Flexible wings controversy 2010

[forty-two]

If so, do we have film of other slipstream passes which could corroborate this idea?

Yeah! Every accident involving the rb6, if there is onboard footage of it, its on youtube. It happens every time they get in the wake of the car in front. Wobble, wag, dip and flex.

Wobble, wag, dip and flex - And then crash into the guy you were trying to overtake, in at least a few cases!

Sorry to be off topic, I couldn't resist!

[feynman]

For reference, here is the AMUS photo doing the rounds of Webber's font wing in Belgium, which has caused some consternation:



The 500/1000N wing deflection tests were never going to catch anything interesting, but surely there's no way a rigid floor, and a 1m plank, will be able to rake that much in Monza? Will be interesting to see the comparison photos. If it still scrapes, then someone has a lot of hard-thinking to do.

Either way, 65mm you say? c'mon Red Bull, at least put some trick magnesium skid blocks under the endplates. If you insist on making a right ol' monkey out of the rulebook, at least have the decency to give the punters a cool looking spark-show as you go.

[siskue2005]

is that pic from Belgium?

[Just_a_fan]

So clearly illegal it's laughable. I think the FIA should use "all available evidence" when considering the legality of the cars. It passes a static test, great, but it's still demonstrably illegal on track.

It's not much of a leap from this to other banned things such as active suspension, TC or ABS - "well, it passes the tests in the FIA garage"...

[strad]

So clearly illegal it's laughable. I think the FIA should use "all available evidence" when considering the legality of the cars. It passes a static test, great, but it's still demonstrably illegal on track.

It's not much of a leap from this to other banned things such as active suspension, TC or ABS - "well, it passes the tests in the FIA garage"...

The problem is...It's always been that way....Brake cooling water anyone??

[FW17]

wonder if jenson button saw that image.

[forty-two]

I think the key to this is that the wing flex test is NOW (not sure if it always was) carried out relative to the "reference plane" which, by the regulations is allowed to be set up to be sloping downhill toward the nose. Rake the car like this, then draw a line through the plank and continue it onwards in a forward direction, it will hit the ground. If RB's wing is offset in order to avoid it striking the ground, the wing, even when fully bent could still be well above the line cast by the reference plane, while scraping on the road.

I think they're exploiting the rule which stipulates that the measurement taken is relative to the reference plane and not the ground itself.

As previoud posters have commented, a simple preventative measure from the FIA would be to fit "skid block" devices at the ends of the wings, but in order to avoid the cars gaining an aero advantage from this, make them narrow rods, made of something which will spark when it strikes the ground (for both spectacle and indication purposes).

What do you guys think?

EDIT Typo

[feynman]

Well, my first preference would be to not have any rule regarding wing height (I'm old school Ron Dennis style, paint a box on the ground, if the car fits inside, it can race) ... but if you insist on a rule, then it is vital that is applied evenly and correctly to all participants.

Although I understand and appreciate the Newey/F1 attitude of design to the test, not the rule, it still doesn't sit quite right ... all that means is we need better rules.

I think we could do better than making sparks and hoping someone had a camera nearby: Take the insides from a hardware-store 30quid laser-measurement device, and wire it's output it into the telemetry. I'm sure the FIA could get a good price on a bulk order.

The rule says the sensor must be fitted flush to bottom wing surface, the minimum height it records for a lap is clearly stated and defined (allowances for short transients going over kerbs etc).
If we are going back to ground effect cars soon, fit a sensor to the floor reference plane too, and get rid of the plank.

This is F1, lasers, solid state storage, computerised empirical analysis of data ... not squintng scrutineers looking for scuff marks on a bit of wood.

[kalinka]

Very good picture Feynman !

It's so far the best evidence i've seen. But look at the wing endplates ! It's clearly visible that the rear of the endplate is much higher ( i'd say ~3cm ), while the front part almost touching the ground. It's another evidence for the rearward/downward flexing wing. The rake of the car can't cause that much difference.

[Richard]

Just a fan - It is legal, it complies with the rules.

The rules state that a wing shall be stiff. It then defines stiff as a certain deflection under a certain load.

You may not like the rules, but you can't say RB are illegal when they comply with the rules.

[feynman]

If I bop someone on the head and steal their wallet, it goes to court, and I am aquitted due to lack of evidence ... does that mean I didn't actually steal a wallet.
Of course I did, look, here's the money right here.

We don't confuse the mechanics of legal process with real-world right and wrong.

There is a very clear rule about minimum height of wings, and at the same time there is a car dragging its wings across the ground ... irrespective of what can currently be proven or not in the scrutineering bay, on the track the wing is clearly much, much too low, and therefore in contravention of the rules.

In contravention of the rules is illegal. A lack of court-sanctioned evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Playing with semantics gets us nowhere. If the current tests clearly fail to measure what we all see with our own eyes, we need more and better tests, not just give up, shrug our shoulders, and say 'it is legal'.
Right and wrong matter, and a competitor with a thumb on the scale should never be tolerated.

[ahmedvortex]

i think that redbull abuse in two regulation the 65 mm rule and the regulative front wing device they use it in different way , the two side acts like fixed supports with the steel wire fixed on them , the main wing position gives a hard pack with not so much movement , the second wing position make it lose and very flexible .

[vall]

For reference, here is the AMUS photo doing the rounds of Webber's font wing in Belgium, which has caused some consternation:



The 500/1000N wing deflection tests were never going to catch anything interesting, but surely there's no way a rigid floor, and a 1m plank, will be able to rake that much in Monza? Will be interesting to see the comparison photos. If it still scrapes, then someone has a lot of hard-thinking to do.

Either way, 65mm you say? c'mon Red Bull, at least put some trick magnesium skid blocks under the endplates. If you insist on making a right ol' monkey out of the rulebook, at least have the decency to give the punters a cool looking spark-show as you go.

Any more information on that pic? At which lap it was taken? Was it under heavy braking?

[ringo]

I just can't explain what I am seeing.
What's happening here, the wing spans are bending more than they are supposed to, or is it the centre section being lower than it is supposed to?

The wing spans are bending, but i think they're bending within regulation.
The centre span looks weird and the end plate foot plate seems to be doing some bending itself.

[Just_a_fan]

Just a fan - It is legal, it complies with the rules.

The rules state that a wing shall be stiff. It then defines stiff as a certain deflection under a certain load.

You may not like the rules, but you can't say RB are illegal when they comply with the rules.

Wrong. If you exceed the speed limit on the public road then you are breaking the law. Just because you slow down for the speed camera doesn't alter the fact that you're speeding elsewhere.

The rules say the bodywork must be stiff. A separate rule defines one way of testing said stiffness. Just as the law says "you shall not speed" and another law says how the police are allowed to check your speed.

The fact that the FIA have altered the test shows that they are not happy with the RB6's front wing. They could just declare it illegal but that would then most likely lead to a court case which nobody wants.

Mandating ride height sensors at critical locations around the car is a much better way of dealing with these sorts of things. And it's nice and techy too! =D>