FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

but it is springing back 2cm the other way as well which would be a disadvantage

No spring under load, and it would be one cm down and one cm up but that's just me eyeballin' I'd need a ruler.

[spankyham]

but it is springing back 2cm the other way as well which would be a disadvantage

The forces applying to it whilst driving under smooth conditions would be downward not upward, and that would serve to lower the front wing when you want it lower.

I think WB has got it right. There are 2 aspects to how this "might" be being used to advantage the RB8.

First, the lowering of the wing - and this is a fact we are all aware of, the RB can run its front wing lower, which equates to much better performance.

Secondly, the damper effect. The diffuser attaches the car to the road but there are times when this attachment is broken. Gary Anderson has written a fair bit about this recently and its interesting reading. Given that the attachment is broken, the quicker you can reattach, the quicker you can put the power down. Coming into corners two things happen, you brake hard and you hit curbs, both serve to break the diffusers attachment to the road. Braking lifts the rear of the car and hitting curbs puts a lot of stress through the entire car. You can see the signs of this stress on cars when you look at the super slo-mo vids we see from time to time. If you look at the cars you will see the violence of the effect when you see mirrors, tires and the car frame itself jumping about. Any mass damper effect will get the floor and chassis stabilized faster and therefore enable the diffuser to reattach faster and enable the driver to put the power down quicker.

[Jabberwocky]

but it is springing back 2cm the other way as well which would be a disadvantage

No spring under load, and it would be one cm down and one cm up but that's just me eyeballin' I'd need a ruler.

ah OK I thought we where talking about the car going over the rumble strip not in a straight and level drive.

[spankyham]

It appears the FiA has ruled the nose is OK >>Source<<

[vlad]

So, Ferrari once again left in bitter tears, while they're trying to copy Red Bull, once again...

[kerc]

The Red Bull car is made out of silly putty.

[scotty]

The mass damping stuff is a bit of a stretch btw. The wing would never work in the same way as the true mass damper system Renault used either.

Be interested in why you think the fwing-nose couldn't work as a mass damper?

Well before we get into that (which i am glad to oblige on in good time), just wondering is the entire source of this theory just that gif of Webber's car and the video of Vettel's nose change? Cause it really is important to see more of that Webber clip to check it wasn't just a freak occurence anyway, where his front wing twatted one of the sausage kerbs on the way over which caused that flailing of the front wing.

So why isn't this really a mass damper system in my view?

The simple answer is, because the forces are applied and dissipated in completely different ways. The Renault system used a fairly significant mass (8-10kg) sprung to work along the same axis as suspension travel, and mounted in a far more structurally integral area of the chassis. The axes are important as that is how the mass damper is counteracting the suspension movement forces.

In the Red Bull's front wing, you can see the axes along which movement is occuring are not the same. Working purely from that gif of Webber's car (cause it seems like the only piece of evidence here) it seems like there are two axes containing the most significant movements. The first is transversely across the front wing (you can see the pylons swinging). The second is the important one. Hope this description makes sense: It looks to me like the main wing body is attempting to rotate about an imaginary, fairly central axis running across the width of the wing. Hence the visible rocking movement where the both leading edge and trailing edge of the wing can be seen moving up and down.

So, there is no movement along an axis that would counter suspension travel, ie along a purely vertical axis. I mean you can see the front wing is flailing in several directions quite clearly on that gif - barely any of the energy is working in the opposite direction to the suspension travel. On top of this, i am dubious that there would even be enough mass or structural characteristics to provide noticable damping against the loading of the suspension. Certainly not without having a wing that would be incapabable of dealing with the substantial aero loading these parts do.

[andrew]

So, Ferrari once again left in bitter tears, while they're trying to copy Red Bull, once again...

You're not planning on ever going to Italy are you?

[vlad]

No, thank you, I like countries with nice people.

[andrew]

YallaF1

Red Bull ‘rubber nose’ a false alarm claim experts

Nov.9 (GMM) Three leading specialist publications have played down the rubber front wing Red Bull saga.

Recent video footage depicted the Adrian Newey-penned RB8 with a decidedly bendy front nose tip, causing some outlets and fans to question the legality of the apparently ‘rubber’ construction.

But writing in Italy’s La Gazzetta dello Sport, journalist Andrea Cremonesi said that “according to the FIA, everything is in order”.

“Word has arrived from Paris that the parts in question are not structural and are not subject to the rigid tests [that] other parts of the car are,” he explained.

“The FIA have made it known that the ‘soft nature’ of the nose is what is required in order to avoid dangerous consequences should the cone come into contact with the side of another car,” Cremonesi explained.

Tobias Gruner, formerly a journalist for Auto Motor und Sport, has a similar analysis.

“We have shown the pictures to our technology experts,” he revealed. “The consensus: false alarm.”

He said the nose tips are designed “always a little softer” in order to comply with the FIA’s crash tests, and that Vettel’s could have appeared even weaker during his first pitstop in Abu Dhabi due to the damage it had sustained.

A report in Italy’s Autosprint added: “We have consulted with engineers at other teams and can now say that a certain degree of deformation in the ‘nose tip’ is acceptable.

“That said, it is possible and indeed likely that Red Bull has gone further with its interpretation, because the deformable structure holds the front wing and can be used to get [the wing] closer to the ground.

“Some technicians at the competition are convinced of this,” the report added.

Storm in a tea cup.

No, thank you, I like countries with nice people.

Harsh?

[vlad]

Honest!

[bud]

Ferrari's way is "if you can't beat them, ban them." They should stick to trying to beat them... Banning isn't really working for them anymore.

[spankyham]

......

So why isn't this really a mass damper system in my view? .....

I really enjoy these discussions, wish we could have a little more without some of the associated baggage When you cut through and get down to the technical comments you realize there's quite a bit of knowledge around here.

Down to the substance - the nose on the RB8 that will definitely race in Austin with FiA approval

I see your point, and I agree that the effect could not be as good as the original Renault mass damper. I also see that, because it's not dedicating movement in the correct axis, it would be less effective. Having said that, there is definitely some movement in the correct direction and that movement has mass, ergo, it should have "some" beneficial effect. Consider it like this years exhaust blowing, nowhere near as effective as last years, but, for the team that gets it right, it is still a significant performance differentiator. And that is the key, with so much of F1 being prescriptive, anything that gives a small edge becomes significant.

I'm not suggesting that the MD effect would be anything like the dedicated one Renault introduced, what I am suggesting is that it could provide an edge. You are also absolutely correct in your assessment that there is precious little to go on so far. What we need is a few nice slo-mos of cars at similar angles coming out of corners. I will certainly be keeping a look out for those. Anecdotally my recollection of the RB8, especially coming out of corners, has been that it looks far more stable and gets the power down faster. The small amount of video we have also supports that. Again, looking at the video of Mark's car on that corner, it is clear that it was subjected to something that cause violent movement of the wing, pylons, nose, wheels, mirrors etc - so why is the floor/chassis so stable? I definitely need more video of other cars coming out of similar corners to compare the nose movement and floor/chassis stability to either debunk or validate the thought.

[Jabberwocky]

The F1 show on Sky had a 5 minutes on the Redbull nose, the outcome was that the tip of the nose is just like a sock that helps with the mounting of the camera so it is not unusual for it not to be solid.

Also the predictions on the show

Johnny Herbert said Pole Lewis, Win Lewis, Championship Heart Alonso Head Vettel.
And Davidson said Pole, Win, and championship Vettel

[vlad]

Davidson is a smart guy.