39 replies to this topic

[Graveltrappen]

Sky had an interesting segment over the weekend where they highlighted the fact that the endplates on the Redbulls move under load and create an increased effect on the car. Once the load is removed, the wing goes back to its normal state and is fine for passing scruitineering.

They speculated that several teams may question it, none have yet which probably means they are beavering away to make their own versions.

Was wondering why the FIA don't step in and take a look?

[GrumpyYoungMan]

They will let the teams try and replicate the flex first and then they will step in... OR there isn't much performance to be gained because of there aero concept...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 19 July 2017 - 06:41.

[kevinracefan]

everything flexes..

[rootten]

Why do you want FIA to intervine? RBR are pushing the limits. That's all F1 is about...

[Scotracer]

everything flexes..

 

Correct. Everything must flex. 

 

It's all a matter of degree.

[Gareth]

Everything must flex, including the rules.

[GodHimself]

Correct. Everything must flex. 

 

It's all a matter of degree.

Well, unless it's a stiff pig slipping down a playground slide of course... Yet Red Bull's front wing doesn't look like a stiff pig sadly.  

Edited by GodHimself, 19 July 2017 - 15:51.

[MattK9]

There is an article on Autosport today (http://www.autosport...hes-to-red-bull) which talks about the flexing of Red Bull wings and then doesn't show any photos of the wing in flex!!! The article simply says that photos have been widely shared on social media. The article also talks about Ferrari's slot on the side of the floor that was said to flex but again had no photos of the thing in flex. 

 

Does anyone have some photos of these so we can discuss?? Preferably a side by side comparison of flexing vs static. 

[OO7]

Ferrari corrected the flex in their cars floor by strengthening the support.

[NixxxoN]

Here we go again? Red Bull got famous for bending wings and rules altogether some years ago

[FrankRoot]

Ferrari corrected the flex in their cars floor by strengthening the support.

 

Red Bull don't have to. Regulation says Red Bull can flex. Much in the same way as it says their drivers can run into other drivers intentionally without being punished -they just need to say they were angry about rivals ruining their race, and that they wanted to get their revenge- while for -say- Ferrari drivers there is a 10 second stop and go and the duty to publicly ask for pardon not to undergo further penalties.

[kevinracefan]

Here we go again? Red Bull got famous for bending wings and rules altogether some years ago

yep, Deja Vu, all over again..

 

silly rivals.. some things can't be 'unlearnt'.. thus they WILL be incorporated into EVERY design, to some extent..

 

History tells me that these wings will pass all static tests..

 

Does Red Bull have the best CF shop in the business or what, LOL...

[PiperPa42]

There is an article on Autosport today (http://www.autosport...hes-to-red-bull) which talks about the flexing of Red Bull wings and then doesn't show any photos of the wing in flex!!! The article simply says that photos have been widely shared on social media. The article also talks about Ferrari's slot on the side of the floor that was said to flex but again had no photos of the thing in flex.

Does anyone have some photos of these so we can discuss?? Preferably a side by side comparison of flexing vs static.

I don't have the pictures, but some were shown during the sky pre race show. And they were clearly flexing.

[kevinracefan]

Red Bull don't have to. Regulation says Red Bull can flex. Much in the same way as it says their drivers can run into other drivers intentionally without being punished -they just need to say they were angry about rivals ruining their race, and that they wanted to get their revenge- while for -say- Ferrari drivers there is a 10 second stop and go and the duty to publicly ask for pardon not to undergo further penalties.

someone seems a little ********...

[FrankRoot]

yep, Deja Vu, all over again..

 

silly rivals.. some things can't be 'unlearnt'.. thus they WILL be incorporated into EVERY design, to some extent..

 

History tells me that these wings will pass all static tests..

 

Does Red Bull have the best CF shop in the business or what, LOL...

 

Everybody who has been spotted flexing somewhere was able to pass the test. Regulation says bending must be ALWAYS limited. Static test is one way to check compliancy meant to provide a first screening, but if static test cannot produce a significant deformation while on track such a deformation is clearly visible, then car is not regulation-compliant. And if rivals protest, it has to be modified.

Red Bull has the best PR in the business.

[Dabash]

A few pictures on this site with the Redbull in racing condition. this can be compared with the Autosport picture of it when not moving, not sure if it helps

 

Link Here 

[oetzi]

..

Does Red Bull have the best CF shop in the business or what, LOL...

Does anyone except you and Red Bull care?

[OO7]

A few pictures on this site with the Redbull in racing condition. this can be compared with the Autosport picture of it when not moving, not sure if it helps

 

Link Here 

I actually noticed that during pre-season testing, but later thought it may have been an illusion caused by the angled bottom edge of the endplates: http://forums.autosp...13#entry7847762

[Ivanhoe]

Regulation says bending must be ALWAYS limited

This is what the rules say according to the FIA website:

Bodywork that flexes excessively could in theory be used to gain an aerodynamic advantage. Therefore specific sections of the bodywork, such as the front wing, must be sufficiently rigid to pass the FIA’s ever more stringent deflection tests.

So if Red Bull's endplates have passed the deflection test they should be okay for the moment. Maybe this is reason for FIA to make their deflection test more rigid though.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 24 July 2017 - 16:22.

[FrankRoot]

This is what the rules say according to the FIA website:

So if Red Bull's endplates have passed the deflection test they should be okay for the moment. Maybe this is reason for FIA to make their deflection test more rigid though.

 

They say Ferrari had to change its floor due to excessive flickering. Of course Ferrari was never caught failing a test -we would have known. So, either Ferrari had not to make its structure more rigid, or it's not all about passing a static test.

[Gareth]

It is about passing a test, but the FIA is allowed to change the tests at any time to make them tougher to pass. So it's possible that Ferrari both passed all the tests, and had to change their floor.

[Maustinsj]

It's genius. F1 is all about innovation. When everyone has it then it will be banned.

[TomNokoe]

We need a competitive Red Bull.

[Ivanhoe]

They say Ferrari had to change its floor due to excessive flickering. Of course Ferrari was never caught failing a test -we would have known. So, either Ferrari had not to make its structure more rigid, or it's not all about passing a static test.

Compared to other parts of the bodywork, the rules for the floor are more rigid (pun intended):

All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous (no fully enclosed holes), rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances

So if footage showed Ferrari's floor flexed under load this would be sufficient for FIA to order Ferrari to change their floor.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 24 July 2017 - 16:59.

[femi]

Ferrari corrected the flex in their cars floor by strengthening the support.

Under duress it seemed

[FrankRoot]

It's genius. F1 is all about innovation. When everyone has it then it will be banned.

 

Formula 1 ceased to be about serious innovation long ago and basicly it had been boiling down to aero trickery for decades. Hybrid PUs only have brought back some respectable technological research in the sport in the last few years.

Edited by FrankRoot, 24 July 2017 - 17:09.

[Maustinsj]

Formula 1 ceased to be about serious innovation long ago and basicly it had been boiling down to aero trickery for decades. Hybrid PUs only have brought back some respectable technological research in the sport in the last few years.

Aero innovation then.

[kevinracefan]

Christian and Adrian are laughing about this, no doubt...

[EndlessMotion]

Red Bull aren't dominating these days so who cares, right?

[PassWind]

They say Ferrari had to change its floor due to excessive flickering. Of course Ferrari was never caught failing a test -we would have known. So, either Ferrari had not to make its structure more rigid, or it's not all about passing a static test.

 

Having a piece of bodywork flapping about isn't a automatic advantage and quiet possibly a disadvantage, because if the design intention for the slot was to be in a constant state of shape then it moving presents variable aero results. 

 

Every damn onboard on every car this season has shown bits of bodywork flopping about, those stupid T-Wings, front wing assembly's under load. But for the sticker rule book merchants who can't get it through their thick head, that no material is immune to flex or deformation under load period, and the tests for excess of the acceptable amount doesn't mean you won't see it happening. If teams are not trying to control what happens to their parts in excess of the loads then they too are idiots. 

 

Some years down the track and still the same stupid argument. 

[Ferrari2183]

Think they've been forced to reinforce the endplate. Saw a pic of endplate connected via a small rod to the flaps.

[RobG]

[amedeofelix]

Red Bull aren't dominating these days so who cares, right?

 

It shouldn't matter though.  If a team is breaking, or over-bending, the rules then the matter needs to be addressed no matter where they are in the title race.

[amedeofelix]

I see Ricci just topped the opening session...

[amedeofelix]

 

Yes they did have to modify them: http://www.autosport...or-hungarian-gp

[kevinracefan]

well, did they HAVE to modify them??

 

perhaps RBR didn't like them, either..

 

as PassWind said earlier, when those aero bits deform they don't do what was intended...

 

(yes, I realize the possibility exists that the deformed shape is what they wanted to happen, also)..

 

my point being, every post assumes the worst, most sinister, without knowledge to back it up..

[amedeofelix]

well, did they HAVE to modify them??

 

perhaps RBR didn't like them, either..

 

as PassWind said earlier, when those aero bits deform they don't do what was intended...

 

(yes, I realize the possibility exists that the deformed shape is what they wanted to happen, also)..

 

my point being, every post assumes the worst, most sinister, without knowledge to back it up..

 

What choice have we unless Red Bull do the unthinkable and say openly why they made the change?

[kevinracefan]

What choice have we unless Red Bull do the unthinkable and say openly why they made the change?

I am absolutely certain they're just fine creating topics for forums to argue about, LOL

[RobG]

Yes they did have to modify them: http://www.autosport...or-hungarian-gp

According to Max, the rod was already there in Silverstone, but simply broke off.

Edited by RobG, 30 July 2017 - 06:28.

[MikePost]

Colin Chapman one said "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"

 

The regulations state a load and the amount the component can distort under that load, for the sake of example say the wing must deflect a maximum of 10mm with 100kg of load applied, if your engineers can build a wing that achieves that but then flexes 30mm at 101kg your legal!

 

You may look at regulations and see a set of in stone commandments, engineers see a set of parameters to work around, that's what makes F1 the pinnacle of motorsport engineering and EVERYONE does it.