FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[billindenver]

we all have eyes,
we all see its not right,
They should just bann the wing instantly without any tests in my opinion,
We can all see its not right.
We dont need to proove its breaking the rules we can all see it is allready.
IQ gone down the last 20 years in F1

The problem with your eyes is they have not viewed the actual rulebook. You are listening to internet experts telling you that if the redbull wing flexes more than the mclaren wing...it must be illegal.

Let me put it to your another way, in an attempt to open your mind just a little:
What if McLaren built their wing too stiff? Would that account for red bulls wing flexing more? Yes.
What if McLaren's chassis uses stiff front springs while Red Bull's chassis uses soft...would that account for the front end dipping more under braking on the Red bulls? Yes.
What if Red bull set their chassis up to roll more under cornering than the McLarens? Would that account for one side dipping down more on the Red Bull? Yes.
Would ANY of the above be illegal? NO

The point being, the number of suspension settings, tire pressures etc that affect where that wing ends up is clearly beyond your comprehension but because a TV reporter or an internet expert has whipped you into a frenzy....here you are declaring that this is all real simple, your eyes can see one is closer to the ground than the other so they must be cheating. I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. It's not that easy...which is why Red Bull hasn't been found to be cheating. MANY things contribute to that wing's overall height during various on track maneuvers....not just the overly simplistic, rather juvenile assurance that the wing is flexing to much. That wing flex has a test...if it passes that test...it's legal. EVEN IF McLaren's is stiffer than that. EVEN if McLaren's aero team made a mistake and over engineered their wing. EVEN if Red Bull beats McLaren on race day....that doesn't mean they cheated. It just means that Newey, who has been called many times by many people the best aerodynamics guy in the business....has lived up to his name. He has done his job. He has earned his money....and McLaren whining about it for weeks on end will not change that fact any more than people whining about the Fduct changed it's legal status.

Innovation is not an evil thing in racing. It's not cheating. It actually IS...the reason racing exists. To prove that your team is smarter than the rest of them. End of.

Spirit of the rule....pfft. That argument has always been the cop out of the team whose engineers didn't get it right.

[smokin]

we all have eyes,
we all see its not right,
They should just bann the wing instantly without any tests in my opinion,
We can all see its not right.
We dont need to proove its breaking the rules we can all see it is allready.
IQ gone down the last 20 years in F1

The problem with your eyes is they have not viewed the actual rulebook. You are listening to internet experts telling you that if the redbull wing flexes more than the mclaren wing...it must be illegal.

Let me put it to your another way, in an attempt to open your mind just a little:
What if McLaren built their wing too stiff? Would that account for red bulls wing flexing more? Yes.
What if McLaren's chassis uses stiff front springs while Red Bull's chassis uses soft...would that account for the front end dipping more under braking on the Red bulls? Yes.
What if Red bull set their chassis up to roll more under cornering than the McLarens? Would that account for one side dipping down more on the Red Bull? Yes.
Would ANY of the above be illegal? NO

The point being, the number of suspension settings, tire pressures etc that affect where that wing ends up is clearly beyond your comprehension but because a TV reporter or an internet expert has whipped you into a frenzy....here you are declaring that this is all real simple, your eyes can see one is closer to the ground than the other so they must be cheating. I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. It's not that easy...which is why Red Bull hasn't been found to be cheating. MANY things contribute to that wing's overall height during various on track maneuvers....not just the overly simplistic, rather juvenile assurance that the wing is flexing to much. That wing flex has a test...if it passes that test...it's legal. EVEN IF McLaren's is stiffer than that. EVEN if McLaren's aero team made a mistake and over engineered their wing. EVEN if Red Bull beats McLaren on race day....that doesn't mean they cheated. It just means that Newey, who has been called many times by many people the best aerodynamics guy in the business....has lived up to his name. He has done his job. He has earned his money....and McLaren whining about it for weeks on end will not change that fact any more than people whining about the Fduct changed it's legal status.

Innovation is not an evil thing in racing. It's not cheating. It actually IS...the reason racing exists. To prove that your team is smarter than the rest of them. End of.

Spirit of the rule....pfft. That argument has always been the cop out of the team whose engineers didn't get it right.

Long-winded, condescending and mostly wrong. The wing is deflecting independent of the body. Spring stiffness and body roll would not explain this. I'll accept your first point that the McLaren wing may be stiffer than the Red Bull's but the rest of your post just seems to be aimed at ridiculing another poster for their blind belief in what they read on the internet..

Bill - you should know better.

[Martin g]

Well i understand that inovation is a good thing dont get me wrong there.
But when redbull is the only team you can clearly see there front wing flexing there is a case for investigation.

Just look at mark webers responce when he lost his new wing for vetal,
Was prety clear he wanted it on his car, he new how much benifit the ground effect has on cornering due to its design to flex.
He new himself its a corner stone for there fast lap times.
Ive never seen a driver sulk so much to be honest,

Its black and white to me if im honest,
Its like this,

Imagine a driver has just finished qualifying
He pulls into the pits and one of his engineers hands him a 50 lb waight to drop into the footwell,
All seen on tape,and without dout it happened,
The fia would ask for a investigation , even thought its been caught on camera.
They would scratch there heads and wonder if its true or not,
Thats how i see it,

People are blind it isnt suppose to move anymore than 20mm including under breaking,
Redbulls front wing has actualy scratched the underside of the wing thats just how flexable it is.
I cant understand why anyone can so easly ignore the footage on camera,

Like i said a test during the race should be the way ahead and a prety easy way to police it aswell.

Fixed wing
------------0 / pass
-----------10 --pass----------------Fixed Camera live feed.
-----------20 \ pass
-----------30 . fail
-----------40 . fail
-----------50 . fail
-----------60 . fail
-----------70 . fail ------------Redbull would be here

[Dj_polly12]

With the clip that I posted, there's a number of factors that influence the way that the wing moves.

All i have to say is that no wonder passing in f1 is as rare as hens teeth... look at other parts of the car along with the car in front and post your answers as to what you think

[f1ea]

Long-winded, condescending and mostly wrong. The wing is deflecting independent of the body. Spring stiffness and body roll would not explain this. I'll accept your first point that the McLaren wing may be stiffer than the Red Bull's but the rest of your post just seems to be aimed at ridiculing another poster for their blind belief in what they read on the internet..

Bill - you should know better.

- "Mostly wrong" why?
- "The wing is flexing independent of the body" How do you know??

In fact, both wings (McL and RB) could be equally stiff, and there simply is a different mechanism to make it change position relative to the chassis.

Just look at mark webers responce when he lost his new wing for vetal,
Was prety clear he wanted it on his car, he new how much benifit the ground effect has on cornering due to its design to flex.
He new himself its a corner stone for there fast lap times.
Ive never seen a driver sulk so much to be honest,

He said he didnt find it to be that meaningful at first... he didnt know how much ground effect or whatever the wing provided then. Not even the engineers knew that then. That's why they were testing it.

Obviously, he was angry at the team giving Vettel HIS wing... obviously Mark's problem was with the decision, not the wing itself. Vettel gets poles ahead of Mark all the time, you cant really say it was simply "the wing". He won the race, beating everyone without it. How could it be a cornerstone for their times??!!

People are blind it isnt suppose to move anymore than 20mm including under breaking,
Redbulls front wing has actualy scratched the underside of the wing thats just how flexable it is.
I cant understand why anyone can so easly ignore the footage on camera,

Scratching the underside doesnt mean the wing is flexing. Just because a car bottoms out doesnt mean the chassis is flexing!

i cant understand how you can look at the footage on camera and not realise there is a super complex mechanism going on there. But you want to call RB cheaters, the rest of the people blind and the FIA dumb. You could do that without having to bring the front wing into it

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Newey seems confident the wing will pass the new test as is.

The pertinent bit is at around 45 seconds.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Interesting video cilp there... I actually see the wing moving with the suspension.

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Who knows what else is happening? More's the pity we probably never will learn the full extent of what's going on.

[stonemonkey]

It's a nice visual example of how much the car in front affects the front wing with the side of the wing behind the Ferrari alternating and being pushed down less.

[f1ea]

...Interesting video cilp there... I actually see the wing moving with the suspension.

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Who knows what else is happening? More's the pity we probably never will learn the full extent of what's going on.

Hopefully when/if other teams get it, more info will be out.

Right now its super interesting, because funny thing is, everyone is focused on the wing FLEXING. But it could be perfectly stiff or at least simple linear deflection (ie no funky materials), just moving relative to the bodywork or chassis. But yes, now that you mention the camera being mounted on the body work, could be the chassis (with the wing and suspension attached) moving relative to the body work.

It's a nice visual example of how much the car in front affects the front wing with the side of the wing behind the Ferrari alternating and being pushed down less.

yeah, some have mentioned the effect of the car in front... BUT how about the steering wheel?
If you look at the pic with the Merc you can see the wing moving as the wheel turns... the same in the other clip with the Ferrari. Again, could be more the chassis and suspension moving and not simply the wing deflecting.

[smokin]

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Are not the chassis and the bodywork the same thing on an F1 car?

[Jabberwocky]

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Are not the chassis and the bodywork the same thing on an F1 car?

I assumed the fred meant non stressed parts of the car as body work and the stressed monocouque as the chassis

[smokin]

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Are not the chassis and the bodywork the same thing on an F1 car?

I assumed the fred meant non stressed parts of the car as body work and the stressed monocouque as the chassis

Chassis or bodywork, the wing is fixed to the same part of the car as the camera, all of which moves up and down on the suspension, but the tips are moving independently of this. Some deflection would be expected but it's the amount of deflection under racing load which is in question and whether the static test is a true measure of this movement. If it isn't, and Newey has found a way to lower the wing tips in a non-linear fashion when past the test bend point as more load is applied, then fair play to him. The rule (as it stands) is 10mm for 50kg and if the car passes then it's legal, whatever it does during the race.

[f1ea]

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Are not the chassis and the bodywork the same thing on an F1 car?

I assumed the fred meant non stressed parts of the car as body work and the stressed monocouque as the chassis

Chassis or bodywork, the wing is fixed to the same part of the car as the camera, all of which moves up and down on the suspension, but the tips are moving independently of this. Some deflection would be expected but it's the amount of deflection under racing load which is in question and whether the static test is a true measure of this movement. If it isn't, and Newey has found a way to lower the wing tips in a non-linear fashion when past the test bend point as more load is applied, then fair play to him. The rule (as it stands) is 10mm for 50kg and if the car passes then it's legal, whatever it does during the race.

I am 100% certain the wing is not bending outside of the 10mm per 50kg rule. And so is Newey. If you look at the wing, it is somewhat rigid. The complicated thing is that it is moving, seemingly together with the other moving parts of the chassis (possibly front suspension), so you couldnt really say its a moveable aero device... because it remains static to certain parts of the chassis. Movement is relative; the whole thing (car, wings, tires etc) is moving... the matter is in relation to what is the FIA measuring this displacement.

Another thing, if under racing conditions the loads are higher, the wing IS ALLOWED to deflect more, as long as its linear.

What looks like Newey has done is allow front wing movement either under load and/or under movement of the other parts of the chassis (steering wheel also?). When the test is ran, if the same parts of the chassis aren't moving, neither is the wing. And even if it moves, it will still be static relative to certain parts of the chassis, therefore it is not a moveable device. You could run this in a wind tunnel... or apply loads to anything you want. The wing will always be static to the same part of the chassis.

In the same test, when they apply the 50kg, the wing will deflect what it needs to, because the mechanism is NOT as simple as the wing flexing. It looks like its flexing (and it is), but there's also a visual trick:

Grab a long pencil (in the middle) with your thumb and index. Move your hand up/down repeatedly. Look at the pencil... What do you see?
Is the pencil actually deflecting?
Does it look like its deflecting?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Note, too, that the front tyres move up in the frame as the wing droops. Since that camera is fixed above the cockpit, the snorkel must be moving down in relation. It's not merely the wing moving or even just the front impact structure, it's the entire chassis.

Are not the chassis and the bodywork the same thing on an F1 car?

After Vettel's little nose section problem at Silverstone, some were speculating that the impact structure was spring-mounted, allowing the nose to droop independent of the remainder of the body. This animation would seem to indicate the attitude of the entire chassis is affected (but that doesn't mean the nose isn't responding independently).

[Jabberwocky]

when you see the pics from the front of the car, the front wing does not seem to droop at the ends.