Are you still insisting the nose doesn't bend?Have a look at f1technical, it's all been debunked already in the RB8 thread.
you guys are free to keep rocking the tinfoil hats though.
Edited by oetzi, 09 November 2012 - 09:01.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:00
Are you still insisting the nose doesn't bend?Have a look at f1technical, it's all been debunked already in the RB8 thread.
you guys are free to keep rocking the tinfoil hats though.
Edited by oetzi, 09 November 2012 - 09:01.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:02
Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 15:03.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:28
still arguing this?
RB front wing with no cameras attached. The black horns are actually part of the wing. They are thin CF, no thicker than the flaps on the front wing, the front part of the wing is hollow all the way to the front of the pylons (all the way = 10-15cm - roughly just behind the infinity sticker) You take damage where the arrow points, you get a mechanic to pull up where the arrow points and push down on the opposite side you get the gif. The cameras and mount part of the wing are aero neutral.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:38
Sure, the thing is, the DRS panel didn't even touch the camera mounting, as you can see in one of the gifs.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:45
Sure, the thing is, the DRS panel didn't even touch the camera mounting, as you can see in one of the gifs.
Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 15:47.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:55
sure, so how come in the bottom zoom the camera on the wing is bent downwards compared to the top zoom? heavy air?
Posted 09 November 2012 - 16:12
I already pointed out occassions when you can see the housings moving independently to the nose in #176. btw if you watch Vettel pitting, you can see him going on a bump just before stopping, and the housings start to wobble.Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
Come on, this is not even a matter of opinion, but what can be seen with the eyes... If you are saying that it hit the nose...
Posted 09 November 2012 - 16:21
Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
Come on, this is not even a matter of opinion, but what can be seen with the eyes... If you are saying that it hit the nose...
Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:37
what? look at the angle of the camera relative to the mount point before declaring people drunk? The camera angles down from the edge to the mount point, what you 're describing angles the whole camera down uniformly
Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:54
Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:58
How could it angle the whole camera down uniformly when only the left part of the wing was hit?
These are the two frames of the hit:
It's clear it didn't hit the nose. After that what is happening is that the DRS sign moves around the suspension and blocks the view to the camera mountings, when viewed from the onboard camera, but it had already cleared the nose.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:01
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:01
How could it angle the whole camera down uniformly when only the left part of the wing was hit?
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:12
I think it might just be the reflection of the white sign that makes it look like it's moving in that gif.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:22
camera clearly goes up and down.
Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
oh god ....
camera is attached to the nose cone, edge of camera is attached to nothing, if nose moves whole camera moves, if edge of camera moves independently there is force applied there. Physics 101. If the left part of the wing was attached to the edge of the camera you 'd have a point, then the edge of the camera would move with the wing element
red line is an exaggerated illustration of what you 're seeing, and it can't happen because "the left part of the wing was hit"
Edited by prty, 09 November 2012 - 18:38.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:35
could someone who is capable and has the footage in good quality do a gif from the close up from 0:06?
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:37
It can, as you can see in the pitstop, that part is particularly flexible. If it's more flexible than the rest of the nose, Physics 101 too, it can create the torsion the gif and pit stop shows.
Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 18:40.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:44
I have NEVER seen the camera flex like this except after Vettel hit the DRS sign, not even in the insane flexing wing of Webber's you posted. Put it this way, with that much flexing around it would be a completely useless camera. So maybe instead of the pitstop proving there is insane flex in the camera mount, the much simpler explanation is the flex happens because there was damage, not the other longer way around you 're looking at it ;)
@prty that argument could work, only if we did have coverage which shows the camera moving independently to prove it wrong...
...oh wait, we DO have!
Edited by prty, 09 November 2012 - 18:45.
Advertisement
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:49
I tried but it's not easy to show the movement clearly in gif.could someone who is capable and has the footage in good quality do a gif from the close up from 0:06?
Edited by plumtree, 11 November 2012 - 01:33.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:51
That front wing is broken, and has uneven loads on the left and right parts that cause torsion on the tip of the nose, we hardly ever see that too.
The thing is, that doesn't change the fact that the tip of the nose itself is deforming, it's not only that the cameras are moving respective to it.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 20:41
Posted 09 November 2012 - 21:49
Posted 09 November 2012 - 23:49
The F1 Show has pretty much cleared this up, the nosecone/camera housing was just damaged from where it struck the DRS sign, you could clearly see when RBR put the new nose on how much sturdier it was.
Storm. Teacup. In.
Posted 10 November 2012 - 00:08
It is about time the other teams grow some balls and ask FIA what the heck is going on with RBR.
Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:01
You. And. RBR. Wish.
Without the impact it would not flex like that. But the impact has probably left the tail of the cat out of the bag.
In the last couple of seasons, we have seen cables hanging out of the front wing where they had no use. We have seen water dropping from places where water had no business. Webber has talked about water generators, whatever that may be. We have seen a nose that was bending as if it is the last dance. And yet the nothing-to-see-here brigade keeps telling that everything is business as usual. Nobody ever explains anything, apart from the fact that Newey is a genius, and that underfuelling a car is creating "the circumstances that give rise to a force majeure event, by reducing the fuel pressure in the fuel-feeding-circuit". Yeah, sure, Chris,
It is about time the other teams grow some balls and ask FIA what the heck is going on with RBR.
Posted 11 November 2012 - 23:19
Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:09
Are you still insisting the nose doesn't bend?
Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:16
Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:22
Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:47
it is so quiet on the media because various experts and the FIA both gave it the nod of approval, as they know that the front of the nose is made weak on purpose, so it doesn't interfere in a crash.It isnt a vinyl wrap, it is paint a vinyl wrap is heavier than pain, and the nose is bending, when this gets looked into further which i hope it does, all will be revealed, surprised its so quiet on this topic in the media.
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:08
The F1 Show has pretty much cleared this up
Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:03
Red bull have some like this:
Any doubth it?
Yes.. it can be damaged in Vettel's car with Drs.. but. AGAIN:
what DAMAGE Webber's car?
His nose flexes vertically, and allow front wing to close gap to floor.
THAT IS ILLEGAL.
And that is what teams ask to FIA, not about Vettel 15cm nose flexibility.
I think this is transcendent enough to be outside the RBR thread. If mods think otherwise, feel free to merge.
The evidence:
Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:15
Red bull have some like this:
Any doubth it?
Yes.. it can be damaged in Vettel's car with Drs.. but. AGAIN:
what DAMAGE Webber's car?
His nose flexes vertically, and allow front wing to close gap to floor.
THAT IS ILLEGAL.
And that is what teams ask to FIA, not about Vettel 15cm nose flexibility.
Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:48
Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:16
I won't pick on the blind, so I guess we'll leave it thereYes mate, you may need to play with your monitor settings or something. it is just the camera housing and vinyl wrap that is moving.
or do you actually think they made the nose out of rubber?
Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:17
Its quite simply "a method of manipulating ones assets to maximise an advantage", It was first developed by McLaren in early 2005 when Ron being Ron gave it the aforementioned name, not being a fan of Rosnspeak a certain Columbian driver gave it a new monicker and named it after himself, up until then everyone had thought that the "JP" in "JP Montoya" actually stood for "Juan Pablo", not true, it actually stands for "Jiggery Pokery", Those pesky bankers also jumped on the bandwagon, most notably the extremely devious Jiggery Pokery Morgan.
In a secret meeting in Abu Dhabi, Pat Fry, Horner and Charlie Whiting met to have an informal test of the apparently bending nose where agreement couldn't be reached,
"It bends!!!" said Fry,
"Rubbish" said Horner,
"Here's my steel engineers rule, it has a straight edge" said Charlie, put that on the nose and try it again, they did, and the nose deflected!!
"See!!, even the sodding rule bends" said Fry
"Now you're getting it" Said Charlie.
Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:22
I regards the RB nose cone:
Why would a designer not design the crash structure in the same shape as the aero shell in which it resides.
Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:39
This one is very simple to answer.I regards the RB nose cone:
Why would a designer not design the crash structure in the same shape as the aero shell in which it resides. One component, two functions as Colin Chapman would say. I can't see any weight saving in having separate parts which could be replaced by one part.
Advertisement
Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:19
Oh, well if Ted Kravitz and Georgie Thompson said so then i guess that's gospel.
Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:37
is the episode available online (and worldwide)?If you'd have watched it you'd have seen the footage they showed was pretty clear, it was damaged. Your opinion definitely isn't gospel either ;)
Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:02
is the episode available online (and worldwide)?
Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:05
Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:15
If you'd have watched it you'd have seen the footage they showed was pretty clear, it was damaged. Your opinion definitely isn't gospel either ;)
Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:25
So that's why they're making this huge fuss then.Clear as mud.
What i saw was the DRS board hitting an end of the wing and the camera boxes wobbling. Sky didn't cover it in any depth, they just said 'Oh, this has been causing ructions, but its alright it was just damaged (because thats what RBR told our work experience lad when we had him ring them up)'.
The boys i know from Lotus, Merc & FI certainly aren't swallowing that line.
Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:04
Edited by ElAbuelo, 13 November 2012 - 01:06.
Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:08
"E pur si muove."
A fixed front camera that change angle with velocity.... maybe was damaged..
Damaged?
SURE.
Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:09
Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 November 2012 - 04:25.
Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:58
IMO:
Use photographic evidence to be the basis of new rules to limit body and wing movements.
Control down force on cars by having load cell weigh bridges at various parts of the track (installed and removed at each GP track), which would result in stop goes if a car weighed too much (ie had too much downforce).
A formula would be calculated for downforce and speeds, which would account for cars being lighter at slower parts of the track.
The weight data would be shown live - why shouldn't we know the down force of the various cars, and I guess too, their various fuel loads?
* the best weight system would be load cells for each wheel ... that would be good too, along with road weigh bridges ... because I would find it hard to trust the teams on car load cell engineering.
As a side note, I feel modern cars benefit very little from F1 style aero-dynamic improvements. I do feel that mechanical suspensions and active suspensions would improve the automobile. But I guess that the connection between F1 and the automobile, is long gone.