No more flexy wings. The "suspected of having" part seems like a pretty BS excuse by the FIA for not having the capability to test their assumptions. Also, they listed about every guess that was in the Flexing Wing Controversy thread; i.e. the FIA still have no idea how it was being done.3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three
different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be
applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm
diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line. Stays or
structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be
present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows
non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of
allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection
above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have, or is suspected of having, any
non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.
Guess they didn't like the Red Bull solution.21.8 Changes to Article 20.3.4 :
20.3.4 Any camera or camera housing fitted in the left hand position 2 shown in Drawing 6 (aka front nose mounted camera) must be
mounted in order that its major axis where passing through the centre of the camera lens (or
corresponding position for a camera housing) does not intersect any part of the car lying forward of
the camera or camera housing.
E.g. a structure whcih is 50mm wide and 200mm long would give the necessary 10,000mm².2011 Regs wrote:15.2.4 The principal roll structure must have a minimum enclosed structural cross section of 10000mm², in vertical
projection, across a horizontal plane 50mm below its highest point. The area thus established must not
exceed 200mm in length or width and may not be less than 10000mm2 below this point.
lets see how far Newey got with that..riff_raff wrote:One thing that seems strange about the 2010/2011 rules is the prohibition of magnesium. Is it due to a fire hazard? Magnesium wheels and transmission housings have been used in the past, so why not now?
As for the adjustable aero devices, apparently they can be enabled/disabled at any time by the race stewards.
Seems like mag wheels are still in (unless you meant another alloy). It does state that no engine parts can be magnesium, though. When was the last time F1 had a magnesium fire?12.3 Wheel material :
Wheels must be made from AZ70 or AZ80 magnesium alloys.
I hope that these teams haven't invested too much into the blade concept : http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/12/1 ... explained/conni wrote:i know of at least 2 teams using the blade this yeargridwalker wrote:Alas the blade is banned, to be replaced with a traditional roll hoop, though this is not to say that the airbox inlets still can't be moved away from the conventional position like they did for 2010, freeing up the flow through the hoop to the rear wing.
conni
Scarbs wrote:Mercedes surprised many with their blade-like roll structure, reducing the obstruction to the rear wing and allowing for a much shorter inlet tract for the engine, the solution was likely to be copied. A minimum cross section forced teams to have a wider section above the drivers head, negating the fundamental benefit of the solution
The FIA wrote:“15.2.4 The principal roll structure must have a minimum enclosed structural cross section of 10000mm², in vertical projection, across a horizontal plane 50mm below its highest point. The area thus established must not exceed 200mm in length or width and may not be less than 10000mm2 below this point.”
Marcush that's what I thought when I posted above -50mm doesn't seem much wider than the Merc blade this year...machin wrote:To me this reads as if the blade IS allowed:- E.g. a structure whcih is 50mm wide and 200mm long would give the necessary 10,000mm².
I actually read it ..sorry for not quoting you ...I was surely not trying to steel laurels there...for that math!!!machin wrote:Marcush that's what I thought when I posted above -50mm doesn't seem much wider than the Merc blade this year...machin wrote:To me this reads as if the blade IS allowed:- E.g. a structure whcih is 50mm wide and 200mm long would give the necessary 10,000mm².
How thick are the conventional roll -structures? -this rule means you need one of 50x200 or two of 25x200... 25mm thick seems larger than today's conventional roll-hooped cars?gridwalker wrote: Maybe to prevent more extreme (and potentially dangerous) interpretations being introduced?
