FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[smokin]

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/846/846.html

And they will continue to pass. The rules do not specify whether the front wing minimum height of 75mm is while the car is stationary, moving or both but I think we can assume the intent was for measurements to be carried out on a stationary car. Red Bull comply. Similarly, the designated test for deflection is a static test and Red bull comply.

The only option, currently, is for the other teams to figure out how it's done and copy it.

[nish2280]

Second, the front wing is the point of origin for airflow management over the entire car. If the remainder of the car was not designed with the influence of a flexy front wing in mind, it might misdirect airflow so that it's out of proper position by the time it reaches the rear of the car. It could provide extra downforce at the fore but might bugger balance elsewhere.

Maybe thats why vettel cant overtake? And crashes into cars at strange angles when he tries? D'you think?

I guess that could explain the Button- Spa incident but not any others...

[spankyham]

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/846/846.html

And they will continue to pass. The rules do not specify whether the front wing minimum height of 75mm is while the car is stationary, moving or both but I think we can assume the intent was for measurements to be carried out on a stationary car. Red Bull comply. Similarly, the designated test for deflection is a static test and Red bull comply.

The only option, currently, is for the other teams to figure out how it's done and copy it.

You can have the circumstance of the being stationary and the circumstance of the car moving, but the rule says "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."

Clear, moving or not, the wing can't be where RB are using it. Interesting they can penalised Lewis for their visual measurements of changing line on the Sepang track, but what Blind-Freddy can see (i.e. RB's front wing too low), the FiA seem to be able to ignore.

[smokin]

Clear, moving or not, the wing can't be where RB are using it. Interesting they can penalised Lewis for their visual measurements of changing line on the Sepang track, but what Blind-Freddy can see (i.e. RB's front wing too low), the FiA seem to be able to ignore.

A very good point and it highlights the inconsistency in FIA judgments. Either Hamilton was at fault for making more than one defensive movement or Alonso is at fault for misjudging his move out of the slipstream. They can't both be to blame in this instance.

[acosmichippo]

Hamilton and Alonso were not both penalized for the same incident. Hamilton for changing direction on the straight, Alonso for the contact.

[acosmichippo]

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/846/846.html

And they will continue to pass. The rules do not specify whether the front wing minimum height of 75mm is while the car is stationary, moving or both but I think we can assume the intent was for measurements to be carried out on a stationary car. Red Bull comply. Similarly, the designated test for deflection is a static test and Red bull comply.

The only option, currently, is for the other teams to figure out how it's done and copy it.

You can have the circumstance of the being stationary and the circumstance of the car moving, but the rule says "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."

Clear, moving or not, the wing can't be where RB are using it. Interesting they can penalised Lewis for their visual measurements of changing line on the Sepang track, but what Blind-Freddy can see (i.e. RB's front wing too low), the FiA seem to be able to ignore.

I suppose the question then becomes how can the FIA measure the wing in relation to the reference plane while the car is on the track. It's not just a matter of how high it is off the ground...

[smokin]

Hamilton and Alonso were not both penalized for the same incident. Hamilton for changing direction on the straight, Alonso for the contact.

Yes, I get that, but the penalties say that if you hit a car that swerves in front of you then it's your fault too for being too close. (Apologies for posting this argument in two places.) Or are you saying that the double movement and contact happened at different times?

[acosmichippo]

Yes they did. I don't recall exactly what turn the contact occurred on, but it was well after hamilton's maneuvers on the straight.

At least that's how I remember it.

[sennasational]

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/846/846.html

And they will continue to pass. The rules do not specify whether the front wing minimum height of 75mm is while the car is stationary, moving or both but I think we can assume the intent was for measurements to be carried out on a stationary car. Red Bull comply. Similarly, the designated test for deflection is a static test and Red bull comply.

The only option, currently, is for the other teams to figure out how it's done and copy it.

You can have the circumstance of the being stationary and the circumstance of the car moving, but the rule says "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."

Clear, moving or not, the wing can't be where RB are using it. Interesting they can penalised Lewis for their visual measurements of changing line on the Sepang track, but what Blind-Freddy can see (i.e. RB's front wing too low), the FiA seem to be able to ignore.

I suppose the question then becomes how can the FIA measure the wing in relation to the reference plane while the car is on the track. It's not just a matter of how high it is off the ground...

I think i'm right in saying that the front wing is supposed to be above the plank at all times (by a specific amount most likely). If i can see the front wing scraping the tarmac at high speeds then they don't need a test. Unless the plank and floor are undeground then the wing is illegal. I'm sure it probably breaks the ground clearance rules too. I'm almost certain that the entire nose of the red bull lowers at speed, so they could make the wing itself as rigid as they need to pass the test, there isn't a test for a flexible nose, or a rule against it (as far as I am aware).

Also, just because they haven't been caught, doesn't mean they aren't cheating. It simply means that if they are cheating; no one knows how and the test is not thorough enough. It needs to be clarified because everyone can see the wing dip to the ground, there should be a statement from the FIA stating whether or not (regardless of tests) what all the fans can see with their eyes is legal. If Mclaren or Ferrari get a similar system, they'll be leaving RBR in the dust, it's worth at least half a second.

[CarBore]

It's not as simple as slapping a RBR front nose on another car. As the leading edge into the airflow the front wing dictates how the air goes over your other aero devices. The red bull must have been designed with these effects in mind. Not to mention 0.5 s on Ferrari still makes them slower than RBR

[spankyham]

I suppose the question then becomes how can the FIA measure the wing in relation to the reference plane while the car is on the track. It's not just a matter of how high it is off the ground...

I think i'm right in saying that the front wing is supposed to be above the plank at all times (by a specific amount most likely). If i can see the front wing scraping the tarmac at high speeds then they don't need a test. Unless the plank and floor are undeground then the wing is illegal.

@sennasational has, IMO, given the correct answer to @acosmichippo's question. The FiA stewards see that it is too low and make a decision.

They didn't need any measuring equipment to penalise Lewis for changing direction more than once.... They didn't need any measuring equipment to penalise Jenson for going off track to pass Felipe? Seems, when it takes their fancy, the FiA stewards can act based on what they see. But it's also obvious that there are a lot of things that are seen and they somehow miss......

[What's Burning?]

^^ They're just waiting for Ferrari and McLaren to introduce their wings.

[Jensonb]

^^ They're just waiting for Ferrari and McLaren to introduce their wings.

Well, McLaren. They'd probably ignore it if Ferrari did it.

[spankyham]

^^ They're just waiting for Ferrari and McLaren to introduce their wings.

Well, McLaren. They'd probably ignore it if Ferrari did it.

Na, they just search McLaren wondering which employee stole Ferrari's plans this time

[killem2]

^^ They're just waiting for Ferrari and McLaren to introduce their wings.

Well, McLaren. They'd probably ignore it if Ferrari did it.

Na, they just search McLaren wondering which employee stole Ferrari's plans this time

/checkmate
/get popcorn