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.
BreezyRacer wrote:There are rules .. the rules have even been changed mid season to satisfy the anti RB crowd .. GIVE IT UP ALREADY! All cars are meeting the rules, the rules are the same for everyone .. if you don't like how your team is fairing go complain on THAT CAR'S BOARD, not here.
BTW, it just could be that the RB wings are flexing more BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY WORK!
Nope, the rules haven't changed, the tests have. But this is offtopic, continue it in the flexi-wing thread.
Anytime you change how you measure a rule, you change the rule. DUH!
BreezyRacer wrote:There are rules .. the rules have even been changed mid season to satisfy the anti RB crowd .. GIVE IT UP ALREADY! All cars are meeting the rules, the rules are the same for everyone .. if you don't like how your team is fairing go complain on THAT CAR'S BOARD, not here.
BTW, it just could be that the RB wings are flexing more BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY WORK!
Nope, the rules haven't changed, the tests have. But this is offtopic, continue it in the flexi-wing thread.
You must pass the test thats the rule.
Car passed = car is ok.
ecapox wrote:If Redbull passes teh FIA tests, and they have passed every test the FIA has given them, then their car is fine. Can we please stop about this cheating garbage..or take it to the Flexi Wing thread.
This argument is repeated over and over. I agree that a team cannot be punished if it passes the tests. But passing the test and observing the technical regulations are two different things - that is why the FIA has continuously beefed up their tests.
You could have wings which, at 300 km/h are flexing to the point where the endplates strike sparks against the track, but at standstill the car passes the FIA tests. Is that car legal or not? Is it cheating?
Regulation 3.15
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.
Regulation 3.17(8) ‘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.’ makes it clear that the rules contemplate that a car in breach of Article 3.15 but compliant with all of 3.17(1)-(7). It would be in breach, irrespective of whether additional tests are imposed, in order to detect such a breach – that is to say 3.17(8) simply provides a further mechanishm whereby a breach of article 3.15 can be established by proof.
Skirting the rules in f1 is a cornerstone of the sport and has been longer than anyone of us can remember.
Fan car, two brake pedals, flexing wing war 1, mass damper, 6 wheels, inerter, special gas in tires, double diffuser, etc etc etc. These innovations showcase problem solving and engineering excellence.
The red bull wing is in the spirit if the sport as the sport existed since Colin chapmans mind exploded on to the scene. Kudos to newey and team for doing and capitalizing on something others couldn't.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Giblet wrote:Skirting the rules in f1 is a cornerstone of the sport and has Bern longer than anyone of us can remember.
Fan car, two brake pedals, flexing wing war 1, mass damper, 6 wheels, inerter, special gas in tires, double diffuser, etc etc etc. These innovations showcase problem solving and engineering excellence.
The red bull wing is in the spirit if the sport as the sport existed since Colin chapmans mind exploded on to the scene. Kudos to newey and team for doing and capitalizing on something others couldn't.
I agree that one shouldn't be pointing fingers and saying that Red Bull or any one else is cheating. All teams are bending the rules in their own way, and that's a part of the sport.
Care to enlighten me (and perhaps others here as well) about the two brake pedals you mention? Never heard that one.
bgroovers wrote:Regulation 3.15
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.
Regulation 3.17(8) ‘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.’ makes it clear that the rules contemplate that a car in breach of Article 3.15 but compliant with all of 3.17(1)-(7). It would be in breach, irrespective of whether additional tests are imposed, in order to detect such a breach – that is to say 3.17(8) simply provides a further mechanishm whereby a breach of article 3.15 can be established by proof.
Great rule that is as that article makes every car illegal. The Suspension parts influences the cars performance and those are not rigid to the car. So actually that whole rule is bullshit
the redbull Will be always legal with those static rules , which can not simulates the real forces applied on the wing , if the FIA refuse to apply test on moving car , next year we will find cars with a full flexing body .
Giblet wrote:Skirting the rules in f1 is a cornerstone of the sport and has Bern longer than anyone of us can remember.
Fan car, two brake pedals, flexing wing war 1, mass damper, 6 wheels, inerter, special gas in tires, double diffuser, etc etc etc. These innovations showcase problem solving and engineering excellence.
The red bull wing is in the spirit if the sport as the sport existed since Colin chapmans mind exploded on to the scene. Kudos to newey and team for doing and capitalizing on something others couldn't.
I agree that one shouldn't be pointing fingers and saying that Red Bull or any one else is cheating. All teams are bending the rules in their own way, and that's a part of the sport.
Care to enlighten me (and perhaps others here as well) about the two brake pedals you mention? Never heard that one.
Macca ran two brake pedals (97-98?) allowing the rear brakes to be used indepedently. Basically turning the rear brakes into steering and traction aids.
"The car is slow in the straights and doesn't work well in the corners." JV
WilliamsF1 wrote:The Line drawn is not straight as it does not pass through the push rod pick up points on either side of the chassis (infact the the right side is not even visible)
If the right end of the wing of Mclaren is compared to the left end of the redbull the movement of the wing is almost similar.
Doesn't matter if the line is straight or banana shaped, as long as the line remains static in both images, then it's a reference point.
The reason the line is not "straight" (which it actually is, only it's not at 90 degrees to the centreline of the tub) is that the camera on the car is not mounted on the centreline, so the image is not perfectly symettrical.
Place a rule against the line if you don't believe me, I assure you that the line IS straight.
As for whether the line needs to be straight to provide a reference, ignore the line and place your mouse pointer on the wing.
As for the comparison to the McLaren wing, the McLaren wing is also moving, but nothing like as much as the Redbull's. Perhaps this is why McLaren have redesigned their front wing like they have?
Mods, shouldn't this discussion be taking place in the "Flexible Wings Controversy" thread?
Well on a flat piece of road as this picture is to be taken for such a referance the top of the tyres are not ment to move up down. The chassis will move up and down but the top of wheels will remain constant.
There is no point in comparing pictures like this with a line drawn on a part that is moving up and down.
Last edited by mx_tifoso on 09 Oct 2010, 07:29, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:fixed quote. please preview posts to make sure they are done correctly.
We have conclude months ago that a static vertical load test will not challenge
RedBulls frnt wing design as the bending of the wing is triggered by a longitudinal force(drag) by clever fibre orientation of the wing skins .
the latest pictures are only confirming this .
The sad truth is ,that according to FIA regs this behaviour is illegal ,but at the same time FIA has specified a certain test to verify the meeting of the -non moving parts- rule wich is not reproducing real world situation.
Basically you say the test itself confirms legality .But this is not what is written in the rules,as Fia has the right to change the rules at any time to enforce rule conformity ...So according to the spirit of the rules the REDBULL wing is illegal as it IS DESIGNED TO BEND WHEN THE CAR IS COMPETING ..whereas the rules state the wing is not allowed to move relative to the body in any ways.
The static load test is just a means to give a tolerance on the bending allowed ,as obviously all things have some elastic behaviour ,or they ´d break .so it is more a safety check than anything else.
The evidence of wings bending more than allowed is more than obvious and to me FIA is harnessing the horse from the wrong side.They should demand proof from the competitors their bodywork does not move under the loads put to their parts.
REDBULL have sophisticated means of measuring surface geometry on the fly ,which they use in their windchannel so they could actually provide exact data what thier wing does as which speed .The Fia has only to demand a proof.But it is maybe that RedBull is a wanted Champ for this year???
