FORUMula1.com

[spankyham]

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.

I think there is just too much evidence against the suspension causing this. So many pictures and videos clearly showing movement of the nose and wing in relation to other sprung section body parts. This idea doesn't float IMO.

[spankyham]

As I've gone on record and said I don't think the suspension has anything to do with the flexing of the RB7, I guess I should suggest how it might be being done...

Here are two possibilities. I'm talking nose flex here.

1) it bends under pressure of airflow. But, the pressure is required frontally as well as from above.
2) smart/memory wire(s) possibly electrically activated

I'd guess 1 because its the simplest, it seems supported by the behavior in the small video (the noses bobs up and down) effected by speed/airflow pressure. Number 2 is pretty leading edge and would take a lot to perfect.

I know f1ea has put down some good points as to how this would be difficult because of the nature of the individual materials and their desired characteristics, but, I would suggest that the construction won't be a single material. Think of this like reinforced concrete. Concrete itself has great compressive capacity but almost no tensile capacity. However, by adding steel reinforcement at the correct depth in a concrete beam or slab, you can give the total unit both compressive and tensile strength way beyond the ability of concrete alone. I think RB have a nose that is a construction of layered materials that, under both lateral and vertical pressures bend, but under lateral pressure alone remains rigid.

[Jensonb]

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.

I think there is just too much evidence against the suspension causing this. So many pictures and videos clearly showing movement of the nose and wing in relation to other sprung section body parts. This idea doesn't float IMO.

I'd agree, going back to my pet "smoking gun" in all this, the violent flexing of the wing assembly in Spa last year seems like it couldn't have been caused by suspension

[nish2280]

Not sure if anyone has considered it but is it possible that the airflow somehow gives the car more rake?

For example, as the air flows under the body it momentarily creates a high pressure system and lifts up the rear end of the car and thus causes the front to get lower to the ground?

It would explain the lower front end and could dismiss the possibility of the wing flexing as F1ea showed to be improbable.

[bud]

Then it would happen on every car. And it would still require body work flexing.

So you assume that Mr.Whiting has not seen those photos? He just turns up at GPs, does the tests and the goes home and has a few beers?

What a stupid comment.But expect nothing less from you. He made his view based on the tests and the tests alone. He said they are legal because of that.

With so much media speculation you wouldnt think that he would, being an engineer for the past few decades, at least have a look about what all the fuss is about? He obviously would. This is what i find so annoying. You think the FIA arnt doing their job. They are, its just that you cant face the fact that RedBull's wing is legal.

I'm sorry but it is not legal to the rules.

My avatar has nothing to do with my stance on this subject. When the F-duct and double diffuser's legality was being debated i was just as supportive about that as i am of this. If you dont believe me please go look at the threads discussing it. I like when teams innovate beyond the given boundaries.

So when every team will have this moveable wing should the FIA just rewrite the rules to allow it? What a stupid stance youre taking.

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” Dont throw quotes at me.

That is a piss poor quote how is that related to anything here? Or are you referring to yourself?

[spankyham]

Not sure if anyone has considered it but is it possible that the airflow somehow gives the car more rake?

For example, as the air flows under the body it momentarily creates a high pressure system and lifts up the rear end of the car and thus causes the front to get lower to the ground?

It would explain the lower front end and could dismiss the possibility of the wing flexing as F1ea showed to be improbable.

Extremely unlikely mate, the last thing a car designer wants is to "lift" the rear, that's where you get all your drive and a lot of stopping

[nish2280]

Not sure if anyone has considered it but is it possible that the airflow somehow gives the car more rake?

For example, as the air flows under the body it momentarily creates a high pressure system and lifts up the rear end of the car and thus causes the front to get lower to the ground?

It would explain the lower front end and could dismiss the possibility of the wing flexing as F1ea showed to be improbable.

Extremely unlikely mate, the last thing a car designer wants is to "lift" the rear, that's where you get all your drive and a lot of stopping

I obviously dont mean the wheels. I mean the actual bodywork, It would be like increasing the car's rake. If it is done momentarily the rear would rise for a few seconds, allowing the front to lower down while at the same time allowing greater airflow under the car. As the speed of the car increases and the airflow does as well, the rear regains a large amount of downforce and is pushed down once again, however now the front does not rise up, thus resulting in lower overall ride height.

This is complete speculation, i mean there are probably 12 million reasons this would not work, im just making stuff up.

[spankyham]

Not sure if anyone has considered it but is it possible that the airflow somehow gives the car more rake?

For example, as the air flows under the body it momentarily creates a high pressure system and lifts up the rear end of the car and thus causes the front to get lower to the ground?

It would explain the lower front end and could dismiss the possibility of the wing flexing as F1ea showed to be improbable.

Extremely unlikely mate, the last thing a car designer wants is to "lift" the rear, that's where you get all your drive and a lot of stopping

I obviously dont mean the wheels. I mean the actual bodywork, It would be like increasing the car's rake. If it is done momentarily the rear would rise for a few seconds, allowing the front to lower down while at the same time allowing greater airflow under the car. As the speed of the car increases and the airflow does as well, the rear regains a large amount of downforce and is pushed down once again, however now the front does not rise up, thus resulting in lower overall ride height.

This is complete speculation, i mean there are probably 12 million reasons this would not work, im just making stuff up.

Well done for thinking about it and coming up with this thought. It's just that, on this idea, it's not going to fly mate. Lifting is not good when you're cornering.

We are all searching for the "how" of what we can see Red Bull are doing. What is clear is certain body parts are moving in relation to other body parts and that's not allowed. It is also clear that parts of the car are illegally low.

[acosmichippo]

Lifting is not good when you're driving.

ftfy.

[Hammer278]

Hell of a first post mate.

[Robert12010]

I think the news of the world part says it all robert lol.

Was that story under the 20 year old oxbridge student with her clangers out?

There were countless examples of it . Thing is they placed themselves above the law, accountable to no-one. They were judge jury and prosecutor. Now tell me thats a fair way to go about policing issues.

Wait im confused......who are they? and what examples are we speaking of?

They are the FIA. Examples are too numerous to list.

Thats the worst excuse in the world. If there are so many you should at least be able to list 5. How can there be so many that you cant list them? If anything that should be easier for you to prove.

I didnt think it needed proving I thought it was common knowledge. Ok I'll ignore bringing the sport into disrepute by the FIA leader having Nazzi umpalumpa orgies and I'll ignore all the inconsistencies s to what they allowed in the past and what heyu banned. here's a starter list
1. As I said they act as prosecutor, judge and jury when teams are up before them.
2. Ferraris secret veto
3. The voting sytstm to elect a new president
4. Serving a writ on Brundle to try to get him banned becuase he dared to criticise with the FIA
5. the mitchelin tyre fiasco at he 2005 USa GP
6. punishing McLaren excessively for having Ferrari intelectual property when earlier Toyota were not punished for the same thing and later that year Renault were not punished for having Mclaren intelectual property

I could go on.

sorry for going off topic lol

[acosmichippo]

I've read most of this thread (admittedly not all), so forgive me if i've missed something. But one thing I haven't seen is a comparison between Vettel's and Webber's wings. I searched youtube for Webber's onboard qualifying lap (to see if the wing movement is as noticeable on his car), but couldn't find one.

we'd see one of two possible scenarios:

1) Webber's wing moves just as much as Vettel's. So does that mean the performance advantage is not as much as it's made out to be? Or does that mean Webber is just getting that much slower?

2) Webber's wing does not move as much as Vettel's. Could this account for the wide gap in qualifying? Could it account for his higher tire wear (I would think it would work the opposite way, but I'm no expert)?

either way, it would be interesting.

[spankyham]

I've read most of this thread (admittedly not all), so forgive me if i've missed something. But one thing I haven't seen is a comparison between Vettel's and Webber's wings. I searched youtube for Webber's onboard qualifying lap (to see if the wing movement is as noticeable on his car), but couldn't find one.

we'd see one of two possible scenarios:

1) Webber's wing moves just as much as Vettel's. So does that mean the performance advantage is not as much as it's made out to be? Or does that mean Webber is just getting that much slower?

2) Webber's wing does not move as much as Vettel's. Could this account for the wide gap in qualifying? Could it account for his higher tire wear (I would think it would work the opposite way, but I'm no expert)?

either way, it would be interesting.

I must admit, I thought of exactly the same question - Did Webber have the same bendy-bits that Seb got? I had a quick look but couldn't find any pics to directly support or refute it.

I did come up with two things that were indications to me that Webber did not have them.

Firstly was statements from the team (both Marko and Horner I believe) saying that Mark chassis was different or possibly had problems.

The second was this picture (Mark closely examining Seb's front wing/nose immediately after Q. He wouldn't be doing that if he had the same front section now would he.

webber.jpg

[stonemonkey]

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

The pull rod suspension is only on the rear afaik, the front is push rod. I'm not saying the suspension doesn't play a part in this though.

[acosmichippo]

The second was this picture (Mark closely examining Seb's front wing/nose immediately after Q. He wouldn't be doing that if he had the same front section now would he.

That is an interesting pic. He's leaning awfully far forward to be looking at anything other than the front wing.