Reasons why Red Bull are so fast....

[JamesH]

With regards to the first post and the picture showing the RB wing closer to the track, has anyone considered that although the wing might not flex, the nose cone as a whole could possibly flex. Since the FIA test is done on the wing, not the whole nose cone, that might be one way of achieving what is seen in the picture.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by JamesH

With regards to the first post and the picture showing the RB wing closer to the track, has anyone considered that although the wing might not flex, the nose cone as a whole could possibly flex. Since the FIA test is done on the wing, not the whole nose cone, that might be one way of achieving what is seen in the picture.

Thats certainly what I believe, thought it was the general concensus tbh.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by JamesH

With regards to the first post and the picture showing the RB wing closer to the track, has anyone considered that although the wing might not flex, the nose cone as a whole could possibly flex. Since the FIA test is done on the wing, not the whole nose cone, that might be one way of achieving what is seen in the picture.

Thats certainly what I believe, thought it was the general concensus tbh.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Mr V

...they must be cheating

So, what reasons will the other teams come up with for why red Bull are so fast and surely they must be breaching the rules !!!!

The reason for this thread is the pics i've already seen on Twitter pointing out how low the Red Bull front wing is in comparison to the McLaren ....

I think the reason is Adrian Newey !

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Bononi

I think the reason is Adrian Newey !

Agreed! Every team moans about the legality of his designs, yet they would all employ him in a heart beat!

[E.B]

Originally Posted by phoenix

It looks to me in the two pictures above that the Red Bull might be using the drag reduction system while the McLaren is not.

The two cars would therefore have a very different front/rear downforce balance. This is would change the pitch of the Red Bull relative to the McLaren.

Good spot!... I did not click the thumbnails to see thefull size pic and in t/nail form did not notice the variation in the pics, which do clearly show the RBR running with the rear wing open and the McLaren with it closed off.

Just goes to show the difficulties of actually comparing like with like that is essential in making a factually based and meaningful observation on such issues. Much like drawing relevant conclusions from testing or practice times.

[Marbot]

The rules are pretty clear, and on the front wing in particular.

All bodywork is governed by article 3.15, which basically states that everything attached to the car that may influence aerodynamics is not allowed any freedom of movement. If only article 3.15 governed aerodynamics, then no car would be allowed to take part in the Sepang GP, not even the HRTs. Simply because it's not possible to have zero movement in aerodynamic areas currently utilized by an F1 car, at least not from a practical point of view (what would you have to make the wings from in order to have zero movement?).

Therefore, additional regulations have to be drawn up to limit the movement of certain areas of bodywork. article 3.17 provides for this, and rule 3.17.1 is the rule that governs how much a front wing can flex (therefore article 3.15 does not apply, but must be "respected") when a 1000N weight is strategically placed upon it. The Red Bull front wing passes this test, and critically, it also passes this test after the race has ended. Before passing that test the front wing may have done any number of visually interesting things that may have caught the eye. But this matters not. The Red Bull front wing is within the regulations.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Agreed! Every team moans about the legality of his designs, yet they would all employ him in a heart beat!

Either that or make Rory Byrne some kind of offer that could tempt him out of retirement!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Either that or make Rory Byrne some kind of offer that could tempt him out of retirement!

Now thats where I'd go followed by Barnard, Murray and Reynard!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The rules are pretty clear, and on the front wing in particular.

All bodywork is governed by article 3.15, which basically states that everything attached to the car that may influence aerodynamics is not allowed any freedom of movement. If only article 3.15 governed aerodynamics, then no car would be allowed to take part in the Sepang GP, not even the HRTs. Simply because it's not possible to have zero movement in aerodynamic areas currently utilized by an F1 car, at least not from a practical point of view (what would you have to make the wings from in order to have zero movement?).

Therefore, additional regulations have to be drawn up to limit the movement of certain areas of bodywork. article 3.17 provides for this, and rule 3.17.1 is the rule that governs how much a front wing can flex (therefore article 3.15 does not apply, but must be "respected") when a 1000N weight is strategically placed upon it. The Red Bull front wing passes this test, and critically, it also passes this test after the race has ended. Before passing that test the front wing may have done any number of visually interesting things that may have caught the eye. But this matters not. The Red Bull front wing is within the regulations.

What he said. The wing passes, ergo wing is legal. I await with baited breath the phrase 'within the spirit of the regulations'.

[bravo]

Horner says his car is simply pointing more into the ground...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/form...e/12996753.stm

"We run quite a high rake angle in our car. So inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground."

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by JamesH

What he said. The wing passes, ergo wing is legal. I await with baited breath the phrase 'within the spirit of the regulations'.

Exactly James. What's happening is (curretly) immaterial. If the car passes the tests, it is obviously legal (as it complies with the regulations). Rule interpretation is another important skill employed by the designers, examples of which there have been since the dawn of time...

[Mr V]

I think the other teams - McLaren especially - have now got to shut up and try and design something the same, not keep bleating on about it, it's old news now.

[Super Hans]

I remember Red Bull getting very upset about the double diffuser in 2009.

All teams are the same, really.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I remember Red Bull getting very upset about the double diffuser in 2009.

All teams are the same, really.

They did, it went before the FIA, was ruled upon and the other teams then reacted to it.

This (McLaren's moaning) has been going on since last year. The Red Bull has been checked umpteen times, been found legal, what else is there to say?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Mr V

They did, it went before the FIA, was ruled upon and the other teams then reacted to it.

This (McLaren's moaning) has been going on since last year.

One of the Red Bull guys (Horner or Newey) was still moaning about the DDD in Autosport a couple of weeks ago. They're all the same. If they think a rival has got one over on them, they don't like it.

[Peat]

I havent got the regs infront of me, but the height of the front wing in relation to the ground was always been an important factor in aero. If i recall correctly, the minimum height of the FW main plane was raised in about 98 or '00.

I don't have the facts, but i am assuming that Mclaren (& everyone else) are running thiers at the required height. The RBR's certainly 'looks' as if it is running lower than everyone elses. Horner brushes it off by saying 'Yeah, because we run more of a rake than everyone else', but surely then they are required to lift the front wing by 'x' amount to meet the regulated height. They are obviuously passing scrutineering, so..........

There was a theory last year that RBR had some sort of active-ride-height device, maybe its just the same thing? A button/lever is pressed and it changes the pitch of the car when out on track. When returned to the pits, the car levels itself.

Worth a try?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Peat

A button/lever is pressed and it changes the pitch of the car when out on track. When returned to the pits, the car levels itself.

Worth a try?

No need for a button or lever (which would be cheating) when the forces of nature - aero forces - can be used to achieve the same result when running at speed. What I mean is that dynamic rake (when the car is in motion) is not the same as static rake (in the scrutineering bay).

[Peat]

I hadn't seen your post pheonix, but i'd go along with that. Surely it would have to lock in position though for the car to maintain stability?

[broadrun96]

Are they allowed to use adjustable viscosity fluids in the dampers, or would that constitute active suspension? Was just thinking if they could run something that would soften the front to allow the car to have a forward rake on track? Although a couple videos I've seen seem to show a good bit of flew to the nose of Vettel's car on track in Melbourne. It just looked like the wing itself moved in the frame under braking but I only saw them online in not great quality.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Peat

Surely it would have to lock in position though for the car to maintain stability?

What would have to lock into position?

[Peat]

The dampers/suspension, otherwise it might 'lollop' around the place....

But, if the damper resistance was high enough, the loads generated by an F1 car are pretty massive i suppose.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Are they allowed to use adjustable viscosity fluids in the dampers, or would that constitute active suspension?

If they're not then i doubt they actually are for fear of being caught out during scrutineering, if they are then i expect that all teams are running it.

[cmotd]

Originally Posted by JamesH

With regards to the first post and the picture showing the RB wing closer to the track, has anyone considered that although the wing might not flex, the nose cone as a whole could possibly flex. Since the FIA test is done on the wing, not the whole nose cone, that might be one way of achieving what is seen in the picture.

I see you also read Autosport? there was an interesting full-page article about this 2-3 issues back. Apparently RB put a big pile of cash into researching the construction of more-flexible composites 3 years ago, with last years car being the first beneficiary of the technology.

However if it is the entire front nose section that is flexing down, wouldn't that tilt the front wing at an angle downwards ruining the aerodynamic profile?

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I think the other teams - McLaren especially - have now got to shut up and try and design something the same, not keep bleating on about it, it's old news now.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. McLaren just copy the wing!!! Still having said that, the McLaren despite their poor performance in testing, is still a fast car.