FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vlad]

[Robert12010]

On How Forum Members Interpret Events So Far:-

I find it very interesting philosophically how some people interpret circumventing/breaking rules as either cheating or clever. It's even more interesting how the interpretation can change based on who's under the spotlight.

Rules say you can't deliberately crash - Flavio/Senna deliberately crash - Flavio/Senna didn't fail any test - is that clever or cheating?

In 2010, rules say you can't give team orders - Ferrari tell Massa Fernando is faster than you - Ferrari didn't fail any test - is that clever or cheating?

On Christian Horner's Credibility

If I'm not mistaken, when the F-Duct legality issue came up, Christian said something along these lines - the F-Duct may be strictly legal according to the rules but McLaren are in breach of the "Spirit of the Law".

Again, when Ferrari ran new components on their car for one of their allowable media/filming days in 2010, CH accused Ferrari of breaching the "Spirit of the Law".

Do we interpret that all as meaning its ok to break specific laws, but not what CH thinks is the "Spirit" of the law

On Passing Tests Makes Everything OK

Would you advise your kids they are being clever if they find a way to cheat on their tests and pass their exams?

An Example of Rule V's Test

The Rule - Only the owner of a bank account with an ATM card can take their money out of that account. Pretty well accepted rule in society.

The Test - At each ATM you must hold the card and know the pin number to withdraw funds from an account.

A teenage boy withdraws $500 using an ATM card from an account, with correct PIN being entered. The ATM card database shows that the card belongs to Mavis Johnson, a 60 year old woman who had her bag with her credit card stolen.

The boy hasn't failed any test - but how many people think his actions are ok and clever?

Nice analogy/interpretation and I do not honestly think anyone here disagree's with your point yet these 'loop holes' are and have been a part of F1 (racing in general) since it's inception. I also would like too think that most of us racing fans would like a more clear and defined and ENFORCED rule procedure.

I don't blame a team for their 'interpretation' which meets the guidelines at a certain test but a breach is a breach. Hey maybe I should run for an FIA board position and if elected we would NOT be having this discussion , I'll release the hounds!!!! Now back to reality if the nose cone is designed in the manner that bigpat has just described a scrutineering team of FIA officials should attend each and every windtunnel test and that would be great imho but with all the cost cutting F1 is trying to accomplish that idea is just a fart in the wind.

il join ya

[F1er]

OK This is the rule

''Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.''

Note the bolded.The RB wing is designed to do that so it clearly breaks the rule. Unless RB claims that the FW it's behaving on its own in the matter that it does.Call it what you want,clever,enginuity whatever,to me is simply cheating.

Under any circumstances=practice,quali,race etc

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

OK This is the rule

''Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.''

Note the bolded.The RB wing is designed to do that so it clearly breaks the rule....

No, no, no. That is not its designed purpose. Its designed purpose is to make the Red Bull trademark atop the wing more legible when viewed from the front. It tilts more at high speed because the higher rate of closure gives spectators less time to recognise it.

Not to put too fine an edge on it but RBR's flexi front wing has only ever been adjudged legal. It was legal last season. It is legal this season. Charlie Whiting says so. At the moment, no one else's opinion matters.

[vaptin]

:wavey: Clearly legal as seen in the below pic



because it passes the test

Think about it, the FIA have probably seen all these pictures, but they know if they ban redbull based of those pics, redbull will laugh and take them to the cleaners in a lawsuit. I'm not saying I know its legal, I'm saying it passes the test and that in effect will come to the same thing unless you devise a new way to test.

There's a clear difference between whether the wing is actually in breach of the rule, and whether its determined to be in breach of the rule. Basically, there's a difference between being guilty, and being proven guilty, the way things work is the former is largely treated the same as being innocent - I quite like it like that. Obviously if your suspected of being guilty, you'll face more intensive investigations.

On How Forum Members Interpret Events So Far:-

I find it very interesting philosophically how some people interpret circumventing/breaking rules as either cheating or clever. It's even more interesting how the interpretation can change based on who's under the spotlight.

Rules say you can't deliberately crash - Flavio/Senna deliberately crash - Flavio/Senna didn't fail any test - is that clever or cheating?

In 2010, rules say you can't give team orders - Ferrari tell Massa Fernando is faster than you - Ferrari didn't fail any test - is that clever or cheating?

On Christian Horner's Credibility

If I'm not mistaken, when the F-Duct legality issue came up, Christian said something along these lines - the F-Duct may be strictly legal according to the rules but McLaren are in breach of the "Spirit of the Law".

Again, when Ferrari ran new components on their car for one of their allowable media/filming days in 2010, CH accused Ferrari of breaching the "Spirit of the Law".

Do we interpret that all as meaning its ok to break specific laws, but not what CH thinks is the "Spirit" of the law

On Passing Tests Makes Everything OK

Would you advise your kids they are being clever if they find a way to cheat on their tests and pass their exams?

An Example of Rule V's Test
The Rule - Only the owner of a bank account with an ATM card can take their money out of that account. Pretty well accepted rule in society.

The Test - At each ATM you must hold the card and know the pin number to withdraw funds from an account.

A teenage boy withdraws $500 using an ATM card from an account, with correct PIN being entered. The ATM card database shows that the card belongs to Mavis Johnson, a 60 year old woman who had her bag with her credit card stolen.

The boy hasn't failed any test - but how many people think his actions are ok and clever?

There's a difference between an action that can be considered broadly wrong, on its own and an if doing something is only wrong because it breaks the rules. You know, I reckon a lot of parents would tell their kids to cheat on an important test, if they thought they could really get away with it - thats a side note though.

There's very little inherently wrong with having a wing that flexes in relation to the sprung part of the car, there's a lot very wrong with crashing deliberately. We've both argued Spanky, there's nothing inherently wrong with team orders - I know a lot of people on here disagree with that though.

The question is if its wrong to device the FIA and unfair on the other teams, I say f1 is supposed to be competitive, all teams know that and enter accepting that. Lets assume that redbull have got an illegal wing, ask yourself, would any other team on the grid, if they were in that position, own up? Or scrap the wing on moral grounds? I think not, and that pretty much equalises the its immoral because its an unfair advantage idea.

[f1ea]

Rules are rules, there is no such thing as "against the spirit of the rules". No one can describe what the "spirit" is. It is only included in rules to TRY and cover a solution that the rulemakers never thought of... All rules and subsequent tests are defined by strict numerical values (with tolerances), and procedures. If you pass it, your car is legal. Simple.

There is an argument that carbon fibre is supposed to be insanely stiff, and so the nosecone shouldn't flex. There is no material on this planet that does not exhibit SOME deformation under load. Therefore nothing can be made infinitely stiff. On the contrary, some resilience has to be allowed for to allow for vibration, shock, and minor impact loading.

what doesn't bend... breaks.
i dont believe there is much radical in the wing/nose materials.

I believe Red Bull have done 2 things:
1. Made the nosecone with a novel carbon lay-up format (obviously thinner in parts) that allows the nose to droop. This is clever composites engineering. I do not believe they are using a trick carbon fibre suggested elsewhere....

me neither... in fact, i doubt they have discovered much regarding carbon fibre.... i mean, much that other teams couldnt have at their disposal for so long.

2. As I suggested back on page 3? of this thread,where the nosebox mounting have a strong extension spring inside the mechanism. The pic from Silverstone last year of Vettel's car, where you can see a gap at the top of the nosecone/chassis interface, tells my that I'm on the right track here.

i've been saying this all the way back to last yr's thread about the flexi-wing. The wing itslef doesnt flex much more than anybody else's wing. it's a mechanism that allows the whole nosecone to move.

In order to fix this problem, the test should be conducted wit th entire wing/nose assembly attached to the chassis. I think by Barcelona we may see a new test procedure be enforced.

Spanky showed how the test gets conducted a few pages back... no wonder RB pass! i thought they tested the wing as mounted on the car.

i think the FIA is willingly letting this go by... for the sake of:

1. competition 2. having someone else other than McL or Ferrari get the wins and 3. allowing new teams with LOTS of money a chance to get some of their money back (kinda like what a Casino does). Just as they let Brawn get away with his diffuser, instead of closing the loophole right away.

[scotty]

So it's FIA conspiracy now?

All these analogies are completely unsuitable to F1 car design. This is seriously comparable to a guy robbing an old lady and stealing her money? Just... wow... *double facepalm*

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where this invisible line is that Red Bull have supposedly crossed with regard to flexiness at racing speed. Some people are arguing that the rules say the wings aren't allowed to flex, but all the cars do really, and that is acceptable, although we can see that the cars deflect to differing extents. So where the hell is this turning point for Red Bull? Is it clearly defined in the rules? If not, then how can you seriously question this car compared to all the others, given that there's actually no parameter set to even suggest this car is illegal.

[bud]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

[scotty]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

Where is the rule that says 'the wing must remain above 25mm off the ground at all times' then?!?! This is my point!

[f1ea]

So it's FIA conspiracy now?

not a conspiracy... just a "look the other way"

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where this invisible line is that Red Bull have supposedly crossed with regard to flexiness at racing speed. Some people are arguing that the rules say the wings aren't allowed to flex, but all the cars do really, and that is acceptable, although we can see that the cars deflect to differing extents. So where the hell is this turning point for Red Bull? Is it clearly defined in the rules? If not, then how can you seriously question this car compared to all the others, given that there's actually no parameter set to even suggest this car is illegal.

the thing with the RB wing is that the wing itself flexes normally. But as it is mounted on the car, something else allows it to move beyond what the wing alone would deflect (ie at the tests). HOWEVER, the test is as it is. And it passes the test... so its legal.

But if the FIA really wanted to... they could modify the test to apply for movement in race conditions, as there is a rule regarding any aerodynamics must remain in such and such manner in relation to so and so........... so they could close the loophole if they wanted, just like they could have the diffuser loophole on a finger snap.

[bud]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

Where is the rule that says 'the wing must remain above 25mm off the ground at all times' then?!?! This is my point!

at all times? that piece of wording is covered by the rule that says wings arent allowed to flex or move.

[scotty]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

Where is the rule that says 'the wing must remain above 25mm off the ground at all times' then?!?! This is my point!

at all times? that piece of wording is covered by the rule that says wings arent allowed to flex or move.

So what about the fact that all the cars flex to an extent under load? You even said that yourself if i remember correctly... Also i posted gifs of the Merc and McLaren clearly flexing earlier in the thread. By definition they're either all illegal or all legal.

[spankyham]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

Where is the rule that says 'the wing must remain above 25mm off the ground at all times' then?!?! This is my point!

The front wing must be no lower than 75mm above the reference plane, which is the lowest point of the car without the plank.
Source

Any more questions...

[scotty]

How about the fact the wings are not allowed to ride that low to the ground, if they were they would be made at that height from the get go. Also for a wing to physically be touching the ground requires flexing of some form, so wing flexing tests are there to stop that as well. If wings were allowed to to flex as much as they liked then there wouldnt be wing flexing tests would there!?

Where is the rule that says 'the wing must remain above 25mm off the ground at all times' then?!?! This is my point!

The front wing must be no lower than 75mm above the reference plane, which is the lowest point of the car without the plank.
Source

Any more questions...

That 10mm flex only applies under the load test conditions. So i don't have any more questions, just my original unanswered one.

[nish2280]

I think i said this last year when this ridiculous discussion was going on about flexi wings.

If the front wing, or nose as many of you are now concluding, flexes then it's structural integrity is diminished.

Now think back to Spa 2010, Vettel T-bones Button. Button takes massive radiator damage, vettel limps into the pits WITH NOSE INTACT. Wing, broken off, however, nose is still attached. One would typically expect the nose, normally under massive loads which are strong enough to cause it to flex, to break off with such a strong impact.

This can allow you to draw two conclusions:
1. The area which undergoes stress allowing the wing to become lower is the two pillars which attache the nose to the wing.
2. The front wing and nose do not undergo stress causing the front end of the car to lower.

If you remember there were even rumours about RedBull using a hydraulic system to lower the car, which now would seem ludicrous. RedBull's engineers are very smart, it is an insult if we pretend to understand their ingenuity.