Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

McLaren and Red Bull have pivoting front wing?

Started by KnucklesAgain , Oct 02 2012 22:59

Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
4
5

Please log in to reply

207 replies to this topic

#101 engel

Member

5,037 posts
Joined: November 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 15:44

Good question. Also, the wing could have been designed to circumvent changes in weight loads, for example.

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?

The teams have to provide a jig for the purposes of checking for flex, which means a new test might require a new jig and surely you can't just spring that on them at the last minute?

As for Flavio, there's no way of knowing that he's tweeted something he has inside information about, or just a 140-character-limited version of the rumours discussed in this thread.

There is an Italian rumor going around that the FIA will change the loadpoints for the test (ie instead of hanging weights near the endplates they will hang weights at the rear edge)

It's a rumor as of now, I haven't heard anybody "officially" confirm it.

#102 Woody3says

Member

426 posts
Joined: January 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 16:25

As always, the legality of such devices will come down to which team has the best lawyers or kisses the most ass to secure an "ok" from Charlie. Both Mac and RB havent had the best of luck on both of these as of late. I see a rule clarification on the imminent horizon.

If first Eddie and now Flavio are proven to be right........what then happens to the internet???

#103 FerrariFanInTexas

Member

1,157 posts
Joined: February 00

Posted 03 October 2012 - 17:24

I really don't see how it's any different than Ferrari's deforming wing some years back. There really is no meaningful difference between something that uses materials science to create a deflection at certain loads and allowing the entire wing to deflect under certain loads. Any way you look at it, it's a movable aerodynamic device.

#104 Seanspeed

Member

21,814 posts
Joined: October 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 17:32

If first Eddie and now Flavio are proven to be right........what then happens to the internet???

Dont worry. American presidential debate tonight will remind us that people spout poo for the sake of attention still.

#105 alfa1

Member

1,997 posts
Joined: June 02

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:47

At the end of the nineties, early zero's you had teams developing flexible rear wings...

(Edited...)

I recall two methods.
1. The entire rear wing assembly tilted back at speed.
2. The gap between upper and lower elements decreased as the upper element flexed downward.
This second issue was fixed in the 2006 season with a mandatory spacer.
http://www.f1technic.../development/40

But back to the front wing... it was said on page 1 that the FIA test is performed with 100kg.
Given the front wing generates maybe 600kg, its clear the test is simply no good to test real actual on track deflection.

Edited by alfa1, 03 October 2012 - 19:01.

#106 Lazy

Member

6,725 posts
Joined: June 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:51

There is an Italian rumor going around that the FIA will change the loadpoints for the test (ie instead of hanging weights near the endplates they will hang weights at the rear edge)

It's a rumor as of now, I haven't heard anybody "officially" confirm it.

I would have thought that everybody would fail that test.

#107 Cramadzy

Member

51 posts
Joined: May 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 18:59

Dont worry. American presidential debate tonight will remind us that people spout poo for the sake of attention still.

Romney is bound to drop some clangers and make himself look like even more of an idiot.

Whitmarsh is claiming that there should be no problem with front wing as he's had no discussion with FIA. Don't feel encouraged by that, especially after his post Barcelona qualy comments.

#108 black magic

Member

4,477 posts
Joined: June 00

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:05

if their front wings flex by rotating then that is a moveable aero device and they should have their points deducted for clear breach of the rules.

getting plumes of air to stall your wings is not moveable even if it comes to be banned.

equally if the rear wing was rotating down as in the past there would also be an outcry and clear breach.

regardless of how fia test wing deflection. that merely tests whether any deformability is within the limits.

#109 Bartel

Member

887 posts
Joined: April 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:13

if their front wings flex by rotating then that is a moveable aero device and they should have their points deducted for clear breach of the rules.

getting plumes of air to stall your wings is not moveable even if it comes to be banned.

equally if the rear wing was rotating down as in the past there would also be an outcry and clear breach.

regardless of how fia test wing deflection. that merely tests whether any deformability is within the limits.

Better take Red Bulls last two titles off them while youre at it.

#110 jeze

Member

2,973 posts
Joined: September 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:13

Take 'em off cheaters! :smoking:

#111 baddog

Member

29,736 posts
Joined: June 99

Posted 03 October 2012 - 19:20

If it passes the tests its legal, FIA set that standard 2 years ago.

Not 'legal' but 'approved to race'. This is what will prevent both teams previous results from being excluded of course, but has no effect on the future and the test can change at a moment's notice. The rule cannot.

#112 KnucklesAgain

Member

11,796 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:00

I really don't see how it's any different than Ferrari's deforming wing some years back. There really is no meaningful difference between something that uses materials science to create a deflection at certain loads and allowing the entire wing to deflect under certain loads. Any way you look at it, it's a movable aerodynamic device.

It isn't different. And FIA was not happy with RBR's 2010/11 wing flexing (I don't know why you singled out Ferrari there, they were late to the party then), and so FIA increased the load tests. Now they apparently are not happy with the pivoting and may change the tests once more.

#113 JRizzle86

Member

2,096 posts
Joined: December 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:06

They are obviously legal because they pass the current tests. They probably don't pass the spirit of the rules but then nothing that gives a competitive advantage generally does. Let me guess the test suddenly change due to a knee jerk reaction by a paper, all of sudden two teams have illegal cars.

Edited by JRizzle86, 03 October 2012 - 20:06.

#114 Risil

Administrator

61,733 posts
Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:30

"Rules" and "spirit of the rules" is misleading. Baddog's on the money, as usual. The FIA is of course entitled to run whatever scrutineering tests it likes to enforce its rules 'n' regulations. Although it's usually considered sporting to give teams fair warning when there's going to be a change.

Not 'legal' but 'approved to race'. This is what will prevent both teams previous results from being excluded of course, but has no effect on the future and the test can change at a moment's notice. The rule cannot.

#115 KnucklesAgain

Member

11,796 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:35

They are obviously legal because they pass the current tests. They probably don't pass the spirit of the rules but then nothing that gives a competitive advantage generally does. Let me guess the test suddenly change due to a knee jerk reaction by a paper, all of sudden two teams have illegal cars.

If it turns out they purposefully built hinged wings to circumvent the tests, I don't see how new tests are a knee-jerk reaction. It's right there in the rules

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

The 3. 15 it refers to is

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
(...) any
specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
(...)
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)

Yes, we all agree that it's impossible to have absolutely no movement, hence the tests allowing for deflection. But in this case the spirit of the rule is nothing nebulous, it's written down in 3.15. Going from the fact that even with best intentions it is impossible to build a 100% rigid front wing to arguing that therefore you might as well build a hinge is disingenuous though. Like I wrote before in this thread, arguing in this manner is ok in a legal argument, but one should not confuse it with sound logical thinking.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 20:39.

#116 Gareth

RC Forum Host

27,533 posts
Joined: March 01

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:35

Not 'legal' but 'approved to race'. This is what will prevent both teams previous results from being excluded of course, but has no effect on the future and the test can change at a moment's notice. The rule cannot.

I'd say "legal until the test is changed and they don't pass the new test". Semantics, I know. And silly semantics given you expressed it very well IMO. I'm just trying to pre-empt any "they are legal!" replies.

#117 AlexS

Member

6,332 posts
Joined: September 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:42

Romney is bound to drop some clangers and make himself look like even more of an idiot.

It is difficult to beat Obama in that. Not that i care much they are both socialists that only objective is to increase state power.

There really is no meaningful difference between something that uses materials science to create a deflection at certain loads and allowing the entire wing to deflect under certain loads. Any way you look at it, it's a movable aerodynamic device.

Yes. Everything moves, everythings is distorted, twists, flexes with loads, heck everything vibrates in a racing car. The question is how much should be tolerated because it is impossible to make it zero and when tolerance is at such level that should be considered rule violation.

Edited by AlexS, 03 October 2012 - 20:45.

#118 LateApex

Member

34 posts
Joined: April 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:24

I wonder if the aero bit that Lewis walked back to the garage with at Spa is related to this.

#119 FSA

Member

613 posts
Joined: September 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:40

I wonder if the aero bit that Lewis walked back to the garage with at Spa is related to this.

I was thinking the same thing. Caught my attention at the time. Rarely do drivers do that.

Edited by FSA, 03 October 2012 - 22:03.

#120 korzeniow

Member

5,671 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 22:06

I wonder if the aero bit that Lewis walked back to the garage with at Spa is related to this.

Nope, nothing at all. It was just a piece of endplate that lied on pitlane

Posted Image

Edited by korzeniow, 03 October 2012 - 22:07.

#121 Buttoneer

Admin

19,094 posts
Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 23:09

"Rules" and "spirit of the rules" is misleading. Baddog's on the money, as usual. The FIA is of course entitled to run whatever scrutineering tests it likes to enforce its rules 'n' regulations. Although it's usually considered sporting to give teams fair warning when there's going to be a change.

The issue is whether the teams can be expected to be ready for a new test considering that they provide a jig for the purpose of facilitating the tests. Additional weight applied by the same method is fine, but a different pressure point or angle of application might not be without fair notice.

#122 wonk123

Member

1,658 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:43

The issue is whether the teams can be expected to be ready for a new test considering that they provide a jig for the purpose of facilitating the tests. Additional weight applied by the same method is fine, but a different pressure point or angle of application might not be without fair notice.

I am all for pushing the boundaries of the rules, but I also don't think there needs to be any fair notice if the FIA believe that the teams are purposefully breaking the rules. If the wing pivots intentionally, I think they will ban them effective immediately.

However I suspect that the engineers have found a way to make the wings rotationally flexible while still not drooping. Ummm need to explain that better... the wing may be rigid in x, y, z planes but flexes in a 4th axis (rotation). If so it will be very difficult to design a test for it.

#123 black magic

Member

4,477 posts
Joined: June 00

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:12

if they flex then I can accept that FIA can deem them not fit for racing because they have failed an adjusted test.

if they are designed to rotate then I believe that has crossed a line in the sand to out and out illegal by deliberately designing a flexible aero device with no other purpose, and for that and only that specific purpose. Thats cheating and points should be deducted or removed.

I have had a gutsful really of one team in particular repetitively of late pushing over the limit with rule interpretation and time they got a formal spanking.

#124 seahawk

Member

3,132 posts
Joined: November 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:21

Readfing into it, there surely will be truth behind it. One effect would be to get more air under the nose, which is obviously something McLaren wants to have, considering that their low nose is limiting them and that they are having marvelous front grip, but lacked at the rear.

#125 sawyer_si

Member

347 posts
Joined: October 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:12

The issue is whether the teams can be expected to be ready for a new test considering that they provide a jig for the purpose of facilitating the tests. Additional weight applied by the same method is fine, but a different pressure point or angle of application might not be without fair notice.

If all teams but McLaren and RedBull pass the new test then it's their problem if they don't have "normal" wings ready. Why should someone who designed something that breaches regulations on purpose get fair notice?

#126 medeni73

Member

547 posts
Joined: January 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:24

According to german AMUS FIA has already tested FWs from RB and McLaren...

http://www.auto-moto...el-5820804.html

#127 BernieEc

Member

2,131 posts
Joined: August 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:30

According to german AMUS FIA has already tested FWs from RB and McLaren...

http://www.auto-moto...el-5820804.html

And what was the outcome????

#128 WhiteBlue

Member

2,188 posts
Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:32

Passed.

#129 medeni73

Member

547 posts
Joined: January 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:35

Passed by its said that the result could be tricky and that only on track we will see if they really passed the test and how much gain did they achieve through those FWs...

Google translation of that part:
"According to McLaren to have passed the new FIA test at Suzuka, without making any improvements to the wings. However, the statement of the engineers are enjoying in such sensitive matters with care. The result is probably to be viewed only on the racetrack.

If the effect is so great really like it, thought the competition, should the blue and chrome-colored cars are slowed noticeably. An accurate picture of the wings could be fans and experts on Thursday not to make way. Neither Red Bull nor McLaren presented their wings in front of the garage, as they always do otherwise."

Edited by medeni73, 04 October 2012 - 07:36.

#130 FirstWatt

Member

1,073 posts
Joined: February 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:39

Passed? Do you have a source?

In the AMuS article, there is no evidence, but
-Accordingly to MCLaren passed.
- Accordingly to AMuS, it can be expected that they will pass the test, because the teams have been "warned" in singapore.

Something interesting: They write that RB and McL did not pile up the FW's in front of the box this time, this in contrary to what they do usually.

#131 WhiteBlue

Member

2,188 posts
Joined: July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:42

Does the wild boar goes potty in the wood? Would McLaren and Red Bull bring suitable front wings to Suzuka if they know that Charlie will apply a new test?

#132 baddog

Member

29,736 posts
Joined: June 99

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:42

Well it is easy to pass when you know in advance, you just put the retaining pin in that stops it pivoting for this weekend...

#133 as65p

Member

26,207 posts
Joined: June 04

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:54

Well it is easy to pass when you know in advance, you just put the retaining pin in that stops it pivoting for this weekend...

Yep. And now that everyoen is alert to the issue, not only for this race but for all remaining.

#134 EvanRainer

Member

1,364 posts
Joined: February 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:50

Yep, the issue is not whether they pass the test, that's easy. The question is if/how much they have been slowed down to do so.

And as it was said, we'll find out on the track.

#135 wonk123

Member

1,658 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:25

Does the wild boar goes potty in the wood? Would McLaren and Red Bull bring suitable front wings to Suzuka if they know that Charlie will apply a new test?

Or have they had time to manufacture new wings which still do the same thing, but comply with the new test?

#136 jcbc3

RC Forum Host

12,925 posts
Joined: November 04

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:53

When is scrutiny in Suzuka?

I assume that when they pass that, they are free to go at least for this race.

#137 Juggles

Member

902 posts
Joined: March 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:14

Any bets on when McLaren are going to start pleading force majeure?

#138 korzeniow

Member

5,671 posts
Joined: January 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:25

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Away from the big news, Gary Anderson tells me the focus of the latest flexi front wing row is Red Bull. Who would have guessed..?

#139 Risil

Administrator

61,733 posts
Joined: February 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:39

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Away from the big news, Gary Anderson tells me the focus of the latest flexi front wing row is Red Bull. Who would have guessed..?

Me. But interesting how the media have been making Mclaren the subject and focus of their stories this time. Presumably because for once the public interest in the chrome team is higher, what with the Hamilton/Perez thing. Red Bull's 2012 season has been quite low-key by comparison, though they're still quite likely to secure both championships. Maybe their press office had quiet "stop-pissing-on-our-parade" words, after the F1 journalists gave Red Bull such a rough ride over their car's legality last season.

#140 BernieEc

Member

2,131 posts
Joined: August 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:44

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Away from the big news, Gary Anderson tells me the focus of the latest flexi front wing row is Red Bull. Who would have guessed..?

really....then where did the McLaren front wing story come from???

#141 Juggles

Member

902 posts
Joined: March 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:47

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Away from the big news, Gary Anderson tells me the focus of the latest flexi front wing row is Red Bull. Who would have guessed..?

But is that because Red Bull haven't changed their wing so drastically in preparation for a new test (if indeed there is one), i.e. they are closer to the new limit than McLaren, or because both teams have retained the pivoting wing but McLaren are hiding it better?

I don't think practice will reveal much, only qualifying can reassure me.

Also, for the first time in three years I don't want Red Bull to get pulled up for stretching/breaking the rules. The current status quo is ideal: McLaren followed by Red Bull followed by Ferrari.

#142 Risil

Administrator

61,733 posts
Joined: February 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:47

really....then where did the McLaren front wing story come from???

The story's always mentioned both Mclaren and Red Bull.

#143 KnucklesAgain

Member

11,796 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:56

Me. But interesting how the media have been making Mclaren the subject and focus of their stories this time. Presumably because for once the public interest in the chrome team is higher, what with the Hamilton/Perez thing. Red Bull's 2012 season has been quite low-key by comparison, though they're still quite likely to secure both championships. Maybe their press office had quiet "stop-pissing-on-our-parade" words, after the F1 journalists gave Red Bull such a rough ride over their car's legality last season.

The original AMuS article didn't though. They said the FIA took offence in Singapore when RBR overdid it (again)

#144 BernieEc

Member

2,131 posts
Joined: August 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:12

The original AMuS article didn't though. They said the FIA took offence in Singapore when RBR overdid it (again)

Damn those bulls....they always take things to far..............

#145 Risil

Administrator

61,733 posts
Joined: February 07

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:20

The original AMuS article didn't though. They said the FIA took offence in Singapore when RBR overdid it (again)

Maybe it's just a Brit thing. Obviously Seb would be bigger news in Germany than over here.

#146 JimiKart

Member

457 posts
Joined: July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:41

To me it seems both Mac and RB had plenty advance warning that the other teams had found their “creative interpretation of the rules” (and that’s being generous), apparently enough warning to bring a wing that actually was closer to the spirit of the rules.

Personally I agree with them not losing any points for previous races as the cars passed the test at that time – but I would have preferred no notice for this most recent test and having them both caught red handed – like Honda was when they got caught using fuel as ballast – then they could have been banned for a race or more, a proper and fitting punishment.

I hope Ferrari have learned from this and next time find a way to get them caught that results in proper punishment.

#147 goingthedistance

RC Forum Host

4,471 posts
Joined: May 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 13:10

Maybe Red Bull deliberately brought an extreme solution to get the FIA's attention on the matter. Suppose it would be easier just to report it though!

#148 Seanspeed

Member

21,814 posts
Joined: October 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:03

Maybe Red Bull deliberately brought an extreme solution to get the FIA's attention on the matter. Suppose it would be easier just to report it though!

I think it was reported that Ferrari's the one who brought it to the attention of the FIA.

#149 KWSN - DSM

Member

36,355 posts
Joined: January 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:13

With the FIA reaction today, it is obvious that they want to ensure that there are no teams running something which manage to pass the old style test, while contravening the actual rules when running on track. It is very possible that no team will be caught with a wing which does not conform, I will actually expect that to be the case, however all teams also now know and understand that they can not expect to get away with this.

There is zero blame to pass towards Ferrari or any other team for not doing anything earlier, and one could argue that no blame as such should be directed at McLaren and Red Bull who allegedly have been running wings outperforming the rules, as have been said here all teams do all they can to press the envelope it is part of what makes F1 in to F1, I just also then expect the teams to accept when being told to change parts on their cars.

:cool: