Their stance is quite ridiculous.
And they did force teams to change flex wings and floors mid season with cost cap implemented, so that excuse also doesn't fly (as if Mclaren would find it difficult to reinforce their wings).
Their stance is quite ridiculous.
Two things, it's Spain for RB case, so the wing is considerably bigger and generates more drag and thus more flexing load, two - the comparison of RB wing is a bit enlarged as the red line starts above the wing and not on the trailing edge like I didmwillems wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 12:26The whole rear wing structure leans back on the RB and despite the distance between yellow and red lines being similar, the camera on the bull is further away, or at least the aperture creates that perspective, so the AoA "lean" was greater on the Bull and affected DRS flap and the main plane. Not quite apples and oranges, but not apples and apples either.
The AoA change is designed in to the wings, so yes the forces are different but the flex was designed with that in mind, they know exactly what forces are coming. So I'm not sure we can blame this on the Barcelona track characteristics and pretend the designers had no idea air would force it back so muchVanja #66 wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 15:05Two things, it's Spain for RB case, so the wing is considerably bigger and generates more drag and thus more flexing load, two - the comparison of RB wing is a bit enlarged as the red line starts above the wing and not on the trailing edge like I didmwillems wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 12:26The whole rear wing structure leans back on the RB and despite the distance between yellow and red lines being similar, the camera on the bull is further away, or at least the aperture creates that perspective, so the AoA "lean" was greater on the Bull and affected DRS flap and the main plane. Not quite apples and oranges, but not apples and apples either.
I was about to say the same. The Ferrari engine passed the "flow" tests. They forced them to change it but didn't impose a penalty because they just couldn't figure out HOW they were able to pass the tests. But if I recall correctly, they "passed the test".
I understand that one, the information was in public domain how they achieved that effect too. Also very different to this flex within the wing's structure, which is of course not hidden but also doesn't appear to be specifically measured against a published criteria by FIA .codetower wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 16:04I was about to say the same. The Ferrari engine passed the "flow" tests. They forced them to change it but didn't impose a penalty because they just couldn't figure out HOW they were able to pass the tests. But if I recall correctly, they "passed the test".
So, any bets on who the first team to copy the mini-drs will be?
In my experience, heating up certain glues and materials makes them malleable and softer to deform and shape.“...designs whose structural characteristics are altered by secondary parameters, so as to produce (whilst running at the track) a different deflection characteristic than when stationary during the FIA checks. Examples of secondary parameters could be temperature, aerodynamic load etc.”
They don't want to undermine the show. Is obviousSevach wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 16:25Both front and rear wings bending down under load it's a natural thing, there's often questions on how much of it is too much, different flexion in different parts of the wing, but to some degree it's present on every car.
The RW opening a slot under load an unnatural action.
It must be specifically engineered to act in this fashion, why the FIA doesn't wanna move to combat this is beyond me.
Previously playing in the gray areas always came with a risk that your toys could be taken away at any moment, most teams have been hit by this, Ferrari and Red Bull have been targets of that many times.
The FIA stance in this case in encouraging this type of design beyond the usual profit.
TD34Farnborough wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 16:35It surprises me that no one .... the great Internet, journalist scource, contributors on here ... all, none have come up with exactly what rule is being breeched in this wing case.
They did affect the show previously.
Are you going to quote it and give reason as to it's ability to give overarching control of measurement in this case ?leblanc wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 16:46TD34Farnborough wrote: ↑19 Sep 2024, 16:35It surprises me that no one .... the great Internet, journalist scource, contributors on here ... all, none have come up with exactly what rule is being breeched in this wing case.