BBC link - How fast is the Red Bull

Horner giving a little interview today from pitlane:

''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.

''It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in the car is higher, but it is simple mathematics.''

Asked if he was frustrated by the ongoing review of the systems on his cars, Horner said: ''We take it is a compliment to be honest with you.

''I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane, and it complies with the regulations, which is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one, and it complies fully with that.

''McLaren have developed a car that is effectively a different philosophy to ours. So the benefit we see from the front wing is different to the one they would see, and that is the basis behind it fundamentally.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/redbull/8435207/Malaysian-Grand-Prix-2011-Red-Bull-deny-their-front-wing-is-in-breach-of-FIA-guidelines.html?



It's a good and honest article for the questions being asked, but I would love to see his face if someone asked him what would happen if the test perameters were altered to reflect precisely where the flexing is meant to occur on their wing, which would of course throw a big wrench in their plan.

In essence the Fia test means that teams could design a wing when could have an element attached to the endplate which bent/flexed downward with speed albeit a piece not attached to the main wing plane. And under the current 3.17.1 it would be perfectly legal so long as that bendy portion did not touch the testing area. Truly rediculous

 

This front wing issue is inside opponents' heads, especially McL's, that they are going to drive themselves mad...great stuff. Pushing the limits is what F1 is about...

 

And the limits are so proscribed these days.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man gets poked with a stick.

 

http://www.auto.it/edicolaAutosprint/2011/04/

Coverstory in the latest issue of the italian magazine Autosprint, the back of the RB7 lifts up and the front comes down in a bigger rake angle in comparison with the Ferrari.

 

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

 

Yeah but notice the almost paranoia in his comment stating they are not passing a Mclaren test, but they are only passing an Fia test which makes it legal. This fully implies he knows if a more thorough test were implemented they would fail and that Mclaren has possibly been making a bigger issue of the situation behind the scenes.

Rake at the front end DOES NOT Mr Newey and Mr Horner account for 70mm+ deflection. The RB setting up with 10-20mm more rake allows for a greater angle of attack on the front wing but the 85mm reference plane must still be adhered to. This is all posturing by RB until the Fia comes out with a better test.

 

Paranoia or gloating?

IF the FIA institutes a new test.

 

Why should the FIA have to change their test parameters??? That's the biggest joke. Red Bull has designed a car that is 100% legal. End of story. Just like the double diffuser was ruled legal, so is the RB7.
Quit *****ing about the competion and build a faster car than them......

 

I've seen too many innovations stymied in the past to want to see another one shot down.
We proclaim F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport tech yet when someone actually innovates we call foul.

 

Well said. I wonder what the reaction would be if this were Ferrari's car?

 

With apologies to William Carlos Williams. "So much depends on a red ..."

It matters whose ox is gored.

 

The technology has been around for many years. Ferrari used it in the late 90s and then it was regulated. No real innovation here.

This is not rhetorical interpretation of a regulation as the DDD and F-duct were. This is blatant disregard of a rule due to a poor test.

Imagine paying only half your taxes because the scale used to measure the payment is broken. You always have to pay the piper in the long-run.

No, per 3.15 the car is not legal. The current form of bylaw 3.17.1 declares it legal but is defective in upholding 3.15, and another bylaw was written specifically for teams suspect of having bendy units (3.17.8). I have no doubt Mclaren started a S&#tfight after Aust and Horner is terrified that a new and effective test will be put in place just as 3.17.8 calls for doing should any team be suspected of having flexible parts.

Horner specifically stated he does not have to pass a Mclaren test, but rather an Fia test. Oh the drama of him knowing a real test would sink his ship must keep him up at night.

 

Ferrari had a flexible floor in oz 07; kimi won and it was banned the next race due to ron's whining. Mcl whining about the front wing but Whiting has said ok to it so maybe Ferrari is being singled out...

 

While everyone is obsessing over the front wing RB has stolen a march at the rear with their continually blown (has to be a better way to say that) diffuser.

 

:lol: yeah, that's the only reason. The presence of a hinge on a supposedly rigid component had nothing to do with it! It wasn't Ron who wrote the rules; that floor was illegal before it left the autoclave. The FIA changed the tests (never changed the rule) to account for hinged floors ("remove the spring mountings"!!!), and Ferrari never dared present that illegal floor for scrutineering again.

 

You are right, and that was the beginning of spy gate....

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/09042011/66/ferrari-working-flexible-wing.html

 

As it should be.

 

Yes as long as the FIA don't ban them or change the test (again) when boats loads of £££££££ has been spent.

 

Never happen. (again)

 

LOL Well there is one reason it may not, Todt at least has got half a brain, unlike the cretin he replaced..

 

To stop the spread of misinformation:

1. Yes, Webber was given Vettel's old chassis at Silverstone last year. However, this was after Mark decided to try and see if. He could do a backflip In the car during the European Grand Prix. Since the team did not have a spare chassis, they had to repair the damaged Vettel chassis and have Mark race that until a new chassis could be procured.

2. Vetted did not "eff up" his wing, a mounting bracket broke, causing the wing to fall off during practice. Since the was only one remaining new wing, Horner made the executive decision (taking into account not only that Vettel was ahead in the championship, but also that his times for the weekend were faster) to swap the driver's front wings.