All 2011 cars are illegal

[Lindz]

I have this suspicion that all the lawyers and engineers from other teams have sat together to see if they can protest further, and so far, none have.

Well, Lewis Hamilton said he doesn't like it...

[bot6]

Strange, I was under the impression that the point of suspension was to keep the sprung part of the car off the ground, not making it touch the ground... For me, the wheels touch the ground, and the suspension makes the link between the wheels and the sprung part of the car. Not between the ground and the sprung part of the car.

Lindz, you seem to have quite a high opinion of yourself being able to shoot holes in any theory I might come up with, but somehow you don't. Explaining how the wing ends up being close to the ground does not change why it has been designed to move closer to the ground. It was designed to move close to the ground so that it would benefit from ground effect to increase downforce and limit induced drag. The whole front of the car does not just "happen to bend", it was designed to bend. It is intended to bring the wing closer to the ground.

If your point is that the wing just happens to bend down without it being intended by RBR, then you're suggesting they are incompetent. Which I very much doubt they are.

[Richard]

I was about to write something here, but I'd better not.

Bot6, you are clearly frustrated. Everyone in F1 (including all the teams) prefers to stick with an agreed consistent testing methodology.

You call that cheating.

There isn't anything left to discuss, so I'm bowing out of this now.

[myurr]

Then there is the matter of rule 3.15, which applies differently from the others because of the magic words "under any circumstances". That means this rule applies at any point in the race, whether the car is stopped or rolling or spinning. "under any circumstances" is clear enough, it means all the time. That is the rule that Red Bull is breaching, and I have no evidence suggesting other teams are doing so.

"any circumstance" also applies to the item about bodywork not being below the ref plane. I expect all teams fail that too.

So, ban the lot of them, or agree an acceptable test?

If this is the case, and you're speculating entirely on that, then yes the FIA should enforce it. What's the point of having rules if they're not enforced?

We've had many many innovations banned under quite dubious interpretations of the rules in the past, and yet the FIA don't seem to bother with this one.

To whoever said that the teams aren't protesting - they did protest unofficially a lot last year, the tests were strengthened and the FIA washed their hands of the matter. So this year they're aiming to join Red Bull instead of having to petition the FIA again. This reflects badly upon the FIA and not the teams, as they seem unable or unwilling to consistently enforce their own rules and regulations.

[myurr]

747heavy, please read the rules. Suspension does not attempt to touch the ground. Not unless it's broken.

sure bot6, are we reading the same rules?

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

ask yourself, if, when the spring in the suspension compresses, it brings the "sprung part of the car" closer to the ground.
Therefore it "attempts to bridge the gap" - No?

You are the one, you stresses this point so much.
And by the way. Where have you found the expression: "attempts to bridge the gap".

The rule does not forbid bridging the gap. It forbids attempts to bridge the gap. Again, read the rules please.

Maybe you have different set of rules, because in the 3.15 it says "bridge the gap", which, as others pointed out, imply a constant state, rather then a temporary occurance.

You have it back to front though. The suspension is specifically designed to stop the sprung part of the car from touching the ground. It may be designed to do that by the slimmest of margins but it's design is, none the less, explicitly do raise the car off the ground. There is also a plank under the car to make sure that this rule is not contravened.

If you carefully read the rules it does not ban a device that bridges the gap, it explicitly states that no device or construction can be designed to bridge the gap - whether it is successful or not it must not be designed to do so.

[Maidel]

To whoever said that the teams aren't protesting - they did protest unofficially a lot last year, the tests were strengthened and the FIA washed their hands of the matter. So this year they're aiming to join Red Bull instead of having to petition the FIA again. This reflects badly upon the FIA and not the teams, as they seem unable or unwilling to consistently enforce their own rules and regulations.

Im sure mentioning football here is a bad word (it almost always is on other sports forums) but bare with me a little.

In football there is rule about simulation (diving). For years the British played it as the rules were written - you dive, you get booked. However we consistently came up against European teams where diving was normal. So what happened, did FIFA start applying the rules as written, NO, of course not. So, in the end, the British teams simply copied their European counterparts.

So in football their is a rule that is half applied, but not really simply because the world football federation cannot be bothered to enforce it properly.

And now we have the same issue in F1. There is a rule and a test for that rule. In football there is a rule and a test for that rule - loseley the test is - if there is contact between the players then its a foul. However in the same way as F1s test isn't suitable, neither is this rule. Contact doesnt always mean a foul, sometimes the foulee can initiate the contact and make it look like a foul.

RBR have managed to 'cheat' the system by creating something which passes the test, however, like in football the test is not applicable to the 'crime' and thus the FIA need to address the situation.

However the FIA and FIFA both suffer from a similarity other than both being french acronyms, neither of them seem to be able to create a rule set AND a decent set of tests to enforce that ruleset.

Therefore the teams are left with the same result that the british football teams were - either follow the rules as written and the spirt of the rules, or copy what the other teams are doing and to hell with fair play.

[Lindz]

bot6, I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything... sometimes intended inflection and the like are misread over the internet. I enjoy the discussion and light banter. What else are we going to do until the next race?.

But... you and everyone who say Red Bull are cheating the system need to come up with another theory.

Here you go: The RB7 passes any and all legality tests. It passes front wing deflection tests just as any other team. It is, however, the only car running so much forward rake. Is it possible that a higher AoA on the front wing could produce higher loads than seen in testing? And is it possible that the front wings of other competitors would react in the same way if subjected to these increased frontal loads at similar rake angles? And then is it possible that the apparent breach of Regulation 3.15 is due to a setup configuration (which is free for the teams to decide) that increases the rake to a degree that the forces on the front wing periodically appear to make it bridge the gap to the ground?

If this apparent bridging (even if it is not breaking the reference plane) is a secondary effect from the chosen setup on the car (forward rake) then it is not first and foremost Red Bull Racing's intent to bridge the gap from any body part to the ground. In all tests, every part of the car passes. From there on out, you are allowed to set the car up however your team sees fit within the regulations.

Not that I think they don't know what they're doing, it's quite the opposite. They know that when picked apart, there is no possibility to say they are cheating. They aren't. If the tests change then they change, and everyone is affected (like I said, it's not like everyone else's wings are able to support 2 elephants and Red Bull's only 2 feathers).

Edit: And all tests means ALL tests. The front wing is tested, as is the nose cone, as is the chassis tub, as is the floor, as is the tea tray, etc. No material (most certainly not any composite) will ever be 100% rigid and they will all flex with enough force applied.

[747heavy]

...........

You have it back to front though. The suspension is specifically designed to stop the sprung part of the car from touching the ground. It may be designed to do that by the slimmest of margins but it's design is, none the less, explicitly do raise the car off the ground. There is also a plank under the car to make sure that this rule is not contravened.

If you carefully read the rules it does not ban a device that bridges the gap, it explicitly states that no device or construction can be designed to bridge the gap - whether it is successful or not it must not be designed to do so.

I agree, with you myurr, and by the same tokken the front wing is not designed to bridge the gap, it´s designed to produce first and formost downforce.
By doing so, it perhaps moves closer to the ground (which is not the reference plane anyway, as we know), it´s a secondary effect at best.
As the primary function of the suspension is not to do so, but bot6 was stressing the point "that the attempt to do so...." is illegal, which is cleary not, and nowhere written in the rules.

The rule 3.15, as bot6 stated correctly elsewhere, is used to prevent "skirts" etc., devices which are designed to bridge the gap, in other words who´s primary and/sole function is to do so (bridge the gap).

Therefore, to use it out of context to declare a front wing "illegal" is a bit "far fetched" - IMHO.

Instead of trying to read the rules in a "creative" way, while not just accept the the "referee" the FIA has decided. As they did with DDD and F-Duct.
Get on with it, and get your flexy front wing working, everything else is just a waste of time and effort by the teams.

People where of the opinion, that the DDD is "illegal", nevertheless the developed their own version, when it became clear, that their interpretation of the rules is not shared by the FIA.
What´s the difference this time?

[Lindz]

I agree, with you myurr, and by the same tokken the front wing is not designed to bridge the gap, it´s designed to produce first and formost downforce.
By doing so, it perhaps moves closer to the ground (which is not the reference plane anyway, as we know), it´s a secondary effect at best.
As the primary function of the suspension is not to do so, but bot6 was stressing the point "that the attempt to do so...." is illegal, which is cleary not, and nowhere written in the rules.

The rule 3.15, as bot6 stated correctly elsewhere, is used to prevent "skirts" etc., devices which are designed to bridge the gap, in other words who´s primary and/sole function is to do so (bridge the gap).

Therefore, to use it out of context to declare a front wing "illegal" is a bit "far fetched" - IMHO.

+1 on all of this.

[Ciro Pabón]

[marekk]

People where of the opinion, that the DDD is "illegal", nevertheless the developed their own version, when it became clear, that their interpretation of the rules is not shared by the FIA.
What´s the difference this time?

DDD did'nt directly influence drivers/spectators security.

FIA mandates FW maximal area and angle of attack after consulting team's needs for front downforce.

FW minimal ride hight is only for security reasons there IMO.

I still remember Robert Kubica's 2007 Montreal shunt - going straight without front wing at +280kmh.
With just 1m more flight height this car would land in the middle of the grand stands on the other side of the track. If you can do something to prevent it from happening again, you should.

[747heavy]

as long as the cars rely on front wings to generate most of there downforce, a loss of them will have the potential to result in a huge accident - no question.

on the same tokken open wheels per se, are "dangerous" Webber accident etc. - so let´s cover them - no?

As allways, there are different ways to look at things.
one could argue, that the RBR wing creates more downforce, therefore it is safer?

I would not say, that because of it´s behaviour it is more likely to create a Kubica problem, then is any other front wing in F1.

To make one thing clear, I agree with you on safety grounds. I said that duing last years "flexy wing discussion" here on the board, and stand by it.
The "problem" I see is not when/if McLaren or Ferrari are going to copy the RBR wing, it´s when the likes of HRT and/or Virgin are going down this path, that there is potential for another Simtek/Monza scenario. Therfore I´m surprised that the FIA over the off season did not clamp down on the matter.

But it´s their problem (FIA) not mine, and as long as they are comfortable with that, fine.
The reason I engaged in this (rather pointless) discussion, is the interpretation of some rules (out of context) by some forum members, and to call RBR cheats.
We will not reach consense here, which is fine with me, I take a rather pargmatic approach, which is the referee (FIA) will call what is cheating and what is not.
As in soccer/football there will be always people who have a different opinion about what is a foul and what is not, and the end of the day, the score stands and in the greater scheme of things, the opinion of you and me (or anybody else for this matter) will have little effect in regards of the overall outcome.

Some people will allways moan over the "unfairness" of life, other will just go on with it, and making the best out of it.
I tend to be in the later group.

Therfore, have a nice evening (life), as far as I´m concerned, there is nothing more to discuss on the subject.

[marekk]

The "problem" I see is not when/if McLaren or Ferrari are going to copy the RBR wing, it´s when the likes of HRT and/or Virgin are going down this path, that there is potential for another Simtek/Monza scenario. Therfore I´m surprised that the FIA over the off season did not clamp down on the matter.

+1. Exactly this.

[PlatinumZealot]

3.15 With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

Ad absurdum.

If a driver moves his right feet, changing throttle position, exhaust gases flow changes as well.

If this car uses it's exhaust to influence aerodynamics (AFAIK all 2011 cars do, maybe except HRT), than this car is illegal.

aah. but that doesn't change the aero characteristic of the car.

[hollowBallistix]

The "problem" I see is not when/if McLaren or Ferrari are going to copy the RBR wing, it´s when the likes of HRT and/or Virgin are going down this path, that there is potential for another Simtek/Monza scenario. Therfore I´m surprised that the FIA over the off season did not clamp down on the matter.

+1. Exactly this.

Simtek/Monza scenario ? referring to Ratzenberger's death ?

Didn't he crash & damage the wing on a previous lap and that was the result of the failure on his flying lap which resulted in the crash & ultimately his death ?

It would be easy for the regs to be changed to there has to be a minimum height from the bottom of the end plates to the bottom of the wing & then place "planks" on the underside of the endplate that have to have a maximum wear pattern after the race, same as they do with the main plank