Flexible wings 2011

[Just_a_fan]

I´m just trying to find out what it could be. What your saying is a theory just like the heating one, probably alot more plausible but still, i think it´s unfair to get that kind of attitude for just throwing out a comment regarding something NONE of us know anything about.

Just apply Occam's razor and you soon get rid of the more 'inventive' ideas...

All we have is theorys until evidence pops up or Newey just let´s it all out.

No, we have a number of hypotheses. Theories are things that are proven.

All of the "left field" ideas are great fun but when one looks objectively, the simplest method is likely to be the correct one.

[BreezyRacer]

At the risk of yet another post wasted on this ..

HampusA .. You do not control the rules nor their enforcement .. you do not get to declare what is and is not legal. Write a letter to your favorite team manager pleading your case and begging him to file a protest at the next race. If he agrees he will take all your huffing and puffing and make it coherent and lodge a protest.

Then you'll truly find that it was legal all along.

[Just_a_fan]

Give me a F´n break...

The wing is illegal even though it passes FIA´s lousy tests.

Do you want me to bring up the rulebook again with the enhanced text?

Agreed, the wing is illegal. But it passes the tests and so is not punished.

I don't know why people find the distinction between these two postions so difficult to grasp.

An analogy is useful: You drive down a road which has a speed limit of 60mph. At certain points along the road, the police are checking speeds. As you pass the police you must be doing no more than 60mph or you get fined. Between those points, however, you can do whatever speed you think you can manage.

The police are the FIA and the speed checks are the deflection tests. Red Bull have figured out how to drive by the police at 60mph whilst also being able to do 100mph elsewhere. Everyone else has a 60mph limiter fitted in order to keep the police happy.

Well done to Red Bull for figuring out how to speed whilst not getting caught by the police speed checks...

[HampusA]

I´m just trying to find out what it could be. What your saying is a theory just like the heating one, probably alot more plausible but still, i think it´s unfair to get that kind of attitude for just throwing out a comment regarding something NONE of us know anything about.

Just apply Occam's razor and you soon get rid of the more 'inventive' ideas...

All we have is theorys until evidence pops up or Newey just let´s it all out.

No, we have a number of hypotheses. Theories are things that are proven.

All of the "left field" ideas are great fun but when one looks objectively, the simplest method is likely to be the correct one.

A theory is a theory, nothing is proven or disproven.

Sure there are still some technical stuff like "the theory of evolution" which really isn´t a theory anymore.

I am objective, i´m a RBR fan but atleast i´m objective enough to see that the wing is illegal but manages to pass the FIA tests.

[HampusA]

At the risk of yet another post wasted on this ..

HampusA .. You do not control the rules nor their enforcement .. you do not get to declare what is and is not legal. Write a letter to your favorite team manager pleading your case and begging him to file a protest at the next race. If he agrees he will take all your huffing and puffing and make it coherent and lodge a protest.

Then you'll truly find that it was legal all along.

Your absolutely right, the ruled FIA put in place decides what´s legal and what´s not. If you have even the slightest of function of your eyes you would know that the wing breaches a few rules FIA has put in place JUST FOR THIS MATTER.

Therefore the wing is illegal even though it passes the FIA tests.

[HampusA]

Give me a F´n break...

The wing is illegal even though it passes FIA´s lousy tests.

Do you want me to bring up the rulebook again with the enhanced text?

Agreed, the wing is illegal. But it passes the tests and so is not punished.

I don't know why people find the distinction between these two postions so difficult to grasp.

An analogy is useful: You drive down a road which has a speed limit of 60mph. At certain points along the road, the police are checking speeds. As you pass the police you must be doing no more than 60mph or you get fined. Between those points, however, you can do whatever speed you think you can manage.

The police are the FIA and the speed checks are the deflection tests. Red Bull have figured out how to drive by the police at 60mph whilst also being able to do 100mph elsewhere. Everyone else has a 60mph limiter fitted in order to keep the police happy.

Well done to Red Bull for figuring out how to speed whilst not getting caught by the police speed checks...

How about this,

Speed limit is 60mph.

You drive at 80mph but the cops don´t see you, did you break the law or did you not break it because the police wasn´t there to catch you?

If you murder someone but the police couldn´t catch you, did you not break the law?

If you rob a bank and run from the police, did you not break the law?

[Just_a_fan]

How about this,

Speed limit is 60mph.

You drive at 80mph but the cops don´t see you, did you break the law or did you not break it because the police wasn´t there to catch you?

You have broken the law but you don't get punished unless you get caught. That is the most important distinction to remember. The wing is illegal because it excessively deflects on the track but it passes the test. The test determines whether you get punished.

To continue my previous analogy, would you be happy driving at 70mph on the 60mph road and then be punished because a guy walking his dog thought you were speeding even though the police speed checks didn't catch you?

[wesley123]

Give me a F´n break...

The wing is illegal even though it passes FIA´s lousy tests.

When something passes the tests it is legal, what is so hard to understand about that?

Do you want me to bring up the rulebook again with the enhanced text?

No, I understand you clearly but you are wrong

[andrew]

Do you have two fully functioning eyes?

Yes.

Do you see that the wing flex in onboards?

Sadly my eyes are not fitted with measuring devices so it is impossible to determine the amount of flex from on-board shots alone.

Do you understand that wings are not allowed to flex?

Duh, yes(!)

Do you understand that the wing is illegal?

Of course I understand that flexing wings are illegal, but you have not posted anything to prove your theory that this wing is illegal.

If you can prove that the wing is flexing too much by proving evidence conducive to a technical discussion I will concede the point and accept your theorem, but as yet you have not done that.

Remember, the best answers are the ones that destroy the question (I can’t remember who said that originally) so I ask you - Is the Red Bull wing illegal? (and I want more than a yes or no answer or a rant about the FIA test being crap. Lets have a bit of technical analysis).

[HampusA]

How about this,

Speed limit is 60mph.

You drive at 80mph but the cops don´t see you, did you break the law or did you not break it because the police wasn´t there to catch you?

You have broken the law but you don't get punished unless you get caught. That is the most important distinction to remember. The wing is illegal because it excessively deflects on the track but it passes the test. The test determines whether you get punished.

To continue my previous analogy, would you be happy driving at 70mph on the 60mph road and then be punished because a guy walking his dog thought you were speeding even though the police speed checks didn't catch you?

Doesn´t matter, you go over the limit, you broke the law (the wing is illegal)

Just because someone can´t prove it doesn´t mean you did not broke the law. (wing is still illegal)

Either way, wing is illegal no matter how you twist and turn stuff.

i.e. if you go over the speed limit you still broke the law no matter if the police catched you or not.
If you murder someone you still broke the law.

THAT is the most important thing to remember..

[wesley123]

Do you have two fully functioning eyes?

Yes.

Do you see that the wing flex in onboards?

Sadly my eyes are not fitted with measuring devices so it is impossible to determine the amount of flex from on-board shots alone.

Do you understand that wings are not allowed to flex?

Duh, yes(!)

Do you understand that the wing is illegal?

Of course I understand that flexing wings are illegal, but you have not posted anything to prove your theory that this wing is illegal.

If you can prove that the wing is flexing too much by proving evidence conducive to a technical discussion I will concede the point and accept your theorem, but as yet you have not done that.

Remember, the best answers are the ones that destroy the question (I can’t remember who said that originally) so I ask you - Is the Red Bull wing illegal? (and I want more than a yes or no answer or a rant about the FIA test being crap. Lets have a bit of technical analysis).

So you understand that wings are not allowed to flex yet you can´t see the wing flex in the videos?

You have some serious issues with your eyes then.

If you need proof, read the rules, watch the onboard. If you notice any flexing we can agree that the wing is illegal.

It´s simple really.

lets use that great speeding example you used.

How do cops measure the speed, not by pics, do they?

Point is, you cannot measure anything based on a pic.

The rules clearly state when a 1000N load is placed on the front wing it can flex a maximum of 2 cm.

That means; with a load of 1001N they can let the wing flex 2 km if they want to, it is within the given rules

[andrew]

As far as I am concerned the wing is legal. Each side of the wing is effectively a cantilevered structure with very little depth so of course it is going to flex. All front wings do this. However, the wing has passed the FIA tests and as such is legal. What I am asking you is demonstrate that the wing flexes too much. Watching the on-boards does not demonstrte anything conclusive.

[Just_a_fan]

Doesn´t matter, you go over the limit, you broke the law (the wing is illegal)

Just because someone can´t prove it doesn´t mean you did not broke the law. (wing is still illegal)

Either way, wing is illegal no matter how you twist and turn stuff.

This was rather my point. The wing is illegal even though the test shows otherwise. However, illegality is only determined by the tests just as speeding is only determined by the police speed check.

[HampusA]

lets use that great speeding example you used.

How do cops measure the speed, not by pics, do they?

Point is, you cannot measure anything based on a pic.

The rules clearly state when a 1000N load is placed on the front wing it can flex a maximum of 2 cm.

That means; with a load of 1001N they can let the wing flex 2 km if they want to, it is within the given rules

How about reading the rules?

Wings are not allowed to flex under any circumstances, RBR´s wing does flex.

Thus it´s illegal.

If you murder someone your STILL BREAKING THE LAW.

[HampusA]

Doesn´t matter, you go over the limit, you broke the law (the wing is illegal)

Just because someone can´t prove it doesn´t mean you did not broke the law. (wing is still illegal)

Either way, wing is illegal no matter how you twist and turn stuff.

This was rather my point. The wing is illegal even though the test shows otherwise. However, illegality is only determined by the tests just as speeding is only determined by the police speed check.

I rest my case.