Red Bull RB8 Renault

[hardingfv32]

Then it is a broken wing we are discussing....

I do not understand how you bend of the rear section of the wing upward and and not change the attitude of the leading edge. There had to significant frontal force generated by an off track excursion. The leading edge of the wind should be impacted. Please explain.

Brian

[Dragonfly]

This is the summary how discussion is led in this thread (and forum) lately. No one cares about facts, news, and what the others say. Last few pages have nothing to do with the car, lest its technical aspects. Just wild fantasy about an actually broken wing.


edit: made clearer my view that the wing is broken

[ringo]

The wing is broken man! get a hold of yourselves!

There is no way the wing will be legal if it was bending like that naturally.
We have 2 pages discussing a clearly broken wing!

We shouldnt even be discussing this issue. I guess the season needs to start now

[hardingfv32]

3.12.1: All sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane.

3.12.1 deals with the chassis floor. It is going to take a very special rule to allow the curved surfaces of the wing and then specify that the bottom edge of the endplate must be parallel with a reference plain. The width of the endplate is not controlled. I do not think an end plate is even required.

Brian

[Guisson]

Did Somebody actually knows how fast the RB8 is "degrading its Tires" comparing to other teams?

[FrukostScones]

no, we learned a lot about regs and stuff...

"I went off "I went off track and broke the front wing and had to come in, and it took quite a while to get back out and just before lunch we suffered a problem with the gearbox so we have to fix it and get back out after lunch."

vettel, autosport...

1. I want to see that "off"
2. I takes a while to change the front wing...? =D> Maybe too clean the car, but it didn't look dirty though..

Why did it break? Aero load or leading edge to gravel pit? And then why did it break there, crucial point for flexing/bending/twisting whatever?

[hardingfv32]

We shouldnt even be discussing this issue.

Estimate the mechanics of the break. It does not fit the normal wing damage outcome.

Can an understanding of why it broke like this provide insight into how they flex their wings?

Brian

[Tozza Mazza]

3.12.1 deals with the reference plane being flat. Everything else (length and height) is with regards to the reference plane.

The wing is broken, there is nothing weird about how it is broken, there is no loophole, no visible benefit from doing this, so please, just drop it, and it's illegal anyway.

The front wing does not have to be parallel to the ground, but the reference plane, so follows the orientation of the car (rake).

[FrukostScones]

3.12.1 deals with the reference plane being flat. Everything else (length and height) is with regards to the reference plane.

The wing is broken, there is nothing weird about how it is broken, there is no loophole, no visible benefit from doing this, so please, just drop it, and it's illegal anyway.

The front wing does not have to be parallel to the ground, but the reference plane, so follows the orientation of the car (rake).

But wasn't there the same discussion about RB7/RB6 doing the same front wing flex / stance alternation while on the move..
Now we see the same exact behavior while in standstill, of course the wing is broken but why and why exactly there...?

[Tozza Mazza]

Because it crashed front first.

Mods please, end this.

[Twaddle]

To me it seems to suggest that the RB front wing is manufactured roughly how it appears in its 'broken' state and has an internal mechanism that applies torque about the axis of the mandated central section to pull it into its 'normal' state. With this mechanism broken, and torque was no longer applied, the wing reverted to its 'relaxed' state. Working in this way would also make passing the FIA tests rather trivial since you aren't directly applying force to the wing produce the desired flex in the race, but applying it somewhere else to indirectly to reduce the applied torque.

[Raptor22]

The front wing on many of the cars is attached to the support pylons by sliding onto a metal stud at the bottom of each pylon. The wing is then clamped fast via the allen head expander bolt seen at the leading edge of the lower pylon.

Vettel hit a kurb during an offtrack excursion and bent the two studs holding the wing hence the extreme angle on the wing.

This is the standard method of attaching the wing to the pylons.


There is nothing illegal about how its attached. The wing is unlikely to flex downward on the studs since they extend rearward a good inch or two

[eurocentric]

Because it crashed front first.

Mods please, end this.

Seconded.

[bill shoe]

I don't know if the interesting wing angle is the result of design, or some sort of failure/crash.

However, the front wing pictures (and this thread's discussion of them) are clearly significant. Anyone who claims the wing broke in an ordinary accident and there is nothing interesting or significant about its subsequent orientation is asking me to be dim.

[beelsebob]

I don't know if the interesting wing angle is the result of design, or some sort of failure/crash.

However, the front wing pictures (and this thread's discussion of them) are clearly significant. Anyone who claims the wing broke in an ordinary accident and there is nothing interesting or significant about its subsequent orientation is asking me to be dim.

At risk of fanning the flames... Why on earth do you think this is any more than a pair of connectors that are --- by hitting something?