Flexible wings 2011

[wesley123]

Wing is designed to bridge the gap to the ground and thus making it efficient.

Indeed it is.

The bullshit about Rake that Horner say is disproven by watching a stationary pic of the car since the rake could only get less in higher speeds.

I cannot understand how you come to that assumption.

[HampusA]

You got that wrong we all agree that it flexes.
One camp just doesn't think it is illegal because it does pass all the test therefore must be legal.

The other camp keeps arguing with rule 3.15 and says it is illegal even when rule 3.15 is not adequate for this problem.

Then we have three camps.

[HampusA]

Wing is designed to bridge the gap to the ground and thus making it efficient.

Indeed it is.

The bullshit about Rake that Horner say is disproven by watching a stationary pic of the car since the rake could only get less in higher speeds.

I cannot understand how you come to that assumption.

Stationary - wing is well above the ground - maximum rake unless we have active suspension on the RB7.

Top speed - wing touching the ground in some cases - Atleast the same rake as staionary could be slightly less due to all the downforce on the car.

If you have been brought up with the metric system, all it would take is throwing an eye on the pictures and you would realise that, that is not 2cm.

Therefore is breaches the rules, the wing is clearly designed to bridge the gap to the ground, it is clearly moving in regards to the rest of the car etc.

then Andrew will jump in and say well measure it. Well only FIA can do that because not even other teams are allowed near the RBR nor can they strap on their own measuring systems to the RBR to really see much it flexes.

An easy way for FIA would be to build some bar that goes from the nosecone out to the left or right with a sensor on it. then put a sensor on the far edge of the wing and tell them to do a top speed run during FP1. that way they will know exactly by how much the front wing flexes in real conditions.

Same could be done for testing if the nose actually does flex as some videos shows.

a bar 5 cm above the the front area of the cockpit goes straight out to the tip of the nosecone with sensors at both ends.

[xpensive]

I believe the only sensible stand here is if it passes scrutineering, it's legal, anything else would be unmanageable.

A little like OJ Simpson being aquitted for murder, while anyone with half a brain knew he was guilty as sin.

[hardingfv32]

Now we are getting back to an interesting technical discussion.

Yes, a FIA homologated stress reading beam built into all wings using FIA monitoring software. Let us record stress on any part subject to the no flex clause... completely achievable. Each car will be assigned a FIA DA technician to maintain the system.

Brian

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Now we are getting back to an interesting technical discussion.

Yes, a FIA homologated stress reading beam built into all wings using FIA monitoring software. Let us record stress on any part subject to the no flex clause... completely achievable. Each car will be assigned a FIA DA technician to maintain the system.

Brian

So simple yet Charlie Whiting would probably find it contradicts his decision. Alot like umpires in cricket being overturned by tech....

[hardingfv32]

I have never got that sense from Whiting's decisions. You don't see the participants up in arms over his decisions. If he is considered the final judge, then he gets to make the call on gray area subject like``` the one we are discussing. Both camps have valid points, but at some point the judge makes the call. You live with his decisions and adapt accordingly. No right or wrong, just what Whiting says.

Brian

[Ferraripilot]

I believe the only sensible stand here is if it passes scrutineering, it's legal, anything else would be unmanageable.

A little like OJ Simpson being aquitted for murder, while anyone with half a brain knew he was guilty as sin.

hah! very well put! It is what it is at this point

[Richard]

If you have been brought up with the metric system, all it would take is throwing an eye on the pictures and you would realise that, that is not 2cm.

HampusA - The deflection test is 2cm for 1000N, the wing at high speed has a lot more than 1000N, hence more than 2cm deflection.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

3.15 Though shalt not Murder

3.17 In event of Murder, suspected or otherwise, any test shall be carried out to prove murder occured.


The FIA are guilty of failing 3.17 and Red Bull 3.15.

[gridwalker]

Glad to see the fine art of hyperbole is not lost around here.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Glad to see the fine art of hyperbole is not lost around here.

Serves its purpose

[Richard]

JET - Murder is binary, someone is dead or alive. Deflection is variable and occurs at all times for all objects. A better analogy would be:

3.15 Car shall not be capable of excessive speed on the highway

3.17 Excess speed is controlled by the accelerator pedal - a car's speed shall be 30mph or less when the accelerator pedal is pressed down by 2cm.

Yes it is a silly test, it doesn't address what happens when the pedal is pressed by more than 2cm, nor does it allow real time monitoring outside the scrutineer's garage.

[HampusA]

It's pretty funny that these tests are the best they can come up with really.
Embarrasing really.. Even HRT could do a better job at tests.
seems like FIA is not really at the level as F1 teams with the sophistication they have.

the least thing they could do is triple the load. or simply remove the rules all together they are just words anyway.

[Richard]

That's the way the formula has evolved. Much of it is arbitrary, for example why have an open cockpit, why have that size of wheel, and what is high tech about a 2 inch plank?

The rules don't aim to establish very best engineering. They simply say "here is a game we've invented, if you want to play with us then you need a car that looks like this"