1331 replies to this topic

[Ben Wilson]

From ScarbsF1:

http://i671.photobuc...if?t=1301180674

If you can avoid epilepsy from the photo, have a look at the rear wing. Is it just my eyes, or is the Redbull rear wing higher than the Mclaren?

[Scotracer]

From ScarbsF1:

http://i671.photobuc...if?t=1301180674

If you can avoid epilepsy from the photo, have a look at the rear wing. Is it just my eyes, or is the Redbull rear wing higher than the Mclaren?

To me that comparison isn't valid as it looks like the RBR is braking - the front pitched nose-down making the wing even closer to the ground and making the rear wing higher as the quoted-post noticed.

Take a look at the RBR pic in isolation - it looks like it's heavily loaded as if under braking.

[Jambo]

To me that comparison isn't valid as it looks like the RBR is braking - the front pitched nose-down making the wing even closer to the ground and making the rear wing higher as the quoted-post noticed.

Take a look at the RBR pic in isolation - it looks like it's heavily loaded as if under braking.

Darren Heath put those pictures up himself, said it was under acceleration.

[CF22]

Don't know if this has been posted but here is a good report on the RB7 flexing wing, and nose too:

http://spontoncristi...-stagione-2011/

[Slowinfastout]

thanks for the epilepsy warning lol..

seizure aside, I think RBR's thing is rake... others can't achieve this stance for some reason..

[New Britain]

@ Trujo:
That link only provides irrefutable proof that the aspect ratio is ****ed up, but the wing does look very low.
Do people take into account suspension dip rate under braking when they post video as proof of flexing?

That (dive) can only go so far, because of the floor plank. The bemusement has been because RBR can obviously get the front wing down more than the other teams can do, but they have not have problems with plank wear.

[Chomsky]

It's pointless to argue whether what RBR are doing is legal or whether they are cheating, etc. The other teams have failed to convince the FIA or alter the tests enough... so why haven't the teams poured all their resources into figuring this out since clearly it is what gives RBR their 1 second advantage?

[Slowinfastout]

It's pointless to argue whether what RBR are doing is legal or whether they are cheating, etc. The other teams have failed to convince the FIA or alter the tests enough... so why haven't the teams poured all their resources into figuring this out since clearly it is what gives RBR their 1 second advantage?

Personally I thought the tests were altered quite alot last season..

It's a fascinating issue, and it makes alot of very clever people look lost and kinda stupid.. love it, lol

Edited by Slowinfastout, 27 March 2011 - 00:38.

[Tony Matthews]

Don't know if this has been posted but here is a good report on the RB7 flexing wing, and nose too:

http://spontoncristi...-stagione-2011/

The two side views of the nose only show a difference in the angle of the endplates. The nose profiles are different because the angle from which the photographs were taken is different. The 'bulge' under Vettel's nose is the underside of the camera 'winglet'.

[Spa One]

Regardless of the philosophy of a rule, and what that philosophy aims to achieve, the designers are only required to build cars that pass the tests aimed at enforcing the rule - they aren't required to build cars that meet the philosophy.

DDDs didn't meet the philosophy of the diffuser restrictions introduced, but they met the tests used to enforce them.

Edited by Spa One, 27 March 2011 - 00:54.

[Slowinfastout]

Regardless of the philosophy of a rule, and what that philosophy aims to achieve, the designers are only required to build cars that pass the tests aimed at enforcing the rule - they aren't required to build cars that meet the philosophy.

That's what I tell myself between two speed limit signs.

[Spa One]

That's what I tell myself between two speed limit signs.

But the speed limit signs aren't there to enforce the speed limit are they? Radars do this, albeit it inconsistently.

[J2NH]

Hats off to Newey and his team at Red Bull, they never cease to amaze when it comes to coming up with solutions to complex engineering problems. These guys are genius and I am not even a fan of the team. The engines are essentially spec now and the chassis are very heavily regulated and yet we continue to see innovation, very F1 if you ask me. Some of the exhaust solutions have been seriously out there, great to see.

It's F1, not a spec series. The object from an engineering standpoint, is to engineer to the limit of the rules and then stop. Easy, cost effective solution would be to have one front wing and one rear wing, end of controversy, end of innovation, end of F1.

If the wing passes the test then it is time for the rest of the field to figure out what Newey has done and then either copy or improve on his design.

[MaxisOne]

Hats off to Newey and his team at Red Bull, they never cease to amaze when it comes to coming up with solutions to complex engineering problems. These guys are genius and I am not even a fan of the team. The engines are essentially spec now and the chassis are very heavily regulated and yet we continue to see innovation, very F1 if you ask me. Some of the exhaust solutions have been seriously out there, great to see.

It's F1, not a spec series. The object from an engineering standpoint, is to engineer to the limit of the rules and then stop. Easy, cost effective solution would be to have one front wing and one rear wing, end of controversy, end of innovation, end of F1.

If the wing passes the test then it is time for the rest of the field to figure out what Newey has done and then either copy or improve on his design.

+1

I would rather the rest of the teams man up and try and figure this one out rather than cry foul. I want to see innovation ... If the FIA cant/wont identify a rules breach or wrote a rule that allows a loophole then game on and fair play ... To hell with the spirit of the rules .. if it passes the letter of the rule and and the test associated with it ... oh well ..

[orndorf]

Hats off to Newey and his team at Red Bull, they never cease to amaze when it comes to coming up with solutions to complex engineering problems. These guys are genius and I am not even a fan of the team. The engines are essentially spec now and the chassis are very heavily regulated and yet we continue to see innovation, very F1 if you ask me. Some of the exhaust solutions have been seriously out there, great to see.

It's F1, not a spec series. The object from an engineering standpoint, is to engineer to the limit of the rules and then stop. Easy, cost effective solution would be to have one front wing and one rear wing, end of controversy, end of innovation, end of F1.

If the wing passes the test then it is time for the rest of the field to figure out what Newey has done and then either copy or improve on his design.

Couldnt agree more,this has to be the best kept secret in F1.Im stunned it hasnt been copied yet.

[dav115]

It's not legal. The tests are just being taken as "proving" it doesn't flex. We can see it is, the rules say "no flexing" and the silence from the FIA and officials is deafening.

The point is it's not physically possible to create a wing with zero flex even if you made the damn thing out of diamond, hence rather than saying "the wings must not flex" thus rendering every single car on the grid illegal, the FIA mandate a maximum amount of flex for a given load condition. What the wing does beyond this condition is completely irrelevant as far as the rule is concerned, so as long as the RB7 passes this test then it isn't running an illegal amount of wing flex, period.

[Ben Wilson]

The engines are essentially spec now and the chassis are very heavily regulated and yet we continue to see innovation, very F1 if you ask me.

I heard an interview with someone from Williams yesterday and he was basically saying that with what they are learning about vortex generation under the car that the aero on the cars is only limited by their imagination now. To me, that is what F1 should be all about. It appears that Newey has a better imagination than most..

[ashnathan]

I heard an interview with someone from Williams yesterday and he was basically saying that with what they are learning about vortex generation under the car that the aero on the cars is only limited by their imagination now. To me, that is what F1 should be all about. It appears that Newey has a better imagination than most..

Was Sam Michael, he also said that F1 designers used to do everything to work against vortices cos they didn't understand them, now they understand them, and with the technology, they really can make anything they want.

[Hollow]

Can't believe this kind of advantage goes on and no one has a clue about it. Maybe Ferrari and McLaren need more time to understand it. Just give them a few more years to figure it out.

[ashnathan]

I was of the assumption Ferrari DID have a flexing wing last year? Not as flexi as the Red Bull but the wing was still hitting the ground....mostly their endplates, what happened there? Did they have to beef themup for the tests?

[Ben Wilson]

Was Sam Michael, he also said that F1 designers used to do everything to work against vortices cos they didn't understand them, now they understand them, and with the technology, they really can make anything they want.

Thanks, I was under the dashboard of a rally car at the time, so I couldn't give the interview the attention it deserved..

[Rurouni]

The point is it's not physically possible to create a wing with zero flex even if you made the damn thing out of diamond, hence rather than saying "the wings must not flex" thus rendering every single car on the grid illegal, the FIA mandate a maximum amount of flex for a given load condition. What the wing does beyond this condition is completely irrelevant as far as the rule is concerned, so as long as the RB7 passes this test then it isn't running an illegal amount of wing flex, period.

Toyota would love to have a word with you. Their 2009 flexy rear wing did pass the test... but someone pointed out that the wing is flexing... If what I'm reading from the net is correct, the scrutineers found scratch marks (the rear wing elements rubbing each other?) which is an indication that the wing is flexing, thus banned it. So yes, there is a precedent for this flexing stuff.
If all the teams except RB can make a stiff FW, then why RB can't? Do other teams made their FW with diamond?
Again, passing the test doesn't mean that it is legal. Like on regular exam, passing the exam doesn't mean that he/she didn't cheat... but again, like regular exam, unless they can prove that he/she is cheating, then he/she would still passed the exam. My biggest beef in regards to this flexy wing stuff is that it's so obvious that RB FW is flexing a lot more compared to the other teams. Rake doesn't describe the large-ish roll when comparing the sideways pictures.

Now, I'm not against this flexing stuff, but FIA should just come forward and say that flexing is allowed as long as they pass the test (basically made the test fixed). Then we could have the flexy RW back and probably other flexing parts. With the current rule, the test itself can be changed, which give uncertainty whether the parts that the teams made to intentionally flex are legal or not. It will cost a lot of money and time for a team if they delicately made flexing parts that should pass the test deemed illegal. Even the mass damper that was deemed legal ended up being illegal.

[orndorf]

Scrape marks on the underside of the wing from the tarmac might be deemed as evidence of flexing?

Edited by orndorf, 27 March 2011 - 03:36.

[Ricardo F1]

What the wing does beyond this condition is completely irrelevant as far as the rule is concerned, so as long as the RB7 passes this test then it isn't running an illegal amount of wing flex, period.

Fundamentally incorrect. Just as it was last year.

[ClubmanGT]

Fundamentally incorrect. Just as it was last year.

Exactly. Regardless of the test, the wing must not flex. The test is just an arbitrary way of enforcing the rules, which must be obeyed even if you pass the test.

Edited by ClubmanGT, 27 March 2011 - 04:31.

[Spa One]

Exactly. Regardless of the test, the wing must not flex. The test is just an arbitrary way of enforcing the rules, which must be obeyed even if you pass the test.

Then it looks like the entire grid is outside the rules.

[GreenMachine]

Jeeze, haven't we thrashed this to death last year? Yes

Is there anything new to say on this subject? Probably not

and this is race one of how many ... ?

Time I went somewhere else

[gm914]

It's only dull because it's not your team.

This man speaketh the truth

[ImDDAA]

From ScarbsF1:

http://i671.photobuc...if?t=1301180674

If you can avoid epilepsy from the photo, have a look at the rear wing. Is it just my eyes, or is the Redbull rear wing higher than the Mclaren?

Photos are quite clearly taken from different angles too - look at the tyre height in comparison to the signs in the background.

[Boing 2]

It's no surprise the wings are tilting forward, most teams are supporting them on the trailing edge of the main beam, as soon as they load they will naturally want to twist forward.

[ImDDAA]

It's no surprise the wings are tilting forward, most teams are supporting them on the trailing edge of the main beam, as soon as they load they will naturally want to twist forward.

But you can quite clearly see Red Bulls flexes more than anyone elses as in any footage or pictures of the car under speed shows the wing very close to the floor.

[Dick_Dastardly]

You have to tip your hat to Adrian Newey. The other teams, drivers, press & FIA themselves have resigned themselves to RBR both complying with the front wing deflection tests and yet contravening the spirit of the law and gaining an unfair (~1s/lap?) performance advantage. If the static load tests clearly are not fit for purpose, would simple 'deflection-wear' strips placed under the front-end plates circumvent the ground-lowering effect of the RBR concorde nose?

Any other suggestions? At this rate the 2011 season is going to turn into a RBR/Vettel procession (there is no way Webber will ever be allowed to pick up a WDC)

[DanardiF1]

You have to tip your hat to Adrian Newey. The other teams, drivers, press & FIA themselves have resigned themselves to RBR both complying with the front wing deflection tests and yet contravening the spirit of the law and gaining an unfair (~1s/lap?) performance advantage. If the static load tests clearly are not fit for purpose, would simple 'deflection-wear' strips placed under the front-end plates circumvent the ground-lowering effect of the RBR concorde nose?

Any other suggestions? At this rate the 2011 season is going to turn into a RBR/Vettel procession (there is no way Webber will ever be allowed to pick up a WDC)

Not going to be a procession. McLaren are going to be major players in the title race, they have bodged together a package for this race and come away with 2nd best car that's better on tyres than fastest car. They've got so much to gain.

[Frankbullitt]

Can see the FIA revising the tests again for this,not just on the weight distribution tests but they maybe well introduce the tests while the car is moving, its clear as day in the TV shots that its moving.

[JockinSA]

This whole RB front wing bitch is rather like the Monty Python argument sketch. For the present the wing is within the parameters as laid down by the FIA. If you think that the FIA do not know what they are doing then fair enough, but for people to harp on and on and on and............ really is pointless. Mr. Newey and his team have created a piece of engineering that currently is acceptable to the rule makers. I have not heard of one other team whineing overtly about it. There is no such thing as unfair advantage in motorsport. If the rules say X, then it is the design teams duty to get X+2 out of the regulations and stay legal.
I know about this as I have to scrutineer before and after races, and when this subject of rule intent versus what you see as an interpretation of the said rule comes up, then the thinking hat has to go on. The after effects of a no verdict can escalate into a huge time wasting exercise in the various appeal courts if initial thought is not carefully given to intent and fact.

[RichardF1fan]

You have to tip your hat to Adrian Newey. The other teams, drivers, press & FIA themselves have resigned themselves to RBR both complying with the front wing deflection tests and yet contravening the spirit of the law and gaining an unfair (~1s/lap?) performance advantage. If the static load tests clearly are not fit for purpose, would simple 'deflection-wear' strips placed under the front-end plates circumvent the ground-lowering effect of the RBR concorde nose?

Any other suggestions? At this rate the 2011 season is going to turn into a RBR/Vettel procession (there is no way Webber will ever be allowed to pick up a WDC)

I think McLaren have accepted that unless RB publicly admit their wing is designed specifically to flex, there is nothing the FIA can do about it. Accordingly they have 'allowed' their front wing to flex too - but have compromised and made it flex slightly less as it means they can follow closer and overtake where necessary at the expense of a little qualifying performance.

I suspect they have gone this route as they feel one of Hamiltons strengths is overtaking, whereas RB feel it is better to put Vettel out front where he can use his strength which is pure pace without putting him in a position where he might have to overtake which is not his strongest point.

Ferrari have like wise 'allowed' their wing to flex too since the end of last year - and they seem to have gone for the same compromise as they have a very experienced overtaker too.

I suspect that it's hard to tell too much from one race - I think the Renault will improve as they get experience of their front exiting exhaust - unless they have got lucky and got it perfect first time. Also I think we might have seen something different if Kubica was around as Petrov whilst improving greatly and did a great job is not yet at his standard.

I wouldn't write Ferrari off either, they have a great driver and the budget and drive to find the problem and solve it.

So whilst I think RB may have the upper hand in the first few races, I suspect they will be facing stiff competition from at least 3 teams and if someone beats RB to pole, they will be on a downward spiral as they will have to tighten the front wing and until Vettel gets a bit more experience in overtaking when not in a vastly superior car - then they will be back in the mix.

On the other hand of course once they find out what Webbers car problem is (because he's never been that much slower) They will probably build up a good buffer of points from 1-2's for the first few races.

Interesting season and a long way to go.

<Edit:> forgot Button in the above, he is another one that isn't going to let one bad race get the better of him either- and yes I did miss out Massa as although I like the guy, he does seem to have lost it at the moment

Edited by RichardF1fan, 27 March 2011 - 17:06.

[JPW]

At this rate the 2011 season is going to turn into a RBR/Vettel procession (there is no way Webber will ever be allowed to pick up a WDC)

It might be but kudos to Red Bull if they manage to fend off Ferrari and macca with a flexible wing but without KERS.

[Dick_Dastardly]

This whole RB front wing bitch is rather like the Monty Python argument sketch. For the present the wing is within the parameters as laid down by the FIA. If you think that the FIA do not know what they are doing then fair enough, but for people to harp on and on and on and............ really is pointless. Mr. Newey and his team have created a piece of engineering that currently is acceptable to the rule makers. I have not heard of one other team whineing overtly about it. There is no such thing as unfair advantage in motorsport. If the rules say X, then it is the design teams duty to get X+2 out of the regulations and stay legal.
I know about this as I have to scrutineer before and after races, and when this subject of rule intent versus what you see as an interpretation of the said rule comes up, then the thinking hat has to go on. The after effects of a no verdict can escalate into a huge time wasting exercise in the various appeal courts if initial thought is not carefully given to intent and fact.

The issue is clearly that the current deflection test does not enforce the spirit of the law, okay you can argue all you want about innovating within the regulations, but what then about Toyota in 2009? Seems like double standards. Anyway, what about the 'deflection-wear' strips placed under the front wing end-plates? A simple solution which should act to limit any advantage that might be gained through dynamic flexing not picked-up in the static testing....

[arknor]

]

[Stormsky68]

The paddock has given the FIA long enough to enforce compliance which the spirit of the rules, something they have repeatedly failed to do. What we are left with is Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and others all now visibly flexing. The FIA made their bed, now they can lie in it.

Edited by Stormsky68, 27 March 2011 - 17:24.

[D.M.N.]

]

Seems to me both McLaren and Red Bull are flexing, except Red Bull is flexing more.

[as65p]

You have to tip your hat to Adrian Newey. The other teams, drivers, press & FIA themselves have resigned themselves to RBR both complying with the front wing deflection tests and yet contravening the spirit of the law and gaining an unfair (~1s/lap?) performance advantage. If the static load tests clearly are not fit for purpose, would simple 'deflection-wear' strips placed under the front-end plates circumvent the ground-lowering effect of the RBR concorde nose?

At least here on the board the bitching will be reduced by at least 80 percent, now that McLaren have finally figured out how to flex their wings too.

[JockinSA]

Seems to me both McLaren and Red Bull are flexing, except Red Bull is flexing more.

Regarding the use of a "wear strip", the car now comes to me in the Parc Ferme and I have to decide if the strips are worn because they dragged down the road because the wing flexed enough to touch the road all on its own, OR did the wing flex a bit and hit the rumble strips in a run off situation but as such does not hit the actual road surface because the suspension compressed as well as the tyre went onto the kerb. Decisions, Decisions.
Regarding the Toyota episode, my contention would be that they designed a really c..p aerofoil section. If they were bending and rubbing on each other their efficiency would have been compromised as a whole. My response there is bad design and engineering IMO. Unlucky for them that it was so bad that it became visible to the scrutineers, consequently marching orders given.
As an aside to the above video clips, if I was the boss at McLaren and I saw what their front suspension was doing under compression, I think I would be having a VERY loud word with the people concerned with designing the geometry. Can anyone see what is happening under compression? A clue, I always found that what was happening here was rather tiring for the driver, and made the car really unstable under braking. Maybe that's why they need the downforce for turning in to the corner, or to get the heat up in the tyres.

[Ricardo F1]

At least here on the board the bitching will be reduced by at least 80 percent, now that McLaren have finally figured out how to flex their wings too.

[rdebourbon]

It's no surprise the wings are tilting forward, most teams are supporting them on the trailing edge of the main beam, as soon as they load they will naturally want to twist forward.

Yeah I can definitely see why they would twist forward... The way this wing is mounted to the supports is completely different to all the other wings I have seen.. Seems to me that they have almost designed the aerofoil profile of the wing so that at load it automatically twists the entire wing to a "level" state.. i.e. the plane has the least amount of drag when twisted, and the supports are designed to allow this twist while maintaining strong structural strength to pass the load tests...

[Buttoneer]

Yeah I can definitely see why they would twist forward... The way this wing is mounted to the supports is completely different to all the other wings I have seen.. Seems to me that they have almost designed the aerofoil profile of the wing so that at load it automatically twists the entire wing to a "level" state.. i.e. the plane has the least amount of drag when twisted, and the supports are designed to allow this twist while maintaining strong structural strength to pass the load tests...

I imagine that it wouldn't be beyond the intellect of someone like Newey and his pals to design this wing so that the vertical load applied by the FIA test is fully resisted but at the same time yields completely when the angled airflow hits it. So at a standstill, the wing is not providing effective downforce, but under load twists to get there and then drops at the ends. Last year I wondered whether the flatness of the nose was part of the deal and that the whole tip flexed down slightly to create the needed attacking angle.

[R2D2]

I suppose the most important question here is: do we really think that, one whole year on, the major teams aren't all over this? We have a handful of shaky photos or screen caps for comparison, and they have multi-million pound budgets for getting the highest resolution images using X-rays (for all we know).

[Buttoneer]

Sure they are. RB is just a years worth of development in front.

[Kubiccia]

Even Force India has flex wings now.

Close this thread, now that Mclaren can also flex their wings, there is no need for their fans to carry on with the moaning.


Mercedes


Same part of the track as Mclaren and RBR

Edited by Kubiccia, 28 March 2011 - 01:53.

[V8 Fireworks]

Seems to me both McLaren and Red Bull are flexing, except Red Bull is flexing more.

Great pics too.

No front wing failures yet, so I suppose why should FIA care too much? When a front wing collapse at speed in an old-fashioned circuit (with little run-off) on the second lap causing a massive pile-up of 7 cars straight into the fence, then people will ask questions of FIA...