FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[The Immortal Dragon]

Horner is trying to cover the team's bottom. The crash was caused, in part, by the illegal Red Bull flexi-wing.

That's pure speculation; do you have any evidence to prove your claims? The wing passed scruineering just fine, therefore it is legal according to the rules of the sport, there's another force at play here, probably related to the floor design, which will be checked out at Monza!

No, it's not speculation at all, I watched the onboard. Vettel's wing was see-sawing up and down in the turbulent air seconds before he binned it.

The wing is not illegal, we know that; the deflection you see in the video could be suspension travel or something related to the floor shape, I'm not technical expert but I know that the aero is a package, numerous parts are responsible for the car's aerodynamic performance. Plus there is no proof to say it caused the accident, it looks like Vettel mistimed his braking, took avoiding action and dropped it on the bump going into the bus stop corner.

We know nothing of the sort, we know it passed scrutineering. That is not the same as being legal. It's clear from the onboard shot that the wing flexes excessively in the turbulent air, immediately before he lost control of the car. It doesn't look anything like he mis-timed his braking, for us to be able to make that assumption, we would expect to see wheels locking and the car straight-lining, not a catastrophic and immediate swapping of ends.

Off-topic, why do you write everything in italics? It's incredibly distracting.

The whole point of scrutineering is to examine the car to make sure it complies with the legal requirements of the sport! The new tests that have been brought in were followed and the Red Bull wing passed, these are the same tests that would have been used when a new part is first tested for legality. I don't understand your statement saying that passing scrutineering does not mean that the part is legal; are you suggesting that different tests are performed in the scrutineering bay? From what I saw (including the onboard flexing wing video); Sebastian Vettel screwed up and took Jenson Button out; that's the bottom line, the FIA say the front wing is legal, that's good enough for me; the perceived flexing of the front wing is irreverent; the FIA have their tests which makes it legal, regardless of what it does on the track!

As for the italics; two reasons, it makes it easier to find my posts when quoted and I like the look of italic font; you must be easily distracted if italic fonts bother you!

I think he means that just because anything illegal wasn't found yet, it doesn't mean there is not something wrong with it.

But I agree with you; the FIA found nothing wrong with it, therefore it is legal until they will prove it's not.

[myownalias]

I think he means that just because anything illegal wasn't found yet, it doesn't mean there is not something wrong with it.

But I agree with you; the FIA found nothing wrong with it, therefore it is legal until they will prove it's not.

You can still argue the point that the McLaren F-Duct falls into the "legal until found illegal" category as well, the reason the RB is under such scrutiny is because no-one else can figure out how they have such an advantage, claiming it is illegal is mind games on the part of Martin Whitmarsh and McLaren, I doubt the wing will ever be found illegal.

[kerc]

Found in the internets...

[The Immortal Dragon]

I think he means that just because anything illegal wasn't found yet, it doesn't mean there is not something wrong with it.

But I agree with you; the FIA found nothing wrong with it, therefore it is legal until they will prove it's not.

You can still argue the point that the McLaren F-Duct falls into the "legal until found illegal" category as well, the reason the RB is under such scrutiny is because no-one else can figure out how they have such an advantage, claiming it is illegal is mind games on the part of Martin Whitmarsh and McLaren, I doubt the wing will ever be found illegal.

True.
I see it as you do, anyway: the wing passed scrutineering, hence it's legal.

[What's Burning?]

I think he means that just because anything illegal wasn't found yet, it doesn't mean there is not something wrong with it.

But I agree with you; the FIA found nothing wrong with it, therefore it is legal until they will prove it's not.

You can still argue the point that the McLaren F-Duct falls into the "legal until found illegal" category as well, the reason the RB is under such scrutiny is because no-one else can figure out how they have such an advantage, claiming it is illegal is mind games on the part of Martin Whitmarsh and McLaren, I doubt the wing will ever be found illegal.

True.
I see it as you do, anyway: the wing passed scrutineering, hence it's legal.

Completely not true, the f-duct was a pre season design, worked with and checked with at every step to makes sure that the interpretations of the rules were understood and accepted by the FIA and it was the FIA that told McLaren that it was legal, hence why no one questioned it's legality but simply went off to build their own version.

This wing design for RB had no history, it was a design that was introduced two races ago and could clearly be seen not only flexing but litteraly dragging on the ground. That fact alone means whether it passed the test at the time (which it did) it still had a mechanism in which it would lower beyond what the rule allowed (illegal by the rules) hence it being called into question by the other teams. Namely McLaren and Mercedes. So because RB had figured out a way to pass a test yet deliver an illegal advantage on the track is why the FIA changed the test, the effect was obvious. It's widely acknowledged now that something HAD to have changed in SPA since the Red Bull were disproportionately off pace, there was no visible bouncing as there was in the previous two races and even drivers have commented on the difference. Perhaps Vettle's accident was caused by his expectation of a down force during his attempted pass of Button that he'd become accustomed to that was no longer there because their new wing to pass the upgraded test. So as far as the FIA is concerned, RB never had an illegal wing, they never failed. As far as the rest of the grid is concerned, they're back on a level playing field.

[myownalias]

I don't believe that the RB wing was introduced mid season, I believe that it was already in place from the first race (although they made have developed in further, much like McLaren have worked on the efficiency of the F-Duct system). Hence why Red Bull were head and shoulders above the whole field; the only reason they haven't run away with the championship because they have messed up strategy or crashed out! More attention has been paid to RB because of their pace in recent tight and twisty tracks!

[What's Burning?]

I don't believe that the RB wing was introduced mid season, I believe that it was already in place from the first race (although they made have developed in further, much like McLaren have worked on the efficiency of the F-Duct system). Hence why Red Bull were head and shoulders above the whole field; the only reason they haven't run away with the championship because they have messed up strategy or crashed out! More attention has been paid to RB because of their pace in recent tight and twisty tracks!

Mid year they went from a 7 or 8 tenths advantage to a 1.4 or so second advantage to McLaren and a 1.2 to Ferrari. I know some of that comes from the circuit benefiting one chassis design over another, but the leap in RB dominance in qualifying pace came during mid year, when the flexing of the wing became the focal issue due to the SCRAPING up of it. So the weekend they gave the wing to Vettle was when the new design was introduced.

You're probably right that it may have been a continual refinement but there was a revolutionary moment to the evolution of the wing, and that's what raised the eyebrows.

[Jensonb]

I don't understand your statement saying that passing scrutineering does not mean that the part is legal

It's quite simple really. The test is arbitrary and the Steward's decisions are not absolute or infallible. Scrutineering does not guarantee a part is legal, it simply tests to see if it is not. Passing Scrutineering, or failing to do so, is not how the car is defined as legal, it's just a test, an indicator. Many illegal cars have passed scrutineering before including (Allegedly) the 2005 BAR for several races, and numerous other cars in the field with a similar setup.

As for the italics; two reasons, it makes it easier to find my posts when quoted and I like the look of italic font; you must be easily distracted if italic fonts bother you!

I'm not the only one mate, a lot of people find all-italics paragraphs difficult to look at.

I don't believe that the RB wing was introduced mid season, I believe that it was already in place from the first race (although they made have developed in further, much like McLaren have worked on the efficiency of the F-Duct system). Hence why Red Bull were head and shoulders above the whole field; the only reason they haven't run away with the championship because they have messed up strategy or crashed out! More attention has been paid to RB because of their pace in recent tight and twisty tracks!

The flexi-wing was introduced part-way through, it's the Silverstone-spec one that Newey got his pants into a twist about definitely having to run (Leading to the infamous Mark Webber's WIng incident). The advantage Red Bull has enjoyed all along is likely in part from the flexible floor, which was evident as far back as Australia where the car was inexplicably low to the ground during Qualifying 3, even occasionally bottoming out, despite needing to have the race fuel added - at which point its floor was still high enough of the ground. The other teams smelled a rat there and then, but they didn't have any clues how it was being done. The floor flexibility test is being made stricter too starting from Monza, so one can assume the rival teams have figured it out.

[Juliet P]

Looks like James Allen agrees with JensonB on this one.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/09/analysis-of-red-bull-wing-flex-before-vettel-hit-button/

[myownalias]

The thing is that the video evidence is subjective; there's no way for sure to know if the flexing wing caused the accident! I tend to believe that Vettel got caught out on the tow from Jenson's car, tried to go around Jenson and lost it on the bump with catastrophic consequences for Jenson. The FIA say that it's legal and that's all that matters!

[Jabberwocky]

It does show how much the wing is moving though