wow. That is very interesting. What does it seem to say? The entire nosecone is flexing?
Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?
#51
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:21
wow. That is very interesting. What does it seem to say? The entire nosecone is flexing?
Advertisement
#52
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:44
I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.
#53
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:47
#54
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:49
Could just be the outer shell of the nose that is damaged after the impact with the DRS sign.
I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.
1. I think the nose was run in India, although cant prove that.
2. Just because you can't, doesn't mean we should discount it! Not being rude just saying.
#55
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:51
and i guess if the nose bent upwards then you could get more air underneath, and all teams have max height noses, right ? to get more air underneath...
other option is it bends down so then u would be going after dropping the height of the actual front wing
#56
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:52
Why is he applying a rotational force to the nose when it should pull straight off.
Applying rotation like that could make the whole nose jam onto the fittings.
#57
Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:54
#58
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:04
#59
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:06
I wonder how long they've have this for and if its co-incided with their dominance of the late part of the season?
Edited by Les, 06 November 2012 - 00:12.
Advertisement
#60
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:07
Is there anything written in the rules that prohibit this?
#61
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:20
#62
Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:56
Lets hope the FIA sort this however it seems strange to me that something so soft can pass all the tests required unless they are switching nosecones somehow.
Wasn't there some talk of electrical current being passed through carbon to make it stiffer or more flexible? (can't remember which one)
I imagine the tests are done when the car is stationary and turned off, perhaps when they should try them when the motor is running...
#63
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:33
I think this is just another of Neweys micron thick subtle shavings off the regulations - a little perfectly legal lightening of the nose cone cladding to reduce weight at the extremities of the car helps reduce polar inertia and if a side effect of this is some aerodynamically beneficial reshaping and repositioning of the nose tip and cameras, well then all to the good and easily passed off with a look of shock and a "Oh my gosh we only tried to make it lighter we didn't realise that it has become a pseudo moveable aerodynamic device." Type of explanation. The real jiggery pockery is going on with the wing pylons, the wing mounting points and underside of the nose cone / crash structure.
I also think that if RBR are such experts at flexible structures on the outside of the car, there would be no reason to believe that they haven't also explored this area with regard to a combination of suspension mountings, fuel tank positioning and ride height adjustment. It's not beyond the bounds of imagination to think of some kind of tensioning system where the lightening of the fuel load allows a carbon fibre section to slowly straighten itself as the load is reduced over the race which in turn might alter the preloading of a heave spring or some such. Legal / Illegal, could it even be discovered? Who's to say, after all if a designer decided to do away with suspension altogether and attach the wheels directly to a chassis with carefully built in flexibility in each corner through the use of complex CF laminates would it be deemed to be illegal? I'm not saying it could be done or even would be of benefit it's just a hypothetical question regarding how far flexible components could be taken.
Sounds far fetched but so did the thinking behind the Double Diffuser, the F Duct and the Flexy Floor. Watch this space.
Edited by matt72, 06 November 2012 - 01:35.
#64
Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:15
They all move, every car. Front and to a lesser extent the rear too. Too be quite honest I feel the flexing is a negative to aero. But if you made it stiff enough to have minimal flex it would be very heavy and probably to stiff for the crash testing as it would throw more load back into the main tub.obviously,... this is a movable aerodynamic device...
#65
Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:34
#66
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:15
#67
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:32
I think the nose tip shell was broken after Vettel hit the DRS signage. The nosecone look flexible because the broken nose tip was held together with the yellow sticker of redbull logo (I assume the red bull logo at the nose tip was sticker not paint.) Just my two cent.Could just be the outer shell of the nose that is damaged after the impact with the DRS sign.
I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.
#68
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:22
I think the nose tip shell was broken after Vettel hit the DRS signage. The nosecone look flexible because the broken nose tip was held together with the yellow sticker of redbull logo (I assume the red bull logo at the nose tip was sticker not paint.) Just my two cent.
Probably the most logical explanation.
unfortunately not the most interesting one though...
#69
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:22
#70
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:29
I think Vettel's car has this wizardry with the nose cone and Mark's car does not. Hence they orchestrated the incident in India to have Mark push Sebastian's car in India in order to demonstrate it is normal.
Either that or both the cars did not have it in India and they introduced it for AD
Edited by camberley, 06 November 2012 - 05:12.
#71
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:34
the car was fastest for past 3 races and could be again for next two......question of legality has nothing to with it....Lol at people wanting an investigation into the car wen the car is not even the fastest !
#73
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:09
nascar teams also use vinyl wraps as the paintschemes keep changing, and they often re body the car after a race, so alot of time in the paint room could be wasted if you got to scrap a bodyshell.
#74
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:11
im dubious its a vinyl sticker, as in nascar redbull where one of the very few teams to do a proper paint job, rather than vinyl wraps, because it looks a little bit better, its also typicaly heavier than paint, and your going to have a aero loss too as there a little step up from the surface of the car as each sticker is, well a sticker that has some depth too it.
nascar teams also use vinyl wraps as the paintschemes keep changing, and they often re body the car after a race, so alot of time in the paint room could be wasted if you got to scrap a bodyshell.
It cant be a vinyl sticker - It wouldn't be so smooth and uniform - there would be wrinkles/deformation if the sticker was all that was holding the tip together
Edited by camberley, 06 November 2012 - 05:11.
#75
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:15
Wow, nice find. How sneaky
Look up 'innovation' and try to understand it.
#76
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:26
#77
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:35
#78
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:05
It could be the camera pods (never new thats what the were ) were damaged and moveable, distorting the nose tip in the process? Keen to see how this plays out though
#79
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:06
Advertisement
#80
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:13
Apart from that, the mountinge of the cameras are neutral and create no downforce. So they would not create the load the have the nose flex. This twisting motion on the cameras, should create quite a strong momentum, a load the nose would be hardly designed for.
Edited by seahawk, 06 November 2012 - 06:16.
#81
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:34
It cant be a vinyl sticker - It wouldn't be so smooth and uniform - there would be wrinkles/deformation if the sticker was all that was holding the tip together
there is - look closely
just below and to the right of the infinity logo, you can see it start to peel and ripple in the last couple of frames of the animated gif. a small 'crinkle' also appears on the left hand side at the edge of the top surface of the nose at the corner
Edited by lbennie, 06 November 2012 - 06:41.
#82
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:40
#83
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:47
You're going to have to say why it looks fine... That looks as if it is made of jelly.Looks perfectly fine to me.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for the other teams with regard to flexible bodywork. It is not infinitely rigid and FIA has long displayed leniency on the matter. So they have to get with the program or be left behind.
#84
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:51
You're going to have to say why it looks fine... That looks as if it is made of jelly.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for the other teams with regard to flexible bodywork. It is not infinitely rigid and FIA has long displayed leniency on the matter. So they have to get with the program or be left behind.
+1
#85
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:51
Webber's damaged RB8 nose in India
#86
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:52
Looks perfectly fine to me.
Not sure if serious or irony.
#87
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:04
#88
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:59
Wow, reallyMost likely damage to the nose. Having a softer shell seems logical, because if you hit another car you want to hit it with the crash structure not with the tip of the nose. So the nose is probably designed to brake easily, the impact with the paper sign might have been enough to do structural damage, but not enough to disintegrate the nose. More or less like bumpers on a modern car.
Apart from that, the mountinge of the cameras are neutral and create no downforce. So they would not create the load the have the nose flex. This twisting motion on the cameras, should create quite a strong momentum, a load the nose would be hardly designed for.
#89
Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:33
So, end of discussion!Looks perfectly fine to me.
#90
Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:43
Doesn't explain what the mechanic was doing, but I don't think RedBull are doing anything dodgy.
#91
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:13
#92
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:21
So Wingwalker I am with you RB has infrindged the rule and I am at a loss how they passed FIA reg.
1. Caterham under Gazza already introduced rubber nose 2011. See F1 technical forum that was mentioned elsewhere on the threads about this nose.
2. Crash structure is covered by rubber/vinyl skin and takes the crash energy. The outer skin is given another role. Like a human body.
3. Mystified how Newey's lawer arged that the nose is NOT aerodynamic device and how FIA accepted it.
Ban it, dismiss it from the championship.
#93
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:22
Like others have said, I think the tip of the nose was smashed but is still held together by the vinyl wrap they use for the paint job on the car so we can't see the damage.
Doesn't explain what the mechanic was doing, but I don't think RedBull are doing anything dodgy.
I never saw anything on Sunday that suggested he hit the nose tip on anything, just the wing ends.
(not inconceivable that the load was transferred up the pillars though.)
#94
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:28
As an Aussie, every V8 race we get about 3 hours of slowmo footage of the cars hitting kerbs, there are ripples of vibration going right up through the bodywork because of how light it is and how much force is going through it. It doesn't really mean anything, so I'm waiting to be convinced that this weak nose is "bad".
#95
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:33
I'd tend to side with them trying to save weight than anything else, it's high up and way out the front of the car, if it's just essentially a cover over the crash structure then I could see them wanting to make it as light as possible. People are obsessed with this whole flexing thing, the pillars to the front wing are quite a way back from the tip of the nose here, no one seems to be giving a legit reason for what the actual flexing would achieve, if it actually occurs when the car is running normally.
It would alter the airflow which seems like more than a good enough reason to count it as a MAD. But again, It did pass the tests and scrutineering. Somehow.
#96
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:38
Once again it is important to remind yourself that non- or lightly-stressed areas, especially high and far from the CoG are built as light as possible. The pods do not cause downforce and can be attached while investing little weight. As we have seen during the last seasons the whole nose section of quite some cars flex relative to the driver safety cell.
P.S: Loud Howards comment fits in quite neatly, saw it only now.
Edited by H2H, 06 November 2012 - 10:03.
#97
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:40
I never saw anything on Sunday that suggested he hit the nose tip on anything, just the wing ends.
(not inconceivable that the load was transferred up the pillars though.)
It was the nose cone that hit the sign.
Edited by johnmhinds, 06 November 2012 - 09:41.
#98
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:55
if you watch it, and not just do a printscreen, you can see he hits it with more with the left side (verified by the onboard shot) after that, they are showing a slowmo of the front wing, and you can see the camera house flapping up and down a bit. that also strengthens the argument about it being some sort of damage.It was the nose cone that hit the sign.
Edited by Zava, 06 November 2012 - 09:57.
#99
Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:59