Flexible wings 2011

[she_spools_180]

omg.... it took me a few days, but I started at the start, and read through every single post, looked at every link... and finally, I consider myself worthy of a reply.

First of all, I will openly admit that I am a Redbull fan (consider me biased, whatever, maybe I am). But, I think it's great what they are doing. I am in my last few months of a Mechanical Engineering Degree, and I have to say, in my eyes, from my perspective, what the Redbull aero team are doing, is pure engineering genius.

Even though, they SEEM to be breaking the rules (it certainly looks that way, but it has not been proven beyond all doubt), they are getting away with it.

This is why I appreciate F1 so much, these tricks they use, the innovations, that seems to come out of nowhere, or are so whacky (DDD, F-duct, FFE etc), yet do not fail scrutineering, and give them that extra edge (or cliff...in the case of redbull). It is this stretching and bending of the wording in the rules and regulations, that gives you that extra LITTLE bit to play with, if you find it. And, once you find it, that LITTLE bit extra, sometimes manifests itself into some pretty amazing things.

F1 is all about pushing boundaries, if you seem to be breaking a rule, but it cannot be proven, then I'm all for it, I love to see these things. If the test has to change to prove that you are breaking it... then so be it. I'm all for it, because then (as was the case last year with the wing) the engineers might pull something else out of the hat, to still pass the test. If the test doesn't change, then there is nothing stopping other teams trying to do the same thing, if it really works or helps.

I wonder how many other F1 cars have things, that we cannot see, and are not clearly visible, or noticeable, that also give an advantage, also break the rules, but also manage to circumvent the testing procedure. I wonder how many more Redbull have?

I had a lot more to say, but that's long enough

anyway, that's my opinion, that has been brewing for a few days.... fire away

EDIT:

If you gona admire RB for engineering a flexy wing, then you should also admit that they are trying to brake the rule and cheat, no?

is it possible that every team is "trying to break the rules and cheat" ? we don't know the answer to that, but it's possible, and RB are the only (or maybe not the only as i mentioned above) ones smart enough, and innovative enough to be getting away with it.

[segedunum]

Seg, if photographic evidence is good enough for a court of law, why is it not good enough for you? Or for the FIA for that matter?

It isn't good enough by itself, that's the point. You have to establish exactly what's happening while eliminating any other variables, just as we're trying to do, and you simply can't do that with these pictures. You can't just look at something and say "Therefore it is" - a fact that many are not getting.

However, enough of the legality. We can only question the legality of something once we understand what it is that it is actually doing - and we don't know that yet.

[snowy]

If photographic evidence were permissible then the case of the flexible nose would very quickly reveal its shortcomings and the authorities would have to disavow its conclusions.

The nose of the Red Bull isn't flexing much if at all. The profile images and carefully constructed outline drawings reveal just what lengths a lens, a camera angle and an active imagination will go to to deceive you.

[motobaleno]

Just to note that it's rather weird to see that many opinions apparently coming from a purely quantitative and "scientific" point of view are rather primitive...from a purely scientific point of view a camera or a videocamera are just particular (and much evolved) kind of sensors. In this respect, their output when properly processed, is as objective as a ruler (but far more informative).

Another thing that I would point out is that my criticism is much more towards FIA than Red Bull: some of us think that all the teams are cheating...well this could be true or could be not...there could be someone who is trying to respect the core of the rule and to project aero devices that are not flexbile in this case he would be clearly disadvantaged...the solution is simple:
FIA should delete the rule that prescribe no flexible aero devices and substitute it with the present enforcing tests...then all of us will see where F1 cars will be in few time...

[snowy]

Lets consider the video evidence at the top of this topic of discussion. The premiss is that the camera fixed to the nose is visibly deflecting, thus proving that the nose is flexing.

However it is easy to prove that it is the camera on the roll hoop that is moving. If you draw horizontal parallel lines across any number of points on the RBRs body you will see the same apparent deflections. The movement is exemplified around the cockpit area. I am pretty sure the cockpit is not flexing under acceleration.

Just to put your minds at rest I don't think Red Bull should be allowed to flex their front wing. They have had their year of free reign now the FIA should ban it/enforce the rule, whatever.

F-Duct/innovative/successfully copied by everyone/Banned
DDD/innovative/successfully copied by everyone/Banned
FFW/innovative/successfully copied by no one/not Banned

Is there a pattern to this or am I just imagining things too?

[vall]

why not put mandatory sensors to measure the flexing of critical parts of the car such as the wings? surely enough, that is possible and is in line with the regulation that FIA can introduce new test if some parts are suspected of flexing? Otherwise, FIA look really dumb: they write rules that they cannot police and because of this they refuse to see the obvious that something fishy is going on the RB FW.

[raymondu999]

Seg, if photographic evidence is good enough for a court of law, why is it not good enough for you? Or for the FIA for that matter?

It isn't good enough by itself, that's the point. You have to establish exactly what's happening while eliminating any other variables, just as we're trying to do, and you simply can't do that with these pictures. You can't just look at something and say "Therefore it is" - a fact that many are not getting.

However, enough of the legality. We can only question the legality of something once we understand what it is that it is actually doing - and we don't know that yet.

The point of whether or not, for example, a knife was stabbed into someone's chest can be discerned DEFINITELY by a photo. However, when we're talking of having, say, 2mm of clearance, versus 15mm, then that's not discernible. Quantitative data cannot be measured as such accurately in photographs

[horse]

This is getting a bit on-topic off-topic now isn't it. Still I can't help myself in these situations so here goes.

The question is why was flexible body work and ground touching bodywork banned in the first place? The simple answer is safety. There were numerous accidents and bits falling off when this has been tried in the past. I think Red Bull have put the FIA into a bit of a dilemma as they have shown that it can be implemented safely, so where does the basis for the rules stand now? Add this to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are not in breach of the rules as they stand, then what is to be done?

[marcush.]

the rules are the rules.period.
Sauber got kicked out because they had a non conforming wing radius ,and nobody cried they got an advantage from that.so they got disqualified because of offending a rule that was enforceable.
RedBulls advantage coming from the bendy wings is substantial according to competitors.
Has someone available some figures for downforce gains for wings in relation to ground clearance? The change in AoA of the Front wing is blatantly obvious in sideview and totally unexplainable by rake or anything .So they effectively und unbdoubtedly have broken the rules in the same ways as Ferrari did years ago .It is forbidden to change the aoa of the front wing after FP.And they do.They cannot even claim it´s the wind forces bending it ,as the AoA is increasing with speed.
To claim a photographic evidence is not proof is making me really angry .What may be the reason for the obvious change in attitude of the Endplate in sideview? please,come on ...this is cheating nothing less

[vall]

the rules are the rules.period.
Sauber got kicked out because they had a non conforming wing radius ,and nobody cried they got an advantage from that.so they got disqualified because of offending a rule that was enforceable.
RedBulls advantage coming from the bendy wings is substantial according to competitors.
Has someone available some figures for downforce gains for wings in relation to ground clearance? The change in AoA of the Front wing is blatantly obvious in sideview and totally unexplainable by rake or anything .So they effectively und unbdoubtedly have broken the rules in the same ways as Ferrari did years ago .It is forbidden to change the aoa of the front wing after FP.And they do.They cannot even claim it´s the wind forces bending it ,as the AoA is increasing with speed.
To claim a photographic evidence is not proof is making me really angry .What may be the reason for the obvious change in attitude of the Endplate in sideview? please,come on ...this is cheating nothing less

some forum members see it as an innovation

[Richard]

It is forbidden to change the aoa of the front wing after FP.And they do.They cannot even claim it´s the wind forces bending it ,as the AoA is increasing with speed.

What may be the reason for the obvious change in attitude of the Endplate in sideview?

The wind force hits the wing, the wing deflects, it twists as it deflects. The faster the car, the greater the wind load hence more twist.

[forty-two]

Just to lay my cards on the table (I know, nobody actually asked!), I am with Marcus on this one.

The F-Duct was a clever way of achieving something without breaking any of the rules. The DDD falls into the same category in my opinion.

This is different IMO because they're obviously breaking the rules (not finding a way of achieving their goal without breaking the rules) while being able to pass the (clearly) inadequate test.

The FIA should act on this, I don't actually care how they do so, but failure to do so smacks of allowing one team to get away with cheating as I see it.

[Richard]

allowing one team to get away with cheating as I see it.

There has to be some definition of allowable defection, zero deflection is impossible. The FIA have chosen a simple point load as their definition. All the teams work to that definition, and all comply when tested. So why is that cheating?

[Lindz]

allowing one team to get away with cheating as I see it.

There has to be some definition of allowable defection, zero deflection is impossible. The FIA have chosen a simple point load as their definition. All the teams work to that definition, and all comply when tested. So why is that cheating?

Exactly. Nothing will ever be completely rigid, it's up to the rules to set what the limit is. If you comply, you are legal.

[Ferraripilot]

allowing one team to get away with cheating as I see it.

There has to be some definition of allowable defection, zero deflection is impossible. The FIA have chosen a simple point load as their definition. All the teams work to that definition, and all comply when tested. So why is that cheating?

Regulation 3.15 is being broken due to the test designed to police it (3.17.1) being deficient. 3.17.1 allows a certain amount of deflection in a terrible place to test deflection. The teams are instructed to make a 150mm x 300mm adapter with the 300mm portion being parallel to the centreline of the car. The adapter has downward pressure applied to it via a ram at just the inboard mark of halfway out on the wing (795mm points or 397.5mm in each direction from the center), when the only way to adequately check for deflection is to check where deflection is going to be greatest, which is the endplates or just inboard of the endplates. The wings are 1400mm long, so make the testing area between 1200mm and 1300mm.

It's cheating 3.15 as 3.17.1 is asinine in checking 3.15.

This is not rhetorical interpretation of a regulation, this is flat out breaking a regulation due to the test being deficient. Whiting is completely ignoring 3.17.8 which HE suggested be in place just for situations such as this. This is infuriating as the evidence is incontrovertible. If photographic evidence is not good enough for you, watch the videos as that makes it ever more apparent.