Red Bull RB8 Renault

[vall]

Interesting picture here...old BAR honda. Impact attenuator inside the shell?


now, add a external shell with vertical flexibility, and a rubber in last 15cm:
You'll have Red Bull nose cone

but this should be illegal, right? No part is allowed to move and affect the aerodynamic performance of the car....

[McMrocks]

a very stupid question (the moderators will delete it if needed):

is there any possibility to make the material more flexing while the race? because the linked videos showed about 1cm movement at unknown forces ( i think they were not very high)

What is with the bigger nose cone: Is there some heating to make some material more elastic?

after seeing the onboard somebody posted I wonder how the wing became declared legal from the FiA

[aral]

Interesting picture here...old BAR honda. Impact attenuator inside the shell?


now, add a external shell with vertical flexibility, and a rubber in last 15cm:
You'll have Red Bull nose cone

but this should be illegal, right? No part is allowed to move and affect the aerodynamic performance of the car....

The nose has been inspected by FIA who have already stated that it complies with the rules.

[hollus]

Let's not go there again. Nothing is infinitely rigid, the FIA has supplied a defined flexibility test and declared that everything flexing less than the test's allowance is legal. Red Bull has passed all the successive tests, hence legal.
Shall we not concentrate in how and why it flexes (if it does) and leave the legality issue rest in peace?

[vall]

Let's not go there again. Nothing is infinitely rigid, the FIA has supplied a defined flexibility test and declared that everything flexing less than the test's allowance is legal. Red Bull has passed all the successive tests, hence legal.
Shall we not concentrate in how and why it flexes (if it does) and leave the legality issue rest in peace?

you are right in principle, but the teams know what tests FIA does and they design the tested parts to comply with the test. This does not mean the nose+FW combo is legal? What about if the nose indeed moves and acts as mass dumper? This must be illegal, but as far as I know FIA does not test for this sort of movement. If there is enough Reasoning, FIA should alter their tests to ensure that no moving parts are on the cars. So far they only test if the FW bends up an down within 2cm, right?

[Cam]

No. The FIA set the rules and its the teams job to interpret those rules and design a car accordingly. As long as a component passes the tests, it's legal, regardless of any 'spirit of the rules'.

Edit: typo

[vall]

No. The FIA set the rules and its the teams job to interpret those rules and design a car accordingly. As long as a component passes the tests, it's legal, regardless of any 'spirit of the rules'.

Edit: typo

Right! But FIA has the right to alter the test and even invent new once to ensure that no moving parts are on the cars. This is written in the regulations...

[Just_a_fan]

The rules state that X must not move more than Y. X is tested and moves less than Y. X is legal. If X moves more than Y in a different situation then it is still illegal but it is for the FIA to show that it is.

For the hard of thinking, here is an analogy.

You drive along a road. The speed limit for that road is 60mph. You drive at 70mph and are caught by a policeman who is using a speed trap. You are breaking the law.

You drive along a road. The speed limit for that road is 60mph. You drive at 70mph and there are no policemen around. You are breaking the law.

In both cases you are breaking the law. The fact that you only got caught in the first case doesn't alter the fact that you are breaking the law in both cases.

In sport, "breaking the law" has a shorter name: cheating.

[triart3d]

Let's not go there again. Nothing is infinitely rigid, the FIA has supplied a defined flexibility test and declared that everything flexing less than the test's allowance is legal. Red Bull has passed all the successive tests, hence legal.
Shall we not concentrate in how and why it flexes (if it does) and leave the legality issue rest in peace?

"3.15. Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances"

"3.17.8
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"


I see a construction designed to bridge the gap betteen the sprung part of the car (the front wing) and the ground.
So FIA must introduce further load/defection test on the nose.

Do you remember?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_5Q3OreIo[/youtube]
It was declared ilegal without a central support.. because it flexed.

After that video, no new test of load was created.. but:
"Prior to the Canadian race, the FIA reinforced the rules related to flexible wings, in particular the front bridge wings, which are now a feature on most cars. The teams were told to provide additional support to the central section of the wing, by connecting it to the nosecone, and to reinforce the parts of the profile that could flex under aerodynamic load. In Montreal a flexible wing would provide a clear advantage, as it would mean less drag on the straights but higher downforce in the twisty sections. Instead of adopting a central pillar connecting the central section of the bridge wing to the nosecone, McLaren have utilised a tiny arched profile connecting the nosecone to the upper face of the bridge wing (see yellow arrow and inset). This solution appears to be less disruptive in terms of aerodynamics while still preventing the wing from flexing"

This is a similar case.

[wrcsti]

I see that rule more as a means to ban fold down skirts from being introduced more than flexi wings.

[vall]

I see that rule more as a means to ban fold down skirts from being introduced more than flexi wings.

well, this is are you think, but the rule says:

"3.15. Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances"

so, nothing is allowed to bridge the gap.......

FIA must act to ensure fair game.

[Cam]

You're assuming (key word here) that the 'rubber' nose is a bridging device. Deep breathe. Okay. The FIA have looked at it and they've passed it. Unless you can prove, using facts, figures and diagrams, that it is a bridging device or that it is illegal, then I think these constant allegations need to stop, on all threads. Have an opinion, sure, but back it up. As a wise man once said "put up or shut up".

[Kiril Varbanov]

A bit aside from the recent rubber nose discussions, here's a close picture of the front wing from Abu Dhabi, endplate off, seconds before it will be replaced:

[vall]

You're assuming (key word here) that the 'rubber' nose is a bridging device. Deep breathe. Okay. The FIA have looked at it and they've passed it. Unless you can prove, using facts, figures and diagrams, that it is a bridging device or that it is illegal, then I think these constant allegations need to stop, on all threads. Have an opinion, sure, but back it up. As a wise man once said "put up or shut up".

the FW has passed FIA test. Do you have a link to support your claim the FIA also looked at other aspects of RBR nose, e.g. if it oscillates and serves as mass-dumper? There is a video of Webber's car going over the kerbs that shows the whole nose oscillating like hell. IF this is because they have put a rubber in the nose, then I would call it "a bridging device". Way else they have put that rubber then?

[Cam]

You're assuming (key word here) that the 'rubber' nose is a bridging device. Deep breathe. Okay. The FIA have looked at it and they've passed it. Unless you can prove, using facts, figures and diagrams, that it is a bridging device or that it is illegal, then I think these constant allegations need to stop, on all threads. Have an opinion, sure, but back it up. As a wise man once said "put up or shut up".

the FW has passed FIA test. Do you have a link to support your claim the FIA also looked at other aspects of RBR nose, e.g. if it oscillates and serves as mass-dumper? There is a video of Webber's car going over the kerbs that shows the whole nose oscillating like hell. IF this is because they have put a rubber in the nose, then I would call it "a bridging device". Way else they have put that rubber then?

Maybe it's just rubber. Maybe it has no purpose other than to wobble around. I do not know, hence I'm not making any allegations either way. If you must make an allegation, back it up with a working hypothesis and details to support your theory. To simply say "it's flexing and is illegal, the FIA must act" is repugnant and not worthy of a technical thread.

Edit: here's your link- http://www.themotorreport.com.au/#/5540 ... ontroversy