Jump to content


Photo

Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#201 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:00

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.

Are you still insisting the nose doesn't bend?

Edited by oetzi, 09 November 2012 - 09:01.


Advertisement

#202 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 1,039 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:06

Posted Image
frames 7 and 21 (top) from the gif

#203 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:02

still arguing this?

Posted Image

RB front wing with no cameras attached. The black horns are actually part of the wing. They are thin CF, no thicker than the flaps on the front wing, the front part of the wing is hollow all the way to the front of the pylons (all the way = 10-15cm - roughly just behind the infinity sticker) You take damage where the arrow points, you get a mechanic to pull up where the arrow points and push down on the opposite side you get the gif. The cameras and mount part of the wing are aero neutral.

Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 15:03.


#204 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:28

still arguing this?

Posted Image

RB front wing with no cameras attached. The black horns are actually part of the wing. They are thin CF, no thicker than the flaps on the front wing, the front part of the wing is hollow all the way to the front of the pylons (all the way = 10-15cm - roughly just behind the infinity sticker) You take damage where the arrow points, you get a mechanic to pull up where the arrow points and push down on the opposite side you get the gif. The cameras and mount part of the wing are aero neutral.


Sure, the thing is, the DRS panel didn't even touch the camera mounting, as you can see in one of the gifs.

#205 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:38

Sure, the thing is, the DRS panel didn't even touch the camera mounting, as you can see in one of the gifs.


......

Now you know why some are still arguing this :stoned:

#206 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:45

Sure, the thing is, the DRS panel didn't even touch the camera mounting, as you can see in one of the gifs.


sure, so how come in the bottom zoom the camera on the wing is bent downwards compared to the top zoom? heavy air?

Posted Image

Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 15:47.


#207 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 15:55

sure, so how come in the bottom zoom the camera on the wing is bent downwards compared to the top zoom? heavy air?

Posted Image


Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
Come on, this is not even a matter of opinion, but what can be seen with the eyes... If you are saying that it hit the nose... :drunk:

#208 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 16:12

Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
Come on, this is not even a matter of opinion, but what can be seen with the eyes... If you are saying that it hit the nose... :drunk:

I already pointed out occassions when you can see the housings moving independently to the nose in #176. btw if you watch Vettel pitting, you can see him going on a bump just before stopping, and the housings start to wobble.

#209 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 16:21

Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?
Come on, this is not even a matter of opinion, but what can be seen with the eyes... If you are saying that it hit the nose... :drunk:


what? look at the angle of the camera relative to the mount point before declaring people drunk? The camera angles down from the edge to the mount point, what you 're describing angles the whole camera down uniformly

#210 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:37

what? look at the angle of the camera relative to the mount point before declaring people drunk? The camera angles down from the edge to the mount point, what you 're describing angles the whole camera down uniformly


How could it angle the whole camera down uniformly when only the left part of the wing was hit?
These are the two frames of the hit:

Posted Image

It's clear it didn't hit the nose. After that what is happening is that the DRS sign moves around the suspension and blocks the view to the camera mountings, when viewed from the onboard camera, but it had already cleared the nose.

#211 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:54

could someone who is capable and has the footage in good quality do a gif from the close up from 0:06?

#212 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 17:58

How could it angle the whole camera down uniformly when only the left part of the wing was hit?
These are the two frames of the hit:

It's clear it didn't hit the nose. After that what is happening is that the DRS sign moves around the suspension and blocks the view to the camera mountings, when viewed from the onboard camera, but it had already cleared the nose.

Posted Image
camera clearly goes up and down.

#213 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,306 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:01

I think it might just be the reflection of the white sign that makes it look like it's moving in that gif.

#214 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:01

How could it angle the whole camera down uniformly when only the left part of the wing was hit?



oh god ....

camera is attached to the nose cone, edge of camera is attached to nothing, if nose moves whole camera moves, if edge of camera moves independently there is force applied there. Physics 101. If the left part of the wing was attached to the edge of the camera you 'd have a point, then the edge of the camera would move with the wing element

red line is an exaggerated illustration of what you 're seeing, and it can't happen because "the left part of the wing was hit"

Posted Image

#215 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 471 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:12

I think it might just be the reflection of the white sign that makes it look like it's moving in that gif.



The sign is actually much bigger than it appears in that gif. There is an addition 30cm around the entire
top and sides made of a transparent Lucite. The OLD kind of Lucite that weighs as much as lead.
They put it there to help keep the sign from blowing away - luckily it didn't hit Seb's helmet!


#216 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:22

Posted Image
camera clearly goes up and down.


Because it did hit the wing, and the wing pulled down the nose?


About this:

oh god ....

camera is attached to the nose cone, edge of camera is attached to nothing, if nose moves whole camera moves, if edge of camera moves independently there is force applied there. Physics 101. If the left part of the wing was attached to the edge of the camera you 'd have a point, then the edge of the camera would move with the wing element


Sorry, I misunderstood you, I thought you were asking why the imaginary horizontal line that both cameras create didn't go closer to the ground in parallel to it, which is why I replied what I did. And what is happening in what you are referring to: the vibrations caused by the hit of the wing, as the nose is flexible. That the DRS panel didn't hit the nose is unquestionable, sorry.

red line is an exaggerated illustration of what you 're seeing, and it can't happen because "the left part of the wing was hit"


It can, as you can see in the pitstop, that part is particularly flexible. If it's more flexible than the rest of the nose, Physics 101 too, it can create the torsion the gif and pit stop shows.

To summarize, I think the different views we are having are:
A) The DRS panel hit the nose, and it caused the flexibility of that part of the nose
B) The DRS panel didn't hit the nose, that part of the nose is flexible

The behavior of the tip of the nose can be explained by both. The problem is, we are seeing that the DRS panel didn't hit the nose.

Edited by prty, 09 November 2012 - 18:38.


#217 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:35

@prty that argument could work, only if we did have coverage which shows the camera moving independently to prove it wrong...

...oh wait, we DO have!

could someone who is capable and has the footage in good quality do a gif from the close up from 0:06?



#218 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:37

It can, as you can see in the pitstop, that part is particularly flexible. If it's more flexible than the rest of the nose, Physics 101 too, it can create the torsion the gif and pit stop shows.


I have NEVER seen the camera flex like this except after Vettel hit the DRS sign, not even in the insane flexing wing of Webber's you posted. Put it this way, with that much flexing around it would be a completely useless camera. So maybe instead of the pitstop proving there is insane flex in the camera mount, the much simpler explanation is the flex happens because there was damage, not the other longer way around you 're looking at it ;)

Posted Image

Edited by engel, 09 November 2012 - 18:40.


#219 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:44

I have NEVER seen the camera flex like this except after Vettel hit the DRS sign, not even in the insane flexing wing of Webber's you posted. Put it this way, with that much flexing around it would be a completely useless camera. So maybe instead of the pitstop proving there is insane flex in the camera mount, the much simpler explanation is the flex happens because there was damage, not the other longer way around you 're looking at it ;)

Posted Image


That front wing is broken, and has uneven loads on the left and right parts that cause torsion on the tip of the nose, we hardly ever see that too.

@prty that argument could work, only if we did have coverage which shows the camera moving independently to prove it wrong...

...oh wait, we DO have!


The thing is, that doesn't change the fact that the tip of the nose itself is deforming, it's not only that the cameras are moving respective to it.

Edited by prty, 09 November 2012 - 18:45.


Advertisement

#220 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:49

could someone who is capable and has the footage in good quality do a gif from the close up from 0:06?

I tried but it's not easy to show the movement clearly in gif.
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Plus, there are two sticks to hold up the sign board. One of them (pink arrow) was blown off to the right side after hitting the FW or the left camera mount. I don't know what the yellow arrow was, to me it looks like a broken piece of the (pink) stick.

Posted Image

Edited by plumtree, 11 November 2012 - 01:33.


#221 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 18:51

That front wing is broken, and has uneven loads on the left and right parts that cause torsion on the tip of the nose, we hardly ever see that too.



The thing is, that doesn't change the fact that the tip of the nose itself is deforming, it's not only that the cameras are moving respective to it.


And uneven loads on the wing are making the camera jiggle as much as on that gif? are you misunderstanding again ?

for 20th time the camera mount is integral to the nose (tip as you put it), if that moves what's around it moves, that section is thin and hollow.



#222 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 20:41

The F1 Show has pretty much cleared this up, the nosecone/camera housing was just damaged from where it struck the DRS sign, you could clearly see when RBR put the new nose on how much sturdier it was.

Storm. Teacup. In.

#223 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 November 2012 - 21:49

If Autosprint is reliable, you should go and tell Fry he was looking at it wrong too:

http://www.auto.it/a...

#224 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 23:49

The F1 Show has pretty much cleared this up, the nosecone/camera housing was just damaged from where it struck the DRS sign, you could clearly see when RBR put the new nose on how much sturdier it was.

Storm. Teacup. In.


You. And. RBR. Wish.

Without the impact it would not flex like that. But the impact has probably left the tail of the cat out of the bag.

In the last couple of seasons, we have seen cables hanging out of the front wing where they had no use. We have seen water dropping from places where water had no business. Webber has talked about water generators, whatever that may be. We have seen a nose that was bending as if it is the last dance. And yet the nothing-to-see-here brigade keeps telling that everything is business as usual. Nobody ever explains anything, apart from the fact that Newey is a genius, and that underfuelling a car is creating "the circumstances that give rise to a force majeure event, by reducing the fuel pressure in the fuel-feeding-circuit". Yeah, sure, Chris,

It is about time the other teams grow some balls and ask FIA what the heck is going on with RBR.

#225 CF22

CF22
  • Member

  • 388 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 00:08

It is about time the other teams grow some balls and ask FIA what the heck is going on with RBR.


Simple, the maFIA gets a yearly paycheck from Fuschl am See.

#226 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:01

You. And. RBR. Wish.

Without the impact it would not flex like that. But the impact has probably left the tail of the cat out of the bag.

In the last couple of seasons, we have seen cables hanging out of the front wing where they had no use. We have seen water dropping from places where water had no business. Webber has talked about water generators, whatever that may be. We have seen a nose that was bending as if it is the last dance. And yet the nothing-to-see-here brigade keeps telling that everything is business as usual. Nobody ever explains anything, apart from the fact that Newey is a genius, and that underfuelling a car is creating "the circumstances that give rise to a force majeure event, by reducing the fuel pressure in the fuel-feeding-circuit". Yeah, sure, Chris,

It is about time the other teams grow some balls and ask FIA what the heck is going on with RBR.


Stop sprouting BS, go put your tinfoil hat on, and leave the internet alone. I'm pretty sure a guy who is pretty pro McLare/Hamilton and has seen these cars, including the stop in question, up front, knows more than you. Sorry.

#227 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 November 2012 - 23:19

Red bull have some like this:
Posted Image

Any doubth it?

Yes.. it can be damaged in Vettel's car with Drs.. but. AGAIN:
what DAMAGE Webber's car?
His nose flexes vertically, and allow front wing to close gap to floor.
THAT IS ILLEGAL.
And that is what teams ask to FIA, not about Vettel 15cm nose flexibility.



#228 lbennie

lbennie
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:09

Are you still insisting the nose doesn't bend?


Yes mate, you may need to play with your monitor settings or something. it is just the camera housing and vinyl wrap that is moving.

or do you actually think they made the nose out of rubber? :lol:

#229 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:16

It isnt a vinyl wrap, it is paint a vinyl wrap is heavier than pain, and the nose is bending, when this gets looked into further which i hope it does, all will be revealed, surprised its so quiet on this topic in the media.

#230 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:22

So does it or doesn't it?

What we do have is uninformed opinion and sheer guesstulation while each poster tries harder then the one before to show how much they think they know.

Anyone enjoy the racing these days?

#231 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:47

It isnt a vinyl wrap, it is paint a vinyl wrap is heavier than pain, and the nose is bending, when this gets looked into further which i hope it does, all will be revealed, surprised its so quiet on this topic in the media.

it is so quiet on the media because various experts and the FIA both gave it the nod of approval, as they know that the front of the nose is made weak on purpose, so it doesn't interfere in a crash.

#232 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 1,326 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:08

The F1 Show has pretty much cleared this up


Oh, well if Ted Kravitz and Georgie Thompson said so then i guess that's gospel.


#233 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:03

Red bull have some like this:
Posted Image

Any doubth it?

Yes.. it can be damaged in Vettel's car with Drs.. but. AGAIN:
what DAMAGE Webber's car?
His nose flexes vertically, and allow front wing to close gap to floor.
THAT IS ILLEGAL.
And that is what teams ask to FIA, not about Vettel 15cm nose flexibility.


This is JB's BAR...
You mean this?

I think this is transcendent enough to be outside the RBR thread. If mods think otherwise, feel free to merge.

The evidence:


Posted Image



#234 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,679 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:15

Red bull have some like this:
Posted Image

Any doubth it?

Yes.. it can be damaged in Vettel's car with Drs.. but. AGAIN:
what DAMAGE Webber's car?
His nose flexes vertically, and allow front wing to close gap to floor.
THAT IS ILLEGAL.
And that is what teams ask to FIA, not about Vettel 15cm nose flexibility.



Its quite simply "a method of manipulating ones assets to maximise an advantage", It was first developed by McLaren in early 2005 when Ron being Ron gave it the aforementioned name, not being a fan of Rosnspeak a certain Columbian driver gave it a new monicker and named it after himself, up until then everyone had thought that the "JP" in "JP Montoya" actually stood for "Juan Pablo", not true, it actually stands for "Jiggery Pokery", Those pesky bankers also jumped on the bandwagon, most notably the extremely devious Jiggery Pokery Morgan.

In a secret meeting in Abu Dhabi, Pat Fry, Horner and Charlie Whiting met to have an informal test of the apparently bending nose where agreement couldn't be reached,
"It bends!!!" said Fry,
"Rubbish" said Horner,
"Here's my steel engineers rule, it has a straight edge" said Charlie, put that on the nose and try it again, they did, and the nose deflected!!

"See!!, even the sodding rule bends" said Fry

"Now you're getting it" Said Charlie.


#235 stevesingo

stevesingo
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:48


I regards the RB nose cone:

Why would a designer not design the crash structure in the same shape as the aero shell in which it resides. One component, two functions as Colin Chapman would say. I can't see any weight saving in having separate parts which could be replaced by one part.


BUT: The inner crash structure, by virtue of the fact it has to provide enough strength to pass the FiA crash test, will be a stiff structure. This stucture will not flex any substantial amount under aero load. This is not helpful.

SO: Have a ridgid crash structure and encapsulate this in a (much) less ridged shell which flexes under aero load and probably limited in deflection by the inner crash structure. Hey presto you have designed a front wing mounting that is compliant in regards to the chassis, if not the bodywork.

Clever, and to be applauded in it's simple ingenuity.

Expect a rule clarification soon.



#236 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:16

Yes mate, you may need to play with your monitor settings or something. it is just the camera housing and vinyl wrap that is moving.

or do you actually think they made the nose out of rubber? :lol:

I won't pick on the blind, so I guess we'll leave it there :kiss:


#237 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:17

Its quite simply "a method of manipulating ones assets to maximise an advantage", It was first developed by McLaren in early 2005 when Ron being Ron gave it the aforementioned name, not being a fan of Rosnspeak a certain Columbian driver gave it a new monicker and named it after himself, up until then everyone had thought that the "JP" in "JP Montoya" actually stood for "Juan Pablo", not true, it actually stands for "Jiggery Pokery", Those pesky bankers also jumped on the bandwagon, most notably the extremely devious Jiggery Pokery Morgan.

In a secret meeting in Abu Dhabi, Pat Fry, Horner and Charlie Whiting met to have an informal test of the apparently bending nose where agreement couldn't be reached,
"It bends!!!" said Fry,
"Rubbish" said Horner,
"Here's my steel engineers rule, it has a straight edge" said Charlie, put that on the nose and try it again, they did, and the nose deflected!!

"See!!, even the sodding rule bends" said Fry

"Now you're getting it" Said Charlie.

:clap: :lol:

#238 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:22

I regards the RB nose cone:

Why would a designer not design the crash structure in the same shape as the aero shell in which it resides.


Because any aero changes to the nose - no matter how minor - would require the crash structure to be retested. The current method (as used by all the teams for some time) allow some freedom of design and the nose cone is made as thin as practicable to reduce weight .


#239 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:39

I regards the RB nose cone:

Why would a designer not design the crash structure in the same shape as the aero shell in which it resides. One component, two functions as Colin Chapman would say. I can't see any weight saving in having separate parts which could be replaced by one part.

This one is very simple to answer.

I guess practice started when there was not enough computer power available.
RB or Newey like this Duck Beck shaped nose that contains complex curves. It is a hell of a calculation and manufacturing work to prove that the shell with such shape, with double curved, hollow and ball warped surfaces. Is is smarter therefore to meet FIA reg with relatively simple roundish corn and there by giving time and freedom to designer to come up with aero dynamic solution. Outer shell should be thinner and lighter therefore builders get more space to create complex curves.
I assume engineer profitted this and allow some sort of deflections.

Never the less, now we have huge computing power meaning, now, engineers can calculate the limit of flex performed by this outer shell very accurately so that it does actually NOT bend in FIA test circumstances, but it DOES bend when car is in motion. I assume, again, all sorts of acceleration and inertia makes peak force applied to the nose mounting point of the front wing a lot greater than what FIA cal for.

Advertisement

#240 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:19

Oh, well if Ted Kravitz and Georgie Thompson said so then i guess that's gospel.


If you'd have watched it you'd have seen the footage they showed was pretty clear, it was damaged. Your opinion definitely isn't gospel either  ;)

#241 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:37

If you'd have watched it you'd have seen the footage they showed was pretty clear, it was damaged. Your opinion definitely isn't gospel either ;)

is the episode available online (and worldwide)?

#242 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:02

is the episode available online (and worldwide)?


Its online but only if you've got a SkyGo account i think, had a quick search of youtube and couldn't find it on there. It appeared fairly conclusive in my opinion. Like i said earlier, i think this particular case has been blown up a bit, i suspect because it is RBR, they obviously have previous but i'm not convinced on this one.

#243 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,737 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:05

the mechanic getting the new nose ready grips it the same way and there is no flexing in sight.

#244 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 1,326 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:15

If you'd have watched it you'd have seen the footage they showed was pretty clear, it was damaged. Your opinion definitely isn't gospel either ;)


Clear as mud.

What i saw was the DRS board hitting an end of the wing and the camera boxes wobbling. Sky didn't cover it in any depth, they just said 'Oh, this has been causing ructions, but its alright it was just damaged (because thats what RBR told our work experience lad when we had him ring them up)'.

The boys i know from Lotus, Merc & FI certainly aren't swallowing that line.

#245 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 18:25

Clear as mud.

What i saw was the DRS board hitting an end of the wing and the camera boxes wobbling. Sky didn't cover it in any depth, they just said 'Oh, this has been causing ructions, but its alright it was just damaged (because thats what RBR told our work experience lad when we had him ring them up)'.

The boys i know from Lotus, Merc & FI certainly aren't swallowing that line.

So that's why they're making this huge fuss then.

#246 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:04

"E pur si muove."
Posted Image

A fixed front camera that change angle with velocity.... maybe was damaged..


Posted Image

Damaged?

SURE.

Edited by ElAbuelo, 13 November 2012 - 01:06.


#247 Wingnut

Wingnut
  • Member

  • 714 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:08

"E pur si muove."
Posted Image

A fixed front camera that change angle with velocity.... maybe was damaged..


Posted Image

Damaged?

SURE.


I thought it would have moved more than that between 0 and 284Km/h. Do you have the same shot from say a Ferrari, so we can compare?

#248 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:16

http://www.myvideo.d...ment_Collection

you can compare..

#249 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,197 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:09

Yacht masts are designed to flex. That way, when the wind strength increases (say from 5 to 25 knots), and therefore the power from the wind increases 25/5 squared = 5^2 = 25 ie when the wind strength increases from 5 knots to 25 knots, the power generated from the sails is twenty five times as much. (Its a square function because sails generate their power in proportion to their area).

So, masts are bent, which increases the area of the sail (which is like a wing), and although larger in area (slightly) the "depth" of the wing gets much shallower, and hence generates less power (or lift).

So, masts have to bend. And carbon does it beautifully. (and by the way, when a yacht crew in the Olympics changes the sail shapes by pulling on ropes to change the mast bend, it is referred to as "changing gears")


IMO the only way to stop bending of the car, is rather than impose ridiculous rules to try and limit individual finite points of movement, is to photograph the car. And put a percentage of allowable movement onto various parts of the car. If it was too strict, or too loose, then just change the rules. Its not as if the software and the expertise is not around to even automatically calculate movement of body parts, even within an actual race.

It's very well know that the F1 car bosses like Ross Brawn claim that its impossible to stop thing flexing. Which is really a "fractal" based excuse ... That is no excuse for channeling huge funds into creating tricked up composites that flex in ways that if moving aero parts were allowed, would simply not be necessary. Such trick composites are only in existence, because F1 mostly doesn't permit deliberate moving aerodynamic parts (the rear overtaking devices being a recent exception).

IMO:

Use photographic evidence to be the basis of new rules to limit body and wing movements.

Control down force on cars by having load cell weigh bridges at various parts of the track (installed and removed at each GP track), which would result in stop goes if a car weighed too much (ie had too much downforce).

A formula would be calculated for downforce and speeds, which would account for cars being lighter at slower parts of the track.

The weight data would be shown live - why shouldn't we know the down force of the various cars, and I guess too, their various fuel loads?

* the best weight system would be load cells for each wheel ... that would be good too, along with road weigh bridges ... because I would find it hard to trust the teams on car load cell engineering.


As a side note, I feel modern cars benefit very little from F1 style aero-dynamic improvements. I do feel that mechanical suspensions and active suspensions would improve the automobile. But I guess that the connection between F1 and the automobile, is long gone.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 November 2012 - 04:25.


#250 JForce

JForce
  • Member

  • 13,841 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:58

IMO:

Use photographic evidence to be the basis of new rules to limit body and wing movements.

Control down force on cars by having load cell weigh bridges at various parts of the track (installed and removed at each GP track), which would result in stop goes if a car weighed too much (ie had too much downforce).

A formula would be calculated for downforce and speeds, which would account for cars being lighter at slower parts of the track.

The weight data would be shown live - why shouldn't we know the down force of the various cars, and I guess too, their various fuel loads?

* the best weight system would be load cells for each wheel ... that would be good too, along with road weigh bridges ... because I would find it hard to trust the teams on car load cell engineering.

As a side note, I feel modern cars benefit very little from F1 style aero-dynamic improvements. I do feel that mechanical suspensions and active suspensions would improve the automobile. But I guess that the connection between F1 and the automobile, is long gone.


"Too much downforce"?

We're already too close to a spec formula as it is. No way in hell do I want to get to the point where we're prescribing df levels and other such nonsense. If you get to that point, you're effectively Indycar - just give everyone the same chassis and bodywork.

Personally I am sick and tired of hearing about cost saving and restrictions on what can and can't be done - the racing is good, I will happily concede, but then so is the racing at your local Kart track - doesn't mean it's Formula1. Same goes for your point about the connection between F1 and the automobile - people get hung up on this point so many times.

The fact is that if you want a direct link then go to sportscars - an open wheel formula car is so far from a road car in terms of the dynamics that it's irrelevant. No, the link for F1 is in the concepts, problem solving, thinking and innovation. It's the reason Honda rotated their engineers through the F1 engine program - not because there's a direct link between a 20K rpm V10 and a 1.6l Civic engine, but because the F1 environment forces engineers to come up with new ways to solve problems - new approaches, innovative ways to do things.

People persist with the idea that "the link" is to take "a thing" off an F1 car and put it on a road car - and yes there are several (famous) examples. However far more of "the link" is in the modes of thinking that F1 unlocks which allow engineers to derive clever solutions to road car specific problems.

- I don't want F1 to be a direct link to road cars - that's what sportscars etc is for
- I don't want F1 to be "green" because of links to road cars

I want F1 to encourage innovation in engineering, I want F1 to inspire engineers and companies to try new things in different ways. I don't want an energy recovery system that's just a version of what's on a road car - I want a regulation that says "you can recover and use energy via any/all of these 3 avenues <insert kinetic, exhaust, whatever here> and then let them at it.

Which will result in a massive increase in costs, and I am completely and utterly ok with that, because it's what F1 is and should be. The teams that really want to be there will only spend what they can, or they'll leave - and so be it. This isn't tiddly winks.