Flexible wings 2011

[shamikaze]

If I shot and killed someone on camera, but there is no DNA evidence or no trace of the weapon, does this mean I'm innocent?
Of course it doesn't.

Sadly, in law (and in F1), it is not what you know, if is what you can prove beyond reasonable doubt. But it all starts with the assumption that one in innocent until proven guilty. If you can't "proove" it, there is no choice (unless you work like the Belgian tax system that works on the assumption that you are cheating ).

We have all seen / read about criminals regaining their freedom because someone did not contact the right person at the right time in the right way. Although it was clear that the criminal was at fault or the one that had commited the crime. I think they call it "procedural error" which breaks the chain of confidence and warrant that the evidence has not been "tampered" with.

In this respect, the FIA probably considers the video / fotographioc "evidence" of this flexing as circumstancial evidence, but not valid enough to state that these are flexing. Here, as has been stated more times that I care to remeber, the "procedure" (i.e. test-mechanism) is at fault.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Is there any reasonable doubt that the Red Bull front wing is flexing?

I could provide you with many photos of the cars wing tips scraping the ground, and even Red Bull mechanics hastily sandpapering the edges to have a flush finish.
Why would they be doing that if it wasn't scraping the ground?
We even have video evidence of the wing moving under load.

So front wing which we can visibly see flex = flexing body work = banned.


People getting hung up on the rule 3.17 ought to see that its only there to enforce rule 3.15 as i have said 3 times now.
-Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom)
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

Red bull's wing does neither.

Now in light of this, my disbelief is doubled when the FIA have this rule.

"In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."

So in pure laymans terms, we have a rule which specifically bans any part of the sprung mass of the car flexing, and another that if there is any hint of flex going on, the test will be changed accordingly.(wether it be visible, or even suspect as clearly stipulated in the rules).

I think its a balls up that will see Vettel being crowned champion by the end of July....good work FIA.

[marcush.]

JET you are spot on in this.
The FIA regs are cristal clear in what is allowed and what is not.And definitively flexing is NOT allowed for performance gains .the tests in place are introduced to police the non flexing charecteristic and can be changed at short notice if their is even only a doubt of parts flexing.So the video evidence is enough to doubt the wings non flexing charecteristic and in my understanding their is no ways to justify saying the car is legal as it is. It is legal as per the checks that are made by the FIA ,but those are obviously not ctaching the special characteristic of RedBulls bodywork.

[gridwalker]

So, what are F1 fans to do? The FIA clearly aren't taking the issue seriously, despite visual evidence that suggests a breech. If it is "obvious" to the viewer then that puts a serious dent into the sport's reputation.

Given how passionate some forum members seem to be on the topic, why not create and promote a Fan Petition that requests much stricter policing of article 3.15? I'm sure that there would be many fans out there who would sign it (I would) and then you could send the results to the FIA.

Personally, I don't care enough to put in all of the effort, but it is about time we saw some fan involvement in the way F1 regs are enforced : if they mess around with the rules to improve the show for us, then surely they can enforce their rules to ensure that we feel the sport retains some credibility.

Here's a link to start the ball rolling : http://epetitions.net/

Now can people stop their complaining and do something about it? Even if nothing comes from it, at least you can say you tried ... (which is how I justify all of the time I spent on activism for the Stop The War Coalition)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Thanks Gridwalker,

Very constructive, and indeed you are right. I think if I start a thread it would help to stop diluting the thread.

[marcush.]

+1 Jet

[Dragonfly]

-Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom)
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

Does anyone sincerely believe this is practically possible on a F1 car?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

-Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom)
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

Does anyone sincerely believe this is practically possible on a F1 car?

Dragonfly

We all know carbonfibre will flex to a degree.

But you cant hold that up as a defence for the flexibilty of Red Bulls wing.

[HampusA]

-Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom)
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

Does anyone sincerely believe this is practically possible on a F1 car?

Yes, compare rear wing RBR to Ferrari´s.

One flap around like it´s made of paper while the other one is rock solid.

Then watch front wing on maybe Williams or so then compare to Mclaren or RBR´s.

It´s possible for sure.

[marcush.]

drag ...you would not dispute that RedBulls bodywork does not show its flex only because it´s impossible to build entirely rigid parts?
The regs aare very clear in demanding no flex -but allow for the inevitable - because entirely rigid is not possible.To design around this is surely not allowed -as only the static tests currently in place are respected and not the regulations in complete as they are written.
It´s not even a point of interpretation ,it´s frankly stating:as long as the tests are passed -we are legal .the fact is the tests are unsuitable for the solution RedBull has invented to circumvent exactly these rules.

btw the design of these parts is tailored to the test in place...the behaviour is obviously aiming at meeting the test criteria but show a completely differnt behaviour on the track .If that´s not cheating what is ?Just because there are no illegal materials or parts on it or we cannot see anything it is still happening.

[mep]

I could provide you with many photos of the cars wing tips scraping the ground, and even Red Bull mechanics hastily sandpapering the edges to have a flush finish.

Could you post some of your photos where we see the wing actually touching the ground? It’s not that I doubt you I just love to see pictures with scraping front wing. On the pictures I have seen so far there is still some clearance between the wing and the ground.

[HampusA]

How about this video? Study the front wing carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ktZ4jF6Pc&NR=1

Why would RBR mechanics sand the front wing down when in the pits if it never touches the ground?

[hardingfv32]

"Flex" is it allowed or not? I assume the hard liners will say no flex at all. Fine, so may I assume an absolute flex number of .0000 mm? Or will you allow me a tolerance of some kind since there are no instruments that accurate available for use at the track. This is in the case of static test with the car not moving. For a moving car what am I to use? Differently not the human eye, so lets say a laser system. Guess what, nothing even close to .0000 mm in a laser system for the track.

You guys are talking the talk, but not providing the administrator of the rule with any tools to use.

You want someone to make a judgement, which the FIA has done, but you are not happy with it. Must we search for a judge that "views" things to your satisfaction? What is the measure of your satisfaction, .0000 mm?

Stop hiding behind the letter of the law and make some practical decisions.

Brian

[Dragonfly]

Guys, I am afraid this thread is going in circles.
Those of you, who think RBR FW flexes too much in comparison to the others, have taken the 3.15 like an universally applicable postulate.
And totally disregard the fact that the rulemaker has devoted a separate section to parts, which are impossible to make to the letter of the said rule, where every part has a defined test for compatibility and legality. It's the principle the FIA rules are written - first declare the global requirement, then list the exceptions.
I also don't quite understand why so many people think wing flex is bad thing. FIA has defined the test procedure and loads to ensure they do not go beyond given degree of flexibility (and I think it is to satisfy their safety concerns).
There is no other way to prevent a real mess and scandals. If a wing passes the test, it's legal.
You may think that the current test is inefficient but this is how things stand. And should live with it. Like you may think a 80 km/h limit on a given road section is not safe, or 40 km/h too low but still you comply with it.
Writing this I am not sure FIA won't change the test or the wording if many teams make such wings and the tendency is they to become dngereously flexible.
But for now I think that at least 50% of the visual effect of running close to the ground is due to other reasons and the concept of the car as a package.

[HampusA]

lol. It´s not a problem that the wing flex.

The problem is FIA specifically made RULES saying that nothing on a F1 car is allowed to flex, now we all can see that it does flex so why is the rule there?

As long as you pass the tests you can have a whole car that changes shape completely and still be "legal".

Either they remove the rule or they start upping their tests with more load and loads in many different areas of the wing.

And, take a closer look at the wing under the skin.