Jump to content


Photo

Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#101 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:07

need similar ones of other cars to make a comparison.

movement seems normal to me for super slow mo.


Advertisement

#102 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:16

What movement, most of it seem to be compression artifacts from making the gif. The wing flexes a lot, the nose not so much.

#103 antrock

antrock
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:20

Posted Image

So when did Mark damage his wing/nose? I'd suggest you pull your heads out of the sand and admit it is dodgy at least! Put a mouse cursor over the nose and then middle part of the wing, while the chassis doesn't move anywhere near as much.

This has nothing to do with the crash with a styrofoam and or cameras; the whole nose drops making the wing much closer to the ground. This is flexible body work (movable aerodynamic device). I think people are so used to all the flexible wings that they take it for granted, but no bodywork is allowed to flex (beyond acceptable levels). If this doesn't deserve attention we might as well get flapping sidepods next year?!?

#104 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:25

The weight of the front-wing assembly is non-trivial and there's a reasonable lever arm until the nose meets the chassis, so I'm not surprised the nose flexes about the point of contact with the chassis. Would be surprised if it didn't. Need to look at other cars.

#105 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:42

Posted Image

So when did Mark damage his wing/nose? I'd suggest you pull your heads out of the sand and admit it is dodgy at least! Put a mouse cursor over the nose and then middle part of the wing, while the chassis doesn't move anywhere near as much.

This has nothing to do with the crash with a styrofoam and or cameras; the whole nose drops making the wing much closer to the ground. This is flexible body work (movable aerodynamic device). I think people are so used to all the flexible wings that they take it for granted, but no bodywork is allowed to flex (beyond acceptable levels). If this doesn't deserve attention we might as well get flapping sidepods next year?!?


Few things you need to consider:

1. The type of flexing in this particular clip is not the same as the wing flexing under aero load. The flexing on this clip is just as a result of the car going over the kerb. I would be surprised if this is not the same for other cars.

2. Even the hardest substances will flex to a certain degree under the correct conditions. So whether a part on a F1 car is considered flexible or not is made based on the set of load tests which the FIA does. Obviously the RBR and all other cars have to pass these test before/after each race. So in the context of past races, the RBR wing has certainly been rigid/inflexible to the degree which FIA mandates it should be.

3. If the FIA at any point feel their test are insufficient, they will improve them, and the cars will have to comply. However in the the meantime, everyone has the same opportunity to exploit the rules the way RBR does - so I don't see any unfair advantage gained by them. Its just that they seem to be far ahead from others in multi-physics and in the use of composite materials, which I suspect is the basis of these flexible components.

Edited by Torsion, 06 November 2012 - 11:43.


#106 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:39

If anyone has a look at Lap 21 (and lap 59) of this years Monaco GP, there's a slow mo of Rosberg going through the fast swimming pool chicane, there's not much of a kerb so the wobble isn't as pronounced, but there does appear to be some slight oscillation in the tip of the nose cone.

The shots of the RBR in the same corner, I can't see the nose wobbling at all.

#107 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:47

...but you can now. So if Mercedes had it already, Red Bull has followed.

#108 antrock

antrock
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:49

Few things you need to consider:

1. The type of flexing in this particular clip is not the same as the wing flexing under aero load. The flexing on this clip is just as a result of the car going over the kerb. I would be surprised if this is not the same for other cars.

2. Even the hardest substances in this universe will flex to a certain degree under the correct conditions. So whether a part on a F1 car is considered flexible or not is made based on the set of load tests which the FIA does. Obviously the RBR and all other cars have to pass these test before/after each race. So in the context of past races, the RBR wing has certainly been rigid/inflexible to the degree which FIA mandates it should be.

3. If the FIA at any point feel their test are insufficient, they will improve them, and the cars will have to comply. However in the the meantime, everyone has the same opportunity to exploit the rules the way RBR does - so I don't see any unfair advantage gained by them. Its just that they seem to be far ahead from others in multi-physics and in the use of composite materials, which I suspect is the basis of these flexible components.


1. You are correct however it also shows that the nose is flexible enough and that wing mounts are attached to the flexi part and that the wing drops down together with the nose.

2. I don't think teams forgot how to build rigid noses overnight. Do you? FIA doesn't test all the parts and what is happening here is a strong suspicion something is going on in the area and that they should inspect it. FIA doesn't test sidepods for flexing...

3. You say RBR is far ahead of others in multi-phsyics and use of composite materials - Good for them but as there is no room for this kind of trickery in this sport (rules) I don't see the point in justifying and praising their efforts.




#109 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:50

...but you can now. So if Mercedes had it already, Red Bull has followed.


Not necessarily, one corner and one or two replays do not a summer make.

#110 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:13

1. You are correct however it also shows that the nose is flexible enough and that wing mounts are attached to the flexi part and that the wing drops down together with the nose.

2. I don't think teams forgot how to build rigid noses overnight. Do you? FIA doesn't test all the parts and what is happening here is a strong suspicion something is going on in the area and that they should inspect it. FIA doesn't test sidepods for flexing...

3. You say RBR is far ahead of others in multi-phsyics and use of composite materials - Good for them but as there is no room for this kind of trickery in this sport (rules) I don't see the point in justifying and praising their efforts.


Thank you for replying in a manner in which we can have a discussion about this.

1. OK, obviously we will have to look at other evidence to determine this for sure because I don't think the FIA tests the wing for upward flexibility. In this instance, the downward flexibility could just be the wing returning to normal position after the upward jolt due to the car riding the Kerb. So in my view this clip does not indicate for certain that the wing would ride lower than allowed under aero load.

2. The problem is not whether the teams are able to make a rigid wing, its just that there is nothing called 100% rigidity. So if we say movable aero is not allowed, there will always have to be a threshold which is legal, otherwise all wings will be illegal. So the bottom line is, the rule itself is meaningless, it is the tests which will always defines the boundary.

3. We disagree here. I think F1 has always encouraged innovation. I fail to otherwise see what team are competing on? it is certainly not only about the best driver.

Edited by Torsion, 06 November 2012 - 12:15.


#111 Realyn

Realyn
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:15

Posted Image

So when did Mark damage his wing/nose? I'd suggest you pull your heads out of the sand and admit it is dodgy at least! Put a mouse cursor over the nose and then middle part of the wing, while the chassis doesn't move anywhere near as much.

This has nothing to do with the crash with a styrofoam and or cameras; the whole nose drops making the wing much closer to the ground. This is flexible body work (movable aerodynamic device). I think people are so used to all the flexible wings that they take it for granted, but no bodywork is allowed to flex (beyond acceptable levels). If this doesn't deserve attention we might as well get flapping sidepods next year?!?

What da ... are you missing the left part of the picture? There is something in there, called a "Kerb".

#112 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,222 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:18

Thank you for replying in a manner in which we can have a discussion about this.

1. OK, obviously we will have to look at other evidence to determine this for sure because I don't think the FIA tests the wing for upward flexibility. In this instance, the downward flexibility could just be the wing returning to normal position after the upward jolt due to the car riding the Kerb. So in my view this clip does not indicate for certain that the wing would ride lower than allowed under aero load.

2. The problem is not whether the teams are able to make a rigid wing, its just that there is nothing called 100% rigidity. So if we say movable aero is not allowed, there will always have to be a threshold which is legal, otherwise all wings will be illegal. So the bottom line is, the rule itself is meaningless, it is the tests which will always defines the boundary.

3. We disagree here. I think F1 has always encouraged innovation. I fail to otherwise see what team are competing on? it is certainly not only about the best driver.


Need confirmation for this but I think that if you design a mechanism for the sole purpose of having flexibility, then it's illegal too, no matter if they pass the tests or not. We saw it with the Ferrari front wing pivots in 2005 and their floor in Australia 2007. Having a double nosecone, with the outer part being a flexible skin would surely fall in this category.

#113 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:25

Need confirmation for this but I think that if you design a mechanism for the sole purpose of having flexibility, then it's illegal too, no matter if they pass the tests or not. We saw it with the Ferrari front wing pivots in 2005 and their floor in Australia 2007. Having a double nosecone, with the outer part being a flexible skin would surely fall in this category.


I agree with you. However, when it comes down to composite materials etcetera, I think this would be pretty difficult to prove?

Btw, I am not a RBR fan, I am just a fan of innovation.


#114 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,475 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:27

Thank you for replying in a manner in which we can have a discussion about this.

1. OK, obviously we will have to look at other evidence to determine this for sure because I don't think the FIA tests the wing for upward flexibility. In this instance, the downward flexibility could just be the wing returning to normal position after the upward jolt due to the car riding the Kerb. So in my view this clip does not indicate for certain that the wing would ride lower than allowed under aero load.

2. The problem is not whether the teams are able to make a rigid wing, its just that there is nothing called 100% rigidity. So if we say movable aero is not allowed, there will always have to be a threshold which is legal, otherwise all wings will be illegal. So the bottom line is, the rule itself is meaningless, it is the tests which will always defines the boundary.

3. We disagree here. I think F1 has always encouraged innovation. I fail to otherwise see what team are competing on? it is certainly not only about the best driver.

If the gifs are what they seem to be then this is just taking the piss now.

However, I have no sympathy for the other teams because the FIA have been very lenient with flexing in the past and they should be pushing the boundaries on this sort of thing by now. Ferrari picked up on it quick enough in 2010... What is stopping them now?

#115 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:35

Who says other cars are different. I believe all have the crash structure within an aerodynamic shell. For the crah structure you want a large diameter, for the nose you want a small one. So this solution seems logical to me.

#116 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:44

Posted Image
Here the whole set of nose and camera is moving together.

http://www.mediafire...15sm1wht19n3b0s (from 10s)
Now the camera is moving separately, as the coupling part was damaged by the hit.

Edited by plumtree, 06 November 2012 - 12:48.


#117 antrock

antrock
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:07



nosecone doesn't get hit by the styrofoam - left part of the wing does!

#118 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:12

Really interesting find. I would say though, I kind of doubt it's breaking any rules, as surely the scrutineers would be aware of it, otherwise they're not scrutineering very hard!

#119 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:13

Not necessarily, one corner and one or two replays do not a summer make.


Where's the gif with Webber from?
The nose either billows or it doesn't. If it does through the swimming pool section; well yes, that's a quick corner but it's through those you need aerodynamic performance.

Advertisement

#120 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,222 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:18

Where's the gif with Webber from?


I think it's from one of the FP's of last weekend.


#121 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:19

There is still the second gif

Posted Image


Sprang part of the chassis except nose remain stable through out this GIF animation. Only the nose shell, camera and front wing, rear wing and the mirror seems to vibrate as the car goes over the kerb. This makes me think.

Aeriodynamicaly, itis better to fix the wing position also over the kerb so that the car go though stable air flow, if you consider the race car to take consistent aero effects. Deflecting nose like this makes me think that why the fastest car on grid does accept such deflections.

1. We are looking at a good voltex generator, a big one, to generate more downforce.
2. We are looking at trade offs for the down force at the higher speed corners.

Could harly imagine that this is a consequence of doing the best they can to make the nose/front wing/rear wing construction as rigid as possible... they can surely do much better as we can see on the rest of the chassis...

#122 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:20

I think it's from one of the FP's of last weekend.


I always assumed that, I was after which corner it was. Should've been clearer. :)

#123 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,505 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:23

Posted Image
Here the whole set of nose and camera is moving together.

http://www.mediafire...15sm1wht19n3b0s (from 10s)
Now the camera is moving separately, as the coupling part was damaged by the hit.

Thats crazy. I wonder what Charlie can say to this.

#124 Arry2k

Arry2k
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:25

Thats crazy. I wonder what Charlie can say to this.

"I am off for dinner.", probably.

#125 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:35

:lol: you guys are just jelly

#126 Panktej

Panktej
  • Member

  • 353 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:53

OP should forward these GIFs to Scarbs, as he might be able to shed some light on it.

#127 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 November 2012 - 13:55

Thats crazy. I wonder what Charlie can say to this.


get it over with, it already happened... :rotfl:

#128 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,884 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:06

on the webber gif its most noticeable that the camera pods on the nose are moving, if you just look at the nose you might think its just image compression/artifacting

and yes while those camera pods are ment to be aero netural, they are positioned for best effect, and if its on some flexible bodywork, its been put there for a reason.

#129 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:15

on the webber gif its most noticeable that the camera pods on the nose are moving, if you just look at the nose you might think its just image compression/artifacting

If you focus the 'horns' either side of the 'letterbox' on the top of the nose you get a far clearer view of the movement/flexing/whatever of the nose than if you look at the nose itself.


#130 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,331 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:20

OP should forward these GIFs to Scarbs, as he might be able to shed some light on it.

Someone did yesterday and his reaction was like "Wow!"

#131 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 1,069 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:34

this is fascinating. Ive no idea on the accuracy of it or the possibility.

All I am convinced of is theres some very very clever stuff going on at the front of that Red Bull and it hasnt all come out yet.

#132 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,222 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:35

OP should forward these GIFs to Scarbs, as he might be able to shed some light on it.


Don't have Twitter, so feel free to do it :)

I always assumed that, I was after which corner it was. Should've been clearer. :)


No idea then.

#133 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:35

I wonder what happens when they do the static load test on the wing? obviously it has passed the tests, but surely the FIA would have noticed the wing staying relatively rigid while the whole nose is bending down.

It's fascinating the nose material is that soft, definitely something fresh to keep in mind for the armchair analysts like us, but at the end of the day, if it passes the tests it is what it is... the FIA has already shown it is extremely reticent to act on the basis of video evidence, and if it can't be proven that the design is engineered to flex (while still passing the tests) then it's just the same old story.

(BTW the bodywork flexibility rules details all the tests they are doing, it's 3.17 in the tech regs, but it's difficult to visualize exactly what's being done to the car just reading those..)

Edited by Slowinfastout, 06 November 2012 - 15:46.


#134 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:43

I wonder what happens when they do the static load test on the wing? obviously it has passed the tests, but surely the FIA would have noticed the wing staying relatively rigid while the whole nose is bending down.

It's fascinating the nose material is that soft, definitely something fresh to keep in mind for the armchair analysts like us, but at the end of the day, if it passes the tests it is what it is... the FIA has already shown it is extremely reticent to act on the basis of video evidence, and if it can't be proven that the design is engineered to flex (while still passing the tests) then it's just the same old story.


The problem is that the FIA's written regulation is expressed as an absolute, but the control test is minimalistic on a specific.

It is like requiring to be fluent in Cantonese and the test to determine you are is asking your name. If you answer correct, then you must be fluent in Cantonese.

I would rather they allow in the regulations that parts of the car can flex with the caveat that failures are penalized with disqualification.

Because nothing in a Formula 1 is 100% rigid.

#135 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:17

Why do you think they have 4/5/6 element on there? You need the stability and the attachment.
Aggressive layups are not new, It used to be done a lot on the RW.

#136 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,276 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:18

Is this rubber nosecone in the same league as McLaren's transparent bodywork?

#137 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:20

...so you're saying this is a non-issue totally? Which I guess, means you're doing it as well.... (not expecting an answer on that.)

#138 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:24

Doing what?

#139 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:26

Is this rubber nosecone in the same league as McLaren's transparent bodywork?


No, the transparent bodywork was something very very special.



Advertisement

#140 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:26

...so you're saying this is a non-issue totally? Which I guess, means you're doing it as well.... (not expecting an answer on that.)


Sure.... It's a non issue ;)

#141 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:28

Wings will and do flex alot over kerbs like that, regardless of which car it is.

http://www.youtube.c...O_N8bSP0#t=477s

Plenty more about.



#142 dave34m

dave34m
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 21:26

Wings will and do flex alot over kerbs like that, regardless of which car it is.

http://www.youtube.c...O_N8bSP0#t=477s

Plenty more about.

Dude, this topic is about the nose cone moving not the wing itself. I haven't seen any other nose cone moving like the Mark Webber gif

#143 motorhead

motorhead
  • Member

  • 937 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 21:55

To you all Hercule Poirots - I just wonder how nobody in the paddock haven´t reacted this, I believe they are quite aware what the rivals do especially when it is so clearly visible :smoking:

#144 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 22:04

Dude, this topic is about the nose cone moving not the wing itself. I haven't seen any other nose cone moving like the Mark Webber gif

Lost somewhere in this thread is a similar gif wit McLaren nose bending just the same way.

To you all Hercule Poirots - I just wonder how nobody in the paddock haven´t reacted this, I believe they are quite aware what the rivals do especially when it is so clearly visible :smoking:

:up:
This is the first question Poirots and Sherlocks should ask themselves. I gave up on my expectations of some serious discussion. Even the F1Technical is going nuts on this.

#145 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2012 - 23:28

To you all Hercule Poirots - I just wonder how nobody in the paddock haven´t reacted this, I believe they are quite aware...especially when it is so clearly visible :smoking:

You'd have thought that about the BBC too, wouldn't you?

Edited by oetzi, 06 November 2012 - 23:28.


#146 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 23:32

The up and coming Scarbs Jr has an idea....mass damper effect.

http://somersf1.blog...bulls-fall.html

Scroll all the way to the last few paragraphs.

#147 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 23:55

Sure.... It's a non issue ;)


/thread



#148 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 00:01

/thread

What, because one person said something about an aspect of a thing, nobody's allowed to think other thoughts or say other things about any aspect of that thing ever again?

#149 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 00:13

no, you can do what you like.

should have followed it with an IMO... apologies.



#150 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 00:15

no, you can do what you like.

should have followed it with an IMO... apologies.

I don't want to do anything with it. But someone else might.