FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

Please lets not start the xbox thing and destroy another thread.

maybe reviewing viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2216 might help people with what is and is not allowed on this forum.

[vaptin]

Ok, now that this is cleared up, could we be nice again to each other?

Don't like correcting admins, but I think you've got that bit wrong.

---

Anyway, from my understanding, its measured relative to the "sprung part of the car" and not the ground? In other words, the wing can hit the ground all it wants, thats not what the rule argues against?

Also, surely the wing is allowed some "flexing", which is why the FIA put in a tolerance. They just want to check the "degree" of flexing, in the new test. So they can work out if its linear. If its non linear, then that'll lead to the "tolerance" amount of flexing being breached (obviously assuming the curves an increasing gradient one)

[billindenver]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here. When I said dictionary.com I meant the meaning of the word static...not the spelling. I was saying you apparently don't understand what a static height requirement means. You say they are breaking the rules because there is a static height requirement and yet their wing hits the ground on occasion. What I'm trying to get through your two short planks is that with suspension travel, tire flex, body roll etc etc....the wing can indeed lower in height and a STATIC test does NOT mean it must be 75 mil high at all times. That is not the definition of a static test.

I could shorten all of that up by saying many people making quite a bit of money are trying to find a way to call the Redbull and Ferrari wing illegal....and are unable. That means it isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think it is. The reason you think it is cut and dry is likely because you think static height means height at all times no matter what...and what I was trying to get across to you is that you definition of static is 180 degrees out. Which is why everything seems simple in your eyes, when to the rest of the engineering world...it isn't.

Sorry but your obviously abit slow from all your xboxing.

If you stick a weight on the wing and the thing bends then its flexing.

they need bigger weights so thats why they changed the rules.

you can clearly see the thing bending they are breaking the rules and getting away with it

Yet another guy who doesn't understand the rule he is quoting. A number of people have tried to explain it to you, someone even linked an article that is as straight forward a read as can possibly be expected...and yet you still cling to the 'it's flexing, so it's illegal' ignorance. Do you really believe the FIA is turning a blind eye to two teams who are breaking the rules? If that is your claim, you are even more dense than you appear. Yes, you can see that the red bull and ferrari wings bend more than the McLaren wing. That doesn't mean they are illegal...that means the McLaren wing is stiffer...which means nothing. The rules allow for a certain amount of flex with a certain amount of weight and if the wing passes that test...it is legal. They have passed that test, multiple times....so they are legal. Just because you can clearly see a wing flex, doesn't mean it is illegal...which is something that would seem obvious to me considering there is a test for how much flex is legal. Perhaps you should read a rulebook. One with pop ups and large words preferably.

The rules may at some point be changed in order to prevent whichever innovation(s) red bull and ferrari are employing...but that won't make what they have already done illegal or wrong. It will mean they have pushed the envelope so the FIA made the envelope smaller. Fair play...well done...look for the next innovation. I believe you were doing the same amount of crying over the diffusers last year, declaring over and over that they were illegal and heads were going to roll.....you can look forward to being equally wrong on the front wing issue.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

What does Charlie Whiting have in common with the Pope?

Both are the highest power in their respective domains and absolution from either is absolute, unequivocal and irrevocable.

[bud]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here.

you just did, and admitted its against the rules, thus admitted guilt. Mods what say you??? Time for the ban stick!

[Gaz]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here.

you just did, and admitted its against the rules, thus admitted guilt. Mods what say you??? Time for the ban stick!

i second that, all Bill does is come on, insult as many people as possible until somone else gives him some s*** back and then he goes back to his xbox to pretend he's a racing driver.

[darwin dali]

While it can be poor form to criticize someone's spelling or grammar, it is not against the rules. In fact, sometimes we have to urge posters to not use today's common text messaging lingo, etc., but rather make an effort to write proper sentences so that everybody on here can understand what's written.

[bud]

Criticizing someone with dyslexia is worse than poor form! It's gutless!

[Hammer278]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here.

you just did, and admitted its against the rules, thus admitted guilt. Mods what say you??? Time for the ban stick!

i second that, all Bill does is come on, insult as many people as possible until somone else gives him some s*** back and then he goes back to his xbox to pretend he's a racing driver.

[billindenver]

Oh look, my three most boisterous fans...all on the same page. That's touching, that's what that is.

Larry, Curly and Moe....the McLaren triplets...born of different mothers but identical in their childish hatred of anyone who doesn't kiss a Hamilton poster every morning. Nice to see you gents as well. As always, none of you have a point to make or a position to discuss.

[What's Burning?]

While it can be poor form to criticize someone's spelling or grammar, it is not against the rules. In fact, sometimes we have to urge posters to not use today's common text messaging lingo, etc., but rather make an effort to write proper sentences so that everybody on here can understand what's written.

sm tim i hav 2 cuz I ha8 2 typ lng txt frm sm kbrd on my phne.

[myownalias]

That's enough, I'm fed up with the personal bullsh*t that is infesting this forum...

Anymore of this sort of behaviour and this thread will be locked permanently... comprender? ... Play nice!

[darwin dali]

Bill, bud and Gaz are enjoying a 24-hr fishing trip for their antics - maybe an opportunity for a male bonding lovefest among the three of them?

[f1ea]

When the FIA says an element subjected to 50Kg must deflect no more than 10mm... it doesnt mean the element should never ever deflect more than 10mm. It means the element should not deflect more than 10mm under 50kg of static load.

Linear deflection... means if an element deflects 9mm under 50kg, it should deflect 18mm under 100Kg. 27mm under 150Kg... etc. A spring (such as those mounted on many chassiss...es) is the quintesential Hooke's law example.

Ok, so What is NON LINEAR DEFLECTION. Non linear deflection is any element that does not abide to Hooke's law. F= K*d.
Non linear deflection happens with hydraulic systems (such as shock absorbers), springs arranged or buckled in such a way that they deform until a certain point and then have a different resistance afterwards, funky elastic materials (think Bubble gum), any material beyond their plastic deformation limit (think a 'damaged' spring)... and a bunch of other things.

So when the FIA say they are going to increase the static load to the test, it means, they will increase the range under which the will be certain the element is deforming linearly. In any case, the element WILL deflect more than the initial deflection, but if this deflection is still linear (see the example above), then no problem. The wing CAN flex... Anything can flex, and it does. It simply has to flex within the specified rules and to the specified tests.

Another thing, the wing has to have 75mm clearance while static. That means without the car moving. What it does once the car is in motion, is not the FIA's problem (there's some wear parameters and so on to keep things under control... but in short, that's what it means).

In other words... Bill and some others are right.
And, some others are mistaken. Or at least do not fully understand what's going on.

Oh and by the way... so the wing can't deflect more than 20mm... relative to what? to the ground, to the chassis, to the drivers hands?? what if you have a way of making the reference point move together with the wing?

So, time to insult some members:
Bill, get off your damn XBOX... Get a PS3, everyone knows that's where its at. You

[smokin]

When the FIA says an element subjected to 50Kg must deflect no more than 10mm... it doesnt mean the element should never ever deflect more than 10mm. It means the element should not deflect more than 10mm under 50kg of static load.

Linear deflection... means if an element deflects 9mm under 50kg, it should deflect 18mm under 100Kg. 27mm under 150Kg... etc. A spring (such as those mounted on many chassiss...es) is the quintesential Hooke's law example.

Ok, so What is NON LINEAR DEFLECTION. Non linear deflection is any element that does not abide to Hooke's law. F= K*d.
Non linear deflection happens with hydraulic systems (such as shock absorbers), springs arranged or buckled in such a way that they deform until a certain point and then have a different resistance afterwards, funky elastic materials (think Bubble gum), any material beyond their plastic deformation limit (think a 'damaged' spring)... and a bunch of other things.

So when the FIA say they are going to increase the static load to the test, it means, they will increase the range under which the will be certain the element is deforming linearly. In any case, the element WILL deflect more than the initial deflection, but if this deflection is still linear (see the example above), then no problem. The wing CAN flex... Anything can flex, and it does. It simply has to flex within the specified rules and to the specified tests.

Another thing, the wing has to have 75mm clearance while static. That means without the car moving. What it does once the car is in motion, is not the FIA's problem (there's some wear parameters and so on to keep things under control... but in short, that's what it means).

In other words... Bill and some others are right.
And, some others are mistaken. Or at least do not fully understand what's going on.

Oh and by the way... so the wing can't deflect more than 20mm... relative to what? to the ground, to the chassis, to the drivers hands?? what if you have a way of making the reference point move together with the wing?

So, time to insult some members:
Bill, get off your damn XBOX... Get a PS3, everyone knows that's where its at.

Nicely laid out explanation, f1ea, although I doubt it will get through to some. By the way, I think the 10mm deflection is absolute so includes any suspension movement and bodywork twisting while the load is applied. The reference point is the point in space occupied by the unloaded wing tip.