FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Gaz]

I mean, where is the rule that stipulates how much a wing can flex on track?

...Are you kidding? You're kidding right? The rule we've been discussing this whole time is that exact rule. It's just written incorrectly.

Yeah don't try and insult my intelligence with stupid remarks, it's just childish. Not to mention simply incorrect given that there is no rule saying, for example, "surface x must not deflect more than 10mm at 250kph", which is my point there. The cars are and have always been a product of the rules. It doesn't work backwards. The powers that be can change the rules to change the cars, but it doesn't work backwards. How can a rule be written 'incorrectly' based on that?

Here is the particular article i believe so many of you are annoyed with:

Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- 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.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
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.

So, all well and good right? No... because that rule is so god damn vague that it is completely unenforcable with that wording alone. This is where the load tests come in, to determine a exact and definite point within that immensely grey area where the wing becomes illegal. That, therefore, is the absolute rule that the cars will be designed to, a process involving numbers that allow exact solutions to be engineered under pure logical conditions, rather than vague wording and opinion, as it is the only reasonable thing to do. It's the same process for all other areas of the car, why does the front wing need special treatment?

In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

Until this happens, that car is legal and that car will retain this advantage. I'd love to hear a good explanation to the contrary other than it being against the spirit of the rules because really such a reason is a bit of a cop out argument (no offence), as it's just opinion.

The only way they can truly enforce this effectively is to have a windtunnel and measure the deflection, but they can't really do that at circuits all over the world. Alternatively they can ramp up the load tests until such a point where it's simply dangerous due to how rigid the wings will be. Not really gonna work either, right? So, i guess spec materials or wings are the only option remaining as far as i can see...

For me the invoking 3.17.8 so it actually stopped this would be an acceptable outcome.

Its clear that McLaren and others are copying it, but Red Bull has taken it much further they are all breaking the rules perhaps yes.

But Red Bull has taken this to a new level if the whole nose cone is flexing

[darwin dali]

I'm feeling déjà vu here like with Ross Brawn's double diffuser. I simply smile at the ingenuity of these gentlemen

[killem2]

I know it probably isn't the easiest thing to explain, but how does a wing flexing, help the car.

I always thought they make these wings to a set parameter because air flows over them the exact way they want it, if that were to move, then why not just set it to that level in the first place.

[What's Burning?]

I know it probably isn't the easiest thing to explain, but how does a wing flexing, help the car.

I always thought they make these wings to a set parameter because air flows over them the exact way they want it, if that were to move, then why not just set it to that level in the first place.

The lower the wing the less air that's able to get under the car, less air under the car means more downforce from the air that's going over the car with the added benefit of better flow of clean air over the wing to the rest of the car.

I'm feeling déjà vu here like with Ross Brawn's double diffuser. I simply smile at the ingenuity of these gentlemen

Ross Brawn is wishing he could be feeling a little bit of that déjà vu himself.

[killem2]

Oh that makes sense. Go Red Bull

[bud]

It's pretty simple Scotty. The reason there are the wing flexing tests is because flexing further than the (100kg-150kg? what ever the limit is on the test) is not allowed. Theoretically Red bulls wings do not flex further than this. I mean they pass the test in scrutineering so they don't bend further than that. But on track they do. See the problem here? If they were to take measurements while the car was on track they would not pass the test thus be deemed illegal!

[darwin dali]

It's pretty simple Scotty. The reason there are the wing flexing tests is because flexing further than the (100kg-150kg? what ever the limit is on the test) is not allowed. Theoretically Red bulls wings do not flex further than this. I mean they pass the test in scrutineering so they don't bend further than that. But on track they do. See the problem here? If they were to take measurements while the car was on track they would not pass the test thus be deemed illegal!

Yeah, but they don't and they can't (apparently), so they'll have to come up with somtin' else.

[scotty]

It's pretty simple Scotty. The reason there are the wing flexing tests is because flexing further than the (100kg-150kg? what ever the limit is on the test) is not allowed. Theoretically Red bulls wings do not flex further than this. I mean they pass the test in scrutineering so they don't bend further than that. But on track they do. See the problem here? If they were to take measurements while the car was on track they would not pass the test thus be deemed illegal!

Yeah, but they don't and they can't (apparently), so they'll have to come up with somtin' else.

Exactly. I've already alluded to all these points.

[f1ea]

It's pretty simple Scotty. The reason there are the wing flexing tests is because flexing further than the (100kg-150kg? what ever the limit is on the test) is not allowed. Theoretically Red bulls wings do not flex further than this. I mean they pass the test in scrutineering so they don't bend further than that. But on track they do. See the problem here? If they were to take measurements while the car was on track they would not pass the test thus be deemed illegal!

No no. The test requires for the flexing to be LINEAR within the specified force applied range. How it behaves outside this range... the rule doesnt care; it doesnt specify a limit to the load applied on the wing, for the running car.

[bud]

It's pretty simple Scotty. The reason there are the wing flexing tests is because flexing further than the (100kg-150kg? what ever the limit is on the test) is not allowed. Theoretically Red bulls wings do not flex further than this. I mean they pass the test in scrutineering so they don't bend further than that. But on track they do. See the problem here? If they were to take measurements while the car was on track they would not pass the test thus be deemed illegal!

Yeah, but they don't and they can't (apparently), so they'll have to come up with somtin' else.

Well it would be nice if the stewards were allowed to chuck some sensors on the RB7 and see how close to the ground their wings getting.

[spankyham]

IMO there is certainly grounds for the FiA to investigate this.

Passing tests does not mean your car is legal. If you rob a bank, your a thief even before the police get enough evidence to try and then successfully convict you. The article purporting that Charlie says the RB7 is legal is a misrepresentation, what CW says is they haven't found anything .... yet.

However, there is a tide in the media starting on this, and I don't see it slowing down. Here is yet another compelling article coming down against the RB7.

Red Bull probably shot themselves in the foot when they put in such a crushingly great Q time with one of their cars. It was clear, no matter how good Seb is as a driver, that there was something very unusual about his car.

Is there a prima facie case against RB - a definite yes. There are two ways that I think they may be breaking the rules. Tech regulations 2011, article 3.17.8. It is very clear that the nose moves or appears to move while the car is in motion. Second part is that, if the leading edge of the wing ever goes lower than the plank (reference plane) this would also be a breach of the rule (in fact this would be a breach of last years rule and - could throw the FiA a huge problem if they decided to test the RB6 for this). Here is the reference for my second possible breach.

Is there an argument to say that it only moves a little so that should be ok, or the rules don't specify a measurable distance/quantity? Well, quite simply no. When you think about it, that's silly. If you go down that path, then what other things are acceptable, engines can rev an extra 500 because that's a small amount, or, we can drop off a kilo or two here and there because that's small? Perhaps we change the weight distribution a tiny amount, or make my rear wing just a a centimeter or so wider - nope, the "it's only a little bit" argument is ridiculous.

To be fair, if the nose moves, it should be declared illegal. There is no argument that cheating is being clever or that it is sour grapes from other teams. Being brilliant is working within the rules. Body parts are not allowed to move - period. If you design body parts to move, then you're cheating.

If the nose moves and it isn't declared illegal then the winners will be Red Bull and the teams with the money to copy it - McLaren and Ferrari. The biggest losers will be the teams who just don't have endless supplies of money to throw around - that would be a big injustice.

[vaptin]

Someone want to clear up for me, what the "sprung part" of the car is?

[darwin dali]

I fail to see where that article is compelling - I've watched the video several times...

[darwin dali]

Someone want to clear up for me, what the "sprung part" of the car is?

In a vehicle with a suspension, such as an automobile, motorcycle or a tank, sprung mass (or sprung weight) is the portion of the vehicle's total mass that is supported above the suspension, including in most applications approximately half of the weight of the suspension itself. The sprung weight typically includes the body, frame, the internal components, passengers, and cargo, but does not include the mass of the components suspended below the suspension components (including the wheels, wheel bearings, brake rotors, calipers, and/or caterpillars tracks, if any), which are part of the vehicle's unsprung weight.

[spankyham]

I fail to see where that article is compelling - I've watched the video several times...

The movement isn't huge, but its clearly there. They suggest looking at the nose camera, personally I see it more clearly by staring at the very front edge of the nose that you can see.