A moving nose, isn't that a moveable aerodynamic device?It's obvious that is exactly want is happening, and that's why the FW will always pass the load tests, it has a nose that moves the FW closer to the ground, Newey probably has a little remote in his pocket that activates it
RB7 Front Wing Flex [split] [merged]
#151
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:02
Advertisement
#152
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:02
Not if you ask NeweyA moving nose, isn't that a moveable aerodynamic device?
#153
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:04
Its not, its just difficult to police.So the whole front end of the car 'flexes' ? How can that possibly be legal?
BTW where I mention a flexible nosecone, it may actually be mechanisms in and around the support struts that enable them to pivot
Edited by Obi Offiah, 26 March 2011 - 18:05.
#154
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:04
1) fia mantated core parts, like a metal rod thats built into the wing. if the nose is drooping then you could include the nosebox
2) go back to skid blocks and have sparks , could have a wear test like with the plank
#155
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:08
Big Bad Ron and Whitmarsh need to grab him tomorrow and check his pockets...A moving nose, isn't that a moveable aerodynamic device?
Seriously, I think he is building a nose that flexes under aero load, infact I think it's very clear that's what he's doing.
#156
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:10
Well, we need that on the McLaren clearly then.Big Bad Ron and Whitmarsh need to grab him tomorrow and check his pockets...;)
Seriously, I think he is building a nose that flexes under aero load, infact I think it's very clear that's what he's doing.
#157
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:14
#158
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:18
You can also surmise that the diffuser was not the advantage they had last year because with that now banned, they are still atleast 0.8 quicker than the field, the advantage looks to have been always in this bendy nose concept...Well, we need that on the McLaren clearly then.
#159
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:27
I layed the profile of each wing over each other, only adjusted for size since the photos were taken at different distances. The Red Bull wing (blue) doesn't flex any more than the McLarens. The only difference is that RB is able to run their front wing much lower to the ground in general.
There's a plank which is supposed to prevent the car from running very low, but RB get around that rule as well.
#161
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:33
#162
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:34
It's working like a fishing rod, a little movement in the middle of a fishing rod blank will be greatly exaggerated at the tip of the rod, that's what could be happening, it could all be in the structure and thickness of the carbon fibre that is used to construct the nose, if they are tapering the thickness of the carbon fibre towards the end in a measured way, they will get a fishing rod type flex in the nose under certain calculated loads.yes the wing and endplate have clearly moved. the nose however hasn't much, if at all.
Just my theory, but it's not a bad one.
Edited by Quint, 26 March 2011 - 18:38.
#163
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:35
It's working like a fishing rod, a little movement in the middle of a fishing rod blank will be greatly exaggerated at the tip of the rod, that's what could be happening, it could all be in the structure and thickness of the carbon fibre that is used to construct the nose, if they are tampering the thickness of the carbon fibre towards the end in a measured way, they will get a fishing rod type flex in the nose under certain calculated loads.
Just my theory, but it's not a bad one.
How would that help circumvent the tests where the loads are placed at the end of the wing.
#164
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:44
Being a shark fisherman by trade , I know you get very stiff carbon fibre rods that bend under extreme forces, maybe the FIA test does not load the FW enough to flex the nose, I don't know, I'm just guessing.How would that help circumvent the tests where the loads are placed at the end of the wing.
But I think he's definitely bending that nose, and a way I could see of doing it would be to incorporate flex by tapering the thickness of the carbon fibre construction in the nose, in the same way a fishing rod works using the same material.
#165
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:50
Assume they have this bendy nose which seems to angle the fw forward, it will increase ground effect and also df, but it will also create a lot of drag. In the race this might mean insupportable fuel usage.
Therefore they would have to use either a different wing ( or simple mechanism to reduce flex) for the race which would have less flex, less drag and therefore not use too much fuel.
What do you think?
#166
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:55
Can anyone remember if the incident when Toyota where disqualified from qualifying in 2009 because of a flexible rear wing was based on video footage of the rear wing, or did they fail loading tests? Here's an article about it from the time: http://news.bbc.co.u...one/7969641.stm .
It passed the load test. Toyota had designed the wing to pass twice the weight of the load test. It was banned because the scrutineers found scratch marks as an evidence that the wing is flexing.
And that is the problem copying RB. You never know when it will be banned. It can be at the next race or it can be forever legal.
Edited by Rurouni, 26 March 2011 - 18:56.
#167
Posted 26 March 2011 - 18:56
I wonder if this might not explain how they are so quick in qualy but less so in the race.
Assume they have this bendy nose which seems to angle the fw forward, it will increase ground effect and also df, but it will also create a lot of drag. In the race this might mean insupportable fuel usage.
Therefore they would have to use either a different wing ( or simple mechanism to reduce flex) for the race which would have less flex, less drag and therefore not use too much fuel.
What do you think?
We'll have to wait for photos from the race, I don't seem to remember the wing flexing less during races last year though. I agree with several posters that this is probably the area where most of their advantage lies. And why the hell is the Ferrari wing so damn rigid when they had it scraping the floor too last year, that's a real mystery to me.....
#168
Posted 26 March 2011 - 19:03
Can anyone remember if the incident when Toyota where disqualified from qualifying in 2009 because of a flexible rear wing was based on video footage of the rear wing, or did they fail loading tests? Here's an article about it from the time: http://news.bbc.co.u...one/7969641.stm .
Speaking of Toyota, several of the theories presented in this thread would probably get RB thrown out, like Toyota after their air restrictor bypass was found. Whatever the trick is, I doubt that they dare cheat that blatantly.
#169
Posted 26 March 2011 - 19:08
Whatever the trick is, I doubt that they dare cheat that blatantly.
It's different times now - if they found RB was cheating they would just 'clarify the rules' and it would be removed. Under JT, they are trying to get away from the scandals and unfair judgements of the past and make F1 appear clean.
#170
Posted 26 March 2011 - 19:10
Keep guessing. It can't be the simple fact that the car is fast.
#171
Posted 26 March 2011 - 19:52
#172
Posted 26 March 2011 - 20:06
Edited by RichardF1fan, 26 March 2011 - 20:06.
#173
Posted 26 March 2011 - 21:02
Developing an anti-gravity device that allows a car to run underweight while out on the circuit, would be devilishly clever but still cheating.Thing is, in all honesty I respect what Newey has done here and think it's devilishly clever. I want F1 to be creative and the absolute pinnacle of motorsport, I don't want the FIA always putting up brick walls (despite the fact that the engineers always find a way to vault them).
#174
Posted 26 March 2011 - 21:41
Developing an anti-gravity device that allows a car to run underweight while out on the circuit, would be devilishly clever but still cheating.
but if it was a star trek anti inertia device it would go round the course like a rocket - that would be legal as the car would still weigh the correct amount.
#175
Posted 26 March 2011 - 21:44
Keep guessing. It can't be the simple fact that the car is fast.
Judging by the fact we have pictures of the car with the nose almost dragging along the ground, there's something going on beyond the car merely being "fast"
#176
Posted 26 March 2011 - 21:57
Of course there is: they have a special KERS system, their front wing flexes, they have pixie juice in their gearboxes.Judging by the fact we have pictures of the car with the nose almost dragging along the ground, there's something going on beyond the car merely being "fast"
Oh, hey, maybe they have a car designed by Adrian Newey, proven to be a genius when it comes to designing perfectly legal racing cars.
#177
Posted 26 March 2011 - 21:59
So are you denying it flexes or not? I'm confused.Of course there is: they have a special KERS system, their front wing flexes, they have pixie juice in their gearboxes.
Oh, hey, maybe they have a car designed by Adrian Newey, proven to be a genius when it comes to designing perfectly legal racing cars.
#178
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:02
How can I know? I am watching the car on a TV screen and looking at pictures on a forum.So are you denying it flexes or not? I'm confused.
The people who organise the races, who have access to endless footage, who have tested the car, have decided that it's legal.
#179
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:02
So are you denying it flexes or not? I'm confused.
Guy seems pretty keen to deny evidence that the front wing even moves at all, don't waste your time.
Advertisement
#180
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:07
Guy seems pretty keen to deny evidence that the front wing even moves at all, don't waste your time.
Agreed, this guy is border-line trolling, with his opinions so far detatched from reality.
#181
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:08
The 'evidence' being some grainy pictures on a forum and a lot of speculation.Guy seems pretty keen to deny evidence that the front wing even moves at all, don't waste your time.
The car is legal, deal with it.
#182
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:12
The 'evidence' being some grainy pictures on a forum and a lot of speculation.
The car is legal, deal with it.
Multiple pictures. And secondly, the car can past the tests and still breach the rules.
#183
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:14
Discussing it on a forum is dealing with it you buffoon.
Edited by klyster, 26 March 2011 - 22:15.
#184
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:18
Edited by DrF, 26 March 2011 - 22:19.
#185
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:20
Because it passes the FIA's static testing. Therein lies the problem.OK, guys. The RBR wing flexes. Why isn't it banned?
#186
Posted 26 March 2011 - 22:25
In that case, everybody is free to design a flexing with which passes the static tests. For some reason, they don't. How does that make Red Bull cheats?Because it passes the FIA's static testing. Therein lies the problem.
#187
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:19
The logical extreme of what you're saying is that if a football referee was incompetent enough to allow persistent fouling throughout the match by one team that the other teams shouldn't complain to the authorities to have the rules properly enforced, they should do the same thing because 'obviously it's legal'. The responsibility here is with the FIA to formulate a test that proves what all of the visual evidence appears to make evident, that the wing is illegal. Frankly it's got the the stage where you could argue that they should ban it on the basis of visual evidence alone.In that case, everybody is free to design a flexing with which passes the static tests. For some reason, they don't. How does that make Red Bull cheats?
#188
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:25
Assuming that the wing is inspected as a standalone object, how do the scrutineers establish that it is a single rigid piece without, say, an some kind of motorised mechanism or catch inside it that prevents it from flexing unless it detects motion or some kind of other trigger? Is it scanned or x-rayed?
#189
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:26
Yes it is legal, but it shouldn't be. And it is the FIAs job to make sure that it isn't possible to do what Red-Bull are doing.
#190
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:29
The tilting wing... I love it.
The car passes the tests so is allowed to race. I have no problem with that.
#191
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:30
#192
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:31
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
The test is just inadequate... or we all have issues with our eyes..
It's one or the other.
#193
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:32
Yes it is legal, but it shouldn't be. And it is the FIAs job to make sure that it isn't possible to do what Red-Bull are doing.
It's not legal. The tests are just being taken as "proving" it doesn't flex. We can see it is, the rules say "no flexing" and the silence from the FIA and officials is deafening.
#194
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:41
#195
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:42
Fair point, what I mean is they have no reason to punish them yet, they just need to devise better tests to prove the flex.It's not legal. The tests are just being taken as "proving" it doesn't flex. We can see it is, the rules say "no flexing" and the silence from the FIA and officials is deafening.
#196
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:44
Just take a look at the link below. It's in spanish, but you only need to look at the pics and the on-board video from Vettel's pole lap. Pay close attention to both the nose and the wing itself when the car is going fast.
Click HERE for irrefutable proof that Red Bull is cheating.
#197
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:51
The word "cheats" is a loaded one. Without needing to invoke it, we can think about whether what some people speculate Red Bull is doing would be acceptable.In that case, everybody is free to design a flexing with which passes the static tests. For some reason, they don't. How does that make Red Bull cheats?
The tech regs exist in two forms. One form is a general principle, such as: bodywork may not flex for aerodynamic purposes (within inherent limitations of materials available). This principle applies to the vehicle at all times, both when it is at rest and when it is in motion.
The other form is such as: brake discs may be no more than 278 mm in diameter.
Evidence of violation of the latter is easy: get out your ruler.
Evidence of violation of the former is difficult, because, unlike with a brake disc, what the principle is designed to prevent cannot in practice be measured.
Because it is not yet possible to have an FIA laser beam that measures in-motion bodywork deflection, they have a static deflection test that is useful for gathering evidence about in-motion bodywork deflection. A lack of evidence of in-motion bodywork deflection is not the same thing as a lack of in-motion bodywork deflection.
This is the same distinction that was fundamental to the Ferrari flexible-floor dispute (and, NO, I am not looking to start that one up again!!!).
If you've figured out how to make a device pass an evidence test, whilst in operation the device does the thing that a regulation says is not allowed, then the device is not legal. It would not necessarily be "cheating" to do that, because one could compose an argument that the test was all that mattered. but that argument would ultimately be wrong.
#198
Posted 26 March 2011 - 23:56
#199
Posted 27 March 2011 - 00:02
Edited by Sausage, 27 March 2011 - 00:03.
Advertisement
#200
Posted 27 March 2011 - 00:03
That link only provides irrefutable proof that the aspect ratio is ****ed up, but the wing does look very low.
Do people take into account suspension dip rate under braking when they post video as proof of flexing?
Edited by klyster, 27 March 2011 - 00:03.