boost airflow between the brake drum and the wheel – which can provide advantages in both qualifying and the race in ensuring temperatures do not escalate too far.

Stella clarified that it was simply a sensor hole and was surprised that such a big deal was made about it.

“Actually, this matter is very simple,” he said.

“This is a hole to access a sensor and we got the clarification from the FIA that this hole is not allowed and we just taped it.

“It’s a very, very simple matter which for some reason seems to have escalated to become a topic in the paddock. But nothing of that kind.”

According to Motorsport.com, the FIA had a look and quietly reminded McLaren the hole must be covered under parc fermé regulations to ensure full compliance with the regulations.

Tyre cooling – ‘McLaren’

Shortly after the emergence of the Red Bull front bib adjuster furore, McLaren – amongst others – found itself at the centre of claims that tyre cooling tricks have been used against regulations.

Suspicions initially reported by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport emerged ahead of the Brazilian Grand Prix that several teams could have been injecting water into their tyres to help cool them – which would improve their performance over race stints.

Reports over the weekend claimed that Red Bull were of the belief that McLaren, and a number of other teams on the F1 2024 grid, had been benefiting from adding a small amount of water into their tyres via the valves for cooling purposes, with the FIA investigating the allegations.

Red Bull are said to be well versed in this practice, having previously employed it themselves before it was outlawed by an FIA technical directive some years ago, with the tyres produced by F1 supplier Pirelli notoriously prone to overheating.

Mario Isola, the head of Pirelli’s F1 and racing activities, revealed the Italian manufacturer found no evidence of teams adding water to their tyres, with no abnormalities seen in the data.

This was further added to by the FIA, who conducted investigations on this matter in Brazil, with Nikolas Tombazis seen checking on tyres and rims as they were taken apart after the sprint race at Interlagos.

With no evidence of anything untoward being found, the FIA has also concluded that it is satisfied no teams were breaking the rules on this front.

An FIA statement told Motorsport.com: “The FIA investigated during the last Grand Prix in Brazil recent allegations that competitors may have used water to manage overheating of tyres. No evidence was found to suggest any irregular behaviour.

“We consider the matter closed, but will continue to monitor the situation in detail.”

Adjustable bib ride height – ‘Red Bull’

Ahead of the United States Grand Prix, Autosport reported the possibility that an unnamed team could be using a height adjustment system on their cars – in theory, whilst under parc fermé conditions.

The FIA quickly moved to address the topic, saying: “Any adjustment to the front bib clearance during parc ferme conditions is strictly prohibited by the regulations.

“While we have not received any indication of any team employing such a system, the FIA remains vigilant in our ongoing efforts to enhance the policing of the sport.

“As part of this, we have implemented procedural adjustments to ensure that front bib clearance cannot be easily modified. In some cases, this may involve the application of a seal to provide further assurance of compliance.”

It didn’t take long for a team to step forward to reveal the existence of such a device, with Red Bull confirming that, like all the teams, their car did indeed have a bib height adjustment device but, unlike the other teams, the adjuster was located in the cockpit of the car – and has been located there for three years.

Given parc fermé rules prevent teams from making setup adjustments between qualifying and the race, the theoretical possibility of being able to adjust the ride height overnight would net any team operating such a system a huge advantage – but it would be a blatant breach of the regulations.

With Red Bull revealing the adjuster device was not easily accessed, and required a near-total dismantling of the front end to access, FIA scrutineers were quickly satisfied that the adjustment couldn’t be made surreptitiously. The plan is thus to ensure that cars with such adjustment system access will be sealed off.

The initial investigation was followed up by a more thorough investigation at the Red Bull factory to explore designs and processes, with the governing body satisfied that no breaches of any kind had taken place. A spokesperson told PlanetF1.com that, following the visit, the matter is now considered “closed” by the FIA.

More on the FIA and F1’s governance

👉 Explained: How the FIA develops potential new F1 rules and regulations

👉 FIA explained: What does it stand for and how does it govern F1?

‘Mini-DRS’ – McLaren / Flexing wings – multiple teams

Front and rear wing flexing has been a key topic throughout the F1 2024 season, with the FIA introducing a Technical Directive at the Belgian Grand Prix to enable it to add extra camera monitoring and measurement dots to the cars to enable the governing body to better understand how much flexing is actually going on.

This came not long after the Canadian Grand Prix, at which Red Bull’s Helmut Marko pointed out suspicions over the front wing of the Mercedes following the introduction of a new front wing, while there were also suggestions that Ferrari’s front wing was being eyed with suspicion.

While Marko denied lodging a formal complaint to the FIA in an interview with OE24, he said, “From the TV pictures in Montreal, you can clearly see that the wings of [George] Russell and [Lewis] Hamilton are bending noticeably – but the wings had the necessary strength to pass scrutineering.

“It doesn’t surprise me and I don’t know how often we’ve had to check our wings in the past. In the race, the wing then lowers, which ensures better aerodynamics.”

The extra step of a technical directive from the FIA was needed because, while every team has passed all static tests designed to test the flexibility of the wings, there is a need for the FIA to ensure that its own tests are of sufficient standard to ensure the teams aren’t a step ahead – for instance, the use of new constructions and materials could allow for flexibility at speed while still passing static tests.

In Azerbaijan, standard TV footage looking rearward from Oscar Piastri’s McLaren showed that the rear wing slot gap was opening up at high speed – indicating a degree of flexibility that led to it being dubbed a ‘mini-DRS’ as it displayed the characteristics – to a lesser extent – of the overtaking aid.

Certainly, it proved effective for Piastri as he defended against Charles Leclerc. While the Ferrari driver had access to DRS thanks to being within a second of the McLaren, Leclerc was unable to launch a proper attack on Piastri and had to follow the Australian driver home.

With the focus initially on the McLaren low-downforce wings, which had passed all FIA scrutineering and static tests, an approach from Red Bull to the FIA resulted in discussions between McLaren and the FIA, before a resolution was found.

“Whilst our Baku rear wing complies with the regulations and passes all FIA deflection tests, McLaren has proactively offered to make some minor adjustments to the wing following our conversations with the FIA,” McLaren said in a statement provided to media, including PlanetF1.com.

“We would also expect the FIA to have similar conversations with other teams in relation to the compliance of their rear wings.”

McLaren has since “proactively” made alterations to its entire rear wing range in order to ensure no further complaints, with the FIA’s Nikolas Tombazis indicating in Austin that: “We issued after Singapore some communication about rear wings, saying what we would consider acceptable or not acceptable, and two or three teams had to make some small tweaks to adjust to that.”

Tombazis noted that the new guidance specifies that any increase in slot gap exceeding 2mm when DRS is closed would be deemed illegal.

When asked if McLaren would have faced a report for a rules violation had they continued using the wing, Tombazis confirmed the Woking-based squad had received a direct communiqúe regarding the issue: “Yes, we would have, because we specifically gave a warning to them.

“We said, ‘Look, we consider that as something you need to change.’ If they had ignored us, and they generally don’t, then we would have reported them.”

Asymmetrical braking system – ‘Red Bull’

With Red Bull starting the season in dominant fashion, that dominance came to a sudden end in Miami as Lando Norris (somewhat fortuitously) beat Max Verstappen to the win – but the races afterward showed that the RB20 no longer had the advantage it did early in the year.

Retrospectively, suggestions were made via the rumour mill that a technical directive had been issued over the Miami GP weekend to address a so-called asymmetrical braking system – a technical directive that, unlike every other TD of the past few years, failed to properly surface.

The rumours were accelerated by the sudden change of wording to Article 11.1.2 of the FIA Technical Regulations following a usual meeting of the World Motor Sport Council in which it expressly forbid “any system of mechanism which produce, systematically or intentionally, asymmetric braking torques for a given axle”.

The timing of this change raised eyebrows, given it came not long after Red Bull’s dominance had suddenly ended and also not long after Max Verstappen retired from the Australian Grand Prix with a brake issue that resulted in a duct fire.

The theory of such a braking system being on the Red Bull came about due to a tweet suggesting such from respected journalist Peter Windsor, with technical journalist Craig Scarbrough detailing what such a hypothetical system could look like.

Much like the 1998 McLaren ‘fiddle-brake’, the idea was that a team could utilise a brake steer system by way of braking one wheel, ie. the inside wheel, with more bias than the other – aiding greatly with balance and steering while maintaining higher cornering speeds.

But did such a system exist? All the indications are that it didn’t, given that the existing technical regulations had already made it clear such a system wasn’t permitted.

Making a sudden regulation wording change is unusual, but the reasoning behind it was a cited motivation to tidy up the regulations ahead of the F1 2026 rulebooks being published for the new rules cycle.

With discussions ongoing about these regulations, there is constant tweaking and tidying of wording – resulting in the FIA moving to close any possible grey area following a request from the teams to insert new clauses with immediate effect.

The FIA denied that any team was using such a system and no evidence has ever emerged to suggest Red Bull – or anyone else – had to remove anything from their cars to ensure conformity.

“I don’t know where that comes from,” Verstappen said at his home race at Zandvoort when asked about the speculation and the rule change.

Read Next: F1’s poisoned chalice? Abrupt race director exit cycle could repeat itself