FIA to scrutinise Mercedes’ ‘spaceship’ mirrors after testing controversy

One of the more contentious redesigns in F1 cars this season has caught the focus of rival teams

(AFP via Getty Images)

Mercedes’ so-called ‘spaceship’ mirrors are set to be one of the topics under discussion when the FIA meets this week ahead of the season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix.

The 2022 campaign brings with a raft of new regulations and car designs, with each team unveiling their new-look vehicles which will debut competitively at the Bahrain International Circuit, following weeks of testing, data analysis and further design tweaking.

Some of the most eye-catching of the new-look features was on the Mercedes W13, with wing mirrors mounted on the Side Impact Protection system and, according to Ferrari’s Mattia Binotto, designed to be utilised as an aerodynamic addition to the vehicle. That was in addition to the ‘disappearing’ sidepods which were much spoken about after testing.

That goes against the spirit of the sport and the intended use, some have suggested, and the design will be spoken about even if it doesn’t directly contravene legislation.

Nikolas Tombazis, a technical director at the FIA, said that any “discrepancy” from the rules as the governing body had envisaged them when written down would be discussed, but he was not expecting a dramatic fallout.

“We always assess rules for following years, and we assess whether things are clear,” he said, per the-race.com.

“And when there are new rules, sometimes certain things may not have been phrased as well as we intended and so on.

“By and large, the level of discrepancy is quite low from what was intended. But there are a few little areas and we’ve discussed that with the teams.

“We’ll have another TAC meeting Tuesday to discuss these matters.”

While Ferrari have suggested that Mercedes’ design “needs to be addressed”, Tombazis doesn’t feel there is much in any of the car designs which should be cause for immediate change - and particularly not with mirrors.

Instead, any interpretation of the new rules could be ironed out with changed wording or making sure that each component primarily fulfills the use for which it is intended.

“By and large, I would say there hasn’t been something that we think is contrary to the objectives of the regulations.

“There’s been some small details perhaps in some areas, which are a bit less regulated than other areas. There have been some winglets and stuff like that which were maybe not fully in line with the objectives but they are relatively small details.

“The way that [mirror rule] is phrased, it assigns the name ‘mirror stay’ to bodywork which is declared as such.

“In other areas of the car, in other areas of the regulations, we have a statement like ‘for the sole purpose of something, you must do X, Y, Z’.

“And then we take a different view there because it says there the regulations state specifically an objective or reason for existence of a certain component.

“Then if we see a team, obviously doing something different and using that function as an excuse, that we would not allow. With the mirror stays, that wording isn’t there.”