Flexible wings 2011

[Tozza Mazza]

But Wesley123, ask yourself this.
Is the wing moveable. Yes.
Is the wing Aerodynamic. Yes.
Is the wing a device. Yes. Because it moves.
Therefore it breaks rule 3.15.

[wesley123]

Well if you read rule 3.15 well you will see it cannot be followed, since the 'perfectly rigid' cannot be done. You cannot make anything without any degree of movement, so therefore 3.15 cannot be followed.

Apart from that, it isnt an active system, it is a passive system, It's execution is based on the ir around it, not by a special setting, which makes the retarded ignition illegal.

[Richard]

But Tozza, ask yourself this.
All bodywork on the car moveable. Yes.
Is the all bodywork Aerodynamic. Yes.
Is all bodywork a device? Yes. Because it moves.
Therefore all bodywork breaks rule 3.15.

[Tozza Mazza]

Proving the stupidty of the rule,and why it needs to be either re-written or reclarified. Technically the driver is a moveable aerodynamic device too, such is the absurdity of the rule.

[Richard]

How about it shows the absurdity of those who find the rule absurd?

The idea of extending the rule to the point where you consider a helmet and all bodywork as "devices" shows you've gone off track?

[hardingfv32]

1) But Mazza, ask yourself this.
Who is judging the wing to be moving: Mazza or the FIA? Who's has the power to enforce their opinion: Mazza or the FIA? For the participants doing the actual racing, the wing is not moving. The actions of the people with the greatest knowledge of this subject imply you are wrong.

2) The engine settings during overrun, or any other time for that matter, were to until this day completely free. That these settings might favor some other aspect of the cars function was not illegal. This practice was of common knowledge of the participants and was never protested. To call it illegal is poor logic and not supported by the F1 participants.

Brian

[Richard]

it is sort of similar as active suspension

I like this analogy, it makes sense.

[Tozza Mazza]

I may not be the FIA, but even I can see (and I wear strong glasses) that the Red Bull's front wing is flexing. If you can't see it, then that's ignorance. Article 3.15 prohibits use of any moveable aerodynamic devices, whetger they are active, passive or driver controlled. Surely the flexi wing must fall into this bracket.

[marcush.]

I have witnessed lots of scrutineering in racing and I would never ever think of scrutineering as a means of enforcing the rules .It´s mainly a safety checkup and randomly some legality checks are done by people who have not thought dayin day out about what you could do to circumvent the rules or to make the car quicker.so it´s the usual has it too big a capacity ,is it too light ,does it not meet the dimensional envelope...end of story.How would you -with the equipment of the FIA measure with some repeatability a tolerance of the bottom of the car for example...and decide if it´s an allowed manufacturing tolerance or a intended (=forbidden)use of the tolerance to get an aero advantage.

[HampusA]

ok first i would set a rule saying that a wing cannot deflect or flex more then 2cm under any circumstances from it's original position while stationary. no grey areas, just black and white.

how i would measure how much a front wing flexes i explained a few pages back. it's just a general idea since like i said, this is not a perfect world so i'm not whiting or have any plans to devote my life to become an official. therefore it will stay as an idea so i don't have to spend hours developing a relatively easy thing for a job i'm not going to have in the future.

Or, increase the weight of the loadtest until we get over the downforce levels the cars get faced with at topspeed.
And add more points on the wing to distribute the load across the whole wing and finally placing the full load on the very edge of the FW.

Load tests will be done while the wing is attached to the car, all the wings will be tested one by one in case RBR has different wings with different strengths in terms of carbon layup like someone mentioned as a possible theory.
And done to both sides at the same time and one side at a time.

if they get past that and still have a wing that flexes to much there will be further, more advanced tests but since the sensor test measures real world movement of the wing at top speed it should gives as very exact numbers on how much the wing flexes.

[Dragonfly]

...................
if they get past that and still have a wing that flexes to much there will be further, more advanced tests but since the sensor test measures real world movement of the wing at top speed it should gives as very exact numbers on how much the wing flexes.

Now only if you could define for us, the mere mortals, how much is "too much" ...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Dragonfly

You know the "wing tip scrapes the floor yet the mid section remains around 5 cm off the ground" too much.

[Dragonfly]

Sorry, but a car is built and measured respective of the reference plane, not the floor.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Sorry, but a car is built and measured respective of the reference plane, not the floor.

Right, so when the mid section remains 5cm off the floor, and the wing tip scrapes the ground what do you think the bit in between is doing?

[marcush.]

to me the test should be a permanent one -on the fly- you have a laser beam monted to the teatray projecting a elongation of the reference plane forward to the front wing .On the front wing you have three targets (mirror)throwing back the laser to three light sensitive sensors mounted on the teatray.This would enable a legality check on the fly.Vibrations can be easily filtered out .You could even introduce a time limit allowance for the Wing not complying of say 20seconds .When your car has reached that limit you are black flagged...