Red Bull RB10 Renault

[ecapox]

That's actuawant. a lot of deflection there. Must be a good 5cm or so, maybe more? Are other teams doing this?

Yeah. My first thought was "that's at least 5cm of movement!"

In FP You can run whatever you want in quality, your cas has to be 100% legal. So maybe they ran it and were told to remove it immediately for quality.

[zztopless]

Doesn't look like they were running it in qualifying:

http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Seb ... 777639.jpg

[johnsonwax]

Moveable aero, no?

I would think no. There's no actuation, so they're unable to control it - it's simply flexing due to aero loading, and in general I think that's okay. The FIA put the limits on the front wing to make sure it was sturdy enough, but permitted the flexing in that case. That piece isn't load bearing, it's unlikely to come off the car and become a hazard, it's unlikely to upset the aero enough that it would cause the car to crash if it came off.

My guess is the FIA would give it a grudgingly thumbs up.

[basti313]

Moveable aero, no?

I would think no. There's no actuation, so they're unable to control it - it's simply flexing due to aero loading, and in general I think that's okay. The FIA put the limits on the front wing to make sure it was sturdy enough, but permitted the flexing in that case. That piece isn't load bearing, it's unlikely to come off the car and become a hazard, it's unlikely to upset the aero enough that it would cause the car to crash if it came off.

My guess is the FIA would give it a grudgingly thumbs up.

Actually they can test it, but have to define a test:
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.

But this has to be done by the FIA...so there is no problem now. Maybe we will have different rules for the next race, but this will be a problem for the whole field. So I do not think there will be a test.

[myurr]

Moveable aero, no?

I would think no. There's no actuation, so they're unable to control it - it's simply flexing due to aero loading, and in general I think that's okay. The FIA put the limits on the front wing to make sure it was sturdy enough, but permitted the flexing in that case. That piece isn't load bearing, it's unlikely to come off the car and become a hazard, it's unlikely to upset the aero enough that it would cause the car to crash if it came off.

My guess is the FIA would give it a grudgingly thumbs up.

You guess wrong. Red Bull already removed the winglet from the car in qualifying, presumably on Charlies orders. Also, for the record, the movable / flexible aero rules do not have anything to do with actuation or structural integrity or bearing of loads. Any element of the car bending in the airflow more than the FIA like can be banned instantly and they have the power to impose new tests upon the teams to enforce their views at will. The rules themselves expressly prohibit any movement at all in the airflow, and the FIA then tell the teams how they will test for that so that the practicalities of just how rigid the pieces of the car should be are taken into account.

[PlatinumZealot]

A very clever attempt none the less.

[zztopless]

But can such a small flap really give that much of a performance advantage, even with quite a bit of flex? It's not running a high angle of attack relative to the oncoming air, seems to be more of a turning vane.

I still suspect that video is of the piece before it broke in FP1 when we saw Ricciardo trying to break it off.

[wesley123]

Such vanes manage pressure difference/lift etc. over the top of the sidepod.

As the video shows, the gap between the sidepod shoulder and the vane closes, and this could cause some issues with the flow over the sidepod, which would be the point. I'd guess it reduces drag, there is quite a bit of area behind there that normally would create downforce(and drag) that you don't really need in a straight line. Thus, it's drag reduction, and positionwise I'd guess it would be more effective than one would suspect.

[Emerson.F]

Such vanes manage pressure difference/lift etc. over the top of the sidepod.

As the video shows, the gap between the sidepod shoulder and the vane closes, and this could cause some issues with the flow over the sidepod, which would be the point. I'd guess it reduces drag, there is quite a bit of area behind there that normally would create downforce(and drag) that you don't really need in a straight line. Thus, it's drag reduction, and positionwise I'd guess it would be more effective than one would suspect.

That dastardly Adrian Newey..

[Huntresa]

Doesn't look like they were running it in qualifying:

http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Seb ... 777639.jpg

Yeah they cut it off during practice, while being filmed

[1158]

I would like to know if they cut it off because it wasn't working properly or were they told to remove it. Anyone have any info on that? I would imagine Charlie told them to lose it, but sometimes I think Charlie has lost it.

[bonjon1979]

Yes it is. But how is such a part of the car governed by the FIA?

By the rule that states you can have no moveable aero. Different day same cheating from red bull

[djos]

Yes it is. But how is such a part of the car governed by the FIA?

By the rule that states you can have no moveable aero. Different day same cheating from red bull

This kind of ignorant statement just shows that you don't understand F1! Every team pushes the rules to the limits and frequently beyond and they always have done!

[Duke]

Yes it is. But how is such a part of the car governed by the FIA?

By the rule that states you can have no moveable aero. Different day same cheating from red bull

As long as it passes any FIA deflection tests, it is legal.

[jagunx51]

Doesn't look like they were running it in qualifying:

http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Seb ... 777639.jpg

.... slim as RB10