|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 Aug 2010, 21:39 (Ref:2738429) | #26 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
These kind of tests seem rather primitive, I'm no engineer and not good at physics but even I know ways of building something that will flex in a non-linear way. Maybe they should also let the car drive with a certain speed (275 km/h or whatever) on a plain tarmac ground, videotape it and use the video to analyse if any part of the cars bends too much. Hell, you can even see it during the normal race TV coverage that those RBR wings aren't flexing normal. Since when does FIA need 100% proof for punishments let alone prohibitions?
|
||
|
2 Aug 2010, 22:03 (Ref:2738452) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,354
|
Of course Red Bull can turn up at the next race with a wing that looks identical but doesn't have the same 'bendy-ness' built into it, (if thats what it is thats enabling the advantage) and it could pass the test....
But they may not qualify as well either... If it passes the rule, and the test, it remains a secret.... Until the opposition can work out a way of doing it. after all this is F1 and you are allowed to have engineering secrets... They haven't banned those yet... |
|
|
3 Aug 2010, 00:00 (Ref:2738500) | #28 | |||||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 333
|
Quote:
Actually SPECIFICALLY the front wings. Yes a slightly different situation, but they are allowed. And yes they are allowed to flex. The FIA even state this in their technical manual that they are allowed to flex 10mm at 50kg's. Red Bulls do, so they comply. Quote:
Quote:
For instance, the FIA has a specific tyre size you must use, but dont you think a 245/55 R13 tyre would elongate to a larger diameter when doing 300km/h? That would be outside the rules in "your book" wouldnt it? Did you not see the view out the back of Alonso's car at Hungary, the "sharks fin" was wobbling from side to side. Its an aerodynamic device and its moving. Against the rules? The FIA understands that no part of the car is completely stable and thus gives parameters to keep inside. The parameter for the front wing is 10mm flex at 50kg. Red Bull complied with that, so whatever "your book" says... no they are NOT cheating. So they do comply with the wording of the regulations, just like a double diffuser of F-duct. Hence for every race this season they have passed scruitineering. Last edited by manwell; 3 Aug 2010 at 00:08. |
|||||
|
3 Aug 2010, 00:05 (Ref:2738503) | #29 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Maybe Red Bull's front wing is electrically heated (think about it)?
|
|
|
3 Aug 2010, 00:50 (Ref:2738520) | #30 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
Very true. However: Quote:
It is possible I have misunderstood the complaint McLaren and co were putting forward, but I believe this is accurate. |
||||
|
3 Aug 2010, 04:14 (Ref:2738557) | #31 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 178
|
Why is the FIA messing around with 50-100kg static weights on the wings?. The FIA must have access to a wind tunnel. Stick them in there and run it up to 190mph and see how much it flexes. That's a real test.
Jon. |
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 04:55 (Ref:2738565) | #32 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 702
|
Yeah there is a wind tunnel out the back of the pits at most race tracks
|
|
|
3 Aug 2010, 06:02 (Ref:2738583) | #33 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 333
|
Quote:
Taking your point and running with it. Say you every day road car has a 2 litre engine. Usually if you look up the specs its actually 1990cc or something similar. But i think its pretty safe to assume that the boffins designing F1 engines would be running right on the limit, so a 2.4L 90deg V8 would be 2400cc Now im no expert in thermal-dynamics, but are you telling me there would be no difference in the capacity of the engine when its sitting cold in parc ferme or zinging down the straight at 18000rpm. Im sure an F1 engine generates a lot of heat, and as far as i know when a metal is heated it expands. So is it not possible that while the car is driving down the straight at 18000rpm the capacity is not exceeding 2.4L by at least a small margain? |
|||
|
3 Aug 2010, 08:10 (Ref:2738616) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,177
|
One thing is for sure, if Red Bull have to change their front wing it will affect the whole of the car.
|
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 08:40 (Ref:2738623) | #35 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
Well done Red Bull for designing around the rules, as with Mclaren with the F duct and Brawn with the DD. Now, the FIA just need to improve the tests. Which won't be that difficult - they just need to make the weights bigger. Not that difficult to find out approximately how much downforce the wing produces at top speed. Just use that figure to determine the weight you place on the end. If it deforms too much, ask them to change the design. Simples. Not a huge RedBull fan, but think they are being very clever with this one. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 (Ref:2738662) | #36 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,177
|
I dont think its any different to the Michelin tyre saga of 2003, when Ferrari & Bridgestone accused Michelin of having wider tyres than were allowed. When measured before the race they complied, but due to the camber characteristics they altered shape when under load.
The FIA then forced Michelin to change their tyres by adjusting the rules around measuring tyres, which pretty much handed Ferrari the championship as McLaren and Williams struggled to get used to the new front tyre after Monza of that year. |
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 11:48 (Ref:2738705) | #37 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
3 Aug 2010, 11:51 (Ref:2738708) | #38 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
Well, like I said, the pictures seen on TV of the wing should be sufficient to ban the wing. Yet they decide to fiddle around with that 50kg test that is completely bull. Reminds me of that whole Ferrari bodywork incident (dunno which year it was) where they didn't even know what to measure where - or at least pretended so. Sometimes I wonder if they are really this inapt or just trolling the whole world and having a good laugh.
|
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 12:08 (Ref:2738717) | #39 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Why not just have Charlie Whiting standing on the endplate while someone else looks to see what's happening. It's not going to work though, is it. Stories like: "Charlie tests Ferrari wing after heavy lunch with Martin Whitmarsh" would be the norm wouldn't they. |
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 12:40 (Ref:2738745) | #40 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,589
|
|||
|
3 Aug 2010, 12:54 (Ref:2738748) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
His Holiness Sir Ted of Kravitz mentioned that the loads are around 200kg on the front wing - perhaps that's the level they need to be tested at?
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
3 Aug 2010, 13:26 (Ref:2738763) | #42 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 333
|
Quote:
When the wings arent on the car if you sit them on the ground they are below the reference plane. Not being attached to the car is "any circumstance". The rules cant be 100% accurate in every circumstace, thats why they have the 10mm deflection at 50kg rule. If you want to be that specific "under any circumstances", then due to the rotation of the earth, 1kg is a different measuremet closer to the equator than it is at the poles. Hey, i'll even go all out and say does it mention that the 10mm/50kg deflection as to be measured in atmospheric conditions? What if you measured the deflection in water, it would be a lot less. There is nothng in the rules to say it has to be measured in earths atmosphere....... hmmmm. Last edited by manwell; 3 Aug 2010 at 13:54. |
|||
|
3 Aug 2010, 14:03 (Ref:2738783) | #43 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 14:33 (Ref:2738802) | #44 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
So I'm not sure your analogy quite works. Although I think I understand your point, which is that it is impossible to legislate for 'any circumstance' and we should use some common sense. And I'm all for that. The wording is quite clear: Quote:
|
||||
|
3 Aug 2010, 14:40 (Ref:2738804) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
I believe the answer, or part of it anyways, is in the layering of the carbon fiber, so that if the load is in a certain direction the wing can flex, but when it is applied from front to back over the top of the wing, it holds up. In this case, it might be possible for the flexible wings to still pass scrutineering, right?
|
|
|
3 Aug 2010, 14:47 (Ref:2738805) | #46 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 14:53 (Ref:2738808) | #47 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
3 Aug 2010, 15:05 (Ref:2738814) | #48 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
Think about your arm, stretched out. It's located at your shoulder. As you get tired it droops down, but it's still located at your shoulder - the location point hasn't moved The wording of the rule is bad (where have we heard that before). They should say that at no point should any part of the wing move below the plane of reference, even in use. Add that to decent distortion values (50kg is no-where near enough), and the problem goes away. That said, I still say well done to RB for doing this in the first place. I like a bit of proper thinking to get round rules. (First person to mention the phrase 'spirit of the rules' get a raspberry). |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
3 Aug 2010, 16:15 (Ref:2738840) | #49 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,812
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
a salary slave no more... |
6 Aug 2010, 12:01 (Ref:2740340) | #50 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 702
|
http://www.f1complete.com/2010-news/17751?task=view
Interesting article, the bit about Vettels front wing failure in Silverstone is interesting because I remember when Horner was being interview at one point during the weekend and talked about the only other new wing was showing signs of cracking and had to have Newey ok it before the race. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta wing , inverted delta wing | effuno | Racing Technology | 3 | 8 Apr 2007 13:45 |
GP2 Tests | hotwheels | National & International Single Seaters | 2 | 16 Aug 2006 11:47 |
Crack Tests | Mark5000 | Historic Racing Today | 7 | 3 Feb 2006 18:21 |
New rear wing tests from Imola onwards... | Sodemo | Formula One | 1 | 25 Apr 2005 19:40 |
F3 Tests | overflow | National & International Single Seaters | 26 | 19 Oct 2003 21:36 |