Jump to content


Photo

Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#51 SR388

SR388
  • Member

  • 3,997 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:21

Posted Image



wow. That is very interesting. What does it seem to say? The entire nosecone is flexing?

Advertisement

#52 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:44

Could just be the outer shell of the nose that is damaged after the impact with the DRS sign.

I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.

#53 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:47

And so easily. We speak about loads of hundreds of kilograms.

#54 TheSpecialOne

TheSpecialOne
  • Member

  • 105 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:49

Could just be the outer shell of the nose that is damaged after the impact with the DRS sign.

I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.


1. I think the nose was run in India, although cant prove that.

2. Just because you can't, doesn't mean we should discount it! Not being rude just saying.

#55 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,871 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:51

the way it bends doesnt look like its hard shell item thats broke, to me anyways

and i guess if the nose bent upwards then you could get more air underneath, and all teams have max height noses, right ? to get more air underneath...

other option is it bends down so then u would be going after dropping the height of the actual front wing

#56 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:52

I've been wondering what that front mechanic is doing anyway.

Why is he applying a rotational force to the nose when it should pull straight off.

Applying rotation like that could make the whole nose jam onto the fittings.

#57 antrock

antrock
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 23:54

This should not have been happening and is not due to the damage. Mark's nose was doing the same and wasn't damaged (1st post in this thread). I suspect this is gonna blow out big during these next 2 weeks. This is against the rules.

#58 wayned

wayned
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:04

Lets hope the FIA sort this however it seems strange to me that something so soft can pass all the tests required unless they are switching nosecones somehow.

#59 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:06

Wow. I seen the title of the thread and thought it was ridiculous then I seen the gifs in the first post. Crikey. We already know that Red Bull push things to the edge and are genius at design and also its safe to say that this will go on quite a bit!

I wonder how long they've have this for and if its co-incided with their dominance of the late part of the season?

Edited by Les, 06 November 2012 - 00:12.


Advertisement

#60 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:07

That nose flexes like a rubbermaid container lid

Is there anything written in the rules that prohibit this?

#61 CF22

CF22
  • Member

  • 388 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:20

I don't think anything will happen. Either the FIA turns their back, other teams don't protest for whatever reason or they get more test and they pass with flying colors. For some of us it's cheating, for others this is clever design, and others don't know any better. Hopefully something is done about this as was with the flexing-floor, but I'm afraid nothing will happen and they'll get away with it.

#62 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,607 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 00:56

Lets hope the FIA sort this however it seems strange to me that something so soft can pass all the tests required unless they are switching nosecones somehow.


Wasn't there some talk of electrical current being passed through carbon to make it stiffer or more flexible? (can't remember which one)

I imagine the tests are done when the car is stationary and turned off, perhaps when they should try them when the motor is running...

#63 matt72

matt72
  • New Member

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:33

From what I can see in these images, although the deformation of the nose clearly affects the positioning of the cameras as evidenced by the mechanics action of grabbing and lifting the RHS camera first is what seems to cause the nose to twist. It also appears to be reasonably clear that it doesn't affect the wing itself, the reason I say this is from the video you can see that the camera and nose twisting together produces a noticeable drop in the LHS camera and lift in the RHS camera, if this were directly translated to the wing via the pylons you would expect to see the wing twist in a sympathetic manner, when in fact it remains parallel to the floor. That's not to say that I don't think RBR haven't found a way to make the wing droop forward under load, just that it doesn't seem to be particularly related to the tip of the nose being so flexible. I also think that this flex seems pretty easy to induce as the mechanic doesn't seem to be exerting massive loads into the nose cone, I'm sure the flex that RBR have laminated into the wing pylons and surrounding area must be far more controlled than that and probably requires a significantly higher loading to induce.

I think this is just another of Neweys micron thick subtle shavings off the regulations - a little perfectly legal lightening of the nose cone cladding to reduce weight at the extremities of the car helps reduce polar inertia and if a side effect of this is some aerodynamically beneficial reshaping and repositioning of the nose tip and cameras, well then all to the good and easily passed off with a look of shock and a "Oh my gosh we only tried to make it lighter we didn't realise that it has become a pseudo moveable aerodynamic device." Type of explanation. The real jiggery pockery is going on with the wing pylons, the wing mounting points and underside of the nose cone / crash structure.

I also think that if RBR are such experts at flexible structures on the outside of the car, there would be no reason to believe that they haven't also explored this area with regard to a combination of suspension mountings, fuel tank positioning and ride height adjustment. It's not beyond the bounds of imagination to think of some kind of tensioning system where the lightening of the fuel load allows a carbon fibre section to slowly straighten itself as the load is reduced over the race which in turn might alter the preloading of a heave spring or some such. Legal / Illegal, could it even be discovered? Who's to say, after all if a designer decided to do away with suspension altogether and attach the wheels directly to a chassis with carefully built in flexibility in each corner through the use of complex CF laminates would it be deemed to be illegal? I'm not saying it could be done or even would be of benefit it's just a hypothetical question regarding how far flexible components could be taken.

Sounds far fetched but so did the thinking behind the Double Diffuser, the F Duct and the Flexy Floor. Watch this space.

Edited by matt72, 06 November 2012 - 01:35.


#64 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,145 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:15

obviously,... this is a movable aerodynamic device...

They all move, every car. Front and to a lesser extent the rear too. Too be quite honest I feel the flexing is a negative to aero. But if you made it stiff enough to have minimal flex it would be very heavy and probably to stiff for the crash testing as it would throw more load back into the main tub.


#65 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,871 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:34

on the crash tests ive seen the crush zones desintergrate, they arent maluable in a normal sense like a piece of rubber, which this seems to be..

#66 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,461 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:15

Buckskin nosecone and a rubber...

#67 sesku

sesku
  • Member

  • 285 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:32

Could just be the outer shell of the nose that is damaged after the impact with the DRS sign.

I can't think if any reason to have a nose cone tip that can flex upwards.

I think the nose tip shell was broken after Vettel hit the DRS signage. The nosecone look flexible because the broken nose tip was held together with the yellow sticker of redbull logo (I assume the red bull logo at the nose tip was sticker not paint.) Just my two cent.

#68 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,194 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:22

I think the nose tip shell was broken after Vettel hit the DRS signage. The nosecone look flexible because the broken nose tip was held together with the yellow sticker of redbull logo (I assume the red bull logo at the nose tip was sticker not paint.) Just my two cent.


Probably the most logical explanation.
unfortunately not the most interesting one though...

#69 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:22

Lol at people wanting an investigation into the car wen the car is not even the fastest !

#70 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:29

Here is some more conspiracy theory

I think Vettel's car has this wizardry with the nose cone and Mark's car does not. Hence they orchestrated the incident in India to have Mark push Sebastian's car in India in order to demonstrate it is normal.

Either that or both the cars did not have it in India and they introduced it for AD

Edited by camberley, 06 November 2012 - 05:12.


#71 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:34

Lol at people wanting an investigation into the car wen the car is not even the fastest !

the car was fastest for past 3 races and could be again for next two......question of legality has nothing to with it....

#72 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:02

Craig Scarborough is on it - his twitter has some of his thoughts



#73 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,871 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:09

im dubious its a vinyl sticker, as in nascar redbull where one of the very few teams to do a proper paint job, rather than vinyl wraps, because it looks a little bit better, its also typicaly heavier than paint, and your going to have a aero loss too as there a little step up from the surface of the car as each sticker is, well a sticker that has some depth too it.

nascar teams also use vinyl wraps as the paintschemes keep changing, and they often re body the car after a race, so alot of time in the paint room could be wasted if you got to scrap a bodyshell.


#74 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:11

im dubious its a vinyl sticker, as in nascar redbull where one of the very few teams to do a proper paint job, rather than vinyl wraps, because it looks a little bit better, its also typicaly heavier than paint, and your going to have a aero loss too as there a little step up from the surface of the car as each sticker is, well a sticker that has some depth too it.

nascar teams also use vinyl wraps as the paintschemes keep changing, and they often re body the car after a race, so alot of time in the paint room could be wasted if you got to scrap a bodyshell.


It cant be a vinyl sticker - It wouldn't be so smooth and uniform - there would be wrinkles/deformation if the sticker was all that was holding the tip together

Edited by camberley, 06 November 2012 - 05:11.


#75 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:15

Wow, nice find. How sneaky :D


Look up 'innovation' and try to understand it.


#76 KirilVarbanov

KirilVarbanov
  • Member

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:26

One thing is for sure - teams will either file a complaint, or not. And the good thing is that we will understand that soon - whether they read Autosport forums or not :)

#77 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,607 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:35

It's kinda weird, but after watching that .gif a few times it looks to me like the mechanic is intentionally lifting the right side camera pod (as we are looking at it) more than the left side - which isn't what you'd expect someone to do - normally you'd expect him to lift it evenly from both sides...

#78 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 5,307 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:05

I thought it looke like he just grabbed the wrong spot, and then corrected to the nose tip itself?

It could be the camera pods (never new thats what the were :)) were damaged and moveable, distorting the nose tip in the process? Keen to see how this plays out though

#79 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:06

I expect a new load test from the FIA for Austin

Advertisement

#80 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:13

Most likely damage to the nose. Having a softer shell seems logical, because if you hit another car you want to hit it with the crash structure not with the tip of the nose. So the nose is probably designed to brake easily, the impact with the paper sign might have been enough to do structural damage, but not enough to disintegrate the nose. More or less like bumpers on a modern car.

Apart from that, the mountinge of the cameras are neutral and create no downforce. So they would not create the load the have the nose flex. This twisting motion on the cameras, should create quite a strong momentum, a load the nose would be hardly designed for.

Edited by seahawk, 06 November 2012 - 06:16.


#81 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,194 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:34

It cant be a vinyl sticker - It wouldn't be so smooth and uniform - there would be wrinkles/deformation if the sticker was all that was holding the tip together


there is - look closely

just below and to the right of the infinity logo, you can see it start to peel and ripple in the last couple of frames of the animated gif. a small 'crinkle' also appears on the left hand side at the edge of the top surface of the nose at the corner

Posted Image

Edited by lbennie, 06 November 2012 - 06:41.


#82 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:40

Looks perfectly fine to me.

#83 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,451 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:47

Looks perfectly fine to me.

You're going to have to say why it looks fine... That looks as if it is made of jelly.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for the other teams with regard to flexible bodywork. It is not infinitely rigid and FIA has long displayed leniency on the matter. So they have to get with the program or be left behind.

#84 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:51

You're going to have to say why it looks fine... That looks as if it is made of jelly.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for the other teams with regard to flexible bodywork. It is not infinitely rigid and FIA has long displayed leniency on the matter. So they have to get with the program or be left behind.


+1

#85 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:51



Posted Image

Webber's damaged RB8 nose in India

#86 InfectedPumpkin

InfectedPumpkin
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:52

Looks perfectly fine to me.


Not sure if serious or irony.

#87 APR824

APR824
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:04

Those cameras aren't part of the crash structure and don't have to adhere to deformation regulations, they are attached through whatever means to that crash structure.

#88 dave34m

dave34m
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:59

Most likely damage to the nose. Having a softer shell seems logical, because if you hit another car you want to hit it with the crash structure not with the tip of the nose. So the nose is probably designed to brake easily, the impact with the paper sign might have been enough to do structural damage, but not enough to disintegrate the nose. More or less like bumpers on a modern car.

Apart from that, the mountinge of the cameras are neutral and create no downforce. So they would not create the load the have the nose flex. This twisting motion on the cameras, should create quite a strong momentum, a load the nose would be hardly designed for.

Wow, really

#89 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:33

Looks perfectly fine to me.

So, end of discussion! :)

#90 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:43

Like others have said, I think the tip of the nose was smashed but is still held together by the vinyl wrap they use for the paint job on the car so we can't see the damage.

Doesn't explain what the mechanic was doing, but I don't think RedBull are doing anything dodgy.

#91 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:13

Really interesting. If it moves down camera pods under a load (and it seems to be designed for that) I really can't see how it wouldn't be an moveable aero device. But I also can't quite see how it could pass FIA test and scrutineering.

#92 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:21

Nose is a part of the body work that defines the air stream around the body, so with my shoddy English, RB8's flex nose is definitively movable aerodynamic device. But in the language of expensive lawyers the wording of FIA can mean anything but what we speak about, so to say.

So Wingwalker I am with you RB has infrindged the rule and I am at a loss how they passed FIA reg.
1. Caterham under Gazza already introduced rubber nose 2011. See F1 technical forum that was mentioned elsewhere on the threads about this nose.
2. Crash structure is covered by rubber/vinyl skin and takes the crash energy. The outer skin is given another role. Like a human body.
3. Mystified how Newey's lawer arged that the nose is NOT aerodynamic device and how FIA accepted it.

Ban it, dismiss it from the championship.

#93 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:22

Like others have said, I think the tip of the nose was smashed but is still held together by the vinyl wrap they use for the paint job on the car so we can't see the damage.

Doesn't explain what the mechanic was doing, but I don't think RedBull are doing anything dodgy.



I never saw anything on Sunday that suggested he hit the nose tip on anything, just the wing ends.

(not inconceivable that the load was transferred up the pillars though.)

#94 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:28

I'd tend to side with them trying to save weight than anything else, it's high up and way out the front of the car, if it's just essentially a cover over the crash structure then I could see them wanting to make it as light as possible. People are obsessed with this whole flexing thing, the pillars to the front wing are quite a way back from the tip of the nose here, no one seems to be giving a legit reason for what the actual flexing would achieve, if it actually occurs when the car is running normally.

As an Aussie, every V8 race we get about 3 hours of slowmo footage of the cars hitting kerbs, there are ripples of vibration going right up through the bodywork because of how light it is and how much force is going through it. It doesn't really mean anything, so I'm waiting to be convinced that this weak nose is "bad".

#95 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:33

I'd tend to side with them trying to save weight than anything else, it's high up and way out the front of the car, if it's just essentially a cover over the crash structure then I could see them wanting to make it as light as possible. People are obsessed with this whole flexing thing, the pillars to the front wing are quite a way back from the tip of the nose here, no one seems to be giving a legit reason for what the actual flexing would achieve, if it actually occurs when the car is running normally.




It would alter the airflow which seems like more than a good enough reason to count it as a MAD. But again, It did pass the tests and scrutineering. Somehow.

#96 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:38

Did some of you actually gave a closer look at the impact with the DRS sign? After it was hit by the tyre it was thrown upwards against the left camera housing. As the impact was considerable and the attachement of the housing not designed to withstand impacts it broke rather easily. Dau has already explained how the crash structure designed to absorb is inside of the visible shell which is of course optimized for aerodynamic performance. In this case the mechanic tried to remove the nose cone in the usual fashion by pulling the left and right pod with similar power. As the DRS sign impact damaged the attachment(s) the whole left pod gave much more easily way.

Once again it is important to remind yourself that non- or lightly-stressed areas, especially high and far from the CoG are built as light as possible. The pods do not cause downforce and can be attached while investing little weight. As we have seen during the last seasons the whole nose section of quite some cars flex relative to the driver safety cell.

P.S: Loud Howards comment fits in quite neatly, saw it only now.

Edited by H2H, 06 November 2012 - 10:03.


#97 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:40

I never saw anything on Sunday that suggested he hit the nose tip on anything, just the wing ends.

(not inconceivable that the load was transferred up the pillars though.)


It was the nose cone that hit the sign.

Posted Image

Edited by johnmhinds, 06 November 2012 - 09:41.


#98 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,069 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:55

It was the nose cone that hit the sign.

Posted Image

if you watch it, and not just do a printscreen, you can see he hits it with more with the left side (verified by the onboard shot) after that, they are showing a slowmo of the front wing, and you can see the camera house flapping up and down a bit. that also strengthens the argument about it being some sort of damage.

Edited by Zava, 06 November 2012 - 09:57.


#99 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:59

Drawing conclusions from a nose that went through 2 contacts seems rather risky to me. I still go with damage as the reason for the flex. (Held together by the stickers for the livery)

Advertisement

#100 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:02

There is still the second gif

Posted Image