FORUMula1.com

[nish2280]

No, because the F-Duct is completely legal. What part of this is it you don't understand? The wing is illegal if it flexes at all. It's not a loophole, it's a flaw in the FiA's methods.

Wrong. The wing is illegal if it flexes more than 10mm under X kg of static load (as applied in the test). It is also illegal, if it does not flex 20mm (or double whatever it flexed initially) under 2X kgs of static load.

The wing can flex. It simply has to flex within conditions as specified by the tests.

THis is correct.

[Jensonb]

Spanky, JensonB is a Jenson Button fan, If Jenson were to go to Ferrari would that make him a Ferrari fan?

Dunno, you'll have to ask him

I like Ferrari when they're not being dicks. I'm told that disqualifies me from being a McLaren fan.

No, because the F-Duct is completely legal. What part of this is it you don't understand? The wing is illegal if it flexes at all. It's not a loophole, it's a flaw in the FiA's methods.

You rant and rave about the rules and the Red Bull/Ferrari wing being illegal so much and so often that you must be an expert on the rulebook. With that said...please show me the rule that says "The wing is illegal if it flexes at all." I'll bet a set of hoosiers that you have never seen an FIA rulebook, wouldn't know where to find it and likely couldn't understand it if you did. Still, here you are lecturing others on what the rule is...despite apparently have no knowledge whatsoever as to what that rules actually says.

By the way....you are wrong.

Do you know why the wing is not supposed to flex under that test? Here's a hint, it's because it's not supposed to flex on the track - otherwise it wouldn't matter. The test is flawed and hence, I'm going to keep calling them cheats even if the FiA are (As you rightly point out) too dumb to be able to stop them.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Do you know why the wing is not supposed to flex under that test? Here's a hint, it's because it's not supposed to flex on the track - otherwise it wouldn't matter. The test is flawed and hence,...

No, the test isn't flawed. The wing can't NOT flex.

[Jensonb]

Do you know why the wing is not supposed to flex under that test? Here's a hint, it's because it's not supposed to flex on the track - otherwise it wouldn't matter. The test is flawed and hence,...

No, the test isn't flawed. The wing can't NOT flex.

Sorry, that's poor writing on my part. When I'm saying "flex" I'm referring the extent to which it is flexing - or was, since it seems, in the last race in particular, it wasn't doing it so much. That just takes longer to type.

Anyway, I should clarify, I'm not saying they should be penalised, I'm just calling them cheats.

[myownalias]

Anyway, I should clarify, I'm not saying they should be penalised, I'm just calling them cheats.

You can argue that every team on the grid are cheats as almost all the teams had to modify the floor to pass the new floor tests in Monza!

[f1ea]

But it has been shown by the tests that the wing itself does not flex as much as it looks like its, and that its not flexing outside the regulations.

It doesnt matter that you call them cheats. Until now, the FIA hasnt been able to...

You can argue that every team on the grid are cheats as almost all the teams had to modify the floor to pass the new floor tests in Monza!

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The wing actually is twisting more than flexing, if you take my meaning. The leading edge droops more under aerodynamic load than the trailing edge, which gives it a greater "angle of attack" and increases downforce. Kinda reminds me of the Wright brother's use of "wing warping" before anyone thought to invent ailerons. And the nose droops (courtesy of the articulated floor) which further increases the front wing's "angle of attack." I think the two movements together make it appear the flexing is much more pronounced than it is.

IMHO, the real mystery of all this is how Ferrari and RBR both came about this highly secretive technology practically simultaneously but it took McLaren so many weeks of watching it in use before they could figure out how it operated.

[spankyham]

So basically you're accusing McLaren of "cheating in a clever manner" with the F-Duct.

No, because the F-Duct is completely legal. What part of this is it you don't understand? The wing is illegal if it flexes at all. It's not a loophole, it's a flaw in the FiA's methods.

Completely legal because its from McLaren?

The accusations about the F-Duct are exactly what you are complaining about the RB6 front wing. In fact the F-Duct is claimed to be illegal for 2 reasons, whereas the front wing is supposedly illegal for only one reason, flexing.
The specific complaints about the F-Duct are:-
1) the additional pressure created when the duct valve is opened flexes the rear wing
2) all areos are supposed to be non-moving, yet the F-Duct operation relies on movement

Let me say, that I like both the RB6 front wing and the F-Duct, I'm simply pointing out your bias. That "your" team's innovation is ok, but other teams' innovations are cheating.

I think we should support clever technology and encourage it. I want to see more innovation, not less.

[spankyham]

Some points for consideration regarding the RB6 front wing and it's flexibility.

I'd like to start from concrete ground, the actual rules. A lot has been said/assumed/ascribed to the rules. Some right and some wrong. It's not practical to list all the links to the technical regulations because they aren't all in one document and because they are in multiple locations. If you really want to read them all, then best you search the FiA web site and search 2010 F1 Technical Regulations.

Having said that, you can get the relevant sections regarding bodywork flexing here:-
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules ... 5/fia.html

Now, completely contrary to what some people have been trying to state, regarding not being allowed to flex at all and how the current test simply don't reflect the rules, they are just inadequate tests, you will note that the loads and flexing limits are clearly stated.

Now, someone, who knows the rules might say that even if you pass that part of the rules, what about this rule (I have summarized but haven't changed anything, I have cut some bits out but they aren't relevant):-
" ...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."
The problem here is there is no definition of "immobile" or "degree of freedom"

However, at the FiA Friday Press Conference, with key engineers from each team present, it came to light from Aldo Costa (Ferrari) and backed up by Adrian Newey (RBR) that they had proposed at the last Working Group meeting, when they discussed the flex testing, that they decrease the allowable flex to 5mm instead of the current 10mm. It was Paddy Lowe (McLaren) that did not accept the offer.

[nish2280]

I think teams should be commended on their innovation. I mean where would Formula One be without it? Hell, where would the automotive industry be without it!

Sorry if thats considered swearing, not intended to offend anyone.

[vaptin]

However, at the FiA Friday Press Conference, with key engineers from each team present, it came to light from Aldo Costa (Ferrari) and backed up by Adrian Newey (RBR) that they had proposed at the last Working Group meeting, when they discussed the flex testing, that they decrease the allowable flex to 5mm instead of the current 10mm. It was Paddy Lowe (McLaren) that did not accept the offer.

Considering that, and also how almost every team modified their cars for the new tests. Reading between the lines, I suspect Ferrari and Redbull have a better grasp on this concept than the others, and were confident that a more stringent test will in fact hurt their rivals more as Ferrari and Redbulll believe they have some form of work around, or that whats really going on is nothing to do with what the other teams think it is.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

I already posted this once but some of us apparently are slow readers.

McLaren had to modify their floor to pass the new-for-Monza test so if RBR and Ferrari were illegal and/or cheating in the previous races, so were McLaren.

[f1ea]

Now, someone, who knows the rules might say that even if you pass that part of the rules, what about this rule (I have summarized but haven't changed anything, I have cut some bits out but they aren't relevant):-
" ...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."
The problem here is there is no definition of "immobile" or "degree of freedom"

The rules do not need to define "inmobile" nor "degree of freedom", they are both well known mechanical terms.

"Immobile in regards to..." means it 'does not change position' in regards to.

Having no degree of freedom means it cant move up, move down, move left, right, nor rotate.

So, a part is perfectly "immobile in relation to the entire sprung part of the car", if the entire sprung part of the car moves with it.

Degrees of freedom is possibilities of displacement... The part flexing DOES NOT MEAN it has a degree of freedom.

Think of degree of freedom as (the movement allowed by) different holding mechanisms.... for example:

- A drawer has 1 degree of freedom in relation to the desk: it can slide/move in one direction; but it does not rotate nor move up or down.

- A door has 1 degree of freedom. It does not move up/down, left/right, but it rotates in relation to the hinges.

- When you make a hole, bury a wodden stick and perfect glue it (lets say 4in. deep), the wooden stick has NO degrees of freedom. It cannot move up/down, left/right and it also does not rotate. BUT IT CAN FLEX; it still has no degrees of freedom.

[Bubbie]

That is an excellent point F1ea. Perhaps that is what the problem is, everyone is reading and interpreting the rules differently, and therefore it does fallback to the scrutineering testing as how they read the rules, since they can be mistaken (as in your degrees of freedom) example.

With regards to McLaren objecting to the change the RB and Fer thought were great. Perhaps it wasn't because he thought it would get his car, it was because he didn't think it would get theirs.

[nish2280]

Now, someone, who knows the rules might say that even if you pass that part of the rules, what about this rule (I have summarized but haven't changed anything, I have cut some bits out but they aren't relevant):-
" ...any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."
The problem here is there is no definition of "immobile" or "degree of freedom"

The rules do not need to define "inmobile" nor "degree of freedom", they are both well known mechanical terms.

"Immobile in regards to..." means it 'does not change position' in regards to.

Having no degree of freedom means it cant move up, move down, move left, right, nor rotate.

So, a part is perfectly "immobile in relation to the entire sprung part of the car", if the entire sprung part of the car moves with it.

Degrees of freedom is possibilities of displacement... The part flexing DOES NOT MEAN it has a degree of freedom.

Think of degree of freedom as (the movement allowed by) different holding mechanisms.... for example:

- A drawer has 1 degree of freedom in relation to the desk: it can slide/move in one direction; but it does not rotate nor move up or down.

- A door has 1 degree of freedom. It does not move up/down, left/right, but it rotates in relation to the hinges.

- When you make a hole, bury a wodden stick and perfect glue it (lets say 4in. deep), the wooden stick has NO degrees of freedom. It cannot move up/down, left/right and it also does not rotate. BUT IT CAN FLEX; it still has no degrees of freedom.

This is correct.

(second time i have said that on this thread )

The FIA leave the rules rather vague so that they are open to interpretation. If the didnt do this there would be no double diffuser, no f-Duct, no ground effect etc.

They only should step in when a team is having a bad influence on the sport due to it's interpretation. Clever aerolastic wings or wings that run have the ability to run closer to the ground just encourage innovation and i wont be surprised if we soon see it in other motorsport or automobiles, actually Ferrari are running similar wings on their 458 in which it's splitter lowers by a few centimeters to reduce angle of attack and reduce drag.