Flexible wings 2011

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I imagine the car is very unstable at this point due to his actions on the pedals rather than the flexing of the front wing.

Wrigs I disagree.

Unless he can balance left and right brakes simultaneously(and indepenantly) with one foot, this does not explain how left and right wing tips move independantly of the other.
You see him hit stronger airflow on the left initialy, then moving right, the right side then hit airflow pushing wingtip right.

Airflow, and not brakes in my opinion. Although Im open to

Imagine what this does for the balance of the car?

[segedunum]

The reason why Vettel crashed at Spa is because he pulled out to overtake too close to the back of Button because he didn't think ahead. Personally, I don't think the guy can overtake. Not only did this destabilise the car mechanically but also aerodynamically, as there is more load applied when you pull out from a car's tow. That's why you see wings apparently moving.

You can't blame this on flexible front wings.

[segedunum]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23082.html

Should say: "Hamilton upset that McLaren didn't think of it first."

Heh. This quote I found more revealing:

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... l-flexing/

"Either we close the loophole or everyone will copy it," the McLaren driver reportedly added.

What Lewis is really saying there is "We can't work out how to copy it so we'd like it to just go away".

[juicesharp]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmImSNBA ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0NMi51B ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Only FIA which is complitelly blind does not see the difference between flexibility of front wings of those cars. For me personaly that is not the question anymore.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That's why you see wings apparently moving.

Of course flex has nothing to do with it at all.

<sarcasm off>
The advantage of the flex that Red Bull gets it clearly apparent in high speed corners. Now imagine for one second during a slipstream this effect of flex is reduced, which it will as the airflow isnt as strong during slipstream.
When the cars pulls right and right side of the wing flexes down, he suddenly gains X amount of points of downforce over the left front.

The right side is still in slipstream, but the left is tugging the steering left. Driver compensates due to the force, and steers right.
But hey , the left suddenly loses the flex by going into slipstream, and the right suddenly gains X points of downforce. This forces the car into a tank slapper and makes a world class driver in Vettel look a world class pratt.

My eyes dont lie, If that was a Mercedes or Renault following Button the wings would not have reacted so violently, they are a big big factor in this crash.

[segedunum]

Of course flex has nothing to do with it at all.

You can be as sarcastic as you like, but assuming that it must have had something to do with it is not proof that it caused the accident.

When you apply differing loads to a wing in that manner you're going to seem them move. As to whether whatever Red Bull are doing caused the accident, that's pure speculation with no evidence. There are other factors such as how Vettel moved across the track and pulled out of Button's tow quite close to him. You do that in any car and you will destabilise it.

My eyes dont lie

As Lindz and a couple of others have been trying to say, you're eyes are utterly meaningless unless you can quantify what you see.

If that was a Mercedes or Renault following Button the wings would not have reacted so violently, they are a big big factor in this crash.

How do you know? I've never seen a Mercedes or Renault driver do what Vettel did.

This kind of thing is where your logic really does fail you at times JET.

[ianwit]

Charlie has no problem with it.
http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... -whiting/?

[Ferraripilot]

What Lewis is really saying there is "We can't work out how to copy it so we'd like it to just go away".

I could definitely see this perspective, and I am astonished that every team on the grid isn't pounding down the FIa's door showing video coverage of Red Bull's wing scraping the ground. Helmut Marko believes they're the ginger bread man in passing the Fia's current one-sided test.

I don't see this quite as the DDD issue, as that was a indeed a rhetorical loophole in the wording of the rule. RB has violated the rule by showing the Fia what an exersize in futility their test is, in essence giving the finger to the purpose of the test and the rule. Must be infuriating to teams at the moment. Clip their wings.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

As Lindz and a couple of others have been trying to say, you're eyes are utterly meaningless unless you can quantify what you see.

I have quantified it for you,Segedenum. Very clearly in fact, have another read of my last post.

If that was a Mercedes or Renault following Button the wings would not have reacted so violently, they are a big big factor in this crash.

How do you know? I've never seen a Mercedes or Renault driver do what Vettel did.

This kind of thing is where your logic really does fail you at times JET.

I havent seen Photos of a Renault or Mercedes wing flex to the point of scraping the floor, nor have I seen the crazy corner speeds red Bull maintian in relation to the rest.
So its logic all right, but where's the fail, KNOWING full well Red Bull has a flex advantage?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

RB has violated the rule by showing the Fia what an exersize in futility their test is, in essence giving the finger to the purpose of the test and the rule. Must be infuriating to teams at the moment. Clip their wings.

+1

[Ferraripilot]

Can anyone show me or rather explain to me precisely where the Fia is placing the 100kg load for the deflection test?

In high speed corners, like Copse or Abbey at Silverstone, the wing will be generating more like 200 kg of downforce. So the current test, if not conducted towards the outer part of the wing which is the area most likely to flex, is completely wrong and not measuring anything.

[Lindz]

RB has violated the rule by showing the Fia what an exersize in futility their test is, in essence giving the finger to the purpose of the test and the rule. Must be infuriating to teams at the moment. Clip their wings.

+1

Sounds like 2 bitter Ferrari and Mercedes fans to me, haha.

C'mon guys, let's think about this for a second...

Ferrari have toed the line of legality endlessly. Anything from automatic gear changes to double floors to team orders/tactics to movable bodywork and wings (how ironic).

Mercedes was once a certain Brawn GP who had the biggest loophole exploit of the current regs and everyone 'was forced' to catch up to them with their DDD in 2009.


See where this is heading?

[Ferraripilot]

I see your point of view, but there is a difference between rhetorical interpretations of a rule and outright breaking the rule (2 rules actually) by making a mockery regarding how the rule is enforced which is what RB is up to.

[Lindz]

I see your point of view, but there is a difference between rhetorical interpretations of a rule and outright breaking the rule (2 rules actually) by making a mockery regarding how the rule is enforced which is what RB is up to.

Let me put this out there: if you can't have any bodywork below the reference plane, but you run enough rake on your car that the reference plane touches the ground during decent compression in front of the front wheels... how is your wing being close (even touching) to the ground illegal? It's not breaking the reference plane.

This is in addition to it passing all the tests set forth to regulate what is deemed to be allowable amounts of flex.

What part is is outright breaking?



Like I said, show me the best high res photo evidence you can, and i will do some work to them and see if we can draw some conclusions. I'm really interested and I want to do this, but I just can't seem to find any good photos.

[Ferraripilot]

I see your point of view, but there is a difference between rhetorical interpretations of a rule and outright breaking the rule (2 rules actually) by making a mockery regarding how the rule is enforced which is what RB is up to.

Let me put this out there: if you can't have any bodywork below the reference plane, but you run enough rake on your car that the reference plane touches the ground during decent compression in front of the front wheels... how is your wing being close (even touching) to the ground illegal? It's not breaking the reference plane.

This is in addition to it passing all the tests set forth to regulate what is deemed to be allowable amounts of flex.

What part is is outright breaking?



Like I said, show me the best high res photo evidence you can, and i will do some work to them and see if we can draw some conclusions. I'm really interested and I want to do this, but I just can't seem to find any good photos.

I believe in this thread there is good photographic evidence of RB7s front wing flexing while not under braking or compression. I believe the idea of it being compression was debunked some time ago. Unfortunately for RB, it's not difficult to find as even Lewis Hamilton driving in a car well behind Vettel could see the thing scraping the ground.

The solution is more simple than people think. The absolute edge of the wing at the endplates is where the test needs to occur as that is where the most amount of flex will be shown on the wing as a whole. Their current test which measures no more than 10mm deflection at 100kg is a complete joke and measures nothing. Applying pressure to the endplate as a deflection test would clear things up and it doesn't require a wind tunnel.