Red Bull RB8 Renault

[turbof1]

Aside from being legal, illegal, or legal but against the spirit, you can't just change the rules at the nose. It's a critical part for the crashtest, being hugely important when a car has a frontal crash. It needs to be soft, else it will not sufficiently absorb the blow. Changing the regulation things the FIA researched for years. They are not going to change this in the first couple of years. It's better to declare this legal all together.

[vall]

This is why I don't think it is anything sinister.

The mechanics actions indicate the way the nose behaved was not expected.

i think the nose was broken on the DRS signage after the RIC incident, and it is just the outer yellow sticker holding it all together that gives it this rubbery appearance.

That's not an altogether irrational idea. However, that pitstop video combined with this, from the other car...

...makes for some pretty compelling evidence that Red Bull runs a flexible nose.

I wouldn't call it sinister, though. It passes inspection, so it's legal. For me, it just brings up questions as to why the rules are such that an obviously flexible nose is legal.

I don't see how such a flexing nose could be legal

[Cam]

I'm not surprised you can't see it. Trolls cant read. Everyone has told you it's legal, the FIA have cleared it, and unless you can provide a factual counter argument, please stop. Really.

Back to normality... Interesting to see Brawn basically admit they failed to see this red bull direction with the flexing. Goes to show there's always more than one way to get a car quick around a track. All this time red bull were working on a trick front wing, like Mercedes, yet approached it from an altogether different angle.

[vall]

I'm not surprised you can't see it. Trolls cant read. Everyone has told you it's legal, the FIA have cleared it, and unless you can provide a factual counter argument, please stop. Really.

Back to normality... Interesting to see Brawn basically admit they failed to see this red bull direction with the flexing. Goes to show there's always more than one way to get a car quick around a track. All this time red bull were working on a trick front wing, like Mercedes, yet approached it from an altogether different angle.

it is not surprising at all! If you read the regs you will see it written that no flexing parts are allowed, except for the DRS and up to 2cm of the FW. Why invest millions to develop a flexing part if it is very likely it will be deemed illegal? Well, unless you are Red Bull and you get away with anything.

Ross:

Brawn hinted that Mercedes’ ‘double DRS’ meant the team was not able to explore some of the latest trends, like flexible or bendy noses and wings.

“As you say, there are some ‘structural’ considerations that we have seen this year,” he said, “but this will disappear next year — or should disappear.”

so, he thinks that the flexing should disappear....

[radosav]

I'm not surprised you can't see it. Trolls cant read. Everyone has told you it's legal, the FIA have cleared it, and unless you can provide a factual counter argument, please stop. Really.

Back to normality... Interesting to see Brawn basically admit they failed to see this red bull direction with the flexing. Goes to show there's always more than one way to get a car quick around a track. All this time red bull were working on a trick front wing, like Mercedes, yet approached it from an altogether different angle.

no need for insults. RB7 front wing was legal in 2011, but in 2012 it wouldn't be legal. this front wing is legal, for now.

[elFranZ]

the point is these regulations are just ridiculous, not RB8's nose IMO.
when they banned renault's mass damper, that was because of aerodynamic benefits, not for mass damping itself. You know, someone could argue that a flexi nose IS an aerodynamic benefit.

not trolling nor firing, just curious of your opinion guys.

[vall]

the point is these regulations are just ridiculous, not RB8's nose IMO.
when they banned renault's mass damper, that was because of aerodynamic benefits, not for mass damping itself. You know, someone could argue that a flexi nose IS an aerodynamic benefit.

not trolling nor firing, just curious of your opinion guys.

+1

[Cam]

I'm not surprised you can't see it. Trolls cant read. Everyone has told you it's legal, the FIA have cleared it, and unless you can provide a factual counter argument, please stop. Really.

Back to normality... Interesting to see Brawn basically admit they failed to see this red bull direction with the flexing. Goes to show there's always more than one way to get a car quick around a track. All this time red bull were working on a trick front wing, like Mercedes, yet approached it from an altogether different angle.

it is not surprising at all! If you read the regs you will see it written that no flexing parts are allowed, except for the DRS and up to 2cm of the FW. Why invest millions to develop a flexing part if it is very likely it will be deemed illegal? Well, unless you are Red Bull and you get away with anything.

Ross:

Brawn hinted that Mercedes’ ‘double DRS’ meant the team was not able to explore some of the latest trends, like flexible or bendy noses and wings.

“As you say, there are some ‘structural’ considerations that we have seen this year,” he said, “but this will disappear next year — or should disappear.”

so, he thinks that the flexing should disappear....

Of course he does, just like I'm sure he wants 3 years of failures to disappear too.

I apologize for the troll remark. Your constant pushing on a moot and incorrect point allowed a lapse in judgement. I am human after all.

The RB8 follows a long line of cars that push the definition of rules. Is the rubber nose part of a grand scheme that lowers the front wing and provides some kind of damper? Maybe. Point is its legal. And rightly so. Every other team could do the exact same thing, but they didn't think of it. That's part of what makes this car unique, controversial, eligant, ground breaking and fast. There is no way the RB8 would be allowed to race in a knowingly illegal manner, without having a great argument to back it up. This is verified by never being banned. It's clever.

I'm sure after Austin we'll all know a lot more.

[turbof1]

it is not surprising at all! If you read the regs you will see it written that no flexing parts are allowed, except for the DRS and up to 2cm of the FW. Why invest millions to develop a flexing part if it is very likely it will be deemed illegal? Well, unless you are Red Bull and you get away with anything.

But inmediately after that rule you have the deflection test regulations. No part can be indefinetely rigid, essentially that first regulation is both impossible (everything flexes to a certain point) and useless (because the deflection tests are stating what is needed to be legal). Back in 2010 there was the same problem with Red Bull's flexing front wing. The precedent was then clearly set: if you get through the deflection test, your car is LEGAL. The FIA can change that regulation at any time during the season to counteract new developments, but as long as the cars get through the tests, at that time in position, they are that weekend legal.

Those 2 rules together are kinda stupid, I agree you on that:
rule1 on flexing: flexing is illegal.
rule2 on flexing: flexing isn't illegal as long as you pass the tests.

[antrock]

Flexing is and was always illegal with the current rules but as nothing can be totally rigid FIA is allowing tolerances - these are measured with tests at GP weekends.

Tests alone doesn't mean something is legal, as FIA doesn't and can't measure and test all the parts of the car every other weekend.

[vall]

it is not surprising at all! If you read the regs you will see it written that no flexing parts are allowed, except for the DRS and up to 2cm of the FW. Why invest millions to develop a flexing part if it is very likely it will be deemed illegal? Well, unless you are Red Bull and you get away with anything.

But inmediately after that rule you have the deflection test regulations. No part can be indefinetely rigid, essentially that first regulation is both impossible (everything flexes to a certain point) and useless (because the deflection tests are stating what is needed to be legal). Back in 2010 there was the same problem with Red Bull's flexing front wing. The precedent was then clearly set: if you get through the deflection test, your car is LEGAL. The FIA can change that regulation at any time during the season to counteract new developments, but as long as the cars get through the tests, at that time in position, they are that weekend legal.

Those 2 rules together are kinda stupid, I agree you on that:
rule1 on flexing: flexing is illegal.
rule2 on flexing: flexing isn't illegal as long as you pass the tests.

I agree on that! If it passes the test, it is LEGAL. But, there is a precedent of FIA doing further tests not described in the regs. IIRC, back in 2007(?) FIA had to test Ferrari's floor to find out it was flexing. Such a test was not foreseen in the regs. So, I only want to say that because there is suspicion that RBR nose is illegal, FIA should test it to clear it.

BTW, I understand that noting could be completely rigid. It is for sure not possible for the FW, but, come on, a nose cone can be made rigid and not flexing.

[raymondu999]

Flexing is and was always illegal with the current rules

It's not - Excessive flex is illegal. Flexing is just physics - everything flexes.

[antrock]

I said the exact same thing, yet you only quoted that bit and took it out of context.

[turbof1]

BTW, I understand that noting could be completely rigid. It is for sure not possible for the FW, but, come on, a nose cone can be made rigid and not flexing.

I don't think it actually can due safety precautions; yes red bull took it to the extreme, but a nose cone has to be soft enough to absorb some of the impact force. It'll always flex a little bit, albeit normally you don't get an advantage out of it. Red Bull cleverly managed to design it that way to actually get performance out of it, and the best thing is that the FIA can't just strab rigid test on that without making the nose cone more dangerous.

[aral]

BTW, I understand that noting could be completely rigid. It is for sure not possible for the FW, but, come on, a nose cone can be made rigid and not flexing.

I don't think it actually can due safety precautions; yes red bull took it to the extreme, but a nose cone has to be soft enough to absorb some of the impact force. It'll always flex a little bit, albeit normally you don't get an advantage out of it. Red Bull cleverly managed to design it that way to actually get performance out of it, and the best thing is that the FIA can't just strab rigid test on that without making the nose cone more dangerous.

There is a big difference between a flexible nose, and a flexible covering! The nose cone has to be rigid, as the wing is attached to it, and it must have been crash tested. What RBR has is a sponge type outer covering, something that is permitted under the rules.