Buy

BBC link - How fast is the Red Bull

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

  1. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,202
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    When the lawyers take over from the engineers its never good.
     
  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

    I completely agree, but does this issue really need to come down to that? Red Bull's tactics had everyone scratching their collective heads all season last year and now this year, but this year is different as teams/engineers seemingly have more ammunition at their disposal in having their wing tested.

    Perhaps in the minds of the Fia they are mulling the legality issue over regarding what constitutes their right to drastically change testing for a component during the season? Last season they made the testing slightly more difficult but to catch Red Bull's hand in the till a full wind tunnell test would be required, or at the very minimum the FIa could impose the duty on the race stewards to further police how much the horizontal plane of the wing is approaching the ground. I know it sounds subjective, but it's the most simple solution.
     
  4. sportracers

    sportracers Rookie

    Mar 18, 2011
    1
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Full Name:
    Derek
    Clearly Red Bull has an inovative interpetation of the rules but the question is did they bend the rule or break it. At this time FIA seems to think it is bent and seems to be challenging the other teams to be equally innovative.

    That is the challenge in racing be it FIA, SCCA, INDY etc bend but do not break.
     
  5. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Fia not really paying attention to their test which is an exersize in futility. As I tell the feds when I have to pay my taxes each year, "whatever you say boss".


    Charlie Whiting has dismissed fears Red Bull could be breaking F1's rules prohibiting flexible aerodynamic components.

    As was the case in 2010, the dominant team has again been accused of running a car with front wing extremities that bend to the track — so much in Australia that mechanics were constantly repairing damage to the endplate undersides.

    But FIA technical delegate Whiting told Germany's Bild newspaper: "We have found nothing unusual. The car is in order."

    The real issue for Red Bull's rivals is the overall lap time gap witnessed particularly in qualifying, although it is suggested Sebastian Vettel sandbagged en route to Melbourne victory.

    "Between us and Red Bull is a big gap," admitted McLaren's Lewis Hamilton, who finished second at Albert Park.

    Added Mercedes' Norbert Haug: "The last time we saw a car so superior was a long time ago."

    He told Sport Bild: "Even without our problems, we would only have admired Red Bull from afar."
     
  6. Wolfgang5150

    Wolfgang5150 F1 Rookie

    Oct 31, 2003
    4,702
    I saw this on a different forum, pretty interesting

    There was an interesting article back in Autosport mag two weeks ago on the innovations that are coming into F1, and briefly mentioned how 2-3 years ago paddock rumour was that red bull were investing huge somes of money in comxxxxr technology to model how to create variable elasticity carbon fibre (a huge resource commitment) - ie under the relatively low static tests the wing doesnt flex more than neccessary but under the larger force produced from the downforce it flexes a greater amount for a given force.

    Flex doesnt increase linearly with force.

    As the regulation changes last year were imposed (the greater static weight test) they could simply strengthen the wing to comply but it would still flex more than competitors due to the nature of the carbon fibre. Any further regulation changes on weight load will have no affect on the degree of flex they can prodcue, especially if they have developed software to just come up with a different variation that can get them through the regs.

    IMO it is one of the shrewdest innovations as it is pretty much invisible, and will be a dominant factor until the rest of field developes there own models.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,202
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    I didn't mean degreed barristers but those who split hairs and parse facts.

    I have no problem with anyone in F1 who can come up with an advantage that meets the letter of the law. If the FIA can't codify correctly shame on them. If a team sees an advantage that meets the letter (if not the amorphous spirit) of the law why shouldn't they go for it? Can they seriously expect their competitors not to?
    Bully (pun intended) for You RB
     
  9. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Their deflection test for the wings is just bonkers really. I don't know how much people know of it, but what it is in essence is:

    old test: 50kg of weight was placed at an inward location of the wing essentially to the right and left of the nose in which a deflection test was carried out and measured at the endplates. No more than 10mm deflection is allowed.

    new test as of August 2010: 100kg of weight was placed at the same inward location of the wing allowing for no more than 10mm deflection at the end plates.

    The gaping hole in their test: It's not difficult to weave carbon fibre beyond the reference plane for where the Fia places weights to pass the Fia test yet deflect a ton when under load where the Fia isn't checking. The issue is in the Fia placing load in the complete wrong place. Fast corners pull over 200kg of pressure on these wings. There is a much simpler way to test these without a wind tunnel.

    The fix: Place weight at the very edge of the wing on the endplate which will in-turn yield maximum amount of wing deflection at all occasions. In essence they need to simulate the super high speed corners and medium speed corners at the areas of the wing which it is actually deflecting.
     
  10. Craigy

    Craigy Formula 3

    Mar 19, 2006
    1,655
    Louisiana
    Full Name:
    Craigy
    Then you'd be cracking off everyone's expensive endplates :)
     
  11. spaghetti_jet

    spaghetti_jet Formula Junior

    Jan 5, 2005
    646
    Europa
    Full Name:
    Bob
    For the FIA to come up with a test procedure like that makes me wonder if thet werent intending to provoke such a development? Otherwise, why bother testing inboard?
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Craigy

    Craigy Formula 3

    Mar 19, 2006
    1,655
    Louisiana
    Full Name:
    Craigy
    My guess is that an inboard test would be done so as not to risk damaging anyone's wings.

    The outboard part of the wing only has to take the force exerted upon itself. The inboard part of the wing has to sustain the tension placed upon it by itself and whatever pressure is place upon it by the rest of the wing.
     
  14. spaghetti_jet

    spaghetti_jet Formula Junior

    Jan 5, 2005
    646
    Europa
    Full Name:
    Bob
    Yeah, but if it breaks then you've failed the test, have you not? If the requirement were to sustain a load say, of 35Kg 2.5 cm from the inside face of the end plate with max deflection of 'x' mm then the teams would design accordingly. Somehow I don't think RB's wing would break with such a test!!

    If I knew the dimensions of a wing I could work out the load to use myself (t=f.r)

    Something in charlies behaviour makes me wonder if they intentionally left some loopholes (dont get me wrong, I'm not suggesting foul play)
     
  15. subirg

    subirg F1 Rookie

    Dec 19, 2003
    3,796
    Cheshire
    Has anyone actually protested the RB wing? Or is this just a hypothetical conversation about a hypothetical situation, that hypothetically, might not even exist?
     
  16. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    #63 Ferraripilot, Mar 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Great post. I very much agree.


    Without breaking the endplates, a deflection test could be performed with a flat albeit padded surface which meets perpendicularly to the endplates on the top horizontal portion of the endplates verticle plane. This unit could apply equal pressure to either side of the wing by essentially pressing down with X force which simulates say 250kph yielding Y deflection.


    The photo is indicative of just about where inboard the Fia places the test. As you can seem there is no way that area is going to show much deflection no matter the weight.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  17. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    The most recent protest was Hammy directly after the last race when he essentially got down to have a look at the thing. He then advised Whitmarsh that the wing is hitting the ground giving them half a second, and Whitmarsh replied it's more like a full second which they are gaining. I have no doubt something is going on right now, but I of course have zero proof.

    A same sort of stink was made about it last year during the summer and that is when the Fia attempted to crack down by test loading the wing with 100kg rather than 50kg. Well Mr Fia official, the issue is not with where your are placing the load (inboard non-flexy portion of the wing), it's where you're not placing load as the wing is clearly flexing to the point that repairs are having to be made to the bottom of the wing at the track after practice sessions.
     
  18. ELP_JC

    ELP_JC Formula 3

    Dec 13, 2008
    1,264
    Well, it's illegal to evade taxes, but not to avoid them, right? And a loophole is all you need to make it from the former to the latter. It's the same with the IRS, FIA, etc: If you pass a test, then it's legal. And finding those loopholes is what makes accountants, etc. rise above the rest :).

    And those of you with offshore accounts, you're no different than RB: looking for every advantage you can get, without crossing the official 'cheating line' :). Good day.
     
  19. Mr Payne

    Mr Payne F1 Rookie

    Jan 8, 2004
    2,870
    Bakersfield, CA
    Full Name:
    Payne
    It's obvious, so the other teams should do it. Do it til it's banned.
     
  20. kraftwerk

    kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

    May 12, 2007
    26,765
    England North West
    Full Name:
    Steve
    Well the pictures don't lie, so I figure everyone has seen them including the FIA boffins, so considering they clamped down on Sauber over a few millimetres, in which Sauber said it wouldn't have made a difference (and I believe that) they appear to be letting the RB wings fly.

    RB are passing the tests can't argue with that, so they have found a loop-hole around the test, fair enough, I'am sure some teams will have complained thats the first stage, -no joy. So now they will be beavering away at copying the design, I suppose thats what F1 is all about.
     
  21. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,202
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    What the FIA does will show us what they learned from the double diffuser issue. Are they proud to have stood by the letter of the law or looking to avoid another PR mess?
     
  22. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    The diffuser issue was different as it was within the letter of the law, but only the interpretation of the law was in question.

    One technical regulations is in question, while the other is simply a tool to govern the one.

    3.15 Aerodynamic influence
    WIth the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, and specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

    -must comply with the rules relating to bodyword
    -must be rigidly secured to the entirely spring part of the car (rigidly means not having any degree of freedom)
    -must remain immobile in relation to the spring part of the car


    section 3.17 Bodywork Flexibility, is there to govern 3.15. test 3.17.1 is the problem here as it is totally inadequate in holding up 3.15 due to the location where the Fia is testing the wing being far too inboard making the test, not the rule, exploitable.

    the test is as follows:

    Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N laod is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre area of an adapter measuring 300mm x 150mm, the 300mm lenth having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.

    The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.


    the problem:
    795mm from the centre line is inadequate as that part is incredibly stiff and 100% exploitable, which Red Bull are doing regardless of it being in violation of 3.15.
     
  23. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    Charlie is an old fool. 3.17.1 makes a mockery of 3.15. The reason regulation 3.17.8 was put into to play was to stop stuff like this
     
  24. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    20,707
    BaWü
    I had no doubt what your response would be :) A good one of course. This is far from over Id bet.
     
  25. jav

    jav Formula Junior

    Apr 9, 2007
    507
    Massachusetts
    Full Name:
    John
    #73 jav, Mar 31, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2011
    if 3.15 is the governing regulation, I reluctantly agree with Whiting that Redbull is in conformance.

    I don't see where there could be a question unless one were to foucs on the term "Immobile in relation to the spring part of the car". The question then becomes, what is the acceptable (or intended) bounds of "immobile"? I would argue that everyones wing, flexi or not, absolutely has some measurable motion in relation to the spring parts of the car. Since everyone's wing would fail in the absolute definition of "immobile" and since 3.15 does not define the bounds of acceptability- for a team to rely on the FIA's test and tolerance limits is fair game in my view.

    Or is there another regulation at issue?
     
  26. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,267
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    :eek:

    Gotta respectfully disagree there - He may be a lot of things, but an "old fool" he is not!

    As I've said before, he's about the only guy involved that commands the respect of the entire paddock.

    Now, I'll agree it certainly appears that 3.17.8 would allow him to "move the goalposts" in terms of testing the thing, but I'll guarantee that until someone lodges a formal protest he's under no obligation to change anything - The car passes the current load test as prescribed.

    If it's as cut & dry as you're suggesting (and I agree it does seem so!) why hasn't anyone protested? That's what I don't get....

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  27. Ferraripilot

    Ferraripilot F1 World Champ
    Project Master Owner

    May 10, 2006
    16,228
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    It's man
    #75 Ferraripilot, Mar 31, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    There is another regulation which has to do with the reference plane of the car at the front wheel axle to the rear wheel axle which is 85mm. The front wing must be 10mm above this reference plane. And of course 3.15 states there must be no flexibility of which 3.17.1 governs (ineffectively) which is why 3.17.8 was invented in case teams got too clever.

    Article 3.7.1: All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.


    In effect, the wings have to lie within 75 mm and 275 mm above the reference plane. Many people (media) have been quoting the regulations as saying that the wings can lie no more than 85 mm from the ground. I believe this has been worked out as an approximation of the average ride height of the car plus the 75 mm.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     

Share This Page