Flexible wings 2011

[Owen.C93]

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.

But if police wish to catch people speeding they should introduce new and more methods to do that. Hence why the FIA should probably try and measure flex in other ways, perhaps measuring from the car on track, or applying a drag simulation to the wing to measure the flex in the nose as well.

[wesley123]

MCLREN WINGS DO FLEX TOO.

FERRARI WINGS DO FLEX TOO

LOADS ABOVE 1000N EXCEED THE 20MM FLEX

RED BULL WING GENERATES MORE DOWNFORCE, THUS HAS HIGHER VERTICAL LOAD THUS FLEXES MORE

made it more comprehensive

WHY ARE YOU MENTIONING OTHER CARS?! I´ve said numerous times that other cars are illegal aswell but if you took those two white balls you have on either side of your nose you would realise that this is the RBR section. Thus only discussing RBR.

You are stating that the RBR wing is illegal because it flexes, so i say that the other wings must be illegal too because those are flexing too.

RBR WING IS ILLEGAL, how hard is that for you to understand?

Pretty hard and also false.
A given statement is always false unless it is proven right, you have yet to prove that it indeed exceeds the 2cm flex with a 1000N load on it, so unless you have proven your statement to be true(or false) it is still false.

Funny because you said on the last page that you did not mention other cars yet here you are mentioning other cars...

You know what it is? You are just saying that because you have barely anything else to say then repeating your same statement over and over again, while we are giving new arguments post per post. Now you have nothing to use for a backfire so you start using this. I, and I am not trying to offend you in any way, find that pretty childish of you. We are going on the discussion with you, what a forum is meant for, but you do not come up with any proof or whatsoever and keep shouting the same thing over and over again, you could at least expalin why you think it is illegal and get a more mature stance.

[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.

But if police wish to catch people speeding they should introduce new and more methods to do that. Hence why the FIA should probably try and measure flex in other ways, perhaps measuring from the car on track, or applying a drag simulation to the wing to measure the flex in the nose as well.

Indeed so. Some have been suggesting this very thing elsewhere. Height sensors in the endplates for example.

[axle]

[..]

Personally I don't know the wing does flex as I'm not privvy to the technical data behind it...I think it's a case of proving it flexes more that proving it doesn't. As the tests by the FIA clearly show it doesn't flex

[wesley123]

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.

3.17 states otherwise, where it states the wing can flex for 2cm with a 1000N load.

Pretty funny by the way, since, as i already stated, you cannot make anything completely rigid, therefore you cannot make a car legal in any way. just the way physics work

If you murder someone your STILL BREAKING THE LAW.

Yes and you aren't guilty until there is proof that you are the murderer. Same as with red bull, maybe the wing is illegal, maybe not, there is no proof that the wing is illegal(you say it is but you cannot prove it) and it passes the test, the wing is legal. It is just as simple as that, why cant you understand that?

[axle]

Indeed so. Some have been suggesting this very thing elsewhere. Height sensors in the endplates for example.

So a car with a soft front end that dives under breaking is then penalised?

[wesley123]

Indeed so. Some have been suggesting this very thing elsewhere. Height sensors in the endplates for example.

So a car with a soft front end that dives under breaking is then penalised?

They should do it like in the LMP's skid blocks in the end plates.

[Sebp]

Indeed so. Some have been suggesting this very thing elsewhere. Height sensors in the endplates for example.

So a car with a soft front end that dives under breaking is then penalised?

Couldn't you have a laser on the end plates pointing inwards to the nose cone. A sensor there could pick up any deflection.

[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.

I rest my case.

If you're going to try to quote out of context it's a good idea to avoid quoting the bit that clarifies the opposing position.

Yes, the wing is illegal because it flexes on track but the tests that determine legality can't prove it. So it's allowed to race.

Really, it's not difficult.

[ianwit]

Indeed so. Some have been suggesting this very thing elsewhere. Height sensors in the endplates for example.

So a car with a soft front end that dives under breaking is then penalised?

They should do it like in the LMP's skid blocks in the end plates.

I agree, there's no need for gadgetry, the cars already run with a block under the driver that is only allowed wear to a degree, why not one for the end plates, parity, and problem solved.

[marcush.]

quite interesting besides the fact of loadcase specific body flex is our debate about legality of taking this route.
I´m quite shocked that people are happy to declare something legal just because it meets some halfbaked static checks wich have undergone several changes recently to enforce the regs and still can´t police the rules as they are written down.
We are interpreting these checks and draw conclusions were we should not .The Reality is :The Fia does a bad job in this area-they have written a set of rules and visually it is obvious that cars are not complying to these rules.
Last year the safety car rule had a definite flaw in it and Mercedes/Schumacher got even slashed their points WITHOUT breaking the rules and now we are in a position that some cars still flex or flex even more than ever and win championships doing this when the rule says no movement allowed at all.
I don´t think the facts are hard to understand and don´t get me wrong the flexy thingies are really catching my attention but this is really bad policing by the FIA and needs correction.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I agree fully with Marcush on this.

If you go to AutoMotorundSport, you will see that the teams insistance that this is all due to rake is BS.
The only reason the whole rake concept works is in fact due to the flex of the front wing.

Take away the wing tips ability to bend toward the ground and lets see how quick the RB7 is.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 11208.html

[HampusA]

Yes, the wing is illegal because it flexes on track but the tests that determine legality can't prove it. So it's allowed to race.

Really, it's not difficult.

That´s what i´m saying all day long.

But if i understand this correctly, a car that breaches a few rules is still legal to race because FIA can´t do the proper tests?

So by your logic, it´s perfectly fine to break the whole rulebook as long as you pass FIA´s tests?

Why do we even have a rulebook? For fun?

[Richard]

The race series is based on a contrived formula based on decades of accumulated quirks, anomalies and interpretations. Success is found by exploiting those quirks, anomalies and interpretations more effectively than other competitors. If the rules were perfect then we’d have a lot less innovation. There would have been no DDD, F-Duct or flexi wing. How dull.

All rule books have contradictions, and in this case the regulator has been very clear and very consistent in the interpretation of the contradiction. Hence the formula is very clearly defined, job done.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The race series is based on a contrived formula based on decades of accumulated quirks, anomalies and interpretations. Success is found by exploiting those quirks, anomalies and interpretations more effectively than other competitors. If the rules were perfect then we’d have a lot less innovation. There would have been no DDD, F-Duct or flexi wing. How dull.

All rule books have contradictions, and in this case the regulator has been very clear and very consistent in the interpretation of the contradiction. Hence the formula is very clearly defined, job done.

Im sorry that doesnt wash, Richard.
The double diffuser was legal. It was legal by the letter of law and fell within the parameters set by the FIA. It was clever in interpretation.
The F-duct similarly, was a device effectively using the driver as a device to close a hole that makes the wing stall. There was no rule for it to transgress.

What we have with Red Bull is bending bodywork which is a flagrant transgression of rule 3.15 as we have seen at length on this discussion.

must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)

To me, and to anyone with a modicum of sense and eyesight this would make the RB7 wing illegal as its a direct trangression of rules. Forget even the fabled spiritual trangression!