F1 and Motorsport Forums
texasmr2 wrote:I would LOVE too learn what the loophole is because if they are banned as Gaz mention the RB is still flexing which atleast to me is cut and dry but hey innovation has returned to F1 so cool.The loophole that allows flexi-wings is fairly simple. The rule defines itself in terms of the static test. The test is not representative of the forces acting on the wing when the car is in motion. Ergo, the flexi-wing is legal but still provides the advantage the rule was designed to prevent.
Jensonb wrote:I'm cool with that.texasmr2 wrote:I would LOVE too learn what the loophole is because if they are banned as Gaz mention the RB is still flexing which atleast to me is cut and dry but hey innovation has returned to F1 so cool.The loophole that allows flexi-wings is fairly simple. The rule defines itself in terms of the static test. The test is not representative of the forces acting on the wing when the car is in motion. Ergo, the flexi-wing is legal but still provides the advantage the rule was designed to prevent.
CarBore wrote:I really hate this complaining about other teams advantages. It's not like the ddd level of ridiculousness. The rule state it cannot move more than x under x loading conditions. Remember last year when they complained and McLaren ended up failing the new test and had to reinforce their floor. If you aren't fast enough you need to look at your own car not try and slow other cars down by crying about something that had been tested repeatedly and passes.Less complaining than actually just trying too understand the rules, no biggy really.
Denthúl wrote:I don't think it's just the load that is important in making the wings flex, but where it is applied. A clever designer could shape the wing to direct the airflow over a key part of the wing which, when subject to that level of force, causes it to flex. Perhaps even several points which must all be under that load in order for this effect, in which case it's likely that the tests carried out when the cars are being scrutinised would not be able to cause the wings to flex.
Note that when it comes to aerodynamics, I haven't really got a clue and that may sound like the most ridiculous thing ever.
Fred_C_Dobbs wrote:Carbonfibre materials can be tuned to exhibit differential and direction-specific moduli of flex. The appear to have cooked up a composite structure that experiences greater deflection under linear loads than lateral loads. The static test applies a lateral load but the wind's loading is linear.Yes. I meant that.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
killem2 wrote:I was confused at first, but if the rule is that is can flex no more than X under Y conditions then that's ok. If it's passes then who are we to play arm chair experts.Well, the rule is flawed. It's intended purpose is the same as the ban on Active Moveable Aerodynamic devices. But because of the loophole, it's not entirely effective.
McLaren Racing opened its new state-of-the-art Rac[…]
Swap-in out addons, use only what you really need!
- By hass25