Jump to content


Photo

RB7 Front Wing Flex [split] [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
1331 replies to this topic

#451 dslammers

dslammers
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 30 March 2011 - 20:33

Wow I'm amazed by all those flexing pictures compared with this picture of the Red Bull in low speed corners:

Posted Image

Advertisement

#452 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 30 March 2011 - 20:40

Can you all please stay on topic. Complaining about other posters in the thread doesn't add anything to the discussion, and nor do the cries of 'cheating'.


This is pretty universal good advice.

CF is great stuff. You can have it be completely stiff in one stress plane, and flexy in another depending how you do layup. It's a real art for any technology involving carbon fiber.
If Newey has figured out how to take advantage of this, and still pass the FIA inspections, then that's legitimate innovation.
They have always have a clearer understanding of the dynamic nature of forces on a racing car, without relying too heavily on wind tunnel data (which is still just a model).

All CF flexes, it just depends how hard you look and how biased you are. The truth is, two seasons in, no one has any idea why the RBR is so fast, and they proved it wasn't the blown/double diffuser design.

#453 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:00

Self-strenghtening polymer nanocomposite works best under pressure.

I stumbled on the above article recently and remembered reading that some believe the RedBull front wing uses nano-composites.
Namely this sentence caught my attention:

They must have some sort of nanocomposite material that behaves differently under static load (FIA test?) compared to a dynamic aero load.


Nice idea but the FIA saw that coming...

15.1.1.13 no carbon nanotubes incorporated within the fibre or its matrix ;

Has to be the construction rather than the materials I guess.

#454 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:23

Not sure if this has been posted (from one of the Spanish forums), but it shows in vivid detail the difference between the position of the Red Bull wing end plates when the car is moving slowly and when the wing is lowered/flexing:

Posted Image

#455 micktosin

micktosin
  • Member

  • 504 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:24

I saw this piece on an italian website which confirms the flexing of the front wing.

http://spontoncristi...-stagione-2011/


#456 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:31

Not sure if this has been posted (from one of the Spanish forums), but it shows in vivid detail the difference between the position of the Red Bull wing end plates when the car is moving slowly and when the wing is lowered/flexing:

Posted Image


Hmm, I don't quite know how to respond to those pictures - it's so clear that the wing is flexing...the tip is touching the ground FFS. Why isn't anyone creating a fuss about this?

I have to say that the media hasn't helped - the BBC's sycophantic coverage of Red Bull is cringe worthy - I can't remember how many times EJ said 'the genius of Adrian Newey' even when their KERS didn't work it was Newey 'outsmarting everyone' again by not running it rather than the car not being designed well enough for them to be able to run it. They should be pointing at the wings and saying that what they're doing is clearly illegal, what is the FIA going to do about it...

Edited by bonjon1979a, 30 March 2011 - 21:32.


#457 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:32

Not sure if this has been posted (from one of the Spanish forums), but it shows in vivid detail the difference between the position of the Red Bull wing end plates when the car is moving slowly and when the wing is lowered/flexing:

Posted Image

i would of thought the fwep would have a lot of wear being so low to the ground

#458 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:38

Hmm, I don't quite know how to respond to those pictures - it's so clear that the wing is flexing...the tip is touching the ground FFS. Why isn't anyone creating a fuss about this?

I have to say that the media hasn't helped - the BBC's sycophantic coverage of Red Bull is cringe worthy - I can't remember how many times EJ said 'the genius of Adrian Newey' even when their KERS didn't work it was Newey 'outsmarting everyone' again by not running it rather than the car not being designed well enough for them to be able to run it. They should be pointing at the wings and saying that what they're doing is clearly illegal, what is the FIA going to do about it...


What do you mean no fuss, there has been plenty of fuss about since last year. The FIA changed the test loads last year because of it. What they havent done is change the method/load of the test in such a way as to replicate the flex.

Red Bull minus KERS is still way ahead of the rest of the field so saying they havent outsmarted everyone is to place ones head in the sand.

Edited by Clatter, 30 March 2011 - 21:40.


#459 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,318 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:43

What do you mean no fuss, there has been plenty of fuss about since last year. The FIA changed the test loads last year because of it. What they havent done is change the method/load of the test in such a way as to replicate the flex.

Red Bull minus KERS is still way ahead of the rest of the field so saying they havent outsmarted everyone is to place ones head in the sand.

Oh, sandbagging right?

Advertisement

#460 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:43

i would of thought the fwep would have a lot of wear being so low to the ground

It might have been Scarbs on the flying lap that said that they were getting wear on their FWEP's on Friday and actually had to change their set-up somewhat to essentially get less flex :stoned: .

#461 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:48

What do you mean no fuss, there has been plenty of fuss about since last year. The FIA changed the test loads last year because of it. What they havent done is change the method/load of the test in such a way as to replicate the flex.

Red Bull minus KERS is still way ahead of the rest of the field so saying they havent outsmarted everyone is to place ones head in the sand.


I was talking about a specific comment made on the BBC which was that they immediately said that it was a masterful stroke of tactical genius to not run with KERS when actually it just didn't work. Red Bull are doing a great job but they are in clear breach of the rules, not the tests maybe, but definitely the rules.

#462 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,858 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:55

bonjon, who is the 'they' who said it was a masterstroke? Are we talking about the genius Eddie Jordan, or someone who knows what they're talking about?

#463 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 21:59

Does anybody know if there is a stipulated minimum distance that the centre section of the front wing has to be away from the track surface? Or are the given reference planes the only relevant measuring surfaces/points?

#464 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:02

bonjon, who is the 'they' who said it was a masterstroke? Are we talking about the genius Eddie Jordan, or someone who knows what they're talking about?


I'm referring to EJ but actually the BBC team concurred with him. It was an after thought that they hadn't actually been able to run it but that's kind of off topic.

I just find it absurd that everyone has now just accepted the fact that they're in contravention of the rules because they have passed the load tests when it is clear from photographic evidence that they're cheating. It's not exploiting a loophole, it's actively getting a part of the car to flex (in direct contravention of the rules) while managing to circumvent the tests. It's not something to be proud of or celebrated, it is blatant cheating and people should stop mincing their words. Call it what it is.

Edited by bonjon1979a, 30 March 2011 - 22:04.


#465 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:02

Does anybody know if there is a stipulated minimum distance that the centre section of the front wing has to be away from the track surface? Or are the given reference planes the only relevant measuring surfaces/points?


AFAIK there are no rules like that relating to a car in motion. All the tests are static ones.

#466 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:07

AFAIK there are no rules like that relating to a car in motion. All the tests are static ones.

If that's the case then hypothetically couldn't you just build hydraulic rams into the centre columns that hold the wing to the nose and on the out-lap to the grid just lower the columns by 80mm or so, thus lowering the wing closer to the track surface?

Edit: Or maybe not even hydraulics just make the centre columns telescopic and remove whatever pins etc are holding them in place thus extending them while on track...

Edited by syph0nJZ05, 30 March 2011 - 22:11.


#467 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:10

If that's the case then hypothetically couldn't you just build hydraulic rams into the centre columns that hold the wing to the nose and on the out-lap to the grid just lower the columns by 80mm or so, thus lowering the wing closer to the track surface?


Something like that would likely be banned as a moveable aerodynamic device.

#468 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:13

Something like that would likely be banned as a moveable aerodynamic device.


But the Red Bull wing is currently a moveable aero device. It's forced to move by the airflow at high speed rather than by mechanics, but it is still a moveable aero device...

Have a look:

http://www.f1technic...development/321

Edited by bonjon1979a, 30 March 2011 - 22:16.


#469 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:17

If that's the case then hypothetically couldn't you just build hydraulic rams into the centre columns that hold the wing to the nose and on the out-lap to the grid just lower the columns by 80mm or so, thus lowering the wing closer to the track surface?

Edit: Or maybe not even hydraulics just make the centre columns telescopic and remove whatever pins etc are holding them in place thus extending them while on track...

wouldnt that be noticed tho on tv/pictures?

#470 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:20

wouldnt that be noticed tho on tv/pictures?


haha, doesn't matter, as long as it passes the tests!!!

The logic behind it all isn't too different to drugs in athletics, there are lots of clever people constantly developing drugs that can't be picked up in the tests but enhance performance but are against the rules. Sound familiar to anyone?

#471 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,858 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:21

I'm referring to EJ but actually the BBC team concurred with him. It was an after thought that they hadn't actually been able to run it but that's kind of off topic.

I just find it absurd that everyone has now just accepted the fact that they're in contravention of the rules because they have passed the load tests when it is clear from photographic evidence that they're cheating. It's not exploiting a loophole, it's actively getting a part of the car to flex (in direct contravention of the rules) while managing to circumvent the tests. It's not something to be proud of or celebrated, it is blatant cheating and people should stop mincing their words. Call it what it is.

So design a test. Describe it. Weights and rigs etc, and then rewrite the rule (posted earlier this evening) to cover this.

#472 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,858 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:24

Sound familiar to anyone?

Sounds irrelevant.

Athletics rules say performance enhancing drugs = illegal.

F1 rules say flex is allowable but only up to certain limits.

The athletics rules would need to say something like 'performance enhancing drugs are illegal except for a slight tolerance that allows you to have a bit of stuff in your bloodstrean as long as it doesn't exceed x parts per million' to be even close.

That's why I say above that you need to consider how to outlaw these things. It's a worthwhile thought experiment.

#473 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:35

But the Red Bull wing is currently a moveable aero device. It's forced to move by the airflow at high speed rather than by mechanics, but it is still a moveable aero device...

Have a look:

http://www.f1technic...development/321


It may be moving, but when talking about moveable devices we are refering to something that is being moved mechanically.

#474 mcjohnson

mcjohnson
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:35

The test doesn't need changing; the FIA just need to grow some cahona's, sit down with Adrian Newey and Christian Horner, and review the hundreds of hours of video footage, and pictures, that clearly demonstrate the wing flexing more than is permitted.

It is upto the Team to prove their car is legal; not the FIA to prove it is illegal!

#475 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:36

So design a test. Describe it. Weights and rigs etc, and then rewrite the rule (posted earlier this evening) to cover this.



You don't need weights or rigs. Use onboard footage. There is a precedent with the mclaren beam wing that was seen to flex via the onboard camera so the FIA dictated that a stay was put in place to prevent it moving.

There is a simple gif earlier in this forum that shows the onboard shot of the car that shows the nose of the red bull with a horizontal line drawn across the image indicating the top of the wing which as a reference point for seeing the wing flex. What's wrong with that?

The FIA can take an image from the onboard camera when the car is stationary and draw a line across indicating the position of the wing. Then if the wing is seen to dip below this line when the car is in motion then it is clearly flexing and therefore illegal. There would have to be a degree of movement allowed but if the FIA told the teams that this is how they were judging flexing now and any team found to be breaking this rule would be disqualified then I suspect you'd see flexing wings disappear very quickly.

Personally, I don't see why this hasn't been suggested. Everyone knows that it is against the rules for wings to flex yet it's ongoing and in fact now other teams are trying to achieve the same thing.

#476 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:37

It may be moving, but when talking about moveable devices we are refering to something that is being moved mechanically.


Are we? The rule doesn't say no mechanically moveable aero devices, it says no moveable aero.

#477 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:43

Are we? The rule doesn't say no mechanically moveable aero devices, it says no moveable aero.


Well the rules don't actually say that, but if you want to be pedantic it would fall foul of rule "3.18 Driver adjustable bodywork", which defines the parts of the bodywork which can be mechanically adjusted.

#478 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:46

Well the rules don't actually say that, but if you want to be pedantic it would fall foul of rule "3.18 Driver adjustable bodywork", which defines the parts of the bodywork which can be mechanically adjusted.


Fair enough. I am feeling like a bit of a pendant tonight but I guess that's what the sport brings out in people. What do you think about the video test I suggested above?

#479 ForzaGTR

ForzaGTR
  • Member

  • 3,066 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:47

Not sure if this has been posted (from one of the Spanish forums), but it shows in vivid detail the difference between the position of the Red Bull wing end plates when the car is moving slowly and when the wing is lowered/flexing:

Posted Image


This is just sickening. Surely this can't be allowed?

Advertisement

#480 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:50

Not sure if this has been posted (from one of the Spanish forums), but it shows in vivid detail the difference between the position of the Red Bull wing end plates when the car is moving slowly and when the wing is lowered/flexing:

Posted Image


I don't see any flexing myself?

#481 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:50

This is just sickening. Surely this can't be allowed?


I'm afraid in my case you're preaching to the converted. I better sign off before I explode into a rant...

#482 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2011 - 22:55

Fair enough. I am feeling like a bit of a pendant tonight but I guess that's what the sport brings out in people. What do you think about the video test I suggested above?


Not sure. It could be affected by camera angles, bumps in the road etc. Seems a bit subjective, but they certainly should be able to look at the video\photo evidence and devise a test that replicates what is happening. That's how we ended up with the pulling the rear wing test after Ferrari were photographed using a rear wing that flexed backwards.

#483 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,761 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 March 2011 - 23:00

Not sure. It could be affected by camera angles, bumps in the road etc. Seems a bit subjective, but they certainly should be able to look at the video\photo evidence and devise a test that replicates what is happening. That's how we ended up with the pulling the rear wing test after Ferrari were photographed using a rear wing that flexed backwards.


Camera angle should remain pretty much the same, tiny amount of flex where the camera is mounted but not much. Bumps in the road the entire mass off the car should travel up and down on suspension - ie the wing shouldn't be moving independently of the rest of the car. But you're right, it would be better to have the test but in the mean time I think the video test would be enough as I don't believe teams would even risk racing with flexing wings knowing that they could be disqualified. They're actively getting the wing to flex in the way they are, it's not by accident. I just think something needs to be done as it's becoming a bit of a farce at the moment.

#484 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 30 March 2011 - 23:05

The test doesn't need changing; the FIA just need to grow some cahona's, sit down with Adrian Newey and Christian Horner, and review the hundreds of hours of video footage, and pictures, that clearly demonstrate the wing flexing more than is permitted.

It is upto the Team to prove their car is legal; not the FIA to prove it is illegal!

The RB7 front wing is entirely legal, the measure of legality being the static load test that it passes. If the FIA were to introduce a rule saying (for argument's sake) "the front wing endplates may not deflect more than Xmm from their rest positions at any point in the race *insert clause about wing damage*" and it was proven that the RB7 wing endplates did exceed this allowed deflection, THEN they would be illegal. As the rule stands however, the only constraint on their legality is that they pass static load test.

#485 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 March 2011 - 23:49

Sounds irrelevant.

Athletics rules say performance enhancing drugs = illegal.

F1 rules say flex is allowable but only up to certain limits.

The athletics rules would need to say something like 'performance enhancing drugs are illegal except for a slight tolerance that allows you to have a bit of stuff in your bloodstrean as long as it doesn't exceed x parts per million' to be even close.

That's why I say above that you need to consider how to outlaw these things. It's a worthwhile thought experiment.

performance enhancing drugs are illegal,but there are permitted amount of testosterone allowed in the human body.eating red meat can raise these levels.so the point is to prove if they have been done illegally or naturally as in the test which can be wrong or not adequate

#486 Blackmadonna

Blackmadonna
  • Member

  • 125 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 31 March 2011 - 00:53

Nothing to see here. People can move on now.

F1: Red Bull Wing Flex Not Illegal - Whiting

http://formula-one.s...illegal-whiting

#487 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 31 March 2011 - 02:24

Not sure. It could be affected by camera angles, bumps in the road etc. Seems a bit subjective, but they certainly should be able to look at the video\photo evidence and devise a test that replicates what is happening. That's how we ended up with the pulling the rear wing test after Ferrari were photographed using a rear wing that flexed backwards.


But in the end the FIA used an improved static test to eliminate Ferrari, and others, from using that rear wing. I would be very curious to know exactly how Red Bull are passing the existing static test and yet apparently gaining advantage under a live load.

Doesn't bother me one bit, in fact I admire their ingenuity.





#488 Chomsky

Chomsky
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2011 - 02:57

Posted Image

#489 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:22

Why are you showing exhaust blown diffusers in a wing flex thread?

#490 BennyJohnson

BennyJohnson
  • Member

  • 656 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:46

All this talk about Rules and Regulations and what they are in place for.

I always thought that the R&R of F1 were for two reasons:

1. To give everyone as close to a level playing field as possible (which in F1 is worth absolutely nothing now-days)

2. To ensure that safety is the number one priority.

the first point is covered by the fact that these teams invest hundreds of millions of dollars to be in the sport and to premote the companies associated with the team, so 'flexing' the rules is always going to be apart of F1.

two is covered by the tests which Red Bull continue to pass.

C'mon, are you angry at Red Bull for being creative enough to generate a better car around the rules, despite the fact that they seem to be doing something that, although passes tests, is considered wrong. Or are you angry at your teams design crew for not being able to figure out how they do it and adapt it onto their own car?

Ingenuity is what keeps this sport alive technically, I wouldn't waste your time arguing on a Forum about something clever considering the FIA have passes it several times.

Furthermore, all these stills of the Red Bull in two seperate shots don't prove anything, You can't justify the wing is flexing because the end-plate is closer to the ground at 300kph when it is in the pits. I could just as easily justify that the Front Suspension is soft and that Albert Park is a bumpy circuit.

At the end of the day, Red Bull pass the tests, so whatever they are doing is considered legal. They can't be cheating, because all they have done is design a car around the regulations. I'll take Whitmarsh as an example (because it seems to be McLaren fans who have the biggest problem with this). If you went up to him and asked him if he designed his car toward the spirit of the regulations, he would laugh in your face and never respect you as a formula 1 fan again.

Saying that Red Bull is not complying to what the regulations are trying to achieve is a bogus argument. Because no team in the paddock has, is, or will ever do that.

Edited by BennyJohnson, 31 March 2011 - 04:00.


#491 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,885 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 31 March 2011 - 06:37

It is upto the Team to prove their car is legal; not the FIA to prove it is illegal!


Isn't it the opposite? Why tests then?

#492 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:19

But in the end the FIA used an improved static test to eliminate Ferrari, and others, from using that rear wing. I would be very curious to know exactly how Red Bull are passing the existing static test and yet apparently gaining advantage under a live load.

Doesn't bother me one bit, in fact I admire their ingenuity.


They increased the load and changed the position it was applied, but is that load really enough to replicate race conditions? Also from the photos the wing doesnt just flex down but also twists so that the leading edge is closest to the ground, so the test needs to replicate that as well. It's clever and I'm a bit surprised that the FIA are not taking a much closer look, but as they don't seem to want to it remains legal and has to be copied.

#493 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,745 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:28

Didn't they report that the Redbull FWEP keep getting damaged? The Flex wing could end up costing them if they loose a wing or two throughout the year? Also if one breaks and causes an accident then FIA will act in a typicall FIA unpfrofessional knee jerk reaction...

#494 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:30

Nothing to see here. People can move on now.

F1: Red Bull Wing Flex Not Illegal - Whiting

http://formula-one.s...illegal-whiting

Thats good that its been confirmed and other teams can now work on their own moveable aero devices with clear confirmation.

#495 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:32

Nothing to see here. People can move on now.

F1: Red Bull Wing Flex Not Illegal - Whiting

http://formula-one.s...illegal-whiting


The TMD was legal as well until the FIA suddenly changed their minds. I'm not really sure CW's word counts for anything these days.

#496 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,745 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:38

The TMD was legal as well until the FIA suddenly changed their minds. I'm not really sure CW's word counts for anything these days.


In fact during Spagate didnt Max/FIA bascally say just that?

#497 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:48

In fact during Spagate didnt Max/FIA bascally say just that?


Max said it in regards to Spa08 as well.

#498 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,745 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 March 2011 - 07:58

Max said it in regards to Spa08 as well.


....Thats what i said... LOL

#499 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,617 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 31 March 2011 - 08:00

....Thats what i said... LOL


:blush: Oops. I read spygate. :lol:

Advertisement

#500 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 31 March 2011 - 08:05

I don't understand people, clearly it flexes but at the same time it does not break the rules. The car has passed all the tests and is declared legal enough to race, so what is all the fuss about? Sure it flexes more than other teams, but it is not their fault of having a clever way of bypassing the tests carried out on the car. It should be up to the other team to develop and refine their wings, instead of wasting time on complaining and trying to get it banned when the car passes all the tests carried out to declare it legal enough to race. Sure I think it's against the spirit of the sport to flex that much, but in Formula 1 when one team is winning the others are unhappy, and vice-versa.

One point to add personally I say well done to Red Bull for their clever engineering and developing an a amazing car. Sure In my opinion I might not like it, but there is nothing to declare it illegal. So In essence it is up to other teams to figure out what Red Bull is doing to pass the test and flex that much.

You can't keep everybody happy.

Edited by sheepgobba, 31 March 2011 - 08:05.