F1technical.net

Cut it which ever way you like, the wing has passed all load tests and is legal.

The teams are all developing their own versions - it'll be interesting to see how this thread develops once Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren et al have their own flexing front wings.

HampusA wrote:How about you find a pic of gravity?

Here you go. Now, how about you provide some pictures then.

Looks like it´s touching the ground here,

But obviously the nay sayers would want me to fly to Australia, analyse the ground for paint or carbon, break into RBR headquartes, scrape of some paint and carbon, run to a specialist, do some tests, confirm that the carbon actually came from RBR´s front wing... GIVE ME A BREAK.

2cm... In lala land it´s 2cm, in the real world it´s close to 5.

Wing is designed to bridge the gap to the ground and thus making it efficient.
The bullshit about Rake that Horner say is disproven by watching a stationary pic of the car since the rake could only get less in higher speeds.

HampusA wrote:But obviously the nay sayers would want me to fly to Australia, analyse the ground for paint or carbon, break into RBR headquartes, scrape of some paint and carbon, run to a specialist, do some tests, confirm that the carbon actually came from RBR´s front wing... GIVE ME A BREAK.

Well if it confirms your theory off you go. We await your return!

andrew wrote:Cut it which ever way you like, the wing has passed all load tests and is legal.

The teams are all developing their own versions - it'll be interesting to see how this thread develops once Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren et al have their own flexing front wings.

HampusA wrote:How about you find a pic of gravity?

Here you go. Now, how about you provide some pictures then.

*Posted pictures that doesn´t show anything,
1 false image (how about i PS a RBR wing going under the ground aswell? fair game then?

1 pic of a cat, where´s the gravity? it´s just a cat laying down.
1. pic of a man with an apple, EXPLAINING gravity, but where is the gravity?

Nice try though,

andrew wrote:Cut it which ever way you like, the wing has passed all load tests and is legal.

Wrong. It breaches the rules that are put in place to be followed at all times.

YE GODS! That was quick! You must have run there and back!

HampusA wrote:

andrew wrote:Cut it which ever way you like, the wing has passed all load tests and is legal.

Wrong. It breaches the rules that are put in place to be followed at all times.

Not wrong at all.

Did the wing pass the FIA load tests? Yes!
Is it legal? Yes!

As far as I am concerned, Red Bull have a wing that passes the FIA tests (is legal in that respect and there is no way that you will convince me so far) however tehy have exploited an area of ambiguity in the reg's to have a wing that some claim to flex (yet have not presented anything to show it does - how about some measurements relative to a stable reference plane guys?!). Good on Red Bull, and now for the rest of the grid to catch up.

Does it break the rules? YES.

The rules that should be followed under all cirumstances no matter what a FIA test says? YES.

Is FIA tests a joke? YES.

HampusA wrote:How can i take you seriously? You people drink Irn Bru
Which is a mixture of Coca Cola and Fanta.

Actually Irn Bru is made from girders.

What has this got to do with flexing front wings in 2011? I can see the link to flexing rear wings in previous years but not to 2011.

Agreed on the restoring the "profile". The first definition Meriam Webster gives is "the representation of something in outline". In this sense we are talking about the representation of a shape. The sand paper will turn a rough, scuffed up, "sticky" surface back to its original smooth & slick state. In this regard the profile has been restored.

Regarding the term "bridging the gap": This is an abiguously defined term. Technically a bridge is a structure built to span to obsticals, in our case the natural possition of the front wing and the ground. So in this sense getting the wing 50% closer to the ground is not technically speaking "bridging the gap". I will argue that the intent of the rule would be to prohibit just that. Would any team ever want to bridge the gap completely? I would think having your wing continuously dragging on the ground would be a bad thing.

Instead I think the term "briding the gap" was put in place as a catch all (albeit poorly defined) for all other attempts to achieve the purpose of a flexible wing. I think the FIA didn't specificly conceive how RedBull is accoplishing there FW aero performance boost when they were drawing up the rules. So as opposed to explicitly rulling it out they had to try to prevent it by putting in broadly defined and vauge verbiage such as "bridging the gap".

The rule and the term "bridging the gap" intends to disallow what RedBull has acheived, but unfortunately for us not RedBull fans intent is just not enough. Even though I don't like it I think they should be allowed to keep it, until the wording on the rule is re-written to be water tight.

HampusA wrote:Does it break the rules? YES.

The prove it! Lets see some measurements to a reference plane!

So I'm the only one buying Horner's BS......?

I asked everyone to relax, so take a leave. No amount of yelling will change the rules this year. The OTHER TEAMS have moved on and accepted that a wing that passes the test is deemed legal.

Wrong or right, move on.

Then what is there to discuss?

There are two camps, one thinks the wing doesn´t flex and is legal because it passes FIA tests.

The other camp feels Red Bull front wing is indeed flexing and is breaking the rules set specifically for this matter despite it passing an arguably lousy test done by FIA.

Simply stated, the no-flex camp does not know how to read, interpret and/or apply the rules. Some of this could be ignorance or just a lack of knowledge of what conventions are currently in use in F1. There could also be an element of stubbornness to agree with the majority of F1 participants.

Brian

You got that wrong we all agree that it flexes.
One camp just doesn't think it is illegal because it does pass all the test therefore must be legal.

The other camp keeps arguing with rule 3.15 and says it is illegal even when rule 3.15 is not adequate for this problem.