1331 replies to this topic

[Willow Rosenberg]

Oh, we were supposed to reply to what you meant rather than what you said, in the same way, I suppose, that RB should build a car to what the rules mean, rather than what they say. It all makes sense now.

Edited by Willow Rosenberg, 07 May 2011 - 02:01.

[VresiBerba]

Oh, we were supposed to reply to what you meant rather than what you said...

Oh, come on You wouldn't react any different even if I did use 100 per cent accurate figures or if I knew them, and you know that damn well. You're just being anal and obtuse on purpose which doesn't exactly do your arguments any favours.

Here's a good start to learn how to interpret people. Learn, and move on.

Figure of speech.

A figure of speech is the use of a word or words diverging from its usual meaning. It can also be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, such as a metaphor, simile, hyperbole, or personification. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetoric or a locution.

Edit:
Oh, and...

If the numbers are really THAT important to you, you don't get it either.

Edited by VresiBerba, 07 May 2011 - 02:51.

[DILLIGAF]

Oh right, so mclaren is constructing their front wing using a material that becomes perfectly inelastic at 1000N of pressure, while RedBull is using a material that becomes infinitely elastic at the same amount of load. Elvis & JFK designed them, with alien technology they got from Roswell. While Michael Jackson was singing a duet with Osama Bin Laden playing piano.

To help you out

The rule states 20mm at 1000N.That was a change from Spa 2010, before which time the same rule stated 10mm at 500N. There is no "maximal permissible flex" of 20mm as you seem to think. And no the FIA doesn't expect teams to construct their front wings from unobtainium which becomes perfectly inelastic at 1000N of pressure. Linearity is assumed, logical, and practical. If a thing deflects by 20mm at 1000N it can be assumed to deflect by 10mm at 500N and 40mm at 2000N, end of story. And yes RB (and McLaren) are linear, they passed the 500N test, they passed the 1000N test. Now you 'll say no I want a 2000N test, they will pass that and then you 'll be gimme 3000N NOW.

All your observations are quite frankly ... ludicrous. You assume because a specific endplate is closer to the ground than a different endplate then it must be flexing more. Wrong. You need to first establish their starting positions. Is the one front wing, at 0 load, closer to the ground or not? Is there more suspension travel in one car? How much? The ONLY reference you have is the middle portion of the wing. So either fire up photoshop, open up a grid and show us how much the endplates are deflecting relative to the middle of the wing or .... get some perspective. Lines across tyres are wholly irrelevant.

[DILLIGAF]

You're just being anal and obtuse on purpose which doesn't exactly do your arguments any favours.

Pot, kettle, black!!

[VresiBerba]

Pot, kettle, black!!

20 characters and two smilies in two posts. Wow, I feel conquered!

[rdebourbon]

Having partaken and now watched this thread for ages.. I am starting to believe the *only* way this argument can be reasonably resolved (i.e. to satisfy ALL parties - fans & teams) would be for the FIA to mandate some form of load measurement / deflection measurement devices for a number of the supposedly rigid parts of the cars (i.e. the wings/bib/floor)..

As shown by the exposed wires on Vettels car yesterday, the teams are more than likely already running load measurement sensors in the wings and other critical areas anyway, so extending the regs to make these measurements accessible to the stewards combined with a laser sensor to measure deflection, it would quickly become apparent if a part was flexing more than deemed "legal"..

The only issue with this approach is I can't imagine the teams would be too happy with such data being "public"..

[R2D2]

Having to supply huge electrical currents to bending fibres in the front wing would certainly explain Red Bull's KERS "issues".

[Aleix]

Some spanish sites have been talking about this:





Aparently these cables are some kind of "tensor cables" used to pass the tests or to let them flex or something like that.

Anyone heard something about this?


Sorry if it's already been posted, I didn't see any topic about it.

[midgrid]

Go back to post #1231 and read from there.

[flyer121]

Of course we can measure it. This is Formula One, do you think the epitome of motorsport technology revels around a simple weight put on a static and immobile surface?!? Why not test for progressive deflection, because that's what's happening here, or at least when they change the test, they actually put MORE weight on the wing at the same place allowing for the same deflection or LESS deflection using the same weight. It's kind of pointless, don't you think, to increase the amount of weight by the same factor they increase the allowed deflection.

So .. The only purpose left for FIA s existence is to slow down the faster cars....
No other sport changes rules based on such hypocrisy ...

[Hairpin]

Oh, we were supposed to reply to what you meant rather than what you said, in the same way, I suppose, that RB should build a car to what the rules mean, rather than what they say. It all makes sense now.

I think everybody knew what he meant and you are nit picking. If you did NOT understand, then I am quite confident you never will.

[Willow Rosenberg]

I think everybody knew what he meant and you are nit picking. If you did NOT understand, then I am quite confident you never will.

I understand that he now claims that he was talking about nonlinear flex, but he didn't say anything remotely coherent about it until engel questioned his numbers.

Its also been quite clear for some time that some people just don't understand how F1 works, and probably never will.

[PassWind]

That's not very interesting at all since not only is it completely unconfirmed but it's not really relevant at all.

Exactly. If you put 100 kilo on, let's say a McLaren wing, it may deflect 20mm compared to Red Bull's 16mm. But if you put on 110 kilos the McLaren wing would still deflect 20mm but the Red Bull wing deflects 25mm. Of course this is all hypothetical but it explains, or rather illustrates the dynamic, or better yet the progressive deflection of the Red Bull wing.

I mean, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist, or a brain-surgeon for that matter to see that the Red Bull wing flexes more than the McLaren wing, which again would completely confirm that Red Bull's wing flexes in a progressive manner which is most likely or rather most certainly deliberate, hence the cheating tag. In fact, even if the figures of 16mm Vs. 20mm flex during the test is true, it's actually more proof that Red Bull are deliberately cheating since at some point Red Bull's wing start to flex more than McLaren's wing. This isn't even rocket-science or brain-surgery, this is pre-school 1+1=2 maths complexity.

Of course this is all Bullshit because you are taking a Silly Wild Arse Guess at it, or in the professional layman world a SWAG. It actually does take a rocket Scientist and we have been through this read the thread.

What is not rocket science is that there is no science in your post, none whatsoever, you can't give a measurement, you cannot show the wing flexing, a gif with many gaps in FPS and with no vision of the front of the wing is absolute garbage as any credible evidence, absolute and utter garbage.

[PassWind]

Oh right, so mclaren is constructing their front wing using a material that becomes perfectly inelastic at 1000N of pressure, while RedBull is using a material that becomes infinitely elastic at the same amount of load. Elvis & JFK designed them, with alien technology they got from Roswell. While Michael Jackson was singing a duet with Osama Bin Laden playing piano.

To help you out

The rule states 20mm at 1000N.That was a change from Spa 2010, before which time the same rule stated 10mm at 500N. There is no "maximal permissible flex" of 20mm as you seem to think. And no the FIA doesn't expect teams to construct their front wings from unobtainium which becomes perfectly inelastic at 1000N of pressure. Linearity is assumed, logical, and practical. If a thing deflects by 20mm at 1000N it can be assumed to deflect by 10mm at 500N and 40mm at 2000N, end of story. And yes RB (and McLaren) are linear, they passed the 500N test, they passed the 1000N test. Now you 'll say no I want a 2000N test, they will pass that and then you 'll be gimme 3000N NOW.

All your observations are quite frankly ... ludicrous. You assume because a specific endplate is closer to the ground than a different endplate then it must be flexing more. Wrong. You need to first establish their starting positions. Is the one front wing, at 0 load, closer to the ground or not? Is there more suspension travel in one car? How much? The ONLY reference you have is the middle portion of the wing. So either fire up photoshop, open up a grid and show us how much the endplates are deflecting relative to the middle of the wing or .... get some perspective. Lines across tyres are wholly irrelevant.

Excellently explained.

Edited by PassWind, 08 May 2011 - 11:43.

[Hairpin]

Excellently explained.

Indeed. And at the same time completely misunderstood.

[Hairpin]

Of course this is all Bullshit because you are taking a Silly Wild Arse Guess at it, or in the professional layman world a SWAG. It actually does take a rocket Scientist and we have been through this read the thread.

What is not rocket science is that there is no science in your post, none whatsoever, you can't give a measurement, you cannot show the wing flexing, a gif with many gaps in FPS and with no vision of the front of the wing is absolute garbage as any credible evidence, absolute and utter garbage.

I do not think that you would recognize science even if it jumped up and bit your ass. But I can help you out a bit, Vresiberba meant "if you increase the load a little bit the McLaren wing might flex 20.4mm but the Red Bull might then deflect 25mm".

Edited by Hairpin, 08 May 2011 - 11:52.

[Kelateboy]

Indeed. And at the same time completely misunderstood.

Care to explain this remark?

[Hairpin]

Care to explain this remark?

I did just that above

EDIT: Note that it is not, or rather it might not be, a case of "linear" vs "non-linear" flex, since I doubt there is any linear flex in the world. Instead we might see the difference between "natural" and "designed" flex.

Edited by Hairpin, 08 May 2011 - 11:56.

[Apollonius]

Good grief!

Why all the confusion?
What people are arguing is that once the RBR wing reaches a critical load on the racetrack (a load that can't be simulated in a test) it flexes more than the other car's wings on the grid. It's entirely possible for a material to be designed so that it withstands a force applied up to a certain point, RBR have obviously found a way to construct the carbon fibre in the wings to reflect this. You don't need to be an engineer to comprehend this.

The wing flexes under load, that's factual. However it passes the tests and therefore is legal - if any team had any kind of way of proving the RBR wing was illegal they would protest. F1 teams are not exactly shy about launching official protests, Ferrari used to make a monthly habit of doing so.

It's just a clever piece of engineering - Only a blind RBR fanboy would claim the flex doesn't happen and on the other side it's only a rival fanboy who would claim it was cheating.

[Clatter]

Good grief!

Why all the confusion?
What people are arguing is that once the RBR wing reaches a critical load on the racetrack (a load that can't be simulated in a test) it flexes more than the other car's wings on the grid. It's entirely possible for a material to be designed so that it withstands a force applied up to a certain point, RBR have obviously found a way to construct the carbon fibre in the wings to reflect this. You don't need to be an engineer to comprehend this.

The wing flexes under load, that's factual. However it passes the tests and therefore is legal - if any team had any kind of way of proving the RBR wing was illegal they would protest. F1 teams are not exactly shy about launching official protests, Ferrari used to make a monthly habit of doing so.

It's just a clever piece of engineering - Only a blind RBR fanboy would claim the flex doesn't happen and on the other side it's only a rival fanboy who would claim it was cheating.

The race load isn't simulated, but IMHO it's wrong to say it can't be.

[fololo]

The race load isn't simulated, but IMHO it's wrong to say it can't be.

flex yes or no?

[Clatter]

Yes or No what?

[maverick69]

The car has clearly just gone over quite a sharp brow of a hill at quite high speed. The tyres, suspension system and the front wing will naturally defelect towards the ground in quite an extreme fashion when "landing"......

[fabr68]

The car has clearly just gone over quite a sharp brow of a hill at quite high speed. The tyres, suspension system and the front wing will naturally defelect towards the ground in quite an extreme fashion when "landing"......

Yes. With pencil and paper that is how Domenicalli will explain it...

[Number62]

flex yes or no?

Even the lamposts are flexing!

[DanardiF1]

Monaco is so engrained in F1 that they asked Adrian Newey to design the lamp posts!

[Hairpin]

flex yes or no?

Don't know, but the cars looks damn good with slicks! Imagine that we lived with those other horrible ones for more than a decade.

[four1]

flex yes or no?

Maybe

[Dunder]

flex yes or no?

Can't see any sign of flex, just a low front ride height / high rake.

[Aieljose]

Can't see any sign of flex, just a low front ride height / high rake.

Now lets compare that picture to the RB7's front wing for the The RB7's front wing is legal in the sense that it passes all the tests but the tests are very stupid IMO. These wings will experience 500+ kg's of load during a race so testing with 100kg's of loading is just inappropriate and stupid.

[Andy865]

But they cant test that load dynamically.

[rr0cket]

They're still winning....I wonder if we'll ever get to know the truth about what's happening on the rb5,rb6,rb7, and until they ban it, rb8,9,10.....

Edited by rr0cket, 27 June 2011 - 18:33.