Before the Singapore GP got underway, a story surrounding Mercedes chassis design being under scrutiny broke.

The other teams had started to question the make-up of several 2016 challengers' chassis, highlighting how they had worked around the intent of the regulations to maximise the space available to package, operate and work on their suspension.

Many of the best ideas in Formula 1 are ones that are not necessarily seen at first glance over the regulations, with an interpretation of how they're written providing the teams with plenty of wiggle room over the years.

This year's Mercedes and Red Bull designs seem to be one of these interpretations, and it does follow what Manor was forced to do last year when it ran a modified 2014 car.

This was a situation caused by the late purchase of the Marrusia team before the start of 2015, leaving no time to build the 2015 chassis. This forced it to think outside the box, make the necessary adaptations and ask Charlie Whiting for dispensation before passing the necessary crash tests.

Manor MR03B front chassis structure Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The re-designated MR03B utilised a chassis spacer in order to conform with the new nose transition regulations (arrowed) but also opened up the opportunity for other teams to interpret the regulations in a similar way.

As we can see, this design not only got around the new-for-2015 chassis/nose dimensional issues rather neatly but also offered up additional space for the suspension and brake components to be fettled with.

Other teams clearly saw this as an opportunity to improve their cars' packaging and set about developing their concept for this year's car around it.

Mercedes W06 hydraulic parts, front suspension Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Mercedes' plans began to emerge in Brazil last season, when the team opted to trial a new hydraulic heave damper which coincided with the test of an 'S' duct solution.

Its veiled attempts at testing both components aroused suspicion up and down the pitlane when a horizontal blister traversed the same location as the heave damper below and it was quickly noted that the spring damper (above left) had been replaced by a hydraulic damper (above right).

Mercedes AMG F1 W07 Hybrid front detail Photo by: Giorgio Piola

When Mercedes unveiled the W07, it was clear the attention to detail that was needed to package the suspension, brake cylinders and 'S' duct was impeccable, especially as Red Bull, which had chased the 'S' duct concept for many years preceding this one, had to abandon it to maximise the height of the suspension.

The use of 'S' duct aside, what both Mercedes and Red Bull had opted to do in 2016 was similar to the aforementioned solution used by Manor in 2015, allowing them to maximise the suspension geometry and package the third/heave element more aggressively.

This also means that set-up changes that are ordinarily made through small access panels atop the chassis could be completed with the removal of a larger vanity panel, used to bridge the void created by the chassis design.

As we can see in the video above there are varying solutions being employed, with Mercedes the most aggressive in the use of the area between A-A and B-B in the chassis regulations.

These are effectively anchor points along the chassis to help determine the transition/shape of the nose, as the FIA looked to rule out the possibility of another aesthetic faux pas, such as the step-nose saga in 2012.

Clever interpretations like these are what still makes Formula 1 an engineering challenge to savour and highlights the thought processes that one team might take over another.

A design concept like this is baked-in as it is part of the car's core structure, something that was inspected by the FIA and crash-tested before a wheel had been turned in anger.

Such is the lead time and cost for designing and building a new chassis that it is something that can no longer be done during a season, making it something that, if successful, must be considered for the following year's design or an attempt made to exclude it.

It would appear that this was the play by some of the teams, with suggestions that teams wanted to close down the 'grey area' in the regulations for next year.

The problem with this is that the regulations are effectively defined for 2017 and need a unanimous vote from all competitors for a change to be made. Clearly those teams that have the solution would be against this activity, whilst it's plausible that others have also adopted it for their 2017 challenger too.

In any case, it's understood that the FIA, as is its right, plans to rewrite the regulations for 2018 leaving the door open for some even more aggressive solutions next season.