eurocentric wrote:Tozza Mazza wrote:Because it crashed front first.
Mods please, end this.
Seconded.
Members please, report posts using the report button!
eurocentric wrote:Tozza Mazza wrote:Because it crashed front first.
Mods please, end this.
Seconded.

beelsebob wrote:At risk of fanning the flames... Why on earth do you think this is any more than a pair of connectors that are --- by hitting something?
beelsebob wrote:bill shoe wrote:I don't know if the interesting wing angle is the result of design, or some sort of failure/crash.
However, the front wing pictures (and this thread's discussion of them) are clearly significant. Anyone who claims the wing broke in an ordinary accident and there is nothing interesting or significant about its subsequent orientation is asking me to be dim.
At risk of fanning the flames... Why on earth do you think this is any more than a pair of connectors that are --- by hitting something?
Twaddle wrote:To me it seems to suggest that the RB front wing is manufactured roughly how it appears in its 'broken' state and has an internal mechanism that applies torque about the axis of the mandated central section to pull it into its 'normal' state.
Twaddle wrote:beelsebob wrote:At risk of fanning the flames... Why on earth do you think this is any more than a pair of connectors that are --- by hitting something?
For me, it doesn't look like the central section has moved. I also doubt that you could impact the wing in such a way as to bend the connection bolts without breaking the pylons.
bill shoe wrote:beelsebob wrote:bill shoe wrote:I don't know if the interesting wing angle is the result of design, or some sort of failure/crash.
However, the front wing pictures (and this thread's discussion of them) are clearly significant. Anyone who claims the wing broke in an ordinary accident and there is nothing interesting or significant about its subsequent orientation is asking me to be dim.
At risk of fanning the flames... Why on earth do you think this is any more than a pair of connectors that are --- by hitting something?
because as hardingfv32 has (I think) suggested,
1. The center section appears to have little or no angle compared to the main outboard parts, and
2. It seems odd that a broken wing would have such a position. I've seen plenty of broken front wings over the years, including many on late model F1 cars, and they never hang off the ground in that orientation. And they never maintain such a rigid orientation once broken.
I don't know what's going on, but there is something going on. Good for Red Bull.
And no you were not fanning flames by asking.




Crucial_Xtreme wrote:wjpbill wrote:Wisdom wrote:
notice that nice big hole below the front suspension arm ?
I wonder where they are getting the airflow from to feed it and blow the diffuser?
see blue line
bonjon1979 wrote:I'm not sure the red line is right. I've a feeling that they're trying to pull the red line (exhaust flow) through the channel with the blue flow, see how the duct is aimed to pull it over the side of the sidepod for it to be sucked in below and fed through to the diffuser. I'm not sure this will get away with passing the gases mustn't be 'reingested' directive...we'll see though.
TheRMVR wrote:Vettel on autosport.com
"I went off track and broke the front wing and had to come in, and it took quite a while to get back out and just before lunch we suffered a problem with the gearbox so we have to fix it and get back out after lunch."
bhallg2k wrote:The "bridge" is just the most extremely undercut sidepod in F1 history. I think they're cramming all the air they possibly can down the middle in an attempt to force the exhaust to stay outboard.
In a manner of speaking, they're using the air flow over the car to seal off the exhaust so that the exhaust can seal off the air flow under the car.
That's f@^$!# brilliant, if you ask me.
Users browsing this forum: dave34m, gilgen, kwanchepan, MacX, Twitter [Bot], Zava and 21 guests