Following the complaints of a number of teams regarding the flexibility of the Red Bull Racing and Ferrari front wings, the FIA has moved to increase the requirements regarding the strength of the front wings to prevent them from flexing too much.
looking up the video again ,the birdview camerashots are very revealing there ...
just look at what an severe angle vettel is going out of the slipstream ,it almost looks like he was completely surprised by the direction change he had caused and with him correcting back severely stteeringinto button ..as the rearend had not yet stopped to move ,he was basically steering into a half spin with this kackhanded maneuvre .. imho,really bizzare sudden loss off talent there.
I know we've been discussing the RB6's wing, but I saw something that perhaps some rule gurus can explain...
With 3:30 sec. left in Q2 at Belgium, Speed Channel's feed is off a camera mounted at the bottom of Button's car looking back and slightly up at the inside front right wheel. The carbon fibre brake duct nearly fills the whole shot. Interesting to note that this brake duct, which is essentially the diameter of the wheel if not more, has a number of appendages and winglets on it. I know absolutely nothing of aerodynamics, so I haven't a clue what benefit, if any, is gained by creating downforce on an unsprung component of the car (at least I believe its unsprung). However, that's not the point of this comment...
It is clear as day from the footage off Button's car that under braking, the whole disc shaped brake duct on the McLaren rotates counterclockwise, giving a greater angle of attack to the aero appendages. This rotation is not subtle.
Doesn't this constitute an illegal moveable aero device? Or is this legal?
I watched it several times and even showed it to my mates.
one would love to have ONLY unsprung downforce as this wwould open a lot of possibility to setup the car and not having to resort to stiff springs to keep it from bottoming ...you want to increase vertical load on the tyre contact patch thats the aim.
bendy wishbones rotating uprights under braking? I don´t even undertsand how the appendages can be legal... but the flex will be called unavoidable due to forces involved,I guess..
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
I found Spar quite interesting race when compared to Hungary..
In the Hungary race RB’s front wing seemed to flex/move a lot more. I would think this amount of movement would disturb air flow over the surface of the wing (think it’s called lamer flow) and lose downforce
At Spar the wing seem stiffer (Button thought so too) and seemed to have a higher ride height.
The second point I’ve noticed all year is the RB’s don’t behave very well behind other cars. In fact they are very ordinary and perhaps why they tend to come together with other cars that others have pointed out. It would be nice to run the race again and see the results if one of the RB’s were in front, would they have run away from the rest?
Brawn has always had cars that run very low at the rear and to me set-ups that are only stiff enough to stop excessive grounding. I think the new narrower front tyres haven’t helped Mercedes or McLaren and maybe they can’t change the design of their cars, so why not make a lot of nose to put the heat on someone else design and their set-ups?
Also it was interesting comment Webber said about the device they were using… Button answered “what device, we don’t know about any device?” or was this just a wind-up?
I don’t think Monza well tell us much as it’ll be similar to Spar (with lower downforce), but Singapore might be the test. We’ll get a very good idea if RB have had to change their wing/floor Structure…
Did anyone notice how fast the Vettel’s RB hit the rev limiter down the straits?
marcush. wrote:looking up the video again ,the birdview camerashots are very revealing there ...
just look at what an severe angle vettel is going out of the slipstream ,it almost looks like he was completely surprised by the direction change he had caused and with him correcting back severely stteeringinto button ..as the rearend had not yet stopped to move ,he was basically steering into a half spin with this kackhanded maneuvre .. imho,really bizzare sudden loss off talent there.
One thing to consider here, is that the conditions for the drivers was one of a track that was getting slicker, meaning the brake bias would have been adjusted towards the rear. Vettel seems to have tried a move while braking and the rear bias rotated the car and caught him out.
"Driving a car as fast as possible (in a race) is all about maintaining the highest possible acceleration level in the appropriate direction." Peter Wright,Techical Director, Team Lotus
Vettel had a talk with Raikkonen, to see if he could get some advise. Raikkonen, who's now rallying, taught Vettel the Scandinavian Flick. That's what Vettel did to get past Button. It just didn't work out as planned.
marcush. wrote:one would love to have ONLY unsprung downforce as this wwould open a lot of possibility to setup the car and not having to resort to stiff springs to keep it from bottoming ...you want to increase vertical load on the tyre contact patch thats the aim.
bendy wishbones rotating uprights under braking? I don´t even undertsand how the appendages can be legal... but the flex will be called unavoidable due to forces involved,I guess..
Rotating uprights with bending wishbones? Intriguing thought, but that would make for strange suspension characteristics indeed, moreover, looking at the structure of the wishbone, it is difficult to see in which way they would bend?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
the last time we saw this was with Buemis two wheels bybye inonego..there you could clearly see the rotation of the upright.
I´m pretty sure the forces will inevitably rotate the upright ,but how much?the current trend is to not position the wishbones as far apart as possible on the upright..so this is surely a trend towards introducing bending ..
fausto cedros wrote:In my opinion there's still something with that front wing, and this video clearly testifies it.I guess there's still a nonlinear behaviour of the wing flexing in and out of the wake (especially on the right side) and that unbalanced load has lots more to do with the accident than the supposed Vettel's unability to overtake. The hypocrite Newey isn't telling anything about safety this time? The F-duct has not caused any accident so far, his wings do have, in my opinion.
Maybe it's too early for Macca and Merc to call off concerns for rb wings. We'll see next race after monza, btw.
@ marcush; If you would make a load analysis of the forces an upright causes on the wishbones, I think you will find pull- and push-forces only, not bending?
@ fausto; The image referred to by JA reinforces my feelings that the FIA vertical-load only testing is flawed. For anyone who knows a thing or two about the world of unisotropic materials such as composites, you can make a structure such as the FW behave against the xpected. For xample, making said FW bending down due to horizontal loads from air-resistance would not be difficult at all, which might be what you can see on Vettel's car when moving in and out of Hamilton's wake.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
[quote="xpensive"]@ marcush; If you would make a load analysis of the forces an upright causes on the wishbones, I think you will find pull- and push-forces only, not bending?
yes indeed ..so wrong terminology ,excuses there.
the braking force will try to rotate the upright inturndirection of the wheel ,right? so on the upper wishbone this is a force pulling the wishbone forward (pulling on the rearward chassis mount ,pushing in the forward mount ,that is) the lower wishbone will be knocked back ackordingly...but the wishbones do not align completely with the direction of forces .. (anti/pro dive geometries so we got some vectors there as well introducing bending moments as well ...and these cause length variation and this will show in a rotation of the upright ,I´d guess in a first thought.. but I think that does not feel good to the driver ..????
Yeah I noticed the RB was bouncing off the limiter, whilst in the slipstream of the Mclaren, who were also running more wing, AND he wasn't gaining ground on Button either. Which leads me to believe the speed advantage Mclaren have is actually pretty big.
McL with a more powerful engine and possibly better straight line drag (due to their more developed F duct) might be able to set the top gear to a higher ratio.
... back to topic
The idea that RB is inherently unstable when passing other cars is interesting. That could have some credence for the crash in Spa where Vettel suddenly lost grip.
In Valencia if you say that Webber was caught out by unexpected handling of the RB as he pulled out from behind the Louts. Although I'd say he was caught out by the Lotus braking early.
I don't think it was a factor in Turkey where Vettel simply cut across Webber too soon.
As for Melbourne, it is more likely that Webber was caught out by the cars braking in front of him.
So, the unstable wing theory works for Spa, but it doesn't really stack up for the other significant incidents. Its a nice theory though, the appeal is that Newey has been too clever for his own good.
to me the rearend grip wa s lost not at the front .Vettel steered the front but that has no effect as long as the rear is having its own idea wher to go...he started the swing with flicking right and the darting to the left ..after that he steered into button ,because his opposite lock was way too late ..anticipation was needed, not reaction.
