Flexible wings controversy 2010

[piter]

Да дело не в гибкости крыльев и днища, а в механике изменения клиренса. РБ добились того, что в движении передние крыло опускается, днище поднимается, клиренс уменьшается - результат регулировок подвески и соединения шасси и носового обтекателя.
Yes matter is not in flexibility of wings and the bottom, and in the mechanic of change of a road clearance. RB have achieved that in movement lobbies the wing falls, the bottom rises, the road clearance decreases - result of adjustments of a suspension bracket and connection of the chassis and a nasal fairing.

[Owen.C93]

We did get some shots (5 seconds) from Red-bull of the Splitter and front wing (same shot as the McLaren but more endplate visible). They were asked to put the camera there but apparently they weren't happy so had it turned off or at least not broadcast again.

http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... o/?t=7m17s

Just cruising speeds unfortunately.

[xpensive]

When watching the RBR inboard camera yesterday, which should be in a fixed position vs the nose, I was very convinced that I could see the FW ends moving up and down with the speed quite significantly, which hardly could come from rake?

Having said that, another camera showed the splitter running xtremely close to the ground, what's the wear-allowance for the plank anyway, remember MS lost a victory in 1994 with that argument?

[marcush.]

When watching the RBR inboard camera yesterday, which should be in a fixed position vs the nose, I was very convinced that I could see the FW ends moving up and down with the speed quite significantly, which hardly could come from rake?

Having said that, another camera showed the splitter running xtremely close to the ground, what's the wear-allowance for the plank anyway, remember MS lost a victory in 1994 with that argument?

10+/-1mm ! so you may start with 10.1 and end with 9.9mm sure you could not scrape th botom continieusly...with that jabroc (compacted birch plywood ,impregnated with resin )

[xpensive]

Birch Plywood, MDF or HDF would make far more sense to me? Must be something someone gets an outrageous commission for, Flavio Briatore perhaps, which probably pisses off MrM no end, when I take it that the FIA supplies it?

[marcush.]

Birch Plywood, MDF or HDF would make far more sense to me? Must be something someone gets an outrageous commission for, Flavio Briatore perhaps, which probably pisses off MrM no end, when I take it that the FIA supplies it?

ah its not exactly plywood..
oh and for the matter beech wood not birch .. so a harder wood http://www.jabroc.com/

Beechwood example:

Jabroc example:

[ringo]

It has to be some really really tough wood to scrape along the rough asphalt at 170mph with God knows how much downforce on it, for 50 laps, without losing a mm. I don't even think steel could do that.
Maybe the car is not sitting on it as bad as we think.

[xpensive]

Agreed ringo, anything more than the occational bottom-out is simply out of the question, if the wear-allowance is one or two mm only as marcush says, nobody could possibly risk that?

Again, does anyone know the xact criteria for wear-allowance, 10 mm +/- 1 sounds more like what you should begin with, sorry marcush, when I take it as a given that this is still part of post-race scrutineering?

[marcush.]

Agreed ringo, anything more than the occational bottom-out is simply out of the question, if the wear-allowance is one or two mm only as marcush says, nobody could possibly risk that?

Again, does anyone know the xact criteria for wear-allowance, 10 mm +/- 1 sounds more like what you should begin with, sorry marcush, when I take it as a given that this is still part of post-race scrutineering?

I´m a bit surprised about it as well as it really is nothing .To me the real points that will avoid the plank to be worn away is the mountings that can be made from denser material (TI)
Of course there must be some alowance for plank wear (so if there is a stone scratch over the length or a cross thats okay but when is it not ok if 30 %is less than 9mil? I could not find the criteria unfortunatelly.

there were only two cases of disqualifications up to now Schumacher in Spa 94 and Trulli in USa(?) wich was later overturend..

[tok-tokkie]

just some dimensions of the plank, and the points where the wear is measure.

>>>>
g) have seven precisely placed holes the positions of which are detailed in Drawing 1. In order to
establish the conformity of the skid block after use, its thickness will only be measured in the four
50mm diameter holes and the two forward 80mm diameter holes ;
<<<<<
>>>>>
3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram. Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
<<<<<


http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy33 ... nsions.jpg

This was posted in this thread 2 days ago. Plank is measured after the race only at the six of the holes indicated in the diagram. One is just behind the leading edge of the plank.

[xpensive]

Most educating tok, and the wear-tolearance is?

[marcush.]

Most educating tok, and the wear-tolearance is?

you are allowed to start with 11mm and work it down to 9mm ..thats about it,really.So you got 2mm to grind off ...

no .xxx digits given there..so tolerance is in mm .
its a plank ..piece of wood....

They fool around with tolerances in the wildest ways.. look up the regs.its 5mm vertically and who knows longitudinally..

The link further up even suggests that the splitter and front bit of the plank is sliding longitudinally and this sliding action shortens the geometric length of the floor stay..lifting it up ...fixed bodywork anyone? that is a movable aero device in my view.Blatant cheet.

[xpensive]

I still don't get it marcush, is the plank supplied by the FIA or not, if it is, there's little the team can do if the plank given to them is 9 mm to begin with, is it now?

If it is up to the teams to provide the plank, to what spec?

There must be a simple answer to the above somewhere, scarbs?

[marcush.]

I still don't get it marcush, is the plank supplied by the FIA or not, if it is, there's little the team can do if the plank given to them is 9 mm to begin with, is it now?

If it is up to the teams to provide the plank, to what spec?

There must be a simple answer to the above somewhere, scarbs?

as far as I know the plank material Jabroc is only made by one mfg but I could not find a hint (apart from density requested )that you have to use this material....so no mandatory Fia SPEC part there.only dimensional requirements.
As it is told some teams split their plank in up to 5 bits...wich is now nomore allowed (minimum part length 1000mm.As the plank is surely around 3 m in length so we have now 3 parts maximum..

[Just_a_fan]

RBR's secret is the bib stays.

http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/08/ ... lood1.html

It that is the case (and a friend of mine who spent many years as an F1 engineer suggested it as a method to me several weeks ago) then they are cheating pure and simple.

A flexible wing is cheating and a flexible floor is also cheating.

If the FIA does find the flexible bib is beingnused by the teams then a suitable punishment might be removal of points from those involved. And perhaps a £50million fine too.