F1technical.net

Old Bernie enforcing the rules at pivotal moments to help out his old pal montezemolo....not that I mind

If this story is big surly it would have been posted on
http://www1.skysports.com/formula1/ already?
but its not

Ferrari International Assistance at play once again. Alonso needs to win at all costs.

Is there any indication Ferrari had anything at all to do with this or is it just the usual conspiracy theories that dictate every time anyone cheats in F1 it is naturally Ferrari's fault?

andartop wrote:Is there any indication Ferrari had anything at all to do with this or is it just the usual conspiracy theories that dictate every time anyone cheats in F1 it is naturally Ferrari's fault?

Ferrari haters need no substantiation. The rabid hatred is always there, just looking for the tiniest reason to be unleashed.

But seriously, the best designers are always looking for any loophole that can be exploited for even the tiniest performance gain. Newey is certainly one of the best at "interpreting" the rules. No sour grapes here: Newey is a great designer.

andartop wrote:Is there any indication Ferrari had anything at all to do with this or is it just the usual conspiracy theories that dictate every time anyone cheats in F1 it is naturally Ferrari's fault?

And, if this does contravene a regulation, what on earth could be wrong with reporting it?

Of course designers will want to find a loophole, but they will also be prepared for that to close if and when they are found out.

donskar wrote:But seriously, the best designers are always looking for any loophole that can be exploited for even the tiniest performance gain. Newey is certainly one of the best at "interpreting" the rules. No sour grapes here: Newey is a great designer.

If they change the mandatory neutral area of the front wing it's not a loophole exploited, it's cheating because there is no space for any interpretation of rules.

.poz wrote:

donskar wrote:But seriously, the best designers are always looking for any loophole that can be exploited for even the tiniest performance gain. Newey is certainly one of the best at "interpreting" the rules. No sour grapes here: Newey is a great designer.

If they change the mandatory neutral area of the front wing it's not a loophole exploited, it's cheating because there is no space for any interpretation of rules.

The rules do not mandate that the section is aero-neutral, they define what aerofoil shape (one symmetrical to the x-y-plane) it has to have. This shape has to be mounted parallel to the reference plane, but relative to the ground and the oncoming flow it can have a noticeable inclination and therefore not be aero-neutral.

superdread wrote:

.poz wrote:

donskar wrote:But seriously, the best designers are always looking for any loophole that can be exploited for even the tiniest performance gain. Newey is certainly one of the best at "interpreting" the rules. No sour grapes here: Newey is a great designer.

If they change the mandatory neutral area of the front wing it's not a loophole exploited, it's cheating because there is no space for any interpretation of rules.

The rules do not mandate that the section is aero-neutral, they define what aerofoil shape (one symmetrical to the x-y-plane) it has to have. This shape has to be mounted parallel to the reference plane, but relative to the ground and the oncoming flow it can have a noticeable inclination and therefore not be aero-neutral.

It's not a question of being aero neutral: If the section tilts it is's no more parallel to the reference plane so it's illegal.

.poz wrote: It's not a question of being aero neutral: If the section tilts it is's no more parallel to the reference plane so it's illegal.

And that is the major issue here i believe and how the penalties can, and in my opinion WILL, be different to last years flexi wings.

.poz wrote:It's not a question of being aero neutral: If the section tilts it is no more parallel to the reference plane so it's illegal.

As that only happens on the move, it has to be emulated with load tests and engineers will always find a way around them (or the FIA will waste hours with different load tests every scrutineering).

This is the only technical thing that was written about the new wings in Michael Schmidt's AMuS article:

Bei genauerem Hinschauen ergab sich, dass die beiden Pylonen der Nase das Hauptblatt des Flügels nur noch mit jeweils einer Schraube an der vorderen Kante festhalten. Um diese herum kann sich der gesamte Flügel um die Querachse drehen.

Translation:

At closer observation it transpired that the two wing struts of the nose cone attach the main blade of the wing with only one bolt each. That bolt is located at the forward edge of the wing. The wing can tilt around the pitch axis (defined by that edge).

In my view the main source of flexibility would come from the cantilevered positioning of the fixtures. If you fix the wing only at the leading edge the load will necessarily flatten it and give you less resistance on the straight.

Earlier in the article they also talk about the mechanism that was used in the flexi wings of earlier years:

Der Trick soll in den Karbonstrukturen versteckt gewesen sein, die sich zuerst verdrehen mussten, bevor sie in der Lage waren sich in die gewünschte Richtung zu biegen. Doch das Geheimnis lag offenbar nicht nur in den Flügeln selbst, sondern auch in den Stelzen, an denen die Flügel aufgehängt sind. Als sich abzeichnete, dass es die FIA mit den neuen Belastungstests ernst meinte, mussten einige Teams neue Nasen konstruieren.

Translation:

The cleverness was in the carbon structure which had to experience a torsional deformation before it was in a condition to bend into the desired direction. Apparently the secret was not in the wings alone but also in the struts that carry the wings. When it became obvious that the FiA was serious about new load tests some teams had to design new noses.

If Michael Schmidt is right with this article we will see new load tests pretty soon if not in Suzuka already. Martin Whitmarsh hasn't actually denied that McLaren have a wing following the described design principle. He has only said that their wing is legal compared to the current deflection tests. So one has to observe who will have to change the wing design if the FiA brings a new load test to one of the next races. Typically they do not react to such issues in one or two days. Usually it takes a bit of time to evaluate what is needed to stop the trick designs.

Does the rule not require that the wing is fixed rigidly to the nose?

So if it is working as described, then it would be a movable aero device, and thus illegal.