FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Very simple. Very clever. Give the designer of that a sticker!!

[Gaz]

Heh, i noticed Webber sneaking a look in the McLaren cockpit during one of the pre-season photoshoot things (on the main F1 site).

edit - Been thinking about this one.

"However, the governing body has adopted the stance that the driver cannot be treated as a moving part of the car."

See, this is the sticking point. Sure, that is a valid stance, but what of the part they are using their leg upon?

might just be a hole that can be covered or a tube that can be squashed?

If it's a hole then fair enough, but when they squash the tube, the tube is moving right? That is what i am getting at.

well you'd proberly discribe the tube as "flexing" so technicaly no.

The FIA would of had a good poke so they must be ok with the process.

I belive that it is controled by the driver but we don't know for sure it might be controled by the ammount of air comming into the airbox somhow?

[racechick]

Heh, i noticed Webber sneaking a look in the McLaren cockpit during one of the pre-season photoshoot things (on the main F1 site).

edit - Been thinking about this one.

"However, the governing body has adopted the stance that the driver cannot be treated as a moving part of the car."

See, this is the sticking point. Sure, that is a valid stance, but what of the part they are using their leg upon?

might just be a hole that can be covered or a tube that can be squashed?

If it's a hole then fair enough, but when they squash the tube, the tube is moving right? That is what i am getting at.

Might be a hard solid tube that doesnt get squashed, just gets blocked off by a bit of leg.

[Jensonb]

Heh, i noticed Webber sneaking a look in the McLaren cockpit during one of the pre-season photoshoot things (on the main F1 site).

edit - Been thinking about this one.

"However, the governing body has adopted the stance that the driver cannot be treated as a moving part of the car."

See, this is the sticking point. Sure, that is a valid stance, but what of the part they are using their leg upon?

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

[Gaz]

Heh, i noticed Webber sneaking a look in the McLaren cockpit during one of the pre-season photoshoot things (on the main F1 site).

edit - Been thinking about this one.

"However, the governing body has adopted the stance that the driver cannot be treated as a moving part of the car."

See, this is the sticking point. Sure, that is a valid stance, but what of the part they are using their leg upon?

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

Well there was the same last year with the DDD i heard Bob Bell say they had an agreement but Brawn, Williams and Toyota went against it.

Its a sport it has rules, Mclaren hasn't broken any. These Gentlemen's agreements are daft if they didn't want it in the sport then they should of gone to the FIA as FOTA and said "we want to ban stallable wings"

[fets81]

i think its more interpretation of the rules....what you would class as ''moveable'' part

mike gascoyne-
"I still believe it's a moveable aerodynamic device because the configuration of the (car's) aerodynamics are changing," said Gascoyne.

"Whether the driver is doing with it his knee or not, they (the aerodynamics) are not the same all the time so therefore it must be a moveable aero device.''

[scotty]

Might be a hard solid tube that doesnt get squashed, just gets blocked off by a bit of leg.

Yeah, i can't see how anyone could have the grounds to protest that. I know Mark Webber has had a look in their cockpit, and Horner was vociferous in his complaining in the practice coverage today, so i'm thinking maybe there's some link there...

well you'd proberly discribe the tube as "flexing" so technicaly no.

The FIA would of had a good poke so they must be ok with the process.

I belive that it is controled by the driver but we don't know for sure it might be controled by the ammount of air comming into the airbox somhow?

That's what i thought at first, cause they have a split in the airbox inlet. Perhaps the snorkel compent merely aids the whole process... Although 'flexing'? Come on, you could have flexing wings! Something which Toyota were caught out on at the start of last season if you remember.

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

I really don't think so, that certainly isn't my understanding given what most have been saying! It's not like gentleman's agreements matter in f1 anyway, unless it blatantly and concisely benefits all teams (ie KERS being shelved is an example and was as a rarity).

[Jensonb]

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

I really don't think so, that certainly isn't my understanding given what most have been saying! It's not like gentleman's agreements matter in f1 anyway, unless it blatantly and concisely benefits all teams (ie KERS being shelved is an example and was as a rarity).

Gascoyne is the only one I've seen arguing that the Special Knee Thingy itself is illegal. Bell made allusions that it might be, but it simply is not. The rules are crystal clear on what constitutes a movable aerodynamic device. The only argument with any weight is the one being made primarily by Bell, that Stalling the rear wing is against the spirit of the rules - but, again, even he admits that it is not against the letter of the rules. As such, that argument isn't going anywhere either, it's just going their more slowly.

[7UpJordan]

Next thing you know there'll be a hole in the cockpit floor for the drivers to stick their feet through and run with the car Anthill-Mob style to speed the car up... but somehow I can't see that working.

[scotty]

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

I really don't think so, that certainly isn't my understanding given what most have been saying! It's not like gentleman's agreements matter in f1 anyway, unless it blatantly and concisely benefits all teams (ie KERS being shelved is an example and was as a rarity).

Gascoyne is the only one I've seen arguing that the Special Knee Thingy itself is illegal. Bell made allusions that it might be, but it simply is not. The rules are crystal clear on what constitutes a movable aerodynamic device. The only argument with any weight is the one being made primarily by Bell, that Stalling the rear wing is against the spirit of the rules - but, again, even he admits that it is not against the letter of the rules. As such, that argument isn't going anywhere either, it's just going their more slowly.

Right, well i have definitely heard more people speak out against this innovation, so you might want to review your sources here.

[Balkan_scouser]

Lets wait and see if it works in real time racing. I doubt it.
If it's to help overtaking, which needs a drivers 100% concentration, where do you find the time and the capacity to do anything else like block an opening or flex anything??
Anyway, over the years there have been many things like this and so what F1 is the edge and there should be innovations.
I am a Ferrari fan and I really don't mind. I applaud McLaren if it really can help them. But again, I doubt it can.

[bud]

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

I really don't think so, that certainly isn't my understanding given what most have been saying! It's not like gentleman's agreements matter in f1 anyway, unless it blatantly and concisely benefits all teams (ie KERS being shelved is an example and was as a rarity).

Gascoyne is the only one I've seen arguing that the Special Knee Thingy itself is illegal. Bell made allusions that it might be, but it simply is not. The rules are crystal clear on what constitutes a movable aerodynamic device. The only argument with any weight is the one being made primarily by Bell, that Stalling the rear wing is against the spirit of the rules - but, again, even he admits that it is not against the letter of the rules. As such, that argument isn't going anywhere either, it's just going their more slowly.

Right, well i have definitely heard more people speak out against this innovation, so you might want to review your sources here.

any radical innovation is spoken out about because the teams are annoyed that they know they will have to follow suite and adopt it. Point is thats what F1 is and has always been about. Innovation!

[Jensonb]

No, the sticking point is the aerodynamic device at the wing which the Special Knee Thing feeds air to. Said device stalls the rear wing. Some of the teams are saying devices designed to stall the wing are against the spirit of the rules no matter how they're implemented and that their was a gentleman's agreement to not develop devices in that sort of area.

I really don't think so, that certainly isn't my understanding given what most have been saying! It's not like gentleman's agreements matter in f1 anyway, unless it blatantly and concisely benefits all teams (ie KERS being shelved is an example and was as a rarity).

Gascoyne is the only one I've seen arguing that the Special Knee Thingy itself is illegal. Bell made allusions that it might be, but it simply is not. The rules are crystal clear on what constitutes a movable aerodynamic device. The only argument with any weight is the one being made primarily by Bell, that Stalling the rear wing is against the spirit of the rules - but, again, even he admits that it is not against the letter of the rules. As such, that argument isn't going anywhere either, it's just going their more slowly.

Right, well i have definitely heard more people speak out against this innovation, so you might want to review your sources here.

I'm only listening to people who's opinions are relevant.

[scotty]

Horner was banging on about it for ages during the practice coverage! I'd say he's got a pretty damn relevant opinion, especially as one of his drivers has gotten a look inside the cockpit of that McLaren.

[Jensonb]

Something's been bugging me this whole time...Shouldn't the title say "AGAINST", not "4" (As in FOR)?