F1technical.net

this photo shows (IMHO) what amount of rake Ferrari runs (in Hungary), quite nicely.
It also shows that the front of the plank (the splitter or t-tray) is very close to or touching the ground.

http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/defaul ... 10_186.jpg

some reference to the FIA reference plane and the position of the wing.



in this photo you can see that the RB6 is touching the ground with the front of the splitter/plank (IMO). Which is not unusual or forbidden. I think, some things need to be seen in perspective. At what time and under which conditions do the "spy-photos" show the FW centre section heigth? It´s not like they run the whole race in this position.
Maybe RBR are also/just playing the margins in terms of allowed plank wear, or have found a way (legal or illegal?) to make their plank wear less.

http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/defaul ... 020*WS.jpg

myurr wrote:

djos wrote:

gareth25 wrote:Now sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but would it be possible for teams to develop a system that could "relax" the wing to bow, and tense to straighten, kind of like a pull string?
I was thinking that, in theory, the system could be a manual "push button" affair as an automatic kit might counted as active aero control and so illegal.

Like you said active aero is illegal and no Team would be stupid enuf to try it!

Flexible aero is illegal and no team would be stupid enough to try it!
Team orders....
Asking one of your drivers to crash....

etc.

Bending the rules slightly (pun intended) is a far cry from breaking them outright!

the 75or 72mm (how do you measure that from a pic?) seem to be entirely explainable by rake and tolerances i can imagine.How much bow ,err, tolerance is allowed for the reference plane ..you can surely optimise the shape to allow for running it closer to the ground by tweaking tolerances to the extreme...

Ah finaly someone manages to bring hig resolution pictures of the cars.
Thanks 747.
Now we can see that the wing tips are droping. The weak spot must be in the area where the tips meet the middle section.
Of course the teams help with rising the rear of the car.
The whole nose is definetly not droping I think we can stop this theory now.

Indeed, but I'm all confused but that dramatic rake, never thought about that really. Can you pass scrutineering like that, or would it be possible that this is created dynamically by simply moving the car forward? Can't get my head around it.

What's happening in those pictures? xpensive to me, it looks like the cars are under braking, I can see a styrofoam board in the picture of Webber, usually there in or approaching braking zones.

As I have understood this issue, is that the FIA are changing the felxing tests, and increasing the load on the wing to see if it flexes in a linear fashion, under increasing load. I'm quite sure its possible to lay up carbon sheets, to achieve non-linear deflection with increasing load. At a guess, this might be what Red Bull is achieving.

On the other hand, I could be wrong.

djos wrote:

myurr wrote:

djos wrote:Like you said active aero is illegal and no Team would be stupid enuf to try it!

Flexible aero is illegal and no team would be stupid enough to try it!
Team orders....
Asking one of your drivers to crash....

etc.

Bending the rules slightly (pun intended) is a far cry from breaking them outright!

Not following you - all three examples I gave are, rightly or wrongly, black and white against the rules. Same with active aero.

The teams are clearly willing to out and out cheat and break the rules when it suits them, why do you suspect they wouldn't do that with active aero if they think they'll get away with it?

High rake is nothing special for those cars because the flat floor creates an expanding cross are with the ground by this and therefore you get a diffusor effect.

Even when the car is under braking (I doubt it) it will not dive so much.
The weight shift under braking doesn't create any significant force increase on the front compared to the downforce.

myurr wrote:

djos wrote: Bending the rules slightly (pun intended) is a far cry from breaking them outright!

Not following you - all three examples I gave are, rightly or wrongly, black and white against the rules. Same with active aero.

The teams are clearly willing to out and out cheat and break the rules when it suits them, why do you suspect they wouldn't do that with active aero if they think they'll get away with it?

Nope, they arent breaking the rules, they are bending them(what an great word choise with the flexible wings ), you are breaking the rules when you get busted when you bend the rules too must, lots of difference in such a thing.

Also with the bendable floor, it was also an point in 2007, where teams claimed ferraris floor bending. What iic the idea was was that under speeds the floor would be raised, keeping the ride height the same but causes less drag under the floor. If this is the case it would explain why red bull can run that low(afterall the plank is less close to the ground when bent on the straight, also with increased loads.

Please don't be disgusted at me: i did something similar (with little aerodynamic effect, btw, but very low ride) when competing in formula renault 2000; Just by cutting a little the sides of the splitter behind the nose;then my pilot jumped on the kerb and broke it, and after that the front plank was well bendable! We always got away with it, but don't call me cheater, just an innocent joke to the clerks of the course...and by lowering then the car i really cut off some understeer in the slow-medium turns...eheheheh.

If you do something that the rules forbid, either directly or indirectly, and you gain a benefit from it (whether at someone elses expense or not) then you are cheating.

There is no way to dress it up as being anything other than cheating.

The flexible wings are a cheat because they are against the rules and a benefit accrues. The thing for the FIA is to demonstrate that cheating has occured. Until then, RB (and others) are "getting away with cheating".

Double diffusers and the f-duct were both 'cheating' until the FIA ruled them to be acceptable interpretations of the rules. If the FIA likewise accepts flexible wings as an acceptable interpretation then they will cease to be a 'cheat'. The fact that they have amended the test procedure in order to try to prevent excess flexibility in the wings suggests that the FIA also consider the flexible wing to be a 'cheat'.

well, a teacher from me said; 'You are allowed to cheat, unless you get busted with it.' and that is exactly what the teams are doing, they just know that the FIA test dont even come close to being enough of the test, so the teams are playing into those rules.

Sorry about the pictures guys.
I don´t know what is the problem, maybe a copyright issue.
I have the same problem on the RB6 tread. First the photo´s show o.k., but after a while they disapear. I have changed my post, and show the URL/link where you can find them now - sorry for the inconvinience.

Here are some links to photos showing the Ferrari splitter/t-tray close up.

http://twitpic.com/2btgkp/full

(IMHO very funny, if you look closely infront of the splitter on the ground is a label saying Ölflex )

some photos of the Red Bull wing, floor and rear suspension/blown diffusor area

http://twitpic.com/2c2blj/full

http://twitpic.com/2bhg1x/full

http://twitpic.com/2bb4cy/full

http://twitpic.com/2b6va3/full

The third photo of the Red Bull shows quite a noticable drop in thickness of the main plane as soon as the regulated central section ends : the drop in lateral and torsional strength that occurs around this area must have a significant affect on the asmount of flex offered across the wing assembly.