Martin W. just said in phone interview that he's not aware of any complaints.
"I haven't given plan B any thought"
Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:40
Martin W. just said in phone interview that he's not aware of any complaints.
Advertisement
Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:48
He never is.Martin W. just said in phone interview that he's not aware of any complaints.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:53
I of course fully expect them to try and circumvent the rules' intentions while staying within the letter of the law (edit: and within the actual tests). Fine with me, and at least part of the point of the whole exercise. But an argument along the lines of "hmm, I cannot make this joint infinitely rigid, so it should be just as fine if I put a hinge in its place" is IMHO nevertheless ridiculous.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:53
You work for RBR right? The people suffering from an infliction which forces them so seek the most outrageous interpretation of every concept?
For people who do not have this problem it was always obvious that just because you cannot make something infinitely rigid does not automatically mean that unavoidable minimal movement is the same as designing a movable part on purpose trying to circumvent the rules.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:56
He must have a nose longer than pinochio's"I haven't given plan B any thought"
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:05
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:07
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:12
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:13
Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.Didn't Scarbs talk/made drawings about something like this months ago?
Definitely rings a bell to me, maybe as early as 2010 when people were trying to figure out the flexing/rake/ride height of the Red Bull..
Advertisement
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:17
I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.
Thanks for drawing the story to our attention
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:27
I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.
Edited by OwenC93, 03 October 2012 - 12:28.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:29
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:29
I am partially ok with them clamping it down, if they do it in a way that is consistent with the regulations... BUT if they are going to do so in such a way that a modification to the text of the rule (not the spirit, but the text) has to be included, then I would say is better to wait until 2013. IMO, it is similar to the flexing in the rear wings of the Ferrari in 2006: there was lots of talk about it, and the FIA never found anything unusual, but just one week before Canada (the first track on which such a flexing would have made a difference) the FIA chnaged the definition of rear wing, by forcing the teams to add an element in the middle. That, in my opinion, was wrong: they didn't change the test there. They change the rule halfway through to satisfy one team (Renault).I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.
I'm also ok with the FIA clamping down on this stuff if they find out, though. Thats also part of the game.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:34
I think you maybe speak about the flexing tea tray on RBR car. Which principally is the same as approach to the rules. It was largely covered by Scarbs.Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:40
I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.
Thanks for drawing the story to our attention
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:41
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:41
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:46
Interview with newey
"regulation change with the deflection of the front wing"
http://www.gocar.gr/..._prin_apo_.html
Edited by beeclown, 03 October 2012 - 12:46.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:46
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:48
Are you guys refering to this article?
http://scarbsf1.com/...-wing-movement/
Edited by beeclown, 03 October 2012 - 12:50.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:51
No way. A rule change at most.I possible a ban for McLaren-Red Bull??
What do you think?..
Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:59
The purpose of this modification, if true, is to reduce the angle of attack of the front wing at high speed thus reducing the lift co-efficient (less downforce and drag) and/or increase the lift co-efficient (more downforce & drag) at low speed. As such it would be clearly a movable aerodynamic device and is outside the letter as well as the spirit of the regulations.
In essence, no different, except perhaps number of degrees of change of angle of attack from the adjustable front wings of a couple of seasons ago.
On the other hand, I know of no comparable device fitted to aircraft which optimises the angle of attack of a lifting surface automatically due to airspeed, on the contrary, every such device uses mechanical/hydraulic/electric systems to work against the aerodynamic forces involved in order to change the angle of attack.
If true, the last time we saw such blatant contempt for the regulations was Ferrari's flexi floor
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:09
Edited by sharo, 03 October 2012 - 13:14.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:10
Flavio Briatore @BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:13
No, definitely the wing but the teatray was interesting too. This may be it...I think you maybe speak about the flexing tea tray on RBR car. Which principally is the same as approach to the rules. It was largely covered by Scarbs.
...if we can find the post and subsequent discussion.I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:19
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:19
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:21
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:21
Flavio Briatore @BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva
Can someone traslate the above???..................Please
Advertisement
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:22
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:24
Flavio Briatore @BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva
Can someone traslate the above???..................Please
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:27
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:27
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:30
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:34
Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.A simple solution to all this is for the FIA to mandate the teams to run with a sensor at the mounting point, one at the front of the end plate, and one at the rear of the end plate. If the sensors exceed the deflection test values during normal operation (running down straights ect, excluding hitting curbs or running wide) then the wing is illegal.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:37
Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:38
Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:41
Until he was kicked out of F1, he was in charge of Alonso's contract. Not sure if once the FIA lifted part of the sanction, he came back with the spaniard or not; but he remains a loyal supporter of Fernando.How does he know? FIA didn't even test them yet
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:42
I'm just stating that if the FIA wanted to clamp down they could, easily.Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:43
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:51
Good question. Also, the wing could have been designed to circumvent changes in weight loads, for example.How does he know? FIA didn't even test them yet
Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:59
Briatore opening his mouth on technical matters?!?!
As Frank Williams put it; "Flavio wouldn't recognize a diffuser even if it was stuffed with money!"
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:06
Edited by Talryyn, 03 October 2012 - 14:06.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:08
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:11
What I'm not clear on is whether the FIA can change the method of testing. We know they can change the tested weight, but can they change the direction or application points without a rule change?
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:13
LOL indeed. That would be too funny.I don't believe it will be so but if McLaren's performance advantage (or a big part of it) proved to be an "illegal gimmick"...oh my, the irony and hilarity.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:19
Since the FIA seems to have failed miserably at policing the flexing of the front wing, migth as well just allow it to flex. Because the biggest advantage is not that it flexes but that it flexes while the other competitors dont. The original purpose of the rule was cost saving. I wonder how much money Mclaren and Red Bull saved on developing this ultra complex carbon fiber functional properties that cheats the FIA test.
Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:28
thanksUsing Google translate
GP jappone McLaren will have to modify wing will be 'less competitive
Posted 03 October 2012 - 15:11
Yes, as long as they notify the teams about the new tests. Otherwise most if not all of them will be declared illegal..............
So, to me this sounds like the FIA can test the bodywork for flexibility in whatever way they like to ensure the regulations.
Advertisement
Posted 03 October 2012 - 15:28
Are you sure? I always thought that the rule has existed for a very long time and was brought in as a safety measure after the bad security record of early F1 aero, which was seemingly created by amateurs with no understanding of engineering or math, who nevertheless started to dabble in movable aero quickly. But I failed at googling for evidence.