Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Bomber_Pilot]

For those who are still saying the DRS board didnt hit the nose cam, here as the gif i created (finally found out free site which creates it)
it clearly shattered the left nose cam and that is why it was bending later



i have skipped the in between pic(see below) for the purpose of animation to be fluid

The entire left side of the wing lifted, when styrofoam sign got under it and the camera followed that movement. I don't think that's supposed to happen, since the nose should be rigid.

[ecapox]

styrofoam damaged ceramic tiles on the space shuttle.

Like noted above: Anything traveling at a high enough speed can damage things. even water or foam.

[alogoc]

If the nose is really flexing is it legal or not by the 2012 rules?

[siskue2005]

look at the guy in red circle, he is clearly holding the enitre wing on the nose cam, if it is rubbery it would have flexed and came off
these guys are professional, if those wings are indeed rubbery, they would have been told not to hold it that way!
Whereas our red circle friend hardly lifting it, and it started to bend

[antrock]

styrofoam damaged ceramic tiles on the space shuttle.

Like noted above: Anything traveling at a high enough speed can damage things. even water or foam.

..especially if it is soft and flexible enough!

[aancora]

You are saying that polystyrol can damage carbon fiber? O_O

Just like a spring of 800gr can almost kill a driver: as long as the speed is high enough (even under safety car) anything that collides can cause damage. It also damaged the wing itself by the way.

I know about the quantity of motion, I'm an engineering student. But here we are talking about a cube of polystirol..It could have a weight about 200 gr?
Then we have to talk about hardness of Carbon Fiber VS. expanded poly..Maybe it could damage the little flap on the FW but I don't think it could brake a support of the camera..

I think that the movement of the camera is due to the flex of the FW while Vettel was turning the steering wheel..

[siskue2005]

For those who are still saying the DRS board didnt hit the nose cam, here as the gif i created (finally found out free site which creates it)
it clearly shattered the left nose cam and that is why it was bending later



i have skipped the in between pic(see below) for the purpose of animation to be fluid

The entire left side of the wing lifted, when styrofoam sign got under it and the camera followed that movement. I don't think that's supposed to happen, since the nose should be rigid.

you can see his speed on the wheel, it is around 115 to 120 kph
at that speed styrofoam will cause damage and broke the nose cam on left side along with left side wing planes

[Bomber_Pilot]

look at the guy in red circle, he is clearly holding the enitre wing on the nose cam, if at all it is rubbery it would have flexed and came off
these guys are professional, if those wings are indeed rubbery, they would have been told not to hold it that way!
Whereas our rid circle friend hardly lifting it, and it started to bend

Look at the video again. He clearly holds the wing behind the front wing pillar with his left hand and rests the most of its weight on his knee. You can see it in the way he walks backwards. Until that point he bearly puts any stress on the camera with his right hand, but we cannot see what happens afterwards.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JN0F5H29v0[/youtube]

[siskue2005]

yup you are right, but didnt the red circle guy also lift just the left hand side nose cam? but his nose broke but not the new wing guy's?

[krisfx]

i think that is false, you cannot run an illegal car on a GP weekend, even during free practice
it is very strict rule....as soon as they go out on free practice they have to comply by rules.
that is why u dont see bird cage gizmos during free practice , but only during testings...instead we see flow viz

A) they use the big metal fence like things all the time in practice, and B) I remember ferrari testing illegal gurneys last year in FP (no idea why) I think you're allowed whatever in FP tbh as it's pretty much there for development reasons these days with the ban in testing.

[siskue2005]

A)no they dont run fence thingy in free practice
Lotus are running it today in Young drivers testing

B)it was banned not an illegal thing at the begining of the session, it is just in the grey area...but the FIA banned it later


Ferrari ran this rear wing in Friday's practice sessions in Spain, but had to revert back to their Turkey-spec design from Saturday onwards after the FIA deemed it illegal. The area of controversy was the additional Gurney flaps on the top (in yellow), which took the wing 30mm over the normal maximum height limit. That limit is 950mm above the reference plane (the lowest part of the car, excepting the plank), the same as for the engine cover and roll-over structure. Ferrari claimed the flaps were not actually not part of the wing, but were actually part of the slot-gap separator, or rear wing supports, which are exempt from the height requirement. The FIA disagreed and decided that the configuration breached article 3.10.3 of the technical regulations. Charlie Whiting conceded that it was a clever interpretation, but felt it was not within the spirit of the rules.

FIA Technical Regulations, Article 3.10.3:
In order to ensure that the individual profiles and the relationship between these two sections can only change whilst the car is in motion in accordance with Article 3.18, they must be bridged by means of pairs of rigid impervious supports arranged such that no part of the trailing edge of the forward section may be more than 200mm laterally from a pair of supports. These pairs of supports must :
- be located no more than 355mm from the car centre line ;
- fully enclose each complete sections such that their inner profiles match that of each section. With the exception of minimal local changes where the two sections are adjacent to each other, their outer profiles must be offset from the inner profiles by between 8mm and 30mm and may not incorporate any radius smaller than 10mm ('gurney' type trim tabs may however be fitted between the supports) ;
- be aligned as a pair so as to provide a bearing across their full thickness and along a profile length of at least 10mm when the distance between the two sections is at its closest position ;
- not be recessed into the wing profiles (where a recess is defined as a reduction in section at a rate greater than 45° with respect to a lateral axis) ;
- be arranged so that any curvature occurs only in a horizontal plane ;- be between 2mm and 5mm thick ;
- be rigidly fixed to their respective sections ;
- be constructed from a material with modulus greater than 50GPa.
These supports will be ignored when assessing whether the car is in compliance with Articles 3.6, 3.9.2, 3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.10.4 and 3.10.6.
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 3/860.html

[raymondu999]

They don't have to run a completely legal car for Friday. But they have minmum radii, and exclusion zones to avoid accidents.

[AnthonyG]

Somebody mentioned something about the wing pilons being part of the crash-structure, brighten up your screen and look at the inside, it seems to be a multiple piece element of some sort.

[siskue2005]

They don't have to run a completely legal car for Friday. But they have minmum radii, and exclusion zones to avoid accidents.

but dont they do all the scrutinerry during fridays?
i would like to see rules and regs for what you claim.

[stefan_]

To me it looks like the tip of the nose - where the yellow area starts (view image - zoom on the nose) is not the same piece as the rest (as I presume it would be normal - a single piece carbon fibre nosecone). Maybe this is the wrap around thing that flexes/moves/whatever. Don't have a clear side view though, but it would be hard to figure it out due to the dark colour of the car.

The thing is that I am pretty sure that when I saw the pit stop during the race, the area around the Infiniti logo wrinkeled when the mechanic was moving the camera housings to detach the nose.