F1technical.net

If you guys remember the double diffuser had holes and lines that were endless. At least with the Red Bull wing we are only talking about it being floppy.

malcolm wrote:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts
solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

Wrong, and I bolded the part that I am referring to. You'd have to be delusional (or blind) to think that the wing is not moving considerably relative to the sprung part of the car (i.e. the chassis).

What the wing is moving!?
Really?
I never saw this. Honestly.
Flexing yes, but moving no.
A moving wing would look very funny.

HampusA wrote: Horizontal angles is the same even if you were to take the picture in 90 degrees tilted.

Two horizontal edges can never change if they are alligned with two other horizontal edges from another picture of the same car at approx the same angle.

They are always parallel unless of course, something is flexing..

Yes, but depending on how far to the right or left of the camera the car was, it could distort the nose. Make is seem thicker as well as make that little antenna seem thicker as well.

I dont believe the nose flexes, but you are free to disagree.

ecapox wrote:

HampusA wrote: Horizontal angles is the same even if you were to take the picture in 90 degrees tilted.

Two horizontal edges can never change if they are alligned with two other horizontal edges from another picture of the same car at approx the same angle.

They are always parallel unless of course, something is flexing..

Yes, but depending on how far to the right or left of the camera the car was, it could distort the nose. Make is seem thicker as well as make that little antenna seem thicker as well.

I dont believe the nose flexes, but you are free to disagree.

I'm not convinced that affine transforms on the camera position could produce the distortion we're seeing there (it's a non-linear distortion, it affects different bits of the nose/wing differently).

I am convinced that the wing flexes (as does McLaren's, as does HRT's, as does Merc's, as did Ferrari's).

I'm not convinced that the FIA thinks a bit of flexibility in your car is too much of a bad thing .

As far as I'm concerned *I* would find it illegal, but the FIA don't. Given that we know very well what the FIA think, it's not really worth discussing. There must be other interesting aspects of the RB7, lets discuss them.

ecapox wrote:

HampusA wrote: Horizontal angles is the same even if you were to take the picture in 90 degrees tilted.

Two horizontal edges can never change if they are alligned with two other horizontal edges from another picture of the same car at approx the same angle.

They are always parallel unless of course, something is flexing..

Yes, but depending on how far to the right or left of the camera the car was, it could distort the nose. Make is seem thicker as well as make that little antenna seem thicker as well.

I dont believe the nose flexes, but you are free to disagree.

Belsebob is right, the angles are to close to each other to cause that much distortion. That is clear nose flex.

There is even an onboard Gif where they have drawn a line on one of the sponsors of the nose cone. The sponsor moves..
And that´s from a fixed point of view i.e. onboard cam.

It does flex, it´s just not as noticable. Last year the FW flexed alot, this year they introduced the nose flex and cut down on the FW flex but it´s there.

CHT wrote:Not sure if this been posted before.
Got this from Autosport forum

Yes it has been posted on this forum before and the same discussion was had then too.

Seriously?

If the wing flexes, that means the wing tip is moving relative to the chassis.

That's high-school physics right there.

It's a formula that contains layers of historic quirks and arbitrary rules. All cars meeting the defined foemula are legal.

I agree the flex test is simplistic, but that's how the ingenious engineers find innovation. Long may it continue, as long as the FIA are consistent.

Really moving aerodynamic part is the flap of the RW.
It is not
- rigidly secured to the rest of the bodywork
- immobile at all times

malcolm wrote:Seriously?

If the wing flexes, that means the wing tip is moving relative to the chassis.

That's high-school physics right there.

Seriously? Every object in the universe flexes, that's high school physics too. Even a granite wing would move relative to the chasis.

1) "Could it be that your favorite team is not as proficient with wing design as other teams?"

I made this statement because I don't understand why many of you are making such a big deal about wing flex when the actual participants are not.

2) "The issues are, to be clear: money and time wasted on a useless technology that will not improve the sport". This is the opinion of some, while I and others are just as happy seeing creative and innovative design work at any cost in any area of F1. Whether it improves the "sport" is subjective judgement. In any case either opinion is valid.

3) Semantics have no use in the rule book for the engineer. If the FIA thought it was of value they would have assigned a numeric value to the term "immobile". I would say that they knew it was not enforceable. The rule they have provides a guideline to what they will tolerate in the opinion of the FIA. They are taking aim at the vagueness of 3.15 with rule 3.17. The underling issue is that they are not attempting to assign a numerical value to "immobile".

Maybe the discussion should be what is preventing them from doing so? How would you write the rule AND enforce it?

Brian

Well this looks like different cars to me. Alternative is that it's so fast because the bull is jumping over Renault sign, flexy wing is just a diversion .

hardingfv32 wrote:"Either they remove the rule or they start upping their tests with more load and loads in many different areas of the wing."

Or... they change nothing, continue to do what all the teams and officials are presently agreeable to, and completely disregard your view. Do you find that so hard to accept? Such a travesty of the your opinion of the rules!

Brian

Ok so if i get your point right, to hell with the rulebook it´s not there to do anything, all it is, is a bunch of nice words and some numbers..

Why have a rulebook if you don´t follow the rules?

There is no loophole in the rules in regards to flexible wings, it clearly states that nothing on a F1 car can flex.

Maybe Ferrari should develop an engine with 1.000bhp? It clearly states that they have to use the engines they have now but it´s only the rule book right?

It would be the same as if Mclaren chose to have their DRS active during races on all straights.

Then you say well it´s illegal. Then i say prove it.
Then you say well check the video, then i say no it´s just flexing..

Then FIA will do some tests and come to the conclusion that the rear wing doesn´t flex in testing.

Yet Mclaren deploys it in the race all the time.

Same same..

The rules as written, interpreted, and applied by F1 participants is functioning just fine. Do you see DQ's over this subject?

Based on my OPINION of the word "flex" and that of the FIA, the wings are not flexing. We simply have an different opinion of the word "flex". Is that so hard to accept?

Your interpretation of the rules is not being accepted by the F1 community.

To repeat: How would you write the rule AND enforce it?

Brian