FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

I honestly do not see how that test could be compared with an actual windtunnel test ie true load and true representation of how the wing/nose will act under racing conditions.

It's probably close to the best that you can get for on-even testing, though.

[FRAFPDD]

I'm getting quite sick of being told what we can and can't discuss. It's a Forum. We can discuss whatever aspect of Formula One we want. If you don't think it's a relevant or informed discussion, you're quite free to not read it. There is no need whatsoever to have a go at people for debating the hot topic in the sport at the moment.

Nobody (at least im not) is saying that. You can discuss the wing as much as you like. But when theres a collective mouthing off about how stupid the FIA are to not spot it............That aint gravy. Im pretty, pretty sure they know whats going on.

They've been wrong before. It can happen again. And either way, people are perfectly entitled to say that "here's the rule, here's what's happening. The FIA aren't doing anything about it, and if that's the rule, I can't see why". Ask questions, demand answers. If you just sit back and accept that the powers-that-be are always right, you wind up in a heap of trouble.

Yeah but theres a difference between asking a question, debating it, and downright telling the FIA YOU.ARE.WRONG. because we dont like it.

Now you cant really deny thats been the trend of posting, insulting the FIA as an organisation, purely cause "we" think the wings are illegal, and they dont. Thats not erally respecting the FIA'a (much more well informed might i add) opinion.

Again, i dont think the wings are legal. But i respect the FIA's decision they are, and now propose the other teams to get to work copying. It was brought up from March 2010 into April 2011, and the FIA have repeatedly told us its legal. What more do you expect to gain, other then a self-proclaimed sense of righteousness and justice cause this forums majority agrees with each other. RB have found a loophole, its happened before its happened again, its part of Formula One.

[scotty]

I honestly do not see how that test could be compared with an actual windtunnel test ie true load and true representation of how the wing/nose will act under racing conditions.

The front wings are subjected to probably around 6kN of force at speed AT LEAST, so obviously the test is a fraction of what actually happens on track. But it doesn't matter one bit because that test is what defines the permitted parameters that the teams work to.

I don't know if that was in reply to me Scotty but I'm meaning a different test.

Nah it's ok, your post just reminded me that i'd seen the pic elsewhere, thought i might as well share.

[texasmr2]

Yet how can one of the three (front wing, rear wing, diffuser) most critical and important aero parts be truelly tested in a garage? I fail too see any legitimacy in that testing procedure.

[scotty]

Yet how can one of the three (front wing, rear wing, diffuser) most critical and important aero parts be truelly tested in a garage? I fail too see any legitimacy in that testing procedure.

Increase the test force to at least 5kN would be one relatively simple way. It is possible to calculate exact numbers for forces that act on the car at various speeds, and i have no doubt that the teams have all those numbers. You can then get ballpark figures to use for the static tests. Heck, you could get exact figures to use for the static tests if you really wanted to.

Given that what i added is directly sourced from the technical regs, it's a completely valid and relevant addition.

Yep, these words are also from the technical regs "gear box" "seal" and "the" BUT they are not in the sentence, that, in its entirety says exactly what I have quoted above. That is "The front wing must be no lower than 75mm above the reference plane, which is the lowest point of the car without the plank." You can try and add anything you like to it, chilli sauce, cracked pepper, whatever, but, you cannot change what the rules really say

That part of the rules is rendered moot by the section regarding the load tests, as the load tests define the legal parameters for flexibility. If your logic is followed then all the cars will be illegal. All the teams mount their front wings as lowly as possible - so 75mm above the reference plane. Yet, flexibility is permitted under load test circumstances that clearly take the car below that 75mm limit - every single car will have an element of flexibility. Pretty clear really. The rules may be flawed and contradictory but that Red Bull is gonna be the same and technically legal until they change them.

[texasmr2]

Mathematics are one thing but actual testing (windtunnel or on track) reveals new dimensions/issues.

[scotty]

Mathematics are one thing but actual testing (windtunnel or on track) reveals new dimensions/issues.

It's all mathematical, testing just provides data that you input into formulae. I mean, CFD is basically a bunch of maths in a computer program...

[stonemonkey]

If the other test I've mentioned doesn't take the nose into account and the bodywork is allowed to deflect up to 20mm (under a 1000N load) then with the nose attached that would have more deflection (being extended further than what's being measured) and that would be without taking the flexing of the nose and wing into account.

If the nose is attached for the test then it would depend on where the adapter is fixed to the car as to whether the flex of the nose is accounted for and even then it wouldn't be taking the deflection of the wing flexing into account.

So the cumulative deflection could be much more than the deflection allowed of one component and still be regarded as legal.

This all depends on how that particular test is carried out though.

[racechick]

The FIA are not kids, they know what theyre doing.

Really?? Cant agree with that on past behaviour.

Like what? Arguing amongst themselves endlesslty and never agreeing to disagree. Nope, thats reserved for us.

Forming opinionsand decisions based on what evidence their is rather then their personal blinded obsession with their favouriet team/driver. Nope, thats reserved for us.

Maybe the FIA arent as good as i make out, but internet forums with internet warriors, are nowhere near a standard to take over This forum can hardly control itself let alone the sport.

No traditionally they dont argue amongst themselves...they vote where their bread is buttered.

"Forming opinions and decisions based on what evidence there is rather than their personal blinded obsession with their favourite driver/team" ??
You believe the FIA have not been guilty of this obsession with a favourite team? You believe they haven't used ther power to pususe personal vendettas? You dont believe they have used their position of power in a corrupt manner? Look at the innovations they have banned over the years and the 'things' they have turned a blind eye to.
I actually feel the FIA are much better now than they were under Mosley when they were just a joke. lets hope their inability to police the flexible front wing is just down to incompetence and nothing more sinister.

[bud]

So then what approach would you like them to take?

Would you prefer the "it passes the tests, follows the regulations but that guy 'Bud' on Forumula1.com says its illegal so it is"

Or the "It passes the tests, Follows the regulations but no one is smart enough to figure out how and therefore it is illegal.

Please go read this article and realize that the wing does not defy any rules or regulations.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/31032011/23/whiting-nothing-illegal-red-bull-wing.html

We are going around in circles here! That's the exact article I read and would like to show Charlie the photos of the Redbull wing scraping the ground and then ask him well if it's legal please explain why this is happening.

A wise man once said to think for yourself you must question authority! Don't accept everything like a blind sheep! Well your avatar would suggest it's just convenient stance you're taking instead of an honest well thought out point of view!

[texasmr2]

I would like to show Charlie the photos of the Redbull wing scraping the ground and then ask him well if it's legal please explain why this is happening.

A wise man once said to think for yourself you must question authority! Don't accept everything like a blind sheep!

[Jensonb]

Yeah but theres a difference between asking a question, debating it, and downright telling the FIA YOU.ARE.WRONG. because we dont like it.

Now you cant really deny thats been the trend of posting, insulting the FIA as an organisation, purely cause "we" think the wings are illegal, and they dont. Thats not erally respecting the FIA'a (much more well informed might i add) opinion.

Again, i dont think the wings are legal. But i respect the FIA's decision they are, and now propose the other teams to get to work copying. It was brought up from March 2010 into April 2011, and the FIA have repeatedly told us its legal. What more do you expect to gain, other then a self-proclaimed sense of righteousness and justice cause this forums majority agrees with each other. RB have found a loophole, its happened before its happened again, its part of Formula One.

Oh come on FRAFPDD, don't give me that. You're far more than smart enough to know that people's posts on Forums are frequently emotionally influenced. Just because people are being a little disrespectful or angry in their wording doesn't mean their right to say it is diminished. It doesn't take a lot of effort to make a little allowance for hyperbole. At any rate, for the most part, all that most people have said is that the rule and/or the test is/are flawed or that they believe there is significant evidence that a rule or some rules, are likely being breached. It's not like anyone has started hurling curse words at the FIA. The harshest thing I can recall someone saying is that the FIA are incompetent. And whilst it may have been a generalisation, it's pretty clear they didn't mean every single person in the FIA is incompetent all of the time.

And if someone specific is going beyond the reasonable, why can't they be confronted directly, rather than a broad criticism seemingly aimed at everyone wh superficially shares that viewpoint? The trouble with not naming names is it makes a criticism seem far more indiscriminately aimed

[spankyham]

So then what approach would you like them to take?

Would you prefer the "it passes the tests, follows the regulations but that guy 'Bud' on Forumula1.com says its illegal so it is"

Or the "It passes the tests, Follows the regulations but no one is smart enough to figure out how and therefore it is illegal.

Please go read this article and realize that the wing does not defy any rules or regulations.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/31032011/23/whiting-nothing-illegal-red-bull-wing.html

We are going around in circles here! That's the exact article I read and would like to show Charlie the photos of the Redbull wing scraping the ground and then ask him well if it's legal please explain why this is happening.

A wise man once said to think for yourself you must question authority! Don't accept everything like a blind sheep! Well your avatar would suggest it's just convenient stance you're taking instead of an honest well thought out point of view!

I think you should pay careful attention to Charlie Whiting's actual words. At no stage did he say the car was certainly legal. What he is purported to have said was "We have found nothing unusual". All that says is they haven't found anything ..... yet. I'd also point out the source for this quote - "Bild". Didn't they also report Elvis found living on the moon?

[spankyham]

Given that what i added is directly sourced from the technical regs, it's a completely valid and relevant addition.

Yep, these words are also from the technical regs "gear box" "seal" and "the" BUT they are not in the sentence, that, in its entirety says exactly what I have quoted above. That is "The front wing must be no lower than 75mm above the reference plane, which is the lowest point of the car without the plank." You can try and add anything you like to it, chilli sauce, cracked pepper, whatever, but, you cannot change what the rules really say

That part of the rules is rendered moot by the section regarding the load tests, as the load tests define the legal parameters for flexibility. If your logic is followed then all the cars will be illegal. All the teams mount their front wings as lowly as possible - so 75mm above the reference plane. Yet, flexibility is permitted under load test circumstances that clearly take the car below that 75mm limit - every single car will have an element of flexibility. Pretty clear really. The rules may be flawed and contradictory but that Red Bull is gonna be the same and technically legal until they change them.

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.

[nish2280]

So then what approach would you like them to take?

Would you prefer the "it passes the tests, follows the regulations but that guy 'Bud' on Forumula1.com says its illegal so it is"

Or the "It passes the tests, Follows the regulations but no one is smart enough to figure out how and therefore it is illegal.

Please go read this article and realize that the wing does not defy any rules or regulations.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/31032011/23/whiting-nothing-illegal-red-bull-wing.html

We are going around in circles here! That's the exact article I read and would like to show Charlie the photos of the Redbull wing scraping the ground and then ask him well if it's legal please explain why this is happening.

A wise man once said to think for yourself you must question authority! Don't accept everything like a blind sheep! Well your avatar would suggest it's just convenient stance you're taking instead of an honest well thought out point of view!

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?

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.

Have you seen a single interview where they ask why the wing is legal? Maybe no one has asked him to explain it's legality? Or maybe he is not allowed to divulge why it is legal as it would give away RedBull's secret.

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.

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