Buy

BBC link - How fast is the Red Bull

Discussion in 'F1' started by DF1, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. Wolfgang5150

    Wolfgang5150 F1 Rookie

    Oct 31, 2003
    4,702
    Ferraripilot; that's a pretty brillaint assessment, if anything.....
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    #27 Ferraripilot, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011
    This is all down to passing the limited scrutineering which applies a vertical load in a defined location. The RB wing satisfies that very limited test. It's not terribly difficult to design a structure to be stiff under loading in one plane, whilst creating a downward deflection under torsional & eccentric biaxial loading. The carbon fibre must be layered correctly and modeled beforehand to match the concept.


    The real world has eccentric vertical loading plus horizontal wind loading. That results in end plates torsion as well.


    It's amazing we are dealing with the most advanced form of racing in the world yet the load testing is no different than that of what go-karts are subjected to. I suppose it hasn't been as huge an issue until now.


    And thanks for that Kevin!
     
  4. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    What is really striking my fancy lately is IF Red Bull's front nosecone is declared illegal, is the season over for Red Bull due to it being a homologated part? Or will they simply allow RB to manufacture a legal version of the current part....
     
  5. subirg

    subirg F1 Rookie

    Dec 19, 2003
    3,788
    Cheshire
    If this theory is true, then we will be able to see a clear time difference in lap time from either RB driver that needs an in race nose change... We shouldn't have to wait too long for one of those...
     
  6. lmunz22

    lmunz22 Formula 3

    Jan 16, 2007
    1,195
    Is the RB7 in violation of the rules? If he rules say that the wing can only flex a certain amount in a specific test, and they pass,then they are clearly legal under those rules.

    And I disagree with those who say that SV was only marginally faster than LH with his car falling apart. SV was in cruise mode the entire race. Why sprint off into the distance when doing so could result in a DNF or some other problem? You don't have to win by. Mile, just an inch. I think the fact that SV held himself back and controlled the race from his cockpit shows that he has grown and matured since last season.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    #31 Ferraripilot, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011

    RB7 is in violation of the rules in that they clearly have structures which are flexing, the problem is the test which is imposed by the Fia is inadequate in testing this rule as it only applies load to one part of the wing. Clever fibre-weaving and structural modeling can pass the test yet flex all they want in the areas they want flex. Yet the rules clearly state, "no flexing". This means it's not an interpretation of the actual rule that Red Bull is swinging in their favor as the rule is very clear, but rather this is an exploitation of the test itself which is poor in governing such matters.

    Testing the issue is not all that easy, but a wind tunnel could level the issue and make for a more specific test for everyone to adhere to and certainly show RB's flex issue.



    forgot to add the other rule they are in violation of due to this: it's the ground bridge rule (3.15) and the "no aero device under the reference plane" issue
     
  9. lmunz22

    lmunz22 Formula 3

    Jan 16, 2007
    1,195
    The problem with an overly broad rule like "no flexing" is that it is impossible. Every car will flex to some degree.

    The question becomes whether the FIA would do anything about it, or whether they would let RB slide to continue the show, like they did with Brawn.
     
  10. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Yes, everyone's wing flexes a bit, but if it goes below the reference plane (rule 3.15) then the issue becomes real, which RB is clearly going way under.
     
  11. Wolfgang5150

    Wolfgang5150 F1 Rookie

    Oct 31, 2003
    4,702
    The rb7 has passed every fia test. If newey has found a loophole; and it appears he has; then the fia needs to rule on this. Just like Hamilton has asked for....
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. classic308

    classic308 F1 Veteran

    Jan 9, 2004
    6,072
    Westchester, NY
    Full Name:
    Paul
    +1
     
  14. GordonC

    GordonC F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Aug 28, 2005
    3,892
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    Full Name:
    Gordon
    This is the trick - the RB7 is clearly in violation of the rules against moveable bodywork - you can see from the pictures that the wing/nose is flexing. BUT - the tests, designed to enforce the rules, aren't failing the RB front wing yet. The rules don't say the wing can only flex a certain amount in a specific test - the wings say that all bodywork and aerodynamic components must be rigidly mounted. The tests specify the allowed limits of flex, recognizing material properties...

    Note - the load tests are NOT the rules. If the tests are not designed well enough, then there will be loopholes, or the engineers will come up with new ways to "bend" the rules by passing the specific tests. The FIA can't change the rules mid-season except in exceptional circumstances - but they CAN, and do, change the tests designed to enforce the rules.

    If something like the Red Bull front wing is flexing but passes the tests, that doesn't mean it is legal - it means that the current load tests are not adequate for the particular loophole being exploited. Obviously, if the wing passes scrutineering at a particular race weekend, then it can't be retroactively excluded by a different test. See Australia 2007 and the Ferrari hinged floor - the floor was never legal - a HINGE on a rigid component? :rolleyes:, but it passed the test. As soon as the FIA changed the test - note, the didn't change the rule - Ferrari never presented their hinged floor for scrutineering again)

    There are material properties that the FIA recognizes prohibit complete rigidity, that's why there are tests for allowable limits, but they also know the teams love to exploit that allowance that the TESTS give (not the rules).

    However - the FIA never allowed Brawn to slide, if you're referring to the double diffuser. Official protests were filed against Brawn, Williams, and Toyota, and the FIA hearing ruled that the double diffuser was legal. The issue was never ignored.

    The FIA has not, and would not, rule that a bendy nose is legal - they just haven't figured out a wing test that includes the nose and wing mounted on the car. That's probably what has to be done, since obviously the RB's wing itself can pass the tests in the standard FIA test rig.
     
  15. ELP_JC

    ELP_JC Formula 3

    Dec 13, 2008
    1,264
    It's all about numbers. The rules have to have some kind of enforcement, and as long as the flexing is within specs, it's legal. As somebody said, anything will flex with the right amount of force/weight.

    Hey, heard Ferrari tried to snatch Newey, but he refused and signed with RB again. That'd have been interesting. By the way, how much is this guy making? Seems to be the most sought after guy; more than drivers.
    I also wonder if Vettel wanted to ride for Ferrari if they'd sign him in over Alonso :).
     
  16. Craigy

    Craigy Formula 3

    Mar 19, 2006
    1,655
    Louisiana
    Full Name:
    Craigy
    Well the way the rules are written, it's illegal. It's the test that's flawed.

    It'd be like using car color to determine if you're speeding or not. If you drive a silver car doing 100, the officer won't pull you over, but it's still illegal.
     
  17. 4re Nut

    4re Nut F1 World Champ

    Mar 27, 2004
    15,004
    N of NOLA
    Full Name:
    Steve
    #39 4re Nut, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  18. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man

    Simply put, it's the structural engineering of the right mix of fibre wearing to achieve desired flex in some areas and no flex in other areas. I can't imagine the countless front wings and noses RB cranked out and experimented with to get the thickness and weave pattern correct. Modeling only does so much.

    The massive amount of rake and negative camber RB is allowed to run with this much front wing downforce is astonishing. Their diffuser is very clearly higher than anyone else.

    I really hope the Fia gets on top of this. It's just stupid obvious.
     
  19. 4re Nut

    4re Nut F1 World Champ

    Mar 27, 2004
    15,004
    N of NOLA
    Full Name:
    Steve
    meant "weaving", correct?

    Is this something that can be tested only on-track or are there other ways to replicate the load on the nose? Just wondering how this plays into the reduced track test time.

    Speak for yourself! :D
     
  20. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Right, weaving.

    It's not something that needs to be track tested to have a good understanding, but a more complete understanding of it certainly warrants track use. Wind tunnel testing is good but never complete.

    Seeing as how quickly the Fia came down on Sauber, this strikes me as odd that they have not dug deeper into what RB is up to.
     
  21. njn63

    njn63 Rookie

    Nov 17, 2005
    28
    Chicago, IL
    This. Might as well institute a "no breathing" rule while they're at it.

    Newey is a master of exploiting loopholes in scrutineering tests.
     
  22. mrbucket2

    mrbucket2 Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2006
    1,106
    Bergen County
    Full Name:
    Michael
    Sauber had a car that failed one of their tests, RedBull has cars that pass their tests.
     
  23. shellb3

    shellb3 Rookie

    Jun 23, 2004
    11
    Erie, CO
    Full Name:
    Brett
    I believe that the fundamental issue is that the "test" isn't comprehensive enough to enforce the rule.
     
  24. Mr Payne

    Mr Payne F1 Rookie

    Jan 8, 2004
    2,870
    Bakersfield, CA
    Full Name:
    Payne
    The reference plane rule is clearly in violation, what do they define as aerodynamic device though? Seems like anything with mass/volume is an aerodynamic device (ie: tires, plank, etc).
     
  25. kraftwerk

    kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

    May 12, 2007
    26,765
    England North West
    Full Name:
    Steve
  26. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Boy, Helmut Marko believes they're the bloody ginger bread man with their front wing. Teams need to take a more proactive approach to what is visibly noticable during racing and address the issue as such to the Fia and Red Bull, because they know good and well they are exploiting the test.
     
  27. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    20,645
    BaWü
    Pulled from PlanetF1.com

    "Red Bulls running light without Kers? Aren't all the cars meant to be the same weight?" - richjohnhughes.

    PG: As replied by Domformula1: 'They are all a minimum weight once ballast is added, but if you're heavier to begin with, you lose advantage because you can't use as much ballast. Placing ballast where you want it helps the car's handling so to not use it puts you at a disadvantage, therefore if Red Bull need to install KERS next time out, their car may be less dialled in on the handling front'.

    However, according to Supercas, we're both wrong:

    'The ballast can't be moved anywhere near as much as it used to be, the weight of the KERS system or the equivalent ballast will be placed in the same position, it's supposed to encourage teams to use KERS instead of like 2009 where Brawn/Red Bull preferred to have better weight distribution over the extra KERS boost. So in effect Red Bull had the same weight and distribution as the other teams minus the power boost, which is worrying.'
     

Share This Page