FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1ea]

Windtunnel?

Not going to happen.

[bud]

^^^ that is funny bud comes up with some of the best stuff !

In reality WE ARE ALL ARMCHAIR WARRIORS so all we can do is express opinions so lets have fun!

Its different to sit around claiming you know the secrets to RedBull's success while some of the best mechanics and engineers work their butts off trying to figure it out than giving your opinion to why you think Kobayashi will be more successful at Ferrari than Massa.

For being figuring out Redbull's secrets you need extensive knowledge, stuff that people spend years studying and slowly acquiring and then a simpleton going by the user name of "rango232" comes along and says its because of component X and that the FiA dont know what they are doing.

Sounds like you're suggesting only people with engineering degrees are allowed to use this forum?
Infact some users on here are engineers I believe f1ea is an engineer? He seems to know his stuff. Even then having a diploma or not doesn't mean someone hasn't the intelligence to know a thing or two about the subject! But at the end of
the day the photographic evidence of Redbulls wing running so low to the ground doesn't take an expert to notice something not quite right is going on with that car!

[texasmr2]

^^^

[Jensonb]

In summary: You don't need a degree in nuclear physics to know what happens when you split an atom.

[f1ea]

Maybe the engineers at other teams already know what's going on, but can't simply copy it because it means many changes to the chassis, incl. the suspension design. Or cant simply copy the mechanism between the chassis/suspension/wing, because it has never actually been seen.

Its different to sit around claiming you know the secrets to RedBull's success while some of the best mechanics and engineers work their butts off trying to figure it out than giving your opinion to why you think Kobayashi will be more successful at Ferrari than Massa.

For being figuring out Redbull's secrets you need extensive knowledge, stuff that people spend years studying and slowly acquiring and then a simpleton going by the user name of "rango232" comes along and says its because of component X and that the FiA dont know what they are doing.

he he One doesn't need an engineering degree to see or discuss what's going on...... you'd need a degree to design it

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

[spankyham]

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

[texasmr2]

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Email this to the FIA as it will let them know that YES the fans are listening and have some common sense and they are FAILING at their job !!!

[f1ea]

3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

hmmm this one is interesting....

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

How do they measure these 2 tests? if its with the car standing still, the RB7 will pass both tests.

I still think the FiA know how to close the loophole, but decided its better 'for the sport' to look the other way. i find it hard to believe they simply are failing at their job... after all, they cant just out of the blue decide to change the tests and homologation procedures......

[Jensonb]

3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

hmmm this one is interesting....

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

How do they measure these 2 tests? if its with the car standing still, the RB7 will pass both tests.

I still think the FiA know how to close the loophole, but decided its better 'for the sport' to look the other way. i find it hard to believe they simply are failing at their job... after all, they cant just out of the blue decide to change the tests and homologation procedures......

Don't think they have tests. They are binary. Either a car is compliant or not. Note particularly the use of "under any circumstances" in the latter example.

[nish2280]

^^^ that is funny bud comes up with some of the best stuff !

In reality WE ARE ALL ARMCHAIR WARRIORS so all we can do is express opinions so lets have fun!

Its different to sit around claiming you know the secrets to RedBull's success while some of the best mechanics and engineers work their butts off trying to figure it out than giving your opinion to why you think Kobayashi will be more successful at Ferrari than Massa.

For being figuring out Redbull's secrets you need extensive knowledge, stuff that people spend years studying and slowly acquiring and then a simpleton going by the user name of "rango232" comes along and says its because of component X and that the FiA dont know what they are doing.

Sounds like you're suggesting only people with engineering degrees are allowed to use this forum?
Infact some users on here are engineers I believe f1ea is an engineer? He seems to know his stuff. Even then having a diploma or not doesn't mean someone hasn't the intelligence to know a thing or two about the subject! But at the end of
the day the photographic evidence of Redbulls wing running so low to the ground doesn't take an expert to notice something not quite right is going on with that car!

At which point did i say anything about this forum in general? Look at the context in which i made my post. I didnt say "rango 232" needs to be engineer to tell us why he thinks Kobayashi is a good contender for the seat at Ferrari. I said that "rango 232" should not sit around insulting the FIA and pretending that he understands the whole wing situation when in reality there are top engineers sitting in research centers working day and night trying to figure out the same thing.

In summary: You don't need a degree in nuclear physics to know what happens when you split an atom.

thats because you learn that in high school...

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Email this to the FIA as it will let them know that YES the fans are listening and have some common sense and they are FAILING at their job !!!

This is a perfect example. The FIA are much smarter than you. They know what they are doing. There is no plot to trick the fans, they genuinely are trying to find out a way to confirm the car's legality but there obviously isnt any point in doing that seeing as a they can just ask Texasmr2 who is miles smarter than them.

[nish2280]

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Isnt the skid block supposed to be the reference plane?

[stonemonkey]

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Isnt the skid block supposed to be the reference plane?

No, a plane is 2 dimensional. The top of the skid block is on the reference plane.

3.13.1 Beneath the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane, a rectangular skid block, with a 50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each corner, must be fitted.

[bud]

I said that "rango 232" should not sit around insulting the FIA and pretending that he understands the whole wing situation when in reality there are top engineers sitting in research centers working day and night trying to figure out the same thing.

Yeah exactly right! we have members on here who have pretty good explanations for what's being used so this goes out to them! Not naming names is polite I suppose, but most people are smart enough to read between the lines.

[spankyham]

but anyway, as soon as i saw the pic of how they test the wing, i knew RB's wing will always pass it.

Yes, it's clear the current physical test is inadequate, however, we also know that the Red Bull already fails the test described in 3.17.8. The test is a visual requirement to not "appear to" or be "suspected of" moving whilst the car is in motion. The RB7 100% fails that test.

It also fails this test:-
3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.

Lastly it fails this test:-
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Isnt the skid block supposed to be the reference plane?

Yep

[nish2280]

Have a look at this, it gives a good reference to where the redbull's wing is different from the Mclaren's.

You will notice that the nose cone is at pretty much the same height if you compare the little hole of the front of the wing.

WARNING: image can cause irritation if you look at it for a long time.