FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

I dont get how watching a car can make it illegal

they are testing the wings to see that they deform in a lineal manner up until a certain load

There is a rule that says aerodynamic parts can't flex - simple and unambiguous.
There is another rule that says the FiA can create more tests for any part of bodywork that moves or appears to move while the car is in motion. The test for this is visual, do humans see it move or appear to move.

Do you see any part of the RB7 flex, move or appear to move in any of the pictures, videos or graphics posted? I think any reasonable person that sees movement would accept that the FiA must and will investigate this further.

[f1ea]

You're playing on words here.

no, what i'm saying is, if the test/reg says the wing must have linear deformation between load X and Y (and up to a maximum displacement for the load on the test). Once on the track, if the actual load is Z, that does not mean the loading/flexing is illegal.

There is a rule that says aerodynamic parts can't flex - simple and unambiguous.

Also no. The rules state that aero parts must flex in a certain manner within the load range of the test...

But what RB is doing is something else. Their wing itself flexes normally (legally).... but the nose cone moves outside of the testing procedures. Depending on how they test for moveable aero, then they may bypassing that test as well.

remember McLarens Biwing? The FIA instigated they need to make an adjustment by having a the wing attached to the nose cone based alone on video evidence that the wing was moving when in motion. It passed scrutineering and all! funny that...

well, yeah. There's a precedent; i can see why Mcl have been the most vocal about the wing........

[FRAFPDD]

I dont get how watching a car can make it illegal

they are testing the wings to see that they deform in a lineal manner up until a certain load

There is a rule that says aerodynamic parts can't flex - simple and unambiguous.
There is another rule that says the FiA can create more tests for any part of bodywork that moves or appears to move while the car is in motion. The test for this is visual, do humans see it move or appear to move.

Do you see any part of the RB7 flex, move or appear to move in any of the pictures, videos or graphics posted? I think any reasonable person that sees movement would accept that the FiA must and will investigate this further.

See you did have a point in your last post, and now youve totally missed the ball....

the famous words of FRAFPDD; If you go and read what i said (gets so old saying it) youd see i never doubted they flex, i never doubted they move, and i never doubted the ruling of them being illegal was a good one.

I said for the last time, BY DEFINITION they are legal. You and many others' only qualm is that the tests on which they deemed it legal are inadequate, which i too agree with. I disagree with you even despite sharing the same thought because you collectively seemed to have trouble actualyl proposing a well-foundadted argument, if not that, then totally mis/re/wording what my argument is cause you cant answer and/or deny my points head on.

The wings being legal is a FACT

The tests being inadequate is an OPINION.

All ive seen in this thread is people arguing that they ARE illegal. That what got this started and kept it going. They are legal. The tests are inadequate. But they ARE the tests, and we should respect them.

[What's Burning?]

OK, the arguments are getting heated needlessly. Let's tone down the discussion to the fact and keep our snide comments to ourselves shall we?

FRAFPDD... you're getting defensive for arguing the part of the argument no one is arguing...

No one denies the wing does not flex.

No one denies the win is legal because they passed the tests that says it's legal.

The argument here is why the test is done in the first place...

And that answer it to see if there is flexibility to the wing. So weight is added to the wing... in a method no one here can claim to know, other than it's 50 or 100 Kg (I forget the figure) And the test for the wings themselves flexing, and lo a behold they pass.

What isn't being tested is the flexibility of the nose cone itself. Red Bull have done a masterful job of finding a loophole, great for them and great for those teams that can duplicate that feat.

The point it whether or not the regulations for 2012 say the nose cone itself will be tested as well. So the conclusion here is, the rich teams get it, and then it's made illegal for everyone next year, a la DDD or F-Duct... Or it's deemed illegal now, the FIA develops a test before Malaysia and Red Bull have to pass that test. Now that it's much better understood those are the only two conclusions to this issue.

I said no one here knows how it's tested... I say that simply because to pass any test for wing flexibility today all that is required is that the nosecone itself be supported by a flat plane, while the weight is being placed on the wings.... instant PASS. Where as if the nosecone is being tested while supported on a chassis.... then the weight paced on the wing/s may indeed cause the deflection to the ENTIRE nose cone structure. Additionally we don't (at least I don't) know if the weight is placed on both wings at once, or one wing at a time.

[vaptin]

They're not testing with relation to the sprung part of the car? They're just assuming linear deflection means the sprung part of the car will flex by the same amount for a given load, and non linear deflection means the car is illegal. From the descriptions of the test posted last year, and reading the rule, they don't seen to compliment each other

[f1ea]

oh s**t hide the cops, the beer is coming!

Where as if the nosecone is being tested while supported on a chassis.... then the weight paced on the wing may indeed cause the deflection to the ENTIRE nose cone structure.

yeah that's it. And not ANY chassis... RB's chassis.

[FRAFPDD]

OK, the arguments are getting heated needlessly. Let's tone down the discussion to the fact and keep our snide comments to ourselves shall we?

FRAFPDD... you're getting defensive for arguing the part of the argument no one is arguing...

No one denies the wing does not flex.

No one denies the win is legal because they passed the tests that says it's legal.

The argument here is why the test is done in the first place...

And that answer it to see if there is flexibility to the wing. So weight is added to the wing... in a method no one here can claim to know, other than it's 50 or 100 Kg (I forget the figure) And the test for the wings themselves flexing, and lo a behold they pass.

What isn't being tested is the flexibility of the nose cone itself. Red Bull have done a masterful job of finding a loophole, great for them and great for those teams that can duplicate that feat.

The point it whether or not the regulations for 2012 say the nose cone itself will be tested as well. So the conclusion here is, the rich teams get it, and then it's made illegal for everyone next year, a la DDD or F-Duct... Or it's deemed illegal now, the FIA develops a test before Malaysia and Red Bull have to pass that test. Now that it's much better understood those are the only two conclusions to his issue.

I said no one here knows how it's tested... I say that simply because to pass any test for wing flexibility today all that is required is that the nosecone itself be supported by a flat plane, while the weight is being placed on the wings.... instant PASS. Where as if the nosecone is being tested while supported on a chassis.... then the weight paced on the wing may indeed cause the deflection to the ENTIRE nose cone structure. Additionally we don't (at least I don't) know if the weight is placed on both wings at once, or one wing at a time.

No offence WB but they really arent getting heated. They were at one point, and i stopped replying to him.

Also, with all due respect you are absolutely incorrect in the lines under the first one, youve totally got it wrong what everyone here is arguing.

[What's Burning?]

OK, the arguments are getting heated needlessly. Let's tone down the discussion to the fact and keep our snide comments to ourselves shall we?

FRAFPDD... you're getting defensive for arguing the part of the argument no one is arguing...

No one denies the wing does not flex.

No one denies the win is legal because they passed the tests that says it's legal.

The argument here is why the test is done in the first place...

And that answer it to see if there is flexibility to the wing. So weight is added to the wing... in a method no one here can claim to know, other than it's 50 or 100 Kg (I forget the figure) And the test for the wings themselves flexing, and lo a behold they pass.

What isn't being tested is the flexibility of the nose cone itself. Red Bull have done a masterful job of finding a loophole, great for them and great for those teams that can duplicate that feat.

The point it whether or not the regulations for 2012 say the nose cone itself will be tested as well. So the conclusion here is, the rich teams get it, and then it's made illegal for everyone next year, a la DDD or F-Duct... Or it's deemed illegal now, the FIA develops a test before Malaysia and Red Bull have to pass that test. Now that it's much better understood those are the only two conclusions to his issue.

I said no one here knows how it's tested... I say that simply because to pass any test for wing flexibility today all that is required is that the nosecone itself be supported by a flat plane, while the weight is being placed on the wings.... instant PASS. Where as if the nosecone is being tested while supported on a chassis.... then the weight paced on the wing may indeed cause the deflection to the ENTIRE nose cone structure. Additionally we don't (at least I don't) know if the weight is placed on both wings at once, or one wing at a time.

No offence WB but they really arent getting heated. They were at one point, and i stopped replying to him.

Also, with all due respect you are absolutely incorrect in the lines under the first one, youve totally got it wrong what everyone here is arguing.

I present my facts/arguments and you present your facts/arguments ...ahhh harmony.

[Jensonb]

The main problem with the rule/test combo is it clearly fails to adequately reflect the real-world effects of running the car. The point of the rules about flexing aerodynamic devices is the same as the rule banning actively moveable aerodynamic devices. It doesn't take a genius to see that if the wing, or indeed the whole nosecone/wing assembly, is flexing or otherwise moving in such a way as to dramatically affect performance that the team building that car is enjoying an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, until the FIA takes note and implements a more appropriate test, or otherwise acts to prevent this end-run around the rules, the part is going to continue being defined by the FIA as legal - whether it truly is or not - because the test itself is a loophole.

[killem2]

So Red Bull has abused a loop hole but no other team can figure it out. Bravo to them. Sure it might be in the category of "Unethical", but its nice to see a team going out side the box to achieve technical might.

[stonemonkey]

And besides, I'd like to hear some insights as to whether RB's pull rod suspension could have been tweaked in a fashion that makes it at least partly responsible for what's going on. Isn't one of the advantages of pull rod suspensions that they allow the car to be closer to the ground and help lower the C of G?

The pull rod suspension allows the suspension components to be positioned lower so lower the cog, other than that i'm not sure if it allows for significantly different suspension geometry.

the Wing is moving independently of the rest of the car in the video.

Yeah, but who's to say that movement isn't related to the compression of the suspension?

If you could make the nose drop when the suspension goes under compression then as the car goes faster and the downforce compresses the suspension then the nose would drop further than the rest of the car. Are the tests done with the car sitting on it's wheels or is the chassis supported on something solid?

[racechick]

So Red Bull has abused a loop hole but no other team can figure it out. Bravo to them. Sure it might be in the category of "Unethical", but its nice to see a team going out side the box to achieve technical might.

Can't help but agree with you. I don't think they've abused a loophole, just been clever and spent ages working on stuff that goes into their carbon fibre. Its clever, they should be congratulated. Is it against the rules? Apparantly not. Is it against the spirit of the rules?...yes. Whose fault is that? The FIA's fault.

[texasmr2]

So Red Bull has abused a loop hole but no other team can figure it out. Bravo to them. Sure it might be in the category of "Unethical", but its nice to see a team going out side the box to achieve technical might.

Can't help but agree with you. I don't think they've abused a loophole, just been clever and spent ages working on stuff that goes into their carbon fibre. Its clever, they should be congratulated. Is it against the rules? Apparantly not. Is it against the spirit of the rules?...yes. Whose fault is that? The FIA's fault.

[FRAFPDD]

So Red Bull has abused a loop hole but no other team can figure it out. Bravo to them. Sure it might be in the category of "Unethical", but its nice to see a team going out side the box to achieve technical might.

See Vaptin*, i told you its the posters that post that occasional post-a-day that make complete sense.


*Might be Hammer, but the point stands.

[vaptin]

Disagree, its possible its against the rules, just that it passes the test. In which case the test is inadequate, but just running with the idea its against the rules but passes the test, is it still wrong for redbull to do it? It's a bit like asking if you get more change than your due in a shop, are you morally obliged to own up or not?