FORUMula1.com

[Gaz]

Already a thread on this. Merged.

My direct answer to this new thread can be seen on the previous pages of this one!

Right thats settled then.

LOL.

The thing is, your Ham pic has two problems.

1. It could be suppression dip
2. You can't compare it to another car
3. its not flexing as much anyway
4. the angle of the picture is different.



Red Bull on to a trick here, hopefully McLaren can copy it, or it gets stopped.

[What's Burning?]

I've got to say that I'm glad at least one person has come out and directly questioned the Red Bull 2011 front wing. Well done Lewis.

On Sunday (just before the race) I posted on this twice ( here and here ) with some very telling images. The pictures and graphics (some examples below) from this article I referred to clearly show the whole of the nose section of the RB actually changing shape (which is definitely illegal as far as I'm concerned). And, just as Lewis points out in his article (reproduced below) we all saw the pictures of their front wing dipping ridiculously low and close to the tarmac in Melbourne.

Hamilton questions RBR front wing
Tuesday 29th March 2011

Lewis Hamilton insists Red Bull's controversial front wing flexes more than the rules allow.

The Milton Keynes team's wing caused a major storm at last year's German Grand Prix and the FIA was forced introduced heavier flex tests. Red Bull's cars passed the deflection tests and they've had no problems since then.

However, Hamilton has brought the issue back into the spotlight after Sebastian Vettel put in a dominant display at the season-opening Australian Grand Prix.

"Did you see Vettel's front wing?" he is quoted by Bild "It bends down to the ground and gives him about half a second. Either we [FIA] close this loophole or we [McLaren] copy it."

According to German paper, McLaren are considering lodging a protest with motor sport's governing body over the issue.

Red Bull advisor Helmut Marko hit back at accusations that their front wing is illegal, saying the whole saga is becoming "boring".

"They try it again and again.. And we pass each test."

What's different between the two RB7 profile pics here? ...the speed at which the car is traveling. So this is going to be settled early as I don't think McLaren and Ferrari and the other teams that are looking competitive are going to stand for it given the mounting evidence and the increased understanding of what's being done. I don't think they'd be letting Lewis blab about copying the technology if he hadn't already heard that commented by the McLaren engineering team.

[vlad]

Here you go:
http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=157

[scotty]

The thing is, your Ham pic has two problems.

1. It could be suppression dip
2. You can't compare it to another car
3. its not flexing as much anyway
4. the angle of the picture is different.

Erm, 2 = 4? Anyway, those reasons really are a stretch when you can very clearly see the bend in the wing...
1. suppression dip might be a semi-viable excuse if that pic was of the car smashing over the kerbs, but it's not.
2. You just need to compare it to the McLaren from a similar angle at lower speed to see, it really is quite obvious
3. Irrelevant, because by the logic being banded round by those protesting it, any movement at all is illegal anyway!
4. different to what? You can still see the bend and that the endplates are much closer to the track.

Also see:

[bud]

The issue isn't moving wings, there HAS to be some movement or the wings would snap under pressure. The problem is Redbulls wings are bending more, way more than others! They pass the test so they are deemed legal. Well maybe so but that just shows the tests are inadequate. As Redbulls wings are against the spirit of the rules!

[vlad]

Ah, stop complaining, you wouldn't be the one protesting if McLaren had it!

[bud]

Ah, stop complaining, you wouldn't be the one protesting if McLaren had it!

Stop sticking up for it, you'd be complaining if McLaren had it!

[vlad]

No, I would not. Let them drive, if Red Bull has better technicians, it's their thing, they benefit from it. Or, try to cheer McLaren, so that they can also become better.

[bud]

I'm all for innovations as long as they are in the rules.

[vlad]

They passed the tests, the officials say it's legal, so...
Keep hoping McLaren can manufacture a similar thing.

[scotty]

They passed the tests, the officials say it's legal, so...

Exactly! It's no more illegal than an f-duct or double diffuser. Whether those devices were within the spirit of the rules or not is all opinion but their legality is stone cold fact.

[Gaz]

The thing is, your Ham pic has two problems.

1. It could be suppression dip
2. You can't compare it to another car
3. its not flexing as much anyway
4. the angle of the picture is different.

Erm, 2 = 4? Anyway, those reasons really are a stretch when you can very clearly see the bend in the wing...
1. suppression dip might be a semi-viable excuse if that pic was of the car smashing over the kerbs, but it's not.
2. You just need to compare it to the McLaren from a similar angle at lower speed to see, it really is quite obvious
3. Irrelevant, because by the logic being banded round by those protesting it, any movement at all is illegal anyway!
4. different to what? You can still see the bend and that the endplates are much closer to the track.

Also see:

1.Its a bumpy track and it could be a breaking zone.
2. Its a diffrent part of the track, so you can't compare it to another car.
3. Its not nearly as low, RE SpankyHams "nose flex images"
4. Its a higher angle look at the rear tyres on spankys pic.

[bud]

They passed the tests, the officials say it's legal, so...
Keep hoping McLaren can manufacture a similar thing.

Are you Helmet Marko? Do you have anything else to add other than fanboy blindism?
As I already said it just proves the tests are inadequate as the wings are flexing illegally still!
For example If their whole front nose is bending then just testing the wings is not going to prove anything.

They passed the tests, the officials say it's legal, so...

Exactly! It's no more illegal than an f-duct or double diffuser. Whether those devices were within the spirit of the rules or not is all opinion but their legality is stone cold fact.

A double diffuser doesn't change from scrutineering to ontrack behavior nor did an f duct, they were dubious due to wording. Redbulls wings are passing a test whilst stationary yet out on track breaking the boundaries of said test thus are illegal!

[vlad]

4th is most certain.

[What's Burning?]

^^ You realize that you could have said everything you did while removing the fanboism comment, there's no need for it bud it's only going to serve to propagate a negative response.

Anyway, you know this will be copied and it will be legal for everyone soon enough, just like the f-duct. There is a ton of photographic evidence mounting and the way it's being achieve is probably understood or near to completion, that I'm of... it is F1 after all.