Jump to content


Photo

Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#151 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:53

I actually think there are two separate issues and occam's razor probably applies to both.

I think the GIF of the flexing nose on Mark Webber's car as it goes over the bump is massively misleading as it is in super slow motion (the whole thing probably covers less that a tenth of a second).

If you have ever seen what wing flutter can do when it occurs on a plane, then you would know the immense forces it can exert (google it, there are plenty of videos on the subject). Flutter events on planes often result in the wings ripping off the plane or - if it occurs on the tail, it can rip the rear of the plane clear off...

It is therefore not really surprising that the inevitable wing flex (caused by the car hitting the bump) and the resultant inertia of the deformed wing causes the nose to oscillate at a very high frequency - the fact that the wing goes up and down twice in about a tenth of a second would actually indicate the nose is in fact very stiff.

Hitting a bump hard (and the resultant effects) would exert far more instantaneous force on the wing and nose than the car would ever experience through aero loading and I can't think of anyway in which it would be desirable for the wing to oscillate at a high frequency.

Furthermore, the photo posted earlier in this thread of the damaged Caterham would indicate that the carbon fibre outer skin of the nose cone is quite thin in that area (probably to reduce weight/polar moment) so I'd consider the amount of movement shown on the GIF to be pretty normal and certainly not advantageous.

The second issue is the malleable look of the nose cone when the mechanic tries to remove it.

If you watch This Video you can see that the mechanic removing the front wing tries to grab the wing by the camera mount (they make pretty good handles it must be said) and the thing starts flexing so he grabs the front of the nose instead. You can also see that the other mechanic that is waiting with the new front wing is actually holding it by the camera points and swings the entire nose cone into place from the camera points. It looks a stiff as a board.

As has already been discussed, I'd think that the impact with the DRS sign has simply cracked the resin and the only thing holding the nose together was the carbon fibre cloth and the paint/stickers. The DRS sign was made of Foam so it wouldn't have been be a 'sharp' impact to the nose and hence probably wouldn't tear the cloth or damage the paint to any large degree...






Advertisement

#152 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,341 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:00

The whole thing reminds me of Vettel vs Button in Spa 2010, and that I never thought that what the wing was doing here at 0:04 (and then again at 0:19 during the slomo) was normal or safe.

#153 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:30

Hmmnnn. All very interesting. RBR probably do have something on their car that makes it much much better than anyone else's car in the fast twisty sections of any GP circuit. I'm not sufficiently qualified to debate the pros and cons of what appears to be happening but I am convinced that RBR are way ahead of all other teams when it comes to aero.

#154 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 15:59

Hmmnnn. All very interesting. RBR probably do have something on their car that makes it much much better than anyone else's car in the fast twisty sections of any GP circuit. I'm not sufficiently qualified to debate the pros and cons of what appears to be happening but I am convinced that RBR are way ahead of all other teams when it comes to aero.


I agree with this statement. They are ahead and have something or some things. Nobody really knows for sure.

My main concern is that some of these things may not be legal. I suspect they might have less visual things that are also borderline legal.

Based on no facts, just a hunch. I don't trust them.

I respect great engineering, I don't respect cheating. I'm not saying they are cheats, but I just can't find it within me to respect the team, for some reason. Maybe I'm getting too cynical as I get older?

Edited by Roonaldo, 07 November 2012 - 16:01.


#155 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,244 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 16:11

I agree with this statement. They are ahead and have something or some things. Nobody really knows for sure.

My main concern is that some of these things may not be legal. I suspect they might have less visual things that are also borderline legal.

Based on no facts, just a hunch. I don't trust them.

I respect great engineering, I don't respect cheating. I'm not saying they are cheats, but I just can't find it within me to respect the team, for some reason. Maybe I'm getting too cynical as I get older?


You say that as if their aero guy is some slob off the street instead of one of the most celebrated aerodynamists in motorsport. You have to expect top notch innovation, and with the keen eye of the microscope, constantly shining upon them, you can bet RBR is not going to out and out cheat. It is not worth it.

All teams have bits tossed due to their overstepping on their interpretations. But that is a euphemism for innovation which drives top people to the sport. If it turns into a spec series, in any way shape or form, you will have a lot of spec engineers and innovation will decline.

So it pays to be open-minded rather than cynical when considering innovations. For our own continued enjoyment.


#156 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,029 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 16:48

just to help you out with the clown nose pursuit. The middle part of the camera mount is not bolted on to the wing, it is actually part of the wing, the difference in paint color makes it look like a foreign object. The camera(s) are bolted on to the mount. To simplify, the area is omega shaped ( Ω) and hollow [ie it's similar in rigidity to the engine cover, the rigid crash structure starts just behind the camera mount,at the front edge of the front wing pylons] the mechanic was twisting the the two "feet" of the omega.

#157 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 2,862 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 16:51

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
#F1 Teams already aware of the Abu Dhabi video >> bit.ly/UdWcuv | At least one opponent has asked FIA for their opinion on that.

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
#F1 Noses are made of just 1-3 carbon layers at the tip to pass crash tests. By hitting the DRS board the structured could've been weakend.

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
#F1 Here is our story about the "flexible" Red Bull-nose. We did a little research. Seems everything is normal. AMuS: bit.ly/SSIkE1

#158 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 411 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 17:02

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

It was like Wow!, or was actually Wow!? If it was like Wow! why not just say what he actually said?

Edited by 3011969, 07 November 2012 - 17:03.


#159 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 2,862 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 17:33

It was like Wow!, or was actually Wow!? If it was like Wow! why not just say what he actually said?

He said "Wow!" dude like I said.

Advertisement

#160 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 711 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 17:51

Posted Image
It doesn't look like the DRS board is made from polystyrene?

The damaged nose of Mark's car
Posted Image

#161 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:10

All trackside signs are made of polystyrene when they are in a place that can be hit, people saying the nose somehow was damaged from the sign are in denial, something is going on with that nose, a nose shouldnt just....bend like that.

#162 fisssssi

fisssssi
  • Member

  • 955 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:40

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.


Interesting Article, but what is with that Guy consistently capitalising Random Nouns?

#163 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 662 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 22:05

You say that as if their aero guy is some slob off the street instead of one of the most celebrated aerodynamists in motorsport. You have to expect top notch innovation, and with the keen eye of the microscope, constantly shining upon them, you can bet RBR is not going to out and out cheat. It is not worth it.

All teams have bits tossed due to their overstepping on their interpretations. But that is a euphemism for innovation which drives top people to the sport. If it turns into a spec series, in any way shape or form, you will have a lot of spec engineers and innovation will decline.

So it pays to be open-minded rather than cynical when considering innovations. For our own continued enjoyment.


I have to disagree. Deliverately pursuing obfuscation in the interpretation of the rules is not innovation. For example, turbos are forbidden. Let's suppose that you put one in your engine, and manage to convince Charlie W., or whomever, that it is not a turbo, but a kompressor. You are not being innovative, you are being silly in your interpretation, and FIA is allowing you to get away with your silliness.

Some years ago, FIA cut Ferrari's flexifloor in the bud, and IMO, it did the right thing. That floor passed the tests, but it was clear that it was against the rules (interpreted as any individual with legal training would do in Continental Europe; I refrain from saying in the world, because apparently common law tradition is different (not really, because their tradition is not statute-based), but anyway, this is not a matter for a F1 forum), and it was rightly forbidden.

Some years latter, FIA allowed DDD, and then F-ducts, which made a mockery of any reasonable interpretation of the rules. Meanwhile, it has forbidden to develop the engines (but has allowed silly engine mappings and stuff, allegedly for reliability reasons), it has forbidden refueling, while forcing teams to use engines that were not designed for no-refuelling races, and has imposed the use of two different tyres during the race, thus reducing the scope where teams can innovate.

So we have had an evolution towards a very reduced field to innovate, coupled with a very lenient approach towards rule interpretation. The consequence, IMO, has been that now teams approach the rules more as TV drama lawyers than as engineers. It is not how can we innovate within the scope rules allow, but how can we justify a device that is clearly out of the scope allowed.

People often justify flexi-wings because it is impossible to manufacture infinitely rigid wings. Well, that is true, but it is also true that any F1 team could do a better job of manufacturing a way more rigid wing than the ones they use right now. Anybody reading the rules with an ounce of common sense would realise that the real aim (and the real innovation) should be to create the fastest car with as rigid wings as possible. What teams are doing right now is the equivalent of cutting every chicane in the circuit; FIA may allow it, and teams may get away with it. But IMO, that is not how it should be. Innovation should be the domain of engieneers, not of Philadelphia lawyers.

#164 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 338 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:16

This is now in the media too

New Redbull Flexi Wing saga

Nov.8 (GMM/Inautonews.com) The seemingly never-ending saga about bendy formula one cars is back in the media spotlight, and as ever championship leader Red Bull is right in the middle.

Multiple videos depicting the front nose of the world champions’ 2012 RB8 car have emerged in the wake of last weekend’s Abu Dhabi grand prix, showing the extreme tip of the front nose section to be apparently made of some sort of ‘rubbery’ material.

The best videos of the ‘rubber’ Red Bull can be seen at:

http://img171.images.../645/boomer.gif

and

http://www.auto.it/i...Paragrafo_1.gif

and

http://www.auto.it/i...Paragrafo_2.gif

“Is this legal?” wondered a report by Italian magazine Autosprint, with Tuttosport adding: “Should it (the nose) not be a rigid part?”


#165 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:39

All trackside signs are made of polystyrene when they are in a place that can be hit, people saying the nose somehow was damaged from the sign are in denial, something is going on with that nose, a nose shouldnt just....bend like that.


You can clearly see in the gif above your post that it is definitely not just made of poly. has some sort of vinyl/laminate wrap which would add significantly to it's mass/impact.

lol @ the media running with this myth now.


Edited by lbennie, 08 November 2012 - 06:41.


#166 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:23

Driver like Seb is not supposed to hit such thing. Aparently he has little experience in tailing during the safety car, side effect of being at top so long so young. I recall Seb destroyed Webber's race in Japan in his STR. It is not a problem, but now one secret of RB8's speed is revealed to public and caused public focus... Red Bull is acting to eradicate it and waiting for the season to end for sure.

Lotus (Caterham) cars were reported to have such device as well, but as RB8 leading the both championship, the sever investigation,at least from fans eyes, are given to the car. IMHO FIA cannot ignore this dubious element that certainly causes the cost of car to raise...

#167 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:31

lol @ the media running with this myth now.

It's not a myth, the nose does bend. Why it bends, that's another matter, but it does. So you can't call it a myth.

#168 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:39

You can clearly see in the gif above your post that it is definitely not just made of poly. has some sort of vinyl/laminate wrap which would add significantly to it's mass/impact.

lol @ the media running with this myth now.


What is also clear is that it didn't hit the nose..just the wing.

#169 Matt Somers

Matt Somers
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:41

Interesting Article, but what is with that Guy consistently capitalising Random Nouns?



Thanks for the feedback I generally capitalize team names, aero parts etc to make them stand out but the odd mistake does creep in....

#170 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:45

It's not a myth, the nose does bend. Why it bends, that's another matter, but it does. So you can't call it a myth.


the nose does not bend. the broken cam housing + attached yellow vinyl sticker move/peel. you can see in the pit stop gif the ripples in the vinyl just below and to the right of the infinity logo.



What is also clear is that it didn't hit the nose..just the wing.


But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above :confused:


#171 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:49

Driver like Seb is not supposed to hit such thing. Aparently he has little experience in tailing during the safety car, side effect of being at top so long so young. I recall Seb destroyed Webber's race in Japan in his STR. It is not a problem, but now one secret of RB8's speed is revealed to public and caused public focus... Red Bull is acting to eradicate it and waiting for the season to end for sure.

Lotus (Caterham) cars were reported to have such device as well, but as RB8 leading the both championship, the sever investigation,at least from fans eyes, are given to the car. IMHO FIA cannot ignore this dubious element that certainly causes the cost of car to raise...


You mean the incident induced by Hamiltons erratic driving in poor weather and bad sight conditions which caused the FIA to drop the penalty and clamped down on this kind of driving behind the SC? :lol:

This thread is quite funny it is so amusing to see people throwing away all the logic to cling to there bias. I wrote this early and repost it to avoid typing the same thing again.

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.


With a bit of common sense it is rather easy to come to a decent solution. One should observe the way the mechanic holds the ready, undamaged front wing. It is quite obvious that it is the SOP to handle the nose this way, with the two camera pods as handlebar. Nothing twisting there when he puts in into place while the mechanic removing the nose has to move his hand to another area to get a firm grip to get the nose quickly away.

Obviously this will not change the mind of the jokers which have their dreamland version imprinted firmly in their mind. Even if we see a another nose change in the pits with nothing twisting it won't change anything for them because in this case the FIA will have had a quiet word with RBR. :stoned:

Edited by H2H, 08 November 2012 - 09:52.


#172 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:57

the nose does not bend. the broken cam housing + attached yellow vinyl sticker move/peel. you can see in the pit stop gif the ripples in the vinyl just below and to the right of the infinity logo.


The cam housing is not broken, he didn't hit the DRS panel with the nose, as the gif in this page shows. Didn't even touch it. And in the Webber gif you can clearly see it bends.

But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above :confused:


Of course, as the nose is flexible, the chain of movement goes the other way too, if the front wing is perturbed. You cannot see it break, because it didn't.

Edited by prty, 08 November 2012 - 10:04.


#173 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:26

the nose does not bend.

It does. You can see it clearly. As I said, why it bends is another matter, but it does bend.


#174 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:41

the nose does not bend


...this is the Matrix...

it is not the nose that bends, it is only yourself.

Sorry, had to put it

:drunk:



#175 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,716 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:51

But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above :confused:

that.

I just checked every onboard video shown of Seb up until his nose change. in race speed, the camera housing is solid as a rock. then comes the safety car, the incident happened, and when they show the onboard of Seb when he's complaining on the radio (so after the incident) you can see that the housing moves when passing under the hotel bridge. then you look at the onboard when he hits the DRS sign (we've got a gif of that I think) and you can see the left housing moving up and down when hitting the sign. after that they show a close up slowmo of the front wing and you can see the right housing flapping as well, leaving a gap to the nose when it is on the down.

so in short: you can see the camera housings go loose, you can see the left one flapping on the onboard, and the right one from the slowmo. you can also see that they remain stable in relation to each other.
my conclusion: they are fixed to each other but not to the soft shell on the outside (so possibly to the crash structure) then the fixation fails, and the housings start to wobble (but they stay fix compared to each other) and at the pit stop, when the mechanic applies uneven forces to the sides, one goes up, other goes down, and they twist the soft shell which is not secured to the housing (as only the left side of the nose twists upwards because of being pushed by the housing, the right side of the nose isn't pulled down by the housing going down)

#176 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 7,984 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:35

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Quite clearly the RB nose has proven not to adhere to the regulations. I'm guessing it will pass the wing load tests but it definitely does have a "degree of freedom".

#177 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:16

Quite clearly the RB nose has proven not to adhere to the regulations. I'm guessing it will pass the wing load tests but it definitely does have a "degree of freedom".


Obviously we have different definitions of both 'quite clearly' and 'proven'.

The only thing that is 'quite clear' is that the front wing demolished a sign and was damaged.


#178 manmower

manmower
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:49

If the front wing is flapping about like that over a kerb then the amount it can move under aero loads must be immense. This is probably not what anyone would call rigidly secured in everyday parlance. Now, if the FIA is of the opinion that passing the load test(s) = rigidly secured, then they are off the hook of course. If not, they may end up changing the test or whatever. There's not much more to say about I guess, just wait and see.

#179 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 2,915 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:52

Every part of the car which is not an integral part of the chasis or is mounted to the chasis in some way, has a "degree of freedom".

Advertisement

#180 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 7,984 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 November 2012 - 13:45

It's clearly a deformable nose to absorb DRS signage impact.


Was joking about this, the gif shows I turned out to be correct ;)

#181 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 7,984 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 November 2012 - 14:23

Every part of the car which is not an integral part of the chasis or is mounted to the chasis in some way, has a "degree of freedom".


If a pit man trying to lift the nose causes it to deform and twist 45 degrees I'd say that is clearly a degree of freedom that has been designed in. Nothing is infinitely rigid but that nose is designed to deform.

#182 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 662 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 14:26

Every part of the car which is not an integral part of the chasis or is mounted to the chasis in some way, has a "degree of freedom".


Therefore, any degree of freedom will do, and aerodynamists' task must be to study and use that degree of freedom in benefit of performance. Rendering the rule useless in the process.

That way of enforcing regulations turns the whole thing into unmanageable chaos. We have supposed guidelines issued at the drivers' briefing that goes against normal rules, and we, the audience, are not informed about them. We got regulations where the exception is the rule.

At least WWF does not pretend to governed by the rule of law.

#183 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,716 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 14:29

If a pit man trying to lift the nose causes it to deform and twist 45 degrees I'd say that is clearly a degree of freedom that has been designed in. Nothing is infinitely rigid but that nose is designed to deform.

if the camera mount is broken, of course it has a degree of freedom. just like the left upper flap of the wing had a degree of freedom after meeting the DRS sign.  ;)

#184 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,750 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 08 November 2012 - 14:35

So many experts here and so-o lazy to read a bit back .... :well:

#185 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 19:59

the nose does not bend. the broken cam housing + attached yellow vinyl sticker move/peel. you can see in the pit stop gif the ripples in the vinyl just below and to the right of the infinity logo.





But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above :confused:

I think you need your eyes checked mate, that nose bends in all directions, and as a Red Bull fan I just don't think you want to believe it. Something is going on with that nose and it will be found out.

#186 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 20:54

If i undesrtand..

If pass Fia load test.. its legal no?

So then if a wing like these on video PASS LOAD TEST must be legal..



Or this other..


Edited by ElAbuelo, 08 November 2012 - 20:59.


#187 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,341 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 21:09

If i undesrtand..

If pass Fia load test.. its legal no?

So then if a wing like these on video PASS LOAD TEST must be legal..



Or this other..


It's legal as long as the FIA does not change the test, which they have the right to do any time (the test is not the rule itself)

#188 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,508 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 21:14

If i undesrtand..

If pass Fia load test.. its legal no?

So then if a wing like these on video PASS LOAD TEST must be legal..



Or this other..

No, because those are actuated elements and therefore movable aero by definition.

#189 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,341 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 21:22

No, because those are actuated elements and therefore movable aero by definition.


Well yeah, if the FIA acts on it (which they would in this case), but wings designed to flex are also movable aero by definition (it's just harder to find and prove)

#190 Fox1

Fox1
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 21:35

the nose does not bend.

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"


Looks like it does, and you'd have to assume it does so for a reason. That's taking into account the understanding that no wing can be completely rigid.

#191 jondon

jondon
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 08 November 2012 - 22:53

This might be a stupid question, but is there any chance if the nose is flexible it has something to do with the slot where the step is?

#192 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 23:58

my god, this really is turning into another transparent bodywork episode.


#193 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 00:03

my god, this really is turning into another transparent bodywork episode.

Not according to your unquestionable source earlier in the thread.

#194 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 00:34

No, because those are actuated elements and therefore movable aero by definition.


I read that FLEX isn't move..
surface of that wings FLEX, and 'the muscle' is a plastic bag that FLEX with air presure... so nothing moves.. only flex.

But I defend the point that Webber's F1 nose moves when it flexes.

I think it is " a construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground" an must be "prohibited under all circumstances"
"3.15 ... Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances".
I think that not ony it give an aerodinamic gain, but it works as a 'tuned mass damper'

Dal punto di vista del regolamento (e della Fia, quindi) un muso così è regolare, perché soddisfa i requisiti dei primi 15 centimetri di materiale, la “punta” estrema. Proprio la stampa tedesca (“auto motor und sport”) riporta però che «almeno un team avrebbe chiesto alla Fia se tutto è a posto». Una cosa è la lettera del regolamento - struttura deformabile, in questo caso - dettata da motivi di sicurezza; un’altra cosa una possibile applicazione a fini prestazionali


"From the point of view of the reglament (and therefore of the FIA) This allowed a soft end, because it complies with the requirements of the first 15 centimetres of material, the end of the nose.
One thing is the letter of the rules - that the structure is deformable, in this case - dictated by security reasons. Another thing is its application to obtain best results."

Here: http://www.auto.it/a...ciamo chiarezza

(sorry all for my errors in english).

Edited by ElAbuelo, 09 November 2012 - 00:36.


#195 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 00:59

Not according to your unquestionable source earlier in the thread.


Have a look at f1technical, it's all been debunked already in the RB8 thread.

you guys are free to keep rocking the tinfoil hats though.



#196 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:07

You mean the incident induced by Hamiltons erratic driving in poor weather and bad sight conditions which caused the FIA to drop the penalty and clamped down on this kind of driving behind the SC? :lol:

This thread is quite funny it is so amusing to see people throwing away all the logic to cling to there bias. I wrote this early and repost it to avoid typing the same thing again.


Speak about Lewis, it was very remarkable to recall Lewis hitting the back of Kimi at the pitlane exit. I sometime do think that the guys are very wel trained to do what they do. reminds me of football players in the penalty field. Only that the guys, like Lewis in this case, do not get reward for it. :lol:

#197 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 5,075 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:28

RBR nose perfectly legal: RBR nose is legal

#198 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 338 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:29

Latest updates -

Three leading specialist publications have played down the ‘rubber Red Bull’ affair.

Recent video footage depicted the Adrian Newey-penned RB8 with a decidedly bendy front nose tip, causing some outlets and fans to question the legality of the apparently ‘rubber’ construction.

But writing in Italy’s La Gazzetta dello Sport, journalist Andrea Cremonesi said that “according to the FIA, everything is in order”.

“Word has arrived from Paris that the parts in question are not structural and are not subject to the rigid tests other parts of the car are,” he explained.


Full story:

Specialists clear Red Bull over rubber nose saga

#199 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 2,915 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:35

Told you it makes sense from a carsh safety point of view.

Advertisement

#200 camberley

camberley
  • Member

  • 338 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:05

Told you it makes sense from a carsh safety point of view.


There is also this comment that suggests that it may not be a closed case as yet

“That said, it is possible and indeed likely that Red Bull has gone further with its interpretation, because the deformable structure holds the front wing and can be used to get (the wing) closer to the ground.

“Some technicians at the competition are convinced of this,” the report added