Redbull's Flexi-nose

This was after Vettel hit the foam block and broke it, its a non story in my opinion.

 

the way the nose flexes it allows the wing to change its degree. I am sure it makes a difference, but not sure its ilegal

 

Watch the second gif, it's Webber, no damage. This technology was developed one or two years ago (something to do with the layering of the carbon fiber with different properties in different directions, someone might have a better explanation) and it caused a tightening of the rules (load tests and so on), but that doesn't mean the technology was abandoned. As long as the nose passes all tests, it doesn't matter how it behaves. Is it a movable aero device? I don't know.

 

The same was true of Ferrari's "Flexi-floor", and yet to this day people still describe it as being illegal!
(Even though Ferrari's floor never once failed an official FIA test! When the test was beefed up, Ferrari beefed up the springs holding the floor in place, ensuring that it would pass the new test).

The FIA have tried to tighten up the load testing of the front wing to limit this type of rotational movement, but there's only so much they can do with static tests.

 

I'm pretty sure my 458 has kinda the same feature with the wings in front of the air intake in front of the nose. Flexible aero has been a fun tool in the f1 tool chest for a while... but rules remain vague.

 

Someone posted this link on the F1technical forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PLmyUupSmsr6nlL2kGMYWYhWVSheGjWBoy&v=C5UrnIa8d4k#t=418s

Watch from minute 7 on and see the camera mounted to the RBR nose in the backwards direction.

Find a fixed point on the car, e.g. camera on the airbox and place the mouse there. With that self made reference it appears that indeed the entire nose must be flexing remarkably

 

The nose is made of D3O... http://www.d3o.com/partner/how-d3o-works/ http://www.d3o.com/about/D3O-tv/

 

All of the wings flex to one degree or another, if they were totally rigid then they would most likely start cracking and fracturing, which could result in a catastrophic failure at high speed.

The current issue with the Red Bull wing is less to do with it's direct, vertical flexing though, and more to do with it's rotational flexing (which allows the wing to tilt). The vertical flexing is very easy for the FIA to test (and the Red Bull wing passes the test with no problem), but rotational flexing is far more difficult to test.

 

I hear what you are saying. But this topic is not about the flexing or rolling wings it is about a possibly flexing nose. Hence I posted the video where you have the perspective from the camera mounted to the nose and you see relative movement to the rest of the car.

 

So you're the one person on the planet who still believes that Ferrari wasn't cheating with that floor?

It was a blatant cheat, designed so that the FIA wouldn't know it was sprung - the fact that it had springs at all was a cheat, as the FIA rules specified that the floor was to be rigidly mounted. Sure, the FIA didn't have a test in place to catch that sort of cheat, but they quickly amended the tests to catch the cheat (Ferrari - and BMW, and Honda or Toyota) didn't fit stiffer springs, since the amended test was to remove any and all springs in the mounting and see if the floor moved... Ferrari never presented that flexi hinged floor to the amended test, so it never failed, but it never passed the test designed to ensure the floor was rigidly mounted either (and would not have). The FIA did Ferrari a huge favour by not disqualifying them from the Australia win, on the condition that they didn't try to race the hinged floor again.

How about we don't pretend that Ferrari is the only team which doesn't push the rules to the limits and try to find loopholes?

 

So you agree that the Ferrari never failed an official FIA test at any time?
You agree that the Ferrari was never declared illegal by the FIA?
And you agree that Ferrari were never disqualified at any time due to their floor?

So how can it be that Ferrari cheated? - they met the criteria for the movement on the floor as set by the FIA!

The FIA could not disqualify Ferrari in Australia, not because they were doing Ferrari a favour, but because at that race, their own rules had not been broken! The fact that the official FIA rules weren't strict enough was the FIA's problem, Ferrari met the required standard to race.

In case you've forgotten, the official FIA technical regulations stated that any part of the bodywork must not deflect more than 5mm vertically when a 500 Newton load is applied upwards, this includes the floor.

Ferrari's floor was within this tolerance!

The FIA had not decreed that springs could not be used to mount the floor, otherwise, how did Ferrari pass scrutineering when it started using the springs at the end of the 2006 season?

Once the FIA changed the wording of how the floor could be mounted and raised the load for testing the floor, Ferrari ensured it's floor could easily pass the new test.

In order to be legal to race, every car must pass scrutineering, it's this simple:

Pass scrutineering = car legal!
Fail scrutineering = car illegal!

The Ferrari in 2007 and the Red Bull today, both passed scrutineering so are therefore legal.

If the cars are/were illegal, why are/were they still allowed to race?

You seem to be confusing (to a rather obsessive level!), the use of clever engineering solutions and finding loopholes in the regulations, as cheating! - but if it's cheating then you get disqualified, and so far, neither cars mentioned has ever been disqualified!

The FIA may close the loopholes later on, but that doesn't mean that the new rules apply retrospectively! So long as you pass the test required at the time then you're legal to race!

 

You seem to be confusing the regulations, and the tests designed (sometimes inadequately) to confirm compliance with the regulations. Passing a particular test does not mean that the rule is being complied with, if a team has figured out a clever loophole.

The scrutineering test does not equal the regulation. A change to the test does not equal a change in the regulation.

With the floor - the FIA did not change the rule regarding rigid mounting of the floor - all they changed was the test to eliminate the loophole used by Ferrari, BMW, and Toyota or Honda. IF one of those teams had presented their Australia cars for the new test for the unchanged rule, the car would have failed. The rule did not change. So sure, the Ferrari was legal in Australia because the test did not catch the cheat, but please let's not pretend that the floor was mounted rigidly as required by the regulation.

The sprung, hinged floor is not even in the same category of rule bending as Red Bull's flexi front wings - it was way beyond, more like Benetton's illegal traction control in 1994. You can not ever convince an engineer that a spring is rigid, and the regulation clearly stated that the floor must be rigidly mounted.

 

The question is: if the wings are supposed to not flex, and everybody is seeing that they´re flexing, why they don´t change the test ASAP to close the loophole?

 

It depends on your definition of "rigid"...

 

That was the issue a year or two ago, and the FIA did try several revisions to the front wing load test. They made it tougher again over the winter, and now there are no apparent issues with the front wings flexing anymore.

But - in this case, it's not the wing that is flexing, it's the nose and mounting, and so far the FIA does not have any test designed to determine how much it's flexing or to specify flex limits for this particular movement. Even if they do come up with a new test, they need a test rig that can accomodate all the cars, and they need to give the teams time to test their cars with the new rig and test before a race weekend so that they can ensure they will pass scrutineering.

It's not an easy fix in this case.

 

If a team has found a loophole in the regulations, then what they are doing is not cheating, they have simply outsmarted the FIA.

The Stewards/Scrutineers at every race inspect the cars and declares them either legal to race or illegal, based on their interpretations of the regulations.

Take for example McLaren's 2nd brake pedal. Charlie Whiting had declared that he believed the system to be legal - but added that his word was not the Law on the subject, merely an informed opinion. He warned McLaren that if the Stewards/Scrutineers at a race decided the system was not legal then they would not be able to use it. Low and behold, once the system became public knowledge, the Stewards at the next race declared it illegal and refused to allow it to be raced. After this the FIA confirmed that the system was illegal because it's primary function was to steer the car (based on the fact that the primary braking system was already in place operating on all four wheels).

The Stewards had declared that Ferrari's floor met it's legal requirement in order to race!

As others have said, how rigid is rigid?
The FIA did not specify how the floor must be mounted "rigidly", they did not specify that spring clips could not be used, and allowed a flexibility of 5mm vertical movement. If it had to be rigid then surely there should be no movement at all? If it moves then it's not rigid, therefore anybodies car who's floor could move at all must have been cheating regardless of mounting system.

Definition of rigid (from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rigid ):

1. Not flexible or pliant; stiff.
2. Not moving; fixed.
3. Marked by a lack of flexibility; rigorous and exacting

This means that the FIA's own regulation argues against itself: rigid with 5mm movement allowed!

Also, if the rule on mounting the floor did not need to be changed, why did they have to increase the load placed on the floor for the test? Once it was specified that spring clips could not be used then there should have been no need to increase the floor load for the test!

So racing a legal car is cheating? - curious logic there!

I can't say I see the difference between Ferrari's floor and Red Bulls wing. Both have been designed to allow a pre-set amount of movement and still pass the FIA tests to be legal to race.

Again, rigid but with an allowed movement of 5mm - that's a contradiction in terms!



Tell you what, I'll simplify this so that I can then agree with your cheating theory:

1) Show Me an official FIA notification of Ferrari's failure to comply with the regulations at any time in 2007.
2) Show Me the official FIA declaration that Ferrari raced an illegal car in the 2007 Australian Grand Prix.
3) Show Me Ferrari's official disqualification from any race due to running an illegal car.

Basically, if you can show Me where the FIA officially declared that Ferrari cheated then I'll agree with you!

However, failure to provide this information would have to be taken that the FIA agree with My theory that Ferrari didn't cheat, they were just very clever at finding a loophole in the regulations and then engineering a suitable solution to apply their mechanism.
This is why teams pay top Engineers a lot of money, to find the loopholes and then exploit them! (just as Brawn GP did in 2009!).

 

Thanks.

When the question of what is is can be parsed everything is open to debate.

 

I think everyone is ignoring the "in the spirit of the rules" bit that stopped things like certain wheels etc.

My personal opinion? Exploit every loop hole you can! Good for RedBull's wings and Ferrari's old floor!

 

Here's another analogy or two that might help you understand the distinction between the regulations and the tests - Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. Was he cheating when he won his 7 TdF titles? He never failed a scrutineering test!

The 1994 Benetton never failed a scrutineering test. Was it a legal car, even though it ran the banned traction control system all year?

"Racing a legal car" is not the same as "racing a car that passes the scrutineering tests", if the scrutineering tests don't catch the cheat designed to circumvent the tests.

Maybe you're a lawyer, and circumventing the tests and not getting caught is good enough for you...

like I said before, let's not pretend that Ferrari is the only team that doesn't bend the rules as much as possible.

 

Also the sanctioning body must declare it to be illegal for it to be so.

As an extreme example If a car showed up with a supercharger and the scrutineers didnt call it illegal; then its legal.


Its not called
Ferrari
International
Assistance
for nothing.

 

I´ve heard that story about traction control in the Benetton many times before. How did that work?

 

The rules should be flexible. The nose not.

 

As you've brought Lance Armstrong into this:

As I see it, if he passed the tests at the time then yes, he won all 7 TdF titles.

Accusations have been made against Armstrong based on more modern drug test results and witness evidence that comes from disgruntled domestique riders (too many of which seem to have conveniently sold their stories to the press, declaring how horrified they are by what allegedly went on - and yet they weren't too horrified at the time were they?).

Where's the actual physical evidence?


How many other riders from that period have come in for the same amount of investigation and re-testing? - all? - none?

If Lance Armstrong did use performance enhancing drugs, he still beat all the other riders using performance enhancing drugs on those 7tours! (Or are you trying to tell Me lance armstrong was the only one?)

As it stands, he's been declared guilty, not based on iron proof evidence, but because he's finally fed up of having to keep defending himself. He doesn't argue it any more so he's guilty (Chinese water torture works in a similar manner!).

Just for you, here's a nice picture of Lance chilling out!: http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/files/2012/11/armstrong-tweets-yellow-jerseys-tour-france-twitter.jpg

As it stands, I'll have to wait for 10 years to find out if Bradley Wiggins really did win the Tour de France now!

1) Show Me the official FIA disqualification of the Benneton team for using an illegal car in 1994.
2) Show Me the official FIA evidence that Benetton used the traction control system that was on the car.
3) Show Me the official 1994 FIA regulation that stipulated that cars could not have a traction control system on the car.

(I'll help you out here, the wording used by the FIA was that the cars could not use a traction control system. They did not specifically state that traction control systems could not be fitted to the cars [in the same way that they did not state that floors could not be mounted using spring clips ] ).

The FIA could prove that the TC system was on the car (breaking no FIA regulation at that time), but could not prove it had been (illegally) used,(despite suspicions of other teams/drivers). Unlike the cycling World, without iron proof supporting evidence, you cannot be found guilty on suspicion alone!

Ferrari have had their own Traction control controversy in the past when teams complained about their car using traction control. The wording from the FIA was that a traction control device was deemed by them as being one that reacts to detected wheel-spin to regain traction.
Ferrari proved that there system did to react to wheel-spin, but actually pre-empted it, operating a split second before wheel-spin commenced to maintain maximum traction.

Was that cheating or just very clever engineering and making use of a loophole (that was closed the following season).

At the French GP at Magny Cours the one year, Ferrari were accused of using traction control on Schumacher's in the last corner of the circuit, which they denied. People had noticed that Schumacher's car sounded odd as it went through the 90° right hander.
When asked for an explanation, Schumacher stated that there was no traction control in use on the car, he had simply realised that the fastest you could go through the last turn was the same speed as the pit-lane limiter was set to, so he was using the pit-lane limiter as a traction control device (totally legally!). Was this cheating or was it a clever loophole being used? (The use of pit-lane limiter on track was eventually banned, but Magny Cours was the only circuit where it could be done properly anyway).

But to race a legal car you have to pass scrutineering!, and if the Scrutineers declare your car legal to race, and the FIA do not say otherwise at any time, then you have raced legally and not cheated.

This was the case for Benetton in 1994 and it was the case for Ferrari in 2007.

As for lawyers, if there's a due process and it's not followed correctly, who's fault is that? - the suspects? - I think not! (and the Law agrees with Me on that one!). Dot the i's and cross the t's, do things the correct way, cover all the options and there would be less problems!

And as I have previously posted, all the teams pay a fortune to clever engineers to find the loopholes in the regulations and ways to exploit these loopholes whilst remaining legal to race.
Exploiting the loopholes has gone on since Motorsport first started, it's not cheating, it's just working the system to the teams advantage.


A bigger problem that I have with Red Bull is that they entered several races this season with holes in their rear floor that led to the rear diffuser, despite there being a rule against it (they tried the old "It's a slot ,not a hole!" excuse but were told that it was a hole and that they could no longer run it [they had to modify their floor accordingly] ).
Should they be disqualified from those race results? - based on My own: "if it passed scrutineering then it was legal!" theory, then no!, they keep those results - so it doesn't always work in My favour! (But that's life for you! )