Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?

So when did Mark damage his wing/nose? I'd suggest you pull your heads out of the sand and admit it is dodgy at least! Put a mouse cursor over the nose and then middle part of the wing, while the chassis doesn't move anywhere near as much.

This has nothing to do with the crash with a styrofoam and or cameras; the whole nose drops making the wing much closer to the ground. This is flexible body work (movable aerodynamic device). I think people are so used to all the flexible wings that they take it for granted, but no bodywork is allowed to flex (beyond acceptable levels). If this doesn't deserve attention we might as well get flapping sidepods next year?!?

Edited by Torsion, 06 November 2012 - 11:43.

Few things you need to consider:

1. The type of flexing in this particular clip is not the same as the wing flexing under aero load. The flexing on this clip is just as a result of the car going over the kerb. I would be surprised if this is not the same for other cars.

2. Even the hardest substances in this universe will flex to a certain degree under the correct conditions. So whether a part on a F1 car is considered flexible or not is made based on the set of load tests which the FIA does. Obviously the RBR and all other cars have to pass these test before/after each race. So in the context of past races, the RBR wing has certainly been rigid/inflexible to the degree which FIA mandates it should be.

3. If the FIA at any point feel their test are insufficient, they will improve them, and the cars will have to comply. However in the the meantime, everyone has the same opportunity to exploit the rules the way RBR does - so I don't see any unfair advantage gained by them. Its just that they seem to be far ahead from others in multi-physics and in the use of composite materials, which I suspect is the basis of these flexible components.

...but you can now. So if Mercedes had it already, Red Bull has followed.

1. You are correct however it also shows that the nose is flexible enough and that wing mounts are attached to the flexi part and that the wing drops down together with the nose.

2. I don't think teams forgot how to build rigid noses overnight. Do you? FIA doesn't test all the parts and what is happening here is a strong suspicion something is going on in the area and that they should inspect it. FIA doesn't test sidepods for flexing...

3. You say RBR is far ahead of others in multi-phsyics and use of composite materials - Good for them but as there is no room for this kind of trickery in this sport (rules) I don't see the point in justifying and praising their efforts.

Edited by Torsion, 06 November 2012 - 12:15.

So when did Mark damage his wing/nose? I'd suggest you pull your heads out of the sand and admit it is dodgy at least! Put a mouse cursor over the nose and then middle part of the wing, while the chassis doesn't move anywhere near as much.

This has nothing to do with the crash with a styrofoam and or cameras; the whole nose drops making the wing much closer to the ground. This is flexible body work (movable aerodynamic device). I think people are so used to all the flexible wings that they take it for granted, but no bodywork is allowed to flex (beyond acceptable levels). If this doesn't deserve attention we might as well get flapping sidepods next year?!?

Thank you for replying in a manner in which we can have a discussion about this.

1. OK, obviously we will have to look at other evidence to determine this for sure because I don't think the FIA tests the wing for upward flexibility. In this instance, the downward flexibility could just be the wing returning to normal position after the upward jolt due to the car riding the Kerb. So in my view this clip does not indicate for certain that the wing would ride lower than allowed under aero load.

2. The problem is not whether the teams are able to make a rigid wing, its just that there is nothing called 100% rigidity. So if we say movable aero is not allowed, there will always have to be a threshold which is legal, otherwise all wings will be illegal. So the bottom line is, the rule itself is meaningless, it is the tests which will always defines the boundary.

3. We disagree here. I think F1 has always encouraged innovation. I fail to otherwise see what team are competing on? it is certainly not only about the best driver.

Need confirmation for this but I think that if you design a mechanism for the sole purpose of having flexibility, then it's illegal too, no matter if they pass the tests or not. We saw it with the Ferrari front wing pivots in 2005 and their floor in Australia 2007. Having a double nosecone, with the outer part being a flexible skin would surely fall in this category.

Thank you for replying in a manner in which we can have a discussion about this.

1. OK, obviously we will have to look at other evidence to determine this for sure because I don't think the FIA tests the wing for upward flexibility. In this instance, the downward flexibility could just be the wing returning to normal position after the upward jolt due to the car riding the Kerb. So in my view this clip does not indicate for certain that the wing would ride lower than allowed under aero load.

2. The problem is not whether the teams are able to make a rigid wing, its just that there is nothing called 100% rigidity. So if we say movable aero is not allowed, there will always have to be a threshold which is legal, otherwise all wings will be illegal. So the bottom line is, the rule itself is meaningless, it is the tests which will always defines the boundary.

3. We disagree here. I think F1 has always encouraged innovation. I fail to otherwise see what team are competing on? it is certainly not only about the best driver.

Edited by plumtree, 06 November 2012 - 12:48.

Not necessarily, one corner and one or two replays do not a summer make.

Where's the gif with Webber from?

There is still the second gif

I think it's from one of the FP's of last weekend.

Here the whole set of nose and camera is moving together.

http://www.mediafire...15sm1wht19n3b0s (from 10s)
Now the camera is moving separately, as the coupling part was damaged by the hit.

Thats crazy. I wonder what Charlie can say to this.

Thats crazy. I wonder what Charlie can say to this.

on the webber gif its most noticeable that the camera pods on the nose are moving, if you just look at the nose you might think its just image compression/artifacting

OP should forward these GIFs to Scarbs, as he might be able to shed some light on it.

OP should forward these GIFs to Scarbs, as he might be able to shed some light on it.

I always assumed that, I was after which corner it was. Should've been clearer.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 06 November 2012 - 15:46.

I wonder what happens when they do the static load test on the wing? obviously it has passed the tests, but surely the FIA would have noticed the wing staying relatively rigid while the whole nose is bending down.

It's fascinating the nose material is that soft, definitely something fresh to keep in mind for the armchair analysts like us, but at the end of the day, if it passes the tests it is what it is... the FIA has already shown it is extremely reticent to act on the basis of video evidence, and if it can't be proven that the design is engineered to flex (while still passing the tests) then it's just the same old story.

Is this rubber nosecone in the same league as McLaren's transparent bodywork?

...so you're saying this is a non-issue totally? Which I guess, means you're doing it as well.... (not expecting an answer on that.)

Wings will and do flex alot over kerbs like that, regardless of which car it is.

http://www.youtube.c...O_N8bSP0#t=477s

Plenty more about.

Dude, this topic is about the nose cone moving not the wing itself. I haven't seen any other nose cone moving like the Mark Webber gif

To you all Hercule Poirots - I just wonder how nobody in the paddock haven´t reacted this, I believe they are quite aware what the rivals do especially when it is so clearly visible

To you all Hercule Poirots - I just wonder how nobody in the paddock haven´t reacted this, I believe they are quite aware...especially when it is so clearly visible

Edited by oetzi, 06 November 2012 - 23:28.

Sure.... It's a non issue ;)

/thread

no, you can do what you like.

should have followed it with an IMO... apologies.