Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
hollowBallistix wrote:
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
But it would not add anything to security. It doesn't really matter if one hits the kerb with endplate or with the plank under it. If you hit hard enough, you will fly.
hollowBallistix wrote:
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
The problem with putting "planks" under the endplates is that it would make it very easy to rip the whole front wing off on a curb. And that would be extremely dangerous.
747heavy, we just disagree on one basic interpretation of the rules. For you, 3.17 is a rule used to see if cars comply with 3.15. For me, 3.15 is a totally different rule to 3.17, describing any device that attempts to use ground effect to create downforce by getting as close as possible to the ground. The RBR front wing is designed precisely to do that. The fact that it uses bending or setup or whatever it uses changes nothing to the fact that the whole front of the car is designed so that wing can get as close as possible to the ground to use ground effect to create downforce and limit induced drag.
And that is illegal under rule 3.15, which was originally intended to outlaw skirts and all other ground effect devices.
I don't think its RBR's fault. I don't think they intend to cheat. I think they believe that passing 3.17 entitles the car to bend any way it likes and that therefore 3.15 doesn't apply.
What I find unfair is that somehow Red Bull seemed to get the memo on how and which rule was going to be applied by the FIA and not the other teams. Or just made the "right guess". But it shouldn't have to be a guess. Or even a judgment call. The rules should be clear from the start, for everybody. And considering the length of the discussion here, one can hardly say they are.
To me, RBR is not the problem. If the FIA says it's OK, why the hell would they not do it, even if it contradicts the FIA rulebook?
To me, the FIA is the problem, taking decisions that are not in agreement with their own rules, and selectively applying those rules because they don't know what to do and how to enforce their own rulebook.
Maybe (going out on a limb here) it might be time for FOTA to give it a try and attempt to write their own rulebook without the FIA for the next major change in regulations. By the teams for the teams.
They might make an even bigger mess of it, but with a smaller structure, they might be able to mend that mess in a much more efficient way.
Again, for me RBR is not the problem, the rule (and enforcement thereof) is the problem.
Lindz, sorry if I lost my cool a little bit here. I was just starting to feel this was just going round in circles...
bot6 wrote:The problem with putting "planks" under the endplates is that it would make it very easy to rip the whole front wing off on a curb. And that would be extremely dangerous.
Not at all - based on that it is very easy to rip off the end plates of the current wings, which is isnt (well not that easy..)
So long as the wing was set at the correct height their wouldnt be any difference to how it is today.
myurr wrote: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.
Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy to have Red Bull win as many championships as possible. Nevermind that the head conspirator is a former leader of Ferrari which team has threatened breakaways for less but is now claimed to be happily laying low whilst its rival and former honcho bandied together to steal 1-1.5 seconds a lap off them with a single illegal device, to say nothing of every other team, who are all similarly complacent on the issue.
myurr wrote: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.
Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy to have Red Bull win as many championships as possible. Nevermind that the head conspirator is a former leader of Ferrari which team has threatened breakaways for less but is now claimed to be happily laying low whilst its rival and former honcho bandied together to steal 1-1.5 seconds a lap off them with a single illegal device, to say nothing of every other team, who are all similarly complacent on the issue.
Todt and Ferrari actually fell out quite badly, but I didn't claim conspiracy. I offered the unwilling option just to cover all the options. My personal belief is that it is incompetence.
If there was a conspiracy then for me the most believable would be that it is intended to build Red Bull as the championship winning team so as to weaken Ferrari's bargaining power in the upcoming renegotiations of the Concorde agreement. I can see that being possible but it's not my preferred explanation.
We need to double check history before condemning all flexure.
Teams will always go for least weight, so a stiff brittle wing could be more prone to failure than a ductile one. How many wings fail due to the connection as opposed to the actual element?
How did Herbert & Ratzenberger's wings fail?
Did the rules at that time allow the wings to be closer to the ground, hence prone to more damage? Is there a difference in a end plate touching the ground and potentially breaking off as opposed to the whole wing (especially the pylon connection) getting battered?
richard_leeds wrote:We need to double check history before condemning all flexure.
Teams will always go for least weight, so a stiff brittle wing could be more prone to failure than a ductile one. How many wings fail due to the connection as opposed to the actual element?
How did Herbert & Ratzenberger's wings fail?
Did the rules at that time allow the wings to be closer to the ground, hence prone to more damage? Is there a difference in a end plate touching the ground and potentially breaking off as opposed to the whole wing (especially the pylon connection) getting battered?
Herbert's rear wing failed, not the front, apparently due to poor implementation of flexing.
Ratzenberger's wing failed because he's damaged it on a previous lap, rather than have it replaced he made the choice to still attempt a qualifying lap, and paid the ultimate price.
I suspect the hand of FOTA is behind this. The teams and FIA appear to have reached a common understanding that the deflection tests defines what is acceptable. There have been o protests or splits about it since the new tests were introduced in Hungary last year.
We've seen a healthier approach since FOTA has come along and certain prickly characters left. For example KERS was dropped by consensus for a season even though it was allowed in the rules. We've also seen it in the more pragmatic interpretation of on track incidents. Quotes from the team principals are more harmonious.
myurr wrote:If there was a conspiracy then for me the most believable would be that it is intended to build Red Bull as the championship winning team so as to weaken Ferrari's bargaining power in the upcoming renegotiations of the Concorde agreement. I can see that being possible but it's not my preferred explanation.
You find this remotely believable? I mean, I would LOVE to believe it (being the outright Ferrari hater that I am) but even I couldn't suck that one up.
I do find this whole legal / illegal thing quite entertaining though. Sadly, there are many flawed opinions here.
Many people are saying that the RedBull front wing is legal because it passes all of the FIA tests. Well, applying the same logic - if I were to drive at 130mph on a public road, I'm not breaking the law because I didn't get caught.
Hangaku - You may think it nonsense, but the rules are quite clear that the formula is tested in the scrutineers garage.
edit to add...
A read about water injection engines will illustrate this. Tyrell ran a car that used water to cool the fuel mix. They emptied the water on the track in the first couple of laps and ran underweight , some say as much as 50kg. They then topped up the tank before scrutineering. The car passed scrutineering for weight, but was banned for having unfixed ballast and a hole in the floor.
Hangaku wrote:
I do find this whole legal / illegal thing quite entertaining though. Sadly, there are many flawed opinions here.
Many people are saying that the RedBull front wing is legal because it passes all of the FIA tests. Well, applying the same logic - if I were to drive at 130mph on a public road, I'm not breaking the law because I didn't get caught.
What absolute nonsense.
So Red Bull is the only wing that flexes?
Here's McLaren's wing 'breaking the law' as well. It might be a few less mph over the speed limit compared to the Red Bull, but it's clearly 'speeding': http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7
Obviously any material will flex with enough force. The FIA have determined what force they use to set the limit. If they look at the pictures and say that due to what appears to be more-than-legal flexing, they are going to change the test (again), then I doubt anyone would mind. But you can't just look at a car that passes all tests and say "That's not fair, they're doing it better."
@Lindz - clearly the other teams are being forced to copy Red Bull if they want to be competitive. That does not make it okay to break the rules and the FIA should be cracking down on all the teams. I'm not singling Red Bull out due to partisan support of one team or another, I'm doing so because they are breaking the rules.
The FIA have not set any limits, they have set a test that they say will stop aero parts from unduly flexing. They have been shown to be wrong and should be updating their test rather than giving up or putting their heads in the sand.
