1331 replies to this topic

[Ricardo F1]

Even Force India has flex wings now.

Close this thread, now that Mclaren can also flex their wings, there is no need for their fans to carry on with the moaning.

Well it's not just the flexing, it's the amount of flex and the fact that the Red Bull wings flex to an illegally low position. Whether McLaren's do or not I'm not sure has been shown. And the problem is if everyone does develop a nose/wing structure that bends to illegal levels how quick will the FIA ban it then?

[judd]

Seems to me both McLaren and Red Bull are flexing, except Red Bull is flexing more.

Is this not a change in aero balance because of the DRS? Certainly on the McLaren anyway.

[PassWind]

Well it's not just the flexing, it's the amount of flex and the fact that the Red Bull wings flex to an illegally low position. Whether McLaren's do or not I'm not sure has been shown. And the problem is if everyone does develop a nose/wing structure that bends to illegal levels how quick will the FIA ban it then?

In bold is the most ridiculous assumption played off as a fact I have read in a while.

[ZooL]

Your all comparing the wrong images (cockpit shots).

The ones to look at are head on full view of the fw and the RBR7 end plates are literally scraping the ground.

No other team does this.

[New Britain]

Your all comparing the wrong images (cockpit shots).

The ones to look at are head on full view of the fw and the RBR7 end plates are literally scraping the ground.

No other team does this.

To some extent this is noticeable in the cockpit images on this page.
All four of the wings are deflecting down by roughly the same amount directly under the nose.
The RBR differs in that, laterally, there is a considerable amount of additional flex: the end-plates are moving a much greater distance than the area under the nose is.

[deanfrancis]

I cannot believe the sillyness that is going on here. The notion that Red Bull are cheating is completely absurd. This entire discussion was covered last season.

1. Rule: bodywork cannot move relative to the sprung part of the car

2. The laws of physics mean that a part will flex move when a force is applied to it (ie front wing is forced downward due to the airflow moving over it).

3. Because of (2), adherence to rule (1) can only be measured by static load tests in parc ferme

4. Red bull satisfy these load tests, and thus Cannot be declared illegal. The load test was modified for the front wing, as well as the tea tray last season. Still Red Bull passed these tests, and still Red Bull is a fast car.

Some of you argue that "Red Bull wings flex to an illegally low position." To follow that statement, how much of flex of the front wing makes it illegal? Why is it the Red Bull flexing is illegal, while McLaren and other teams flexing of their front wings is not illegal. All of them flex under load. So, how do you measure this? Again, we come back to the static load tests.

All of this is just a bunch of hot air from fanboys who dont like their team being beaten by an energy drinks company. It is simply good engineering from Newey and the Red Bull team.

Nobody in the F1 world cares about this issue any more. No team priniples are complaining, no technical directors, nobody. Only fanboys on here throw around accusations of cheating. McLaren themselves in testing ran a measuring device on their nose to measure the flexing of their own endplates.

Now, is there anyone else that has evidence of cheating? Remember a car cannot be declared illegal based on photographic evidence as measurements cannot be taken. On top of this, the front wing endplate height is set to be x cms above the Reference Plane, not the ground, so i fail to see how any accusation of cheating could even hold the tiniest amount of weight - especially based on photographic evidence and saying its too close to the ground.

I am not a Red Bull fan, but it is clear, they have done the superior engineering job. I wish Mercedes had done the same or better job, but that is the state of play.

Edited by deanfrancis, 28 March 2011 - 11:16.

[New Britain]

I cannot believe the sillyness that is going on here. The notion that Red Bull are cheating is completely absurd. This entire discussion was covered last season.

1. Rule: bodywork cannot move relative to the sprung part of the car

2. The laws of physics mean that a part will flex move when a force is applied to it (ie front wing is forced downward due to the airflow moving over it).

3. Because of (2), adherence to rule (1) can only be measured by static load tests in parc ferme

4. Red bull satisfy these load tests, and thus Cannot be declared illegal. The load test was modified for the front wing, as well as the tea tray last season. Still Red Bull passed these tests, and still Red Bull is a fast car.

Some of you argue that "Red Bull wings flex to an illegally low position." To follow that statement, how much of flex of the front wing makes it illegal? Why is it the Red Bull flexing is illegal, while McLaren and other teams flexing of their front wings is not illegal. All of them flex under load. So, how do you measure this? Again, we come back to the static load tests.

All of this is just a bunch of hot air from fanboys who dont like their team being beaten by an energy drinks company. It is simply good engineering from Newey and the Red Bull team.

Nobody in the F1 world cares about this issue any more. No team priniples are complaining, no technical directors, nobody. Only fanboys on here throw around accusations of cheating. McLaren themselves in testing ran a measuring device on their nose to measure the flexing of their own endplates.

Now, is there anyone else that has evidence of cheating? Remember a car cannot be declared illegal based on photographic evidence as measurements cannot be taken. On top of this, the front wing endplate height is set to be x cms above the Reference Plane, not the ground, so i fail to see how any accusation of cheating could even hold the tiniest amount of weight - especially based on photographic evidence and saying its too close to the ground.

I am not a Red Bull fan, but it is clear, they have done the superior engineering job. I wish Mercedes had done the same or better job, but that is the state of play.

"Illegal" and "passing a test" are not necessarily the same thing. In some cases they are the same thing (such as measuring engine capacity), but not necessarily.
Regardless of that, one suspects that the reason the teams are no longer complaining is that the FIA have told them that they don't know how to measure in-motion wing flexure, and therefore if another team can figure out what RBR are doing, that team should do the same. If you think that "no one cares about this", you are very much mistaken.
It's not exactly analogous, but you may recall several years ago, when Ferrari got the FIA to rule that the Michelins were illegal. They based their argument on photos showing how, in racing conditions, sidewall deflection caused the width of the contact patch to extend outside the "tread".

[sosidge]

Well worth re-quoting I think!

[Kingantti]

I cannot believe the sillyness that is going on here. The notion that Red Bull are cheating is completely absurd. This entire discussion was covered last season.

1. Rule: bodywork cannot move relative to the sprung part of the car

2. The laws of physics mean that a part will flex move when a force is applied to it (ie front wing is forced downward due to the airflow moving over it).

3. Because of (2), adherence to rule (1) can only be measured by static load tests in parc ferme

4. Red bull satisfy these load tests, and thus Cannot be declared illegal. The load test was modified for the front wing, as well as the tea tray last season. Still Red Bull passed these tests, and still Red Bull is a fast car.

Some of you argue that "Red Bull wings flex to an illegally low position." To follow that statement, how much of flex of the front wing makes it illegal? Why is it the Red Bull flexing is illegal, while McLaren and other teams flexing of their front wings is not illegal. All of them flex under load. So, how do you measure this? Again, we come back to the static load tests.

All of this is just a bunch of hot air from fanboys who dont like their team being beaten by an energy drinks company. It is simply good engineering from Newey and the Red Bull team.

Nobody in the F1 world cares about this issue any more. No team priniples are complaining, no technical directors, nobody. Only fanboys on here throw around accusations of cheating. McLaren themselves in testing ran a measuring device on their nose to measure the flexing of their own endplates.

Now, is there anyone else that has evidence of cheating? Remember a car cannot be declared illegal based on photographic evidence as measurements cannot be taken. On top of this, the front wing endplate height is set to be x cms above the Reference Plane, not the ground, so i fail to see how any accusation of cheating could even hold the tiniest amount of weight - especially based on photographic evidence and saying its too close to the ground.

I am not a Red Bull fan, but it is clear, they have done the superior engineering job. I wish Mercedes had done the same or better job, but that is the state of play.

Ive said it before and ill say it again, the fia should test the wings based on ALL of the forces the wing experiences during a race...This includes both Vertical and HORIZONTAL load, its obvious the wing is designed to twist at the mounting.... fair play to red bull for coming up with it and as a maclaren fan glad to see them starting to go in this direction but it would be better if it was outlawed altogether.... the current test is clearly inadequate.... if you applied a relative horixontal and vertical load at the wingtips that baby would buckle easily

[Buttoneer]

Looking at this again, see how the front camera mount also moves on the RB7? There's a whole lot more to their flex than meets the eye. Either the nose, or the nose mounts, have an element of flexibility in them which contributes to the whole movement.

[hunnylander]

Seems to me both McLaren and Red Bull are flexing, except Red Bull is flexing more.

Front wing analysis by Darren Heath:

[hunnylander]

Looking at this again, see how the front camera mount also moves on the RB7? There's a whole lot more to their flex than meets the eye. Either the nose, or the nose mounts, have an element of flexibility in them which contributes to the whole movement.

Considering the McLaren car now has a pretty decent amount of rake and its splitter is as close to the ground as it can be; (may even relate to its break somehow), but still the front wing center part can't be near as low as on the Red Bull, which is very weird.

To put the center part of the wing under a level a flexing nose and/or a flexing bib would be needed. Flexing FWEPs aren't doing that.

http://scarbsf1.file...-rideheight.jpg

Edited by hunnylander, 28 March 2011 - 12:49.

[Kingantti]

Considering the McLaren car now has a pretty decent amount of rake and its splitter is as close to the ground as it can be; (may even relate to its break somehow), but still the front wing center part can't be near as low as on the Red Bull, which is very weird.

To put the center part of the wing under a level a flexing nose and/or a flexing bib would be needed. Flexing FWEPs aren't doing that.

http://scarbsf1.file...-rideheight.jpg

but thats exactly whats happening, there are numerous pictures proving the whole nose flexes some on this very thread, not just the wingtips and.... bang a horizontal load on the wingtips and replicate properly the load experienced under race conditions and no doubt the red bull nose would be declared illegal... those triple element wings accenuate the horizontal force creating a moment at the mountings.

[RichardF1fan]

I cannot believe the sillyness that is going on here. The notion that Red Bull are cheating is completely absurd. This entire discussion was covered last season.

1. Rule: bodywork cannot move relative to the sprung part of the car

2. The laws of physics mean that a part will flex move when a force is applied to it (ie front wing is forced downward due to the airflow moving over it).

Sadly I think you may have missed the point some people are trying to make - I agree with you on points 1 and 2.

However if the wing does flex as an unintentional side effect of its manufacture and the laws of physics - then fine, fair game, as you say everything bends, no problem, perfectly legal.

If the wing flexes because the designer has set out to deliberately make it do so to circumvent a rule then that is cheating.

The FIA can't prove what RB's intention was ( although their testing with wires attached to the wing last year was a bit of a hint) so they can't do anything. So now all the teams will do the same.

But whichever way you look at it, it is what it is. I think we are generally past the point of caring whose in the wrong and now into the rather more interesting (for me) part which is how do you do it?

[SimMaker]

Well worth re-quoting I think!

LOL.

Looks like the whole nose is bending down somewhat.

[syph0nJZ05]

Front wing analysis by Darren Heath:

[...]

Interestingly I think the lateral flex is very similar if not the same. But just look at the centre of the two wings. The centre of the Red Bull wing is clearly twice as low as that of the McLaren. It seems obvious that whatever trick they are using it isn't necessarily the flex of the end-plates but how they lower the whole wing closer to the surface.

[bogi]

I just want to know how does it work, legal or ilegal I cont care

Edited by bogi, 28 March 2011 - 13:13.

[DracoN]

and FIA do nothing about that.
And who is Barni`s new puppy ? Vettel.

[SimMaker]

I just want to know how does it work, legal or ilegal I cont care

I think, I dont know, but I think it is to do with the way they layer/align the carbon fiber or whatever material they are using??

I think back to the number of times Martin Brundle has spoken of the strength of the suspension members. In one direction they are incredibly strong, but in another, a moderate amount of force will snap/bend them like a twig. I think the designers have found the sweet spot, where they can bend/twist things to a certain degree, without them breaking or failing the tests.

Though did'nt Vettel have an odd nose/wing failure at Silverstone last year?

[kazimriz]

Good to see the Mclaren flexing their wing. On your face fizzy energy cola makers

[MattPete]

Looking at this again, see how the front camera mount also moves on the RB7? There's a whole lot more to their flex than meets the eye. Either the nose, or the nose mounts, have an element of flexibility in them which contributes to the whole movement.

If you use another window as a straightedge, you'll notice that all of the cars are doing. Yes, the Redbull is the only one with a visible camera as a reference, but if you look at the logos at the top of the nose, the logos near the cockpit, and the cameras, you'll see that all are moving downward like the RB7 camera.

So, either:

(1) The cars a flexing from the cockpit forward.

(2) The camera is moving as the car bounces up and down.



I vote for #2, not only because of Occam's razor, but also because the deflections are occurring rather quickly, suggesting a bump in the track rather than downforce-enduced flex.

[Frankbullitt]

Its too hard to judge from on boards, the camera at the side of the track show that it is flexing way more.

Static testing of the wings is showing **** all, they need to apply the test when the car is moving.

[MattPete]

Its too hard to judge from on boards, the camera at the side of the track show that it is flexing way more.

That picture does make it look like the outside edge of the nose camera is angling downward. Maybe the nose bends in the middle, like a pair of swing-axles?

But, ignoring that for a second, if the camera above the driver is moving, then the farther away a point is, the more it was transverse onto the projection surface (kinda the inverse of motion parallax). I'm sure I didn't state that very eloquently, but I hope it made sense (and I could be wrong).

Or at least that's my hunch.

[midgrid]

Red Bull may have the best flexi-wing, but McLaren has a flexi-undertray as well, so it all evens out.

[sosidge]

Red Bull may have the best flexi-wing, but McLaren has a flexi-undertray as well, so it all evens out.

Yes, I wonder how many "tea-tray failures" we will see this season...

[deanfrancis]

Sadly I think you may have missed the point some people are trying to make - I agree with you on points 1 and 2.

However if the wing does flex as an unintentional side effect of its manufacture and the laws of physics - then fine, fair game, as you say everything bends, no problem, perfectly legal.

If the wing flexes because the designer has set out to deliberately make it do so to circumvent a rule then that is cheating.

The FIA can't prove what RB's intention was ( although their testing with wires attached to the wing last year was a bit of a hint) so they can't do anything. So now all the teams will do the same.

But whichever way you look at it, it is what it is. I think we are generally past the point of caring whose in the wrong and now into the rather more interesting (for me) part which is how do you do it?

I didn't know it was necessary to prove what the intent of the designer was when evaluating the legality of a part. It is the designer/engineers responsibility to push the rules right to the limit if it makes the car go faster. The static load tests establish the limits of what is acceptable flex, acknowledging that it is impossible to make all parts infinitely rigid. FIA have a caveat that they can modify the load tests if they feel teams are deliberately circumventing the load tests. The FIA exercised this right, in fact doubling the load test. Red Bull still passed. The FIA can still amend the status load tests if they wish (or teams kick up a big enough stink about it).

Until Red Bull fail one of these load tests, it is absurd to say they are cheating - they are just pushing the rules to the limits - as they are allowed to do. It would be silly of them to race with a 2.2L engine when the rules allow for a 2.4L engine.

[deanfrancis]

"Illegal" and "passing a test" are not necessarily the same thing. In some cases they are the same thing (such as measuring engine capacity), but not necessarily.
Regardless of that, one suspects that the reason the teams are no longer complaining is that the FIA have told them that they don't know how to measure in-motion wing flexure, and therefore if another team can figure out what RBR are doing, that team should do the same. If you think that "no one cares about this", you are very much mistaken.
It's not exactly analogous, but you may recall several years ago, when Ferrari got the FIA to rule that the Michelins were illegal. They based their argument on photos showing how, in racing conditions, sidewall deflection caused the width of the contact patch to extend outside the "tread".

My point is, how can anyone say the Red Bull is illegal if it passes the tests? For this particular rule - it is the test that establishes the limits of allowable flex, because it is physically impossible to make the part infinitely rigid to satisfy the rule to the letter. On what basis, and on what measure can you say the Red Bull flexing is illegal, but the McLaren not? In this case, the test is the only way to establish illegality. The FIA have the right to change this test at any time.

When i said "no one cares," i meant no one is complaining/kicking up a stink, in the way Martin Whitmarsh did last year. If course its important, because every team will investigate and try to copy the Red Bull, maybe even do it better. But no one is complaining and asking for more stringent static load testing. Infact several teams (McLaren being one of them) voted against even more stringent static load testing last season.

In the case of the illegal Michelins, there were suspicions based on photographic evidence that the michelins were running with an illegally wide contact patch. Based on that photographic evidence - the FIA modified the existing procedures - and added a test of the tread width after the race. The exact same situation existed here. Photographic evidence of flexing front wings showed up, and as a result the FIA increased the static load testing on the front wing (doubling the load! - to ensure any flexing/deformation is linear). They also introduced more stringent testing of the bib/floor area. Red Bull still passed these more stringent tests...

[PassWind]

My point is, how can anyone say the Red Bull is illegal if it passes the tests? For this particular rule - it is the test that establishes the limits of allowable flex, because it is physically impossible to make the part infinitely rigid to satisfy the rule to the letter. On what basis, and on what measure can you say the Red Bull flexing is illegal, but the McLaren not? In this case, the test is the only way to establish illegality. The FIA have the right to change this test at any time.

When i said "no one cares," i meant no one is complaining/kicking up a stink, in the way Martin Whitmarsh did last year. If course its important, because every team will investigate and try to copy the Red Bull, maybe even do it better. But no one is complaining and asking for more stringent static load testing. Infact several teams (McLaren being one of them) voted against even more stringent static load testing last season.

In the case of the illegal Michelins, there were suspicions based on photographic evidence that the michelins were running with an illegally wide contact patch. Based on that photographic evidence - the FIA modified the existing procedures - and added a test of the tread width after the race. The exact same situation existed here. Photographic evidence of flexing front wings showed up, and as a result the FIA increased the static load testing on the front wing (doubling the load! - to ensure any flexing/deformation is linear). They also introduced more stringent testing of the bib/floor area. Red Bull still passed these more stringent tests...

We have gone over this before there are a bunch of people that refuse to acknowledge for the purposes of a specific rule that the definition is within the rules and not anywhere else and for that purpose flex and the lack of it is ascertained by the static load tests and its agreed tolerance. If the wing passes this test then for the purpose of satisfying the definition by the rules it does not flex regardless of what people see in the tea leaves of a photograph.

[Mika Mika]

All

Here is an example of a part that was designed to pass a teast and still flex the rules...


I'm snot sure I see the difference inthe Toyota turbo ad the Redbull and McLAren wings to be honest?

[Henrik B]

I'm snot sure I see the difference inthe Toyota turbo ad the Redbull and McLAren wings to be honest?

The difference is that Toyota was passing the "inlet restrictor must be 34 mm" while blatantly violating the "all air must pass through the restrictor" part of the rule. The equivalent in the flex wing case is the "no part should be DESIGNED to flex". If Red Bull has a mechanism that is DESIGNED to flex, not just as a side-effect, it's the exact same case as Toyotas turbo inlet. It's hard to prove, but if they indeed are doing something like electrically altering the properties of the materials (one of the theories last year) on track it's pretty clear cheating.

My bet is that they are smarter than that and whatever mechanism they use has dual purpose, making it impossible to punish them beyond making that mechanism illegal.

[eskie]

Has anyone compared Vettels and Webber Front wings from qualifying/race? every flexy wing photo i see is of Vettels car, was webbers flexing the same?

Rumor has it from mates that attended the race that they ran different wings after friday.

[Buttoneer]

In the case of the illegal Michelins, there were suspicions based on photographic evidence that the michelins were running with an illegally wide contact patch. Based on that photographic evidence - the FIA modified the existing procedures - and added a test of the tread width after the race.

Not true. Search either here or in the main site for 'dinner with Dupasquier' which is an interview by Biranit Goren with the Michelin man. The situations are not exactly the same at all because there were no modified testing procedures.

The argument that the wing may or may not be 'illegal' or 'cheating' is (IMO) not very interesting anyway. Much more interesting is how the damn thing works, and how RB manage to close the gap to the tarmac so much better tha anyone else. I also wonder if they have some sort of adjustment mechanism which allows them to tweak the wing for each circuit, as some of those kerbs will be harder to avoid than others.

Does anyone know exactly how the front wing load tests work? How is the wing supported so that a measurement can be taken at the tips? Is the centre braced or on blocks?

[Henrik B]

The argument that the wing may or may not be 'illegal' or 'cheating' is (IMO) not very interesting anyway. Much more interesting is how the damn thing works, and how RB manage to close the gap to the tarmac so much better tha anyone else.

Exactly. The "OMG last years news" and "it passes the test, stop whining" posts irritates me NO END and have no place in the thread. I want to know what happens! THEN we can discuss legality.

[lafitek]

Has anyone compared Vettels and Webber Front wings from qualifying/race? every flexy wing photo i see is of Vettels car, was webbers flexing the same?

Rumor has it from mates that attended the race that they ran different wings after friday.

Vettel was in different strategy in the race and qualifying than webber ..... he used more flexi wing ;)

[New Britain]

Not true. Search either here or in the main site for 'dinner with Dupasquier' which is an interview by Biranit Goren with the Michelin man. The situations are not exactly the same at all because there were no modified testing procedures.

The argument that the wing may or may not be 'illegal' or 'cheating' is (IMO) not very interesting anyway. Much more interesting is how the damn thing works, and how RB manage to close the gap to the tarmac so much better tha anyone else. I also wonder if they have some sort of adjustment mechanism which allows them to tweak the wing for each circuit, as some of those kerbs will be harder to avoid than others.

Does anyone know exactly how the front wing load tests work? How is the wing supported so that a measurement can be taken at the tips? Is the centre braced or on blocks?

Scarbs from last summer - does not explicitly answer your question, but a lot of relevant detail:
http://scarbsf1.word...lls-front-wing/

This is at least one of the test devices that they use for measurement of deflection:
http://scarbsf1.file...0...w=300&h=225

[puxanando]

HERE you can see flexi the wing .....

[keeppushingurep1]

HERE you can see flexi the wing .....

The problem is not that the wing is specially flexible, all the front wings are the same, the issue is that the whole nose of the RB7 is flexible,

It is shaped in a different manner so the air flow fllexes it all.

That is why it cant be considered illegal.

Ferrari and Mc should copy that, cant understand why they didnt do it, this is not new, we keep talking about this since last year

[syph0nJZ05]

Here you can see the levels of flex from on-board in a good amount of detail.

[JockinSA]

Scarbs from last summer - does not explicitly answer your question, but a lot of relevant detail:
http://scarbsf1.word...lls-front-wing/

This is at least one of the test devices that they use for measurement of deflection:
http://scarbsf1.file...0...w=300&h=225

Hmmmmm, that test device is really amazing from what I can see. By putting the car on the 4 pad weigh bridge, they can measure the deflection of the wing. Absolutely amazing what technology can do.

[hunnylander]

Ladies and gentlemen! The winner is...

[syph0nJZ05]

Ladies and gentlemen! The winner is...

Shocking:

[DoodoolTalla]

the thing i find the most strange is why ferrari stopped using their flexi wing after just one race :S

[syph0nJZ05]

the thing i find the most strange is why ferrari stopped using their flexi wing after just one race :S

Wasn't it when the tougher tests came into force?

[DoodoolTalla]

Wasn't it when the tougher tests came into force?

yh i guess but surely it cant be that hard when F.India has started using it too, i mean are the designers back at Maranello that incompetent?!

[rdebourbon]

yh i guess but surely it cant be that hard when F.India has started using it too, i mean are the designers back at Maranello that incompetent?!

From my knowledge the flexi wing was in use all through testing up until the last updates at Barcelona.. The latest wing with the turning vane type supports seem to have stifled the flexi wing concept somewhat...

[fololo]

Shocking:

I DONT BELIEVE THIS

[rdebourbon]

I DONT BELIEVE THIS

While it does look very pronounced in this comparison, the RBR front wing could well be naturally closer to the ground anyway due to suspension layout and increased rake.. But yes, on first appearances, it is quite a shocking comparison..

[JockinSA]

The utter hypocrisy of the people on this thread just makes me roll up with laughter. I would love to know if people would be brave enough to add at the end of their Learned comments what team they are supporting, so that at the end of it all we can see just how "envy" can make people produce some of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen in motorsport. The rubbish that is said when facts are placed on the table makes me wonder whether the world is being overrun with wannabe lawyers.

And no I will say again I do not support any of the F1 teams. I even turned down the chance to scrutineer the race at Silverstone this year because I do not think that F1 is what it should be. In my opinion, all of the money should be pooled and then divided equally between all of the teams evey year and then lets see if brains can outway brawn.(Please excuse the pun). Otherwise people, do not whinge and moan because someone does his job properly and gets the best out of a set of regulations that have been partially created by the teams themselves.

As a matter of interest, if the front wings on the RB, instead of bending downwards, bent upwards and they got the same results as they are now, would you all be going on about it?

[mcjohnson]

While it does look very pronounced in this comparison, the RBR front wing could well be naturally closer to the ground anyway due to suspension layout and increased rake.. But yes, on first appearances, it is quite a shocking comparison..

For the rake to be a consideration in this photo, you would expect to have a better view of the top of the red bull, as though it was tilting towards us in the photo. However the view of the top of the RBR is no better than the Ferrari - I don't think the rake is that bigger deal.

There certainly appears much more curvature in the nose of the RBR, but the most shocking is the extremes of the front wing, and there proximity to the ground in comparison to the Ferrari. You could draw a straight line across the bottom of that Ferrari wing with no problems; you'd need a banana to draw a line on that RBR wing!

[tifosiMac]

I even turned down the chance to scrutineer the race at Silverstone this year because I do not think that F1 is what it should be.

Ferrari asked me to replace Massa at the end of last year but I just couldn't do it to the little guy.