FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[F1er]

What most people dont seem to grasp is that Bernie,FOM and CVC are trying to make as much money as they can before the current Concorde Agreement runs out
December 31, 2012.
So it is in their best interest to have a fizzy drinks company win.

I asked a few pages back what type of evidence did FIA use on the matters of Ferrari flexible floors last year and the Michelins at Indy? Waiting 4 answer

[scotty]

What? There's still an FIA conspiracy going on here?

[F1er]

What? There's still an FIA conspiracy going on here?

What? There isn't ??

[scotty]

What? There's still an FIA conspiracy going on here?

What? There isn't ??

No, there isn't. !!!

People using Indy '05 as an 'example' of FIA conspiracy is purely hilarious. They're not so stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face. That race did a hell of a lot of damage to F1 in the US, and they wouldn't have wanted that.

[F1er]

What? There's still an FIA conspiracy going on here?

What? There isn't ??

No, there isn't. !!!

People using Indy '05 as an 'example' of FIA conspiracy is purely hilarious. They're not so stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face. That race did a hell of a lot of damage to F1 in the US, and they wouldn't have wanted that.

The tyres passed the static tests,photos were used to deem them unsafe
Ferrai flex floor passed the test,photos were used to deem it illegal

Something the FIA can't seem or WANT to do with the RB case.It leaves fans to speculate about the JOKE that is the FIA!
Using smileys doesnt make your point more valid

[vaptin]

As well as I can remember, the flexi floor was hidden. That was what got em.

[racechick]

What? There's still an FIA conspiracy going on here?

What? There isn't ??

No, there isn't. !!!

People using Indy '05 as an 'example' of FIA conspiracy is purely hilarious. They're not so stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face. That race did a hell of a lot of damage to F1 in the US, and they wouldn't have wanted that.

But it was mosely who refused to put a chicane in. It did huge damage in the US , but thats Mosley for you.

[scotty]

The tyres passed the static tests,photos were used to deem them unsafe
Ferrai flex floor passed the test,photos were used to deem it illegal

Something the FIA can't seem or WANT to do with the RB case.It leaves fans to speculate about the JOKE that is the FIA!
Using smileys doesnt make your point more valid

No, a couple of 200mph shunts caused the tyre problem. Ask Ralf Schumacher. I dunno why you're making posts asking for answers when you've already apparently got your own answers for them, quite odd. As for your 'advice' at the bottom there, heed it yourself and stop wasting my time.

[f1ea]

ok, i wrote this from an armchair, and its probably closer to $1 rather than 2c because its kinda long...... But this is what i see about the whole flexi-wing thing.

Here are the typical stress-strain graphs for 1.) ductile and 2.) brittle materials. Carbon fibre is brittle; which means its strong, but will deform very little before it breaks. They can align the fibers in a different direction or even use other materials (blend) to make it more like 1 (ductile); but either way, the end material is going to have ONE behavior/graph only.

All structural materials have a range in which they will deform and then return to its original shape once the load is removed. This is the 'linear' range, which is the only thing the FIA care about because they know it is the key design range. Whatever the material they use, is likely to be used within its linear range... simply because nobody wants permanent deformation, nor being so close to failure. The maximum flex the fia imposes is basically to 'lure' the teams into stronger brittle materials (closer to 2) rather than spandex or something.

But i'll repeat: the end material is going to exhibit ONE behaviour only, no matter how close to which (1 or 2) the resulting material is. It is VERY unlikely that Red Bull have found a physics defying material that will show its 'linear trend' under the fia's test range, and then do something completely different on the road.

To me, it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely Red Bull have a mechanism (outside of the test's scope) which modifies the way the wing behaves, rather than re-invent material physics.

This mechanism doesnt keep the wing element from behaving OUTSIDE the regs during operation (note i said behaving, not flexing), and i think the FIA are deliberately turning their backs on the issue, because frankly... its good for the sport.

[loosecannon]

Is it possible that RB does not have a flexible wing but that they have a trick suspension that is softer than the other teams and the car just compresses under aerodynamic load? Like a two stage spring or torsion bar that allows the car to easily lower at first to get the car low to the ground but then stiffens enough to keep the plank from getting worn down too much. It would be far easier to engineer than some flexible mount.

[vaptin]

I thought of that earlier, but even for elastic behaviour, its not always linear - take rubber for example. And with carbon fibre, the resulting strain behaviour will be very sensitive to the direction of loading - and if the FIA's method is simply to put weights on it - I don't think that'll be the same as being hit and channelling air.

[f1ea]

I thought of that earlier, but even for elastic behaviour, its not always linear - take rubber for example. And with carbon fibre, the resulting strain behaviour will be very sensitive to the direction of loading - and if the FIA's method is simply to put weights on it - I don't think that'll be the same as being hit and channelling air.

That's why the fia has the max flex limits.... rubber and such will deform much more than the allowed under the fia loads. And if they're non-linear then they'd fail the linear deformation test. Unless it changed from linear within the fia range, then non-linear during operation conditions, without some sort of mechanism...... highly unlikely.

Is it possible that RB does not have a flexible wing but that they have a trick suspension that is softer than the other teams and the car just compresses under aerodynamic load? Like a two stage spring or torsion bar that allows the car to easily lower at first to get the car low to the ground but then stiffens enough to keep the plank from getting worn down too much. It would be far easier to engineer than some flexible mount.

could be.... anything outside the test's scope is possible. But yeah, that would be much easier to deal with than a 'selective' flexibility material.

[darwin dali]

I still think the pull rod suspension might have somtin' to do with it all...

[f1ea]

I still think the pull rod suspension might have somtin' to do with it all...

i think so too... last yr i think Fredd_c showed a video and you could see the whole thing moving together.

[spankyham]

Rendered moot - honestly mate, that's just plain silly. Again, I will point out that is what the rules says.

It seems it's not "moot" for every other teams, they all manage to comply. And because Red Bull are clearly failing it, declaring it "moot" does not let them off the hook.

Technically the rules are not contradictory. One says you must always be this distance above/below. The other gives an amount of flex in this test. If your car flexes x they you simply have to add that to the positioning of the wing to ensure, when it is in that flexed position, it is does not exceed the min/max distance.

I'd bet a lot of money that no team does that. None of them at all. The performance loss would be too great to make compromises 'just in case'.

That doesn't make sense whatsoever for any team to do.

Every team does follow that rule - it is only Red Bull that is clearly breaking the rule. So don't make excuses for Red Bull breaking rules by implying the rule isn't practical for them. The rule exists, and Red Bull (only) appear to be failing it - end of.