All 2011 cars are illegal

[Tozza Mazza]

In 1983, when Renault first introduced the EBD, Brabham had the same argument that it was a moveable aerodynamic device rejected. On these grounds, the current cars are not illegal.

[bot6]

How is tire wear relevant to a conversation about front wings breaching a specific aerodynamic rule? Please stay on topic.

This is a thread about legality not flexing wings, read the title!

Whether you like it or not, legality is determined by tests applied to the car in the scrutineers garage. Picking up marbles is just another example of cars potentially being illegal on track (underweight) but not in the garage (with marbles).

Fair enough, my bad for the off topic thing. Did you weigh the cars and the tires with and without marbles to determine if they are legal or not? Any figures that can corroborate your theory?

And wouldn't it be smarter in that case to define the minimum weight of the car without the tyres and fuel in the rulebook?

And again, what part of "under any circumstances" says it only applies to parc fermé? For me, "under any circumstances" applies all the time. That I like it or not doesn't matter, "under any circumstances" is clear enough wording.

Otherwise, you could start with a legal car, change front and rear wings for huge models using ground effect at the first pit stop, build an enormous lead, and re-switch the wings at the second pit stop to finish the race with a legal car. So you see, rules need to apply during the race too.

[747heavy]

It forbids attempts to bridge the gap. Again, read the rules please.

then by your definition, suspension is illegal ?? (which would confirm the thread title)

Work hours, prototypes and numerical simulation all cost money. These are all needed to design, dimension and develop such a device.

as did it to copy the F-Duct, EBD, DDD etc., it´s the daily life of F1

[Richard]

My problem is with the FIA selectively applying their rules. It's not the first time and it unfortunately won't be the last. But here, it's especially blatant and it aggravates me.

The key is consistency. Every team knows how the rules are being applied.

We know that the FIA, FOTA and the teams share advisory notes on application of the rules. The teams are not protesting, so one can only presume that it has been communicated between FIA and teams that the wings will be judged using the existing flex tests.

[bot6]

See Richard, I don't get how it can be clear ahead of the season that a rule will not be enforced. If that's the case, wouldn't scrapping the rule altogether be clearer?

747heavy -> Rule 3.15 applies to the sprung part of the car. How is suspension part of the sprung part of the car? It's the springing part, not the sprung part.

And I still haven't seen a bit of suspension touching or nearly touching the ground on a non-damaged F1 car. Have you?

And don't tell me the tires bridge the gap, again not the sprung part of the car.
Will anyone bother to read the bloody regulations before commenting?

[Pierce89]

Well, again, it all depends which team you're rooting for (if you're rooting for one at all).

The regulatory framework says the RBR wing is illegal. But the person in charge of applying the regulatory framework says it is legal.

Honestly, for me the whole thing isn't about RBR being dishonest. I think they saw this coming last year and are exploiting it as much as possible, and if the FIA doesn't react then that's good points in for RBR and good for them.

But I do think this contradiction between the rule and the application hurts the credibility of the FIA and hurts the credibility of Formula 1 racing as a result. Either the governing body needs to be changed, or the governing body needs to rewrite the rule book in a way that is clear and even for everybody.

And not just that FW rule. The whole bloody rulebook.

1-1.5 seconds per lap advantage over a device which is illegal but allowed is a bit of a mockery of racing in my opinion...

If the red bull wing is illegal, they all are. They all flex to a degree;they're all at minimum height so any flexing goes too low. The Mclaren wing was awful flexi in melbourne also.

[747heavy]

747heavy -> Rule 3.15 applies to the sprung part of the car. How is suspension part of the sprung part of the car? It's the springing part, not the sprung part.

sure, and does the suspension, or more precisely the spring in the former, helps to "attempt to bridge the gap" between the sprung part of the car (for example the skidblock/plank or the front wing) and the ground?

BTW no need to swear on here

[Richard]

See Richard, I don't get how it can be clear ahead of the season that a rule will not be enforced.

It is perfectly clear that the rule is being enforced using the flexing test.


----------------


To continue the OP about all cars being illegal, with regard to bodywork below the ref plane:

3.7.1 defines the wings as being min 75mm above the ref plane

3.17.1 allows 20mm deflection under 100kg load at a point 795mm from the centreline. However the wing endplates are 900mm from centreline, and lets say pylons are 150 from the centreline. Assuming a linear defection from pylon to endplate, the test allows 23mm at the endplate.

So the force required to dip the endplate below the ref plane is 75/23*100=326kg

It is thought that the front wing generates a more than 326kg on each side*. Furthermore, the wings wobble as the cars ride kerbs and bumps. Hence the reason that all cars must fail on the bodywork not being below the ref plane when out on the track. Ban them all?

* See this thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7641 (630kg total back in 2005) or http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/10/18/t ... rand-prix/ (800kg total in 2010)

[bot6]

Pierce89 -> Again please read the regulations. There are general dimensional constraints for bodywork described in articles 3.3 to 3.14. Those are measured and the cars comply or not. All those bits of bodywork are allowed to flex to a small extent, defined by rule 3.17.
Nowhere in those rules is the wording "under any circumstances" included, which one can deduct from that the cars will be tested for compliance at standstill. I have no problem with that, and I'm sure Red Bull and the others comply with those rules.

Then there is the matter of rule 3.15, which applies differently from the others because of the magic words "under any circumstances". That means this rule applies at any point in the race, whether the car is stopped or rolling or spinning. "under any circumstances" is clear enough, it means all the time. That is the rule that Red Bull is breaching, and I have no evidence suggesting other teams are doing so. If you have some, nothing prevents you from posting it here.

747heavy, please read the rules. Suspension does not attempt to touch the ground. Not unless it's broken.

[Richard]

Then there is the matter of rule 3.15, which applies differently from the others because of the magic words "under any circumstances". That means this rule applies at any point in the race, whether the car is stopped or rolling or spinning. "under any circumstances" is clear enough, it means all the time. That is the rule that Red Bull is breaching, and I have no evidence suggesting other teams are doing so.

"any circumstance" also applies to the item about bodywork not being below the ref plane. I expect all teams fail that too.

So, ban the lot of them, or agree an acceptable test?

[Lindz]

bot6,

That's what my point is... if periodically 'coming close' to bridging the gap is not illegal, only ATTEMPTING to bridge the gap is illegal, then running a low ride height should be illegal as well. THAT is much more of an attempt to bridge the gap between the bodywork and the ground than a wing that complies with all tests and is flexing due to aerodynamic load.

I can shoot holes in all your theories on why it's illegal and in breach of whatever rule (right now it's 3.15).

Can you prove without a reasonable doubt that they are attempting to bridge the gap? Can you 100% rule out that the wing is flexing so much because it runs a higher AoA, therefore it's frontal area is increased and it is receiving more force on it than (let's say) McLaren's wing? Because if that WERE the case (yes, more drag, but perhaps the added drag translates to better management for the rest of the car's aero which makes those areas more efficient) then the flexing has nothing to do with Red Bull ATTEMPTING anything, and it is simply due to higher-than-other-teams levels of aerodynamic force on the wing.

Unless you can show me hard numbers that disprove this as even a REMOTE possibility, then you cannot say for certain what they are attempting to do, and cannot find them guilty of attempting to bridge the gap. As you said, if that gap happens to be bridged inadvertently, then it is not illegal to do so.

[Pierce89]

See Richard, I don't get how it can be clear ahead of the season that a rule will not be enforced. If that's the case, wouldn't scrapping the rule altogether be clearer?

747heavy -> Rule 3.15 applies to the sprung part of the car. How is suspension part of the sprung part of the car? It's the springing part, not the sprung part.

And I still haven't seen a bit of suspension touching or nearly touching the ground on a non-damaged F1 car. Have you?

And don't tell me the tires bridge the gap, again not the sprung part of the car.
Will anyone bother to read the bloody regulations before commenting?

the suspension allows the sprung mass to bridge the gap. Your sarcasm shows you just missed his point.

[747heavy]

747heavy, please read the rules. Suspension does not attempt to touch the ground. Not unless it's broken.

sure bot6, are we reading the same rules?

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

ask yourself, if, when the spring in the suspension compresses, it brings the "sprung part of the car" closer to the ground.
Therefore it "attempts to bridge the gap" - No?

You are the one, you stresses this point so much.
And by the way. Where have you found the expression: "attempts to bridge the gap".

The rule does not forbid bridging the gap. It forbids attempts to bridge the gap. Again, read the rules please.

Maybe you have different set of rules, because in the 3.15 it says "bridge the gap", which, as others pointed out, imply a constant state, rather then a temporary occurance.

[horse]

^ My sentiments exactly. There is a clear enforcement for 3.15 (part 3) in the rules and it's the skid block.

[Giblet]

I have this suspicion that all the lawyers and engineers from other teams have sat together to see if they can protest further, and so far, none have.