FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[geetface9]

LOL that's brutal!

In my mind, they passed the tests, bottom line, so everybody will just have to suffer and wait for the FIA to make even stricter tests next year. I haven't looked into the issue so extensively, but like I said they passed the tests with the 2000N lateral loads and what have you, bottom line. Along those lines, they aren't cheating. Found another brilliant loophole that will have to be amended for 2012? Sure

[spankyham]

LOL that's brutal!

In my mind, they passed the tests, bottom line, so everybody will just have to suffer and wait for the FIA to make even stricter tests next year. I haven't looked into the issue so extensively, but like I said they passed the tests with the 2000N lateral loads and what have you, bottom line. Along those lines, they aren't cheating. Found another brilliant loophole that will have to be amended for 2012? Sure

Well, lets be clear, they've passed a flex test for the wing itself. What hasn't been tested is the nose to see if there is a movable body part.

[Hammer278]

Exactly...let's hope this is clarified ASAP. Very smart by RB though.

[Robert12010]

lewis is right to question it i feel as is anyone, but if it passes the test then theres probably not too much you can do

[spankyham]

lewis is right to question it i feel as is anyone, but if it passes the test then theres probably not too much you can do

I think the line of thinking is that the FiA has been testing the wrong part. It's not the wing that is flexing/moving, its the nose/front section of the car. That needs to be specifically tested on the RB, see if there are any controls or mechanisms that can or are being activated, also, see if that part of the car body is moving.

[bud]

I'm still perplexed as to how they are doing it, And Lewis saying we will copy it is good enough but Redbull have had this since last year I'm sure if McLaren let alone the rest of the grid understood how it's done then they would have copied it already.

I think youre right spanky the entire nose drooping kinda like a concords is the best explanation I've seen. Perhaps the construction of the carbon fibre on the nose cone is "bendy"

[scotty]

Already a thread on this. Merged.

My direct answer to this new thread can be seen on the previous pages of this one!

[spankyham]

Already a thread on this. Merged.

My direct answer to this new thread can be seen on the previous pages of this one!

From what I've read, you seem to talk about the RB wing passing the flex test, what is being questioned is not the wing, but the nose/front, as Bud eloquently put it, the "Concorde" effect. This needs to be thoroughly tested and scrutinized on the RB asap.

[scotty]

Well, assuming your entire point is based on that article you posted, let's discuss that (i'm going off the pictures because i don't speak Italian). The crux of their argument seems to be based on that picture comparison, but it shows barely any movement in all honesty along the nose section. For starters that could easily be attributed to natural flex (that all cars have to an extent) due to what i'm assuming is a higher speed being carried in the lower photo. Then there's the fact that those two pics aren't from the exact same angle, and are of different cars on different days. Way too much being read into something quite unsubstantial. Simple fact is that the car has passed scrutineering and is therefore legal by definition.

[bigpat]

I think you would have to engineer the wing mounting lugs inside the nosecone, with strong extension springs. I can physically picture it.....As the downforce increases the top one will extend slightly more than the bottom one, as the nosecone will pivot about the base of the nosecone/tub interface.In a frontal impact ( how the crash structure is strictly tested) these have to effect on the test.....
Or the nose cone is designed to be strong enough in frontal impact (compression) but flexible in bending. All you need is 5-6mm expansion at the joint, or droop of 20-30mm drop at the wing.

I understand their is no flexibility tests to the nosecones.As for the front wings, they pass the current tests, as it is applied to the wing itself. Even if attached to the nosecone, it would pass. Only if its attached to chassis when tested, would it potentially fail. The flexi-rear wings of 2004-were similar, but FIA got smart, and applied the test not only to the wing, but the whole assembly when fitted to the car....

Very clever on Red Bulls part, being open minded on how to interpret not only the rule but also how its tested. I don't believe others can be bitter about it. Just like the Double diffuser, its all in the interpretation. You'll see the protests and dissent decrease one by one as the teams bring their own flexi-noses on line. F! teams are always fickle if something doesn't suit them....

If the modification requires changes to the nosecone structure, I believe they will have to submit them to under go crash testing, so they might be a bit slow in introducing them......

[nish2280]

That is pretty weak. It's not illegal and no one can copy it so they want it banned.

[vlad]

Why is being intelligent against the rules?

[Robert12010]

Why is being intelligent against the rules?

i can remeber when bob bell was interviewed at bahrain last year, about the mclaren f duct and he was like oh its totally ilegal blah blah and renault ended up copying it!, sorry for offic point lol

[What's Burning?]

lewis is right to question it i feel as is anyone, but if it passes the test then theres probably not too much you can do

I think the line of thinking is that the FiA has been testing the wrong part. It's not the wing that is flexing/moving, its the nose/front section of the car. That needs to be specifically tested on the RB, see if there are any controls or mechanisms that can or are being activated, also, see if that part of the car body is moving.

The nature of carbon fiber is to be stiff... VERY stiff laterally but with some cushion or compression vertically. That's why they make such great forks or seat tubes for bicycles. So this has to be a very unique implementation whether via a specific weave that would drop under load or via a mechanism as you say, but it's clear from those pics you linked on the Italian web site that it is the nose cone section that is drooping by a couple of degrees.

It's also very clear that it was implemented during the infamous Webber/Vettel wing incident last year, so teams have had a long time to copy it, if they knew exactly how it worked or how it was being implemented. I mean half the grid had an f-duct version copied or implemented by mid year!

[Jensonb]

The fact the other teams can't figure out how it's done surely makes it more suspect? One would assume they're exploring every avenue within the regulations, and they have yet to find a way to replicate it. As such, whilst there's not necessarily any basis to say it breaches the rules, there is a basis to suggest that it might, as Lewis has done and the article analysing it Spankyham has shown us has elaborated on.

If - if - the nose is actively or even passively moving in the manner described, it's a definite smoking gun.

For me, this all brings my mind back to the incident at Spa where Vettel torpedoed into Button. As he was losing control of the car, he suffered a dramatic and catastrophic front wing...malfunction. The wing was shown violently seesawing in a dramatic manner hitherto unseen on an F1 car. That, coupled with the bizarre failure of Sebastian's original Trick Front Wing in Silverstone and this later analysis suggests there is something very interesting going on at the front of those Red Bulls.

What that interesting thing is on the other hand, remains to be seen.