Flexible wings 2011

[HampusA]

HampusA. you are talking about the spirit of the rule.

No you are talking a bunch of jibberish. Rules are set to follow.

Again, i have no problems with the wing at all but to say to my face and deny that the wing is illegal is beyond me.

[wesley123]

Doesn´t matter, the rules clearly state that it´s illegal for part on the car to flex. RBR wing does flex, thus it´s illegal. NO MATTER WHAT THE TESTS SAY.

The wing do flex more then 20mm aswell. Again, if you know the metric system you would agree only by going by pictures.

yes and on the other hand it is allowed to flex 20mm, see the contradiction.

Also, have you ever thought that the wing is within this 20mm flex with the load, but a front wing generates much more load thus, it will logically flex further.

Also have you noticed that that ground scraping of the front wing only happens under braking and kerbriding? isnt it logical that the front comes down under braking, thus it is more likely to hit the ground?

The RBR has more rake so the wing is automaticly closer to the ground, with ground effect it generates more df thus gets sucked closer to the ground. It is not flexing any more then another front wing, the front wing just generates more df, allowing more flex.

Apart from that, arent these tests there to deem if a car is legal or not? The RBR passes these tests so I cannot see in what way it is illegal.

I suggest you to take off your anti-red bull glasses and get a more objective stance.

[beelsebob]

Doesn´t matter, the rules clearly state that it´s illegal for part on the car to flex. RBR wing does flex, thus it´s illegal. NO MATTER WHAT THE TESTS SAY.

The wing do flex more then 20mm aswell. Again, if you know the metric system you would agree only by going by pictures.

Also have you noticed that that ground scraping of the front wing only happens under braking and kerbriding? isnt it logical that the front comes down under braking, thus it is more likely to hit the ground?

under all circumstances

The RBR has more rake so the wing is automaticly closer to the ground

under all circumstances

with ground effect it generates more df thus gets sucked closer to the ground.

under all circumstances

It is not flexing any more then another front wing, the front wing just generates more df, allowing more flex.

under all circumstances

Bob

[HampusA]

Doesn´t matter, the rules clearly state that it´s illegal for part on the car to flex. RBR wing does flex, thus it´s illegal. NO MATTER WHAT THE TESTS SAY.

The wing do flex more then 20mm aswell. Again, if you know the metric system you would agree only by going by pictures.

1.yes and on the other hand it is allowed to flex 20mm, see the contradiction.

2.Also, have you ever thought that the wing is within this 20mm flex with the load, but a front wing generates much more load thus, it will logically flex further.

3.Also have you noticed that that ground scraping of the front wing only happens under braking and kerbriding? isnt it logical that the front comes down under braking, thus it is more likely to hit the ground?

4.The RBR has more rake so the wing is automaticly closer to the ground, with ground effect it generates more df thus gets sucked closer to the ground. It is not flexing any more then another front wing, the front wing just generates more df, allowing more flex.

Apart from that, arent these tests there to deem if a car is legal or not? The RBR passes these tests so I cannot see in what way it is illegal.

I suggest you to take off your anti-red bull glasses and get a more objective stance.

1. Just says how shitty FIA tests are performed.

2. Same thing.

3. No have you noticed that the wing touches the ground at top speed with DRS enabled?

4. Doesn´t matter what the rake is, the wing flexes more then 20mm or 2cm.
Your contradicting yourself here.. "it is not flexing more then any other front wing" "the front wing just generates more df, allowing more flex"..

The rules (that were put in place PARTICULARLY for this type of incident is being breached by RBR (and some other teams but we are discussing RBR atm).

[JMN]

As far as you seeing the wing touch/scrap the ground we ALL see it too. This doesn't make the wing ILLEGAL.

Also have you noticed that that ground scraping of the front wing only happens under braking and kerbriding?

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. No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane

I'm unable to locate it, but may I ask if breaking is mentioned as an extraordinary event in the regulations, excusing it from the "prohibited under all circumstances"?

The compliance of the wing as per the the wording of the regulations has been discussed multiple times in the Flexi Wing thread - see this post for instance viewtopic.php?p=236806#p236806. The issue (in my opinion) is Whiting's interpretation of the rule and the intention behind it. In essence the problem is the distinction between compliance (with the article) and legality (by passing scrutiny).

[HampusA]

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

• must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
• must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
• must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

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.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

[marcush.]

I really don´t understand the debate about the legality of the RedBull.There is a set of rules and a set of measures to check for legality.Nowhere in the rules is stated that the legality checks are set in stone and the only measure to enforce the rules ,quite the opposite is the case:The Fia reserves the right to change eactly these legality checks at short natice if they think cars are not complying to the RULES.
Now with Fia having decided to last year introduce a more severe test and this year RedBull showing even more bendy wings it´s not really explainable why something that was not tolerated last year should be totally ok this year.there is no debating that the wing is flexing considerably and this is only for gaining downforce.The allowance for bending of the wing is not for teams trying to gain downforce but solely for teams having a chance not to build too stiff a wing that would break too easily.
It´s not clever or what it´s bending the rules and someone at the FIA is putting their hands over them ...like it was the case with Brawn and the DDD ..with the little difference that this is a long planned assault and a clever playing of RedBull last year giving them an advantage for the second year going.I have to say really cool politics going on there.

[beelsebob]

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

• must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
• must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
• must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

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.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

While I put emphasis in my original points, you may have gone a step far here – there's a fine line between putting a point across clearly, and shouting while not listening.

I think the idea that breaking might be an exception is an interesting one. That said, it does scrape the ground at full tilt with flap open, so even if it were an exception, it wouldn't disprove the point.

[beelsebob]

Not screaming at anyone, just making the text bigger for people having a hard time reading.

Bottom line is the wing is illegal. Sure other wings are aswell but to deny that the RBR wing is perfectly in tune with the regulations is amusing to me.

I´m out.

It's only illegal when the FIA says it is. That said, I think the FIA have good cause to say it's illegal.

[wesley123]

rules

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm
forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x
150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the
adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.

You know that in your wordings, every car is illegal right? You cannot make anything without a degree of freedom, anything flex and will flex, the laws of gravity also work in Formula1 for your information.

Not screaming at anyone, just making the text bigger for people having a hard time reading.

Bottom line is the wing is illegal. Sure other wings are aswell but to deny that the RBR wing is perfectly in tune with the regulations is amusing to me.

I´m out.

You know that you are the only one who is having problems reading right?

Anyway, in the rules the flex is under 1000N, then it may flex 20mm, we all know a front wing generates much and much more vertical load then that, so isnt it logical that the wing will flex further then?

Apart from taking off your anti-Red Bull glasses i suggest you to get some knowledge in the laws of physics, since you do not seem to understand it.

[beelsebob]

rules

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm
forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x
150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the
adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.

You know that in your wordings, every car is illegal right? You cannot make anything without a degree of freedom, anything flex and will flex, the laws of gravity also work in Formula1 for your information.

The rule I quoted isn't about degrees of freedom, or flex, or laws of gravity. It's a simple matter of "if it gets from the sprung bit to the ground, it's illegal".

Not screaming at anyone, just making the text bigger for people having a hard time reading.

Bottom line is the wing is illegal. Sure other wings are aswell but to deny that the RBR wing is perfectly in tune with the regulations is amusing to me.

I´m out.

You know that you are the only one who is having problems reading right?

Anyway, in the rules the flex is under 1000N, then it may flex 20mm, we all know a front wing generates much and much more vertical load then that, so isnt it logical that the wing will flex further then?

Apart from taking off your anti-Red Bull glasses i suggest you to get some knowledge in the laws of physics, since you do not seem to understand it.

If you can prove that the exists a rule r such that complies_with(red bull, r) implies for all rules r complies_with(red bull, r) I'll be impressed. The fact that it complies with this rule does not imply that it complies with all rules.

[kalinka]

What do you think, how much the front suspension of RBR can contribute to lowering front ride height at high speed ? Let's say the static FW position is about 70-80mm from ground, then the suspension have to alow lowering the front of the car by 50-60mm...adding 20mm (allowed) flexing, and there you go...touching the ground. But I doubt that's the situation, IIRC F1 cars don't have so much free suspension travel at front Or my starting numbers are wrong (70-80mm) ?

[beelsebob]

Because the tests are lousy. If you can´t understand over 2 pages that the wing is infact illegal then i don´t know what to say.

Again, don´t mention other cars, i know some are not legal but we are strictly talking RBR here.

If the wing is illegal, prove it. Nothing has been proven except that you think that the FIA tests are crap.

Agreed... Well, more to the point, I think that the FIA's implementation of a clear rule is crap. That said, near enough everyone has them now (hell, even HRT), I don't think there's anything unfair going on... Lets talk about something more interesting.

[wesley123]

Because the tests are lousy. If you can´t understand over 2 pages that the wing is infact illegal then i don´t know what to say.

Still, the RB7 passes these, so the car is legal. These rules are here and in scrutineering it is controlled if these rules are followed. The rules are as lousy as they want it to make, that doesnt matter, as long as it passes scruteneering it is legal, how hard is that to understand?

And in what way it is illegal? An illegal car isnt allowed to race, simple as that.

Plus, as you seem so convinced you must have alot of proof, why dont you share it with us?

Again, don´t mention other cars, i know some are not legal but we are strictly talking RBR here.

I never mentioned another car.

[HampusA]

[...]
The wing is illegal even though it passes FIA´s lousy tests.
Do you want me to bring up the rulebook again with the enhanced text?