F1technical.net

n_anirudh wrote:RBR's flexi wing was there since 2008.

In fairness, what's seen on this clip is not so much flexing, but more rotation about the nosecone. This too has been seen on the RB6, but it's not quite the same issue as the flexing issue where the wing bends relative to itself.

I see Scarbs has brought about the floor theory again, but I'm not convinced there was ever much in that really.

During the Singapore FP2 coverage, they showed a shot of a rear facing FOM camera on the nose of the RB6, showing clearly the splitter. I don't know if it was my eyes, but the thing did seem to be moving relative to the underside of the tub.

Does anyone have any footage or stills which could be looked at in more detail?

forty-two wrote:During the Singapore FP2 coverage, they showed a shot of a rear facing FOM camera on the nose of the RB6, showing clearly the splitter. I don't know if it was my eyes, but the thing did seem to be moving relative to the underside of the tub.

Does anyone have any footage or stills which could be looked at in more detail?

hehehe of course its moving.
But wow saw how low Webber was flying at times? sparks in abundance.. and the special light situation also gave a lot insight how quickly attitude and rake are changing on these cars thats not a lot rebound damping ....the rear goes up like an elevator...

segedunum wrote:I see Scarbs has brought about the floor theory again, but I'm not convinced there was ever much in that really.

I think as forty-two just mentioned there may still be somthing in it. I saw it too, its not pronounced, but there is movement. Possible from the effects of the bumps, who knows...Im sure Scarbs is speculating from this onboard shot we saw today.

Well, the new, more stringent FIA wing tests have been implemented. And RBR and Ferrari are still fastest. Is it not possible that RBR actually discovered a legal way to make their car faster and that Ferrari were able to copy it successfully?

My point: let's encourage new ideas and implementations. Just because a car is faster does not mean the team is cheating or that there is a nefarious plot by unknown agents.

Just put this image together. It's from FP2, so admittedly the lighting is poor and the colour of the RB6 makes contours hard to spot.



But not only am I seeing the car move up and down relative to the track (which I would expect), but if you look at the red line, it also appears that the bib is moving relative to the camera. But it seems like the whole car is doing so.

If the whole car is moving relative to the camera, then the only explanation I can come up with is that the part onto which the camera is mounted is moving relative to the car. In other words the wing pylons are bending.

What do you guys think?

Now I can see what the purpose of the still shots was.

forty-two wrote:Just put this image together. It's from FP2, so admittedly the lighting is poor and the colour of the RB6 makes contours hard to spot.




What do you guys think?

definitely the rh side (so left side on pic!) is moving ALOT more than the left side....WHY?
Obviously this is the camera mount on the left side of the car.
So maybe some movement of the camera itself?
What is quite intriguing :the leading edge of the splitter is not even near the ground ...so is this just an optical illusion due to the chamfer towwards the leading edge or is it a factor of the plank installed with a bow or kink further back? so the front 1000mm are closing to the track in parallel?

I think you might be onto something, Fortytwo, but I am always weary of believing what one sees in a single frame. Remember those ultra slow camera shots, how everything moves around and vibrates like if made of jelly. You take your image one moment, and the wing end plates are touching the ground, you take your shot one tenth of a second later, and they are 3 cm off the ground.
What I mean, you might be seeing the front wing moving relative to the car, or you might be seeing the front wing vibrating relative to the car. The first is of dubious legality, the second is just inevitable.
I know it is a lot of work, but would it be possible to align many frames like you did with those two? Even a time series within a straight, where we can roughly estimate the speed at each point? It is a lot of work.
By the way, are those cameras mounted in the wing plane or in the wing pylons?

forty-two wrote:the part onto which the camera is mounted is moving relative to the car.

Yup, the bib appears to be a constant distance from the rest of the car

richard_leeds wrote:

forty-two wrote:the part onto which the camera is mounted is moving relative to the car.

Yup, the bib appears to be a constant distance from the rest of the car

So maybe my theory of flexing wing mount may have been semi correct.

*deleted*

I suspect that if the RBR engineers are following this thread they are probably laughing their arses off.

That red-line moving up and down a few millimeters is probably due to the FOM camera's socket or whatever, possibly the least stiff component of the entire RBR, xcept for what this is all about, a front wing with un-isotropic properties, bending down and twisting backwards with increasing downforce and horizontal drag.

Even Ross Brawn seems to have grasped the concept by now, not yet the x-Brabham spannerman however.

747heavy wrote:another gif of the RB floor stay

In the other gif it looks like that bib is not moving relative to the rest of the car, but in this gif it very clearly is. Do you know at what stage of the weekend this image was taken? I know the other one was from one of the Friday practice sessions. Could be they've since dropped the ride height.