The rules are specific on wings, they are not supposed to move. To me, elnuevo's case clearly convinces me that the rear wing does move. How much, which component, and in what direction is irrelevant, it moves.
I'm sorry Ferrari, you and anyone else has to clean it up.
Please remember that this picture shows a Ferrari, there are other teams reputed to be just as guilty.
I'm sorry Ferrari, you and anyone else has to clean it up
Totally agree, but hasn't Ferrari been pulled up for this before a couple of years ago at Imola? Renault complained that the rear wing showed signs of flexing, can't remember how that one got resolved though.
I consider other teams as guilty as Ferrari on "stretching" the rules. It's just that the cameras on the Ferrari put it out for the whole world to see.
And this is what racing is all about. After last year's fall from grace, even Todt said that Ferrari were going to work very hard and examine every aspect, in order to increase performance. And Ferrari are pushing the limits on every area... aero.. well, we're discussing it. Engines, same story, pushing the limits, and maybe a wee bit too far. But all teams are doing it, improving, pushing the boundaries of not only refinement and technolgy, but the rules themselves. Heck, Colin Chapman made a career out of it.
On the basis that I am a Ferrari fan and therefore whatever I say will be disregarded;
To answer the recent black and white posts from Darksnape and Jason; it is very clear that Ferrari, and the other teams, are not cheating. If they were the FIA would have no choice except to impose a penalty - especially with the media spotlight on this issue. However, as has been said numerous times already in this thread, the three teams who are changing their wings have adopted an interpretation of the rules which is against the spirit of the regulations. As such the FIA cannot impose a penalty as the wing(s) clearly pass the tests carried out by the scrutineers. Nobody has so far argued that the wings do not pass the tests - and as the test is a pass/fail test which the wings pass, the result is that the wings are legal.
I have so far remained out of this discussion, but the issue for me is rather simple, yet at the same time fiendishly complex to enforce. It's a bit like the fine line betwen tax avoidance and evasion. Clever accountants will do everything legal to avoid taxes, whilst remaining within the letter of the law - and the tax man can do nothing about it other than change the law. The wing is legal - otherwise it would hav been banned and the teams disqualified. That has not happened, so stop saying it's illegal, coz it ain't. (which doesn't make it right!!)
In the interim here is material science 101
In terms of material properties the degree of flexure is a function of stiffness modulus. All materials will deform under a given load, the type and magnitude of deformation will depend upon the load applied. Generally speaking you want a nice stiff structure which will apply the downforce to the vehicle efficiently and predicatably. However, you want the downforce at low speeds, not at high speeds where it causes drag, so it'd be good to have a wing that deforms under high loads (read speed) to present a smaller cross sectional area and lower drag. That's what has been designed.
It is clear from the animations that the rear wing is imposing a large downward stress - look at the rear suspension deformation. In other words it is doing what it is supposed to do - and then bending out of the way.
All wings deform under loading and, within certain limits (i.e. up to the point of structural failure), the degree of flexure will be a linear function of the load applied which and inversely proportional to the stiffness modulus of the structure. With the composite wings the strain (deformation) is entirely elastic and therefore recoverable - hence the wing regains its shape after the load is removed. What the animations tell me is that the FIA test does not apply a load as great as that which the wing generates when is use - this is the loophole that Ferrari and the other teams have exploited and designed into their wings.
Now front wings: Anyone who thinks that the front wing issue on Ferrari is different from that of Renault or any other team (except Honda) should think again - Ferrari's interpretation of the rules was that it was clearly desireable for the tip of the wing to flex downwards under load (which it is!) and their solution permits it to do this - so does Renaults, but it cannot be easily judged as there is no convenient reference point. Only Honda messed up - they attached the upper element to the nose which prevents it.
Anyhow, anyone wanting to go into stress and strain properties of materials let me know.
Ok, we've been complaining about the rules crowding the designers, yet when they come up with a good one, we shun them.
I think that if it is such an advantage, everyone should use it.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
erm...it's illegal! What you're proposing, Tom, is like saying 'well, guns are so good at killing people, why don't we all buy them!'. The designers have not done well for designing a wing that over-flexes. Thay have FAILED for designing an illegal racecar.
The bottom line is that the wings are flexing beyond what they are allowed to. So fix it.
In fact, any team that can be proved to have a wing/component that over-flexes should be banned in exactly the same style as BAR were last year. The duration of the penalty might be different, but the same type of penalty should be used.
No leniency just because top teams are doing it, or more than 1 team are doing it. Ban them.
Well I agree with Tom that the designers have done a good job by exploiting a loophole, afterall thats what the designers are meant to do, work within the rules somehow. And by passing the FIA Tests this wing is legal and therefore within the rules.
BUT, and its a big but, the design of these wings is not within the spirit of the regulations, all teams which are running wings like this are just as "guilty" as STR are by running a restricted V10 (a loophole left in the rules for MINARDI not STR as they have the money to buy a V8)
If they believe its right to bend the rules regarding wing-flex in such a manner then they have NO RIGHT to complain about STR running a V10, its hypocritical. However personally if its against the spirit of the rules I dont agree with it.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
how can you ban something that passes the FIA's own test - I agree (as I have said) that this is not in the spirit of the rules, but the wings pass the test the FIA has set, so they are not illegal.
Your comment that the wings are flexing beyond what they're allowed to is just plain wrong - the rules give a value for flex under certain loading conditions and the wings - all of them - pass that test. Had they not done so the team would have been excluded and we would not be having this discussion. QED the wings are legal.
Now I hate to say that the FIA has done something right (it was bound to happen eventually I guess !!), but in this case they have taken a pragmatic approach and informed the teams (that have been caught!!) that they expect to see new wings in Oz - with the implcit threat that the rules will be changed if they don't comply. The alternative will be that they have to introduce a new rule which will outlaw the current wings, that takes time. But then the techies will simply design a new wing, which complies with the new rules, but gives the maxium performance within those confines - just as they have done until now...
Hey if they got through a loophole then dandy for them, every team tries to expose the rules for loopholes, it is part of racing. If they pass inspection of the FIA then I see nothing wrong with the wing, just the normal course of racing.
Simon: Nils? You can close in now. Nils?
John McClane: [on the guard's phone] Attention! Attention! Nils is dead! I repeat, Nils is dead, ----head. So's his pal, and those four guys from the East German All-Stars, your boys at the bank? They're gonna be a little late.
Simon: [on the phone] John... in the back of the truck you're driving, there's $13 billon dollars worth in gold bullion. I wonder would a deal be out of the question?
John McClane: [on the phone] Yeah, I got a deal for you. Come out from that rock you're hiding under, and I'll drive this truck up your ass.
I agree with mikey, even though I do not really like the way Ferrari is so ruthless in their pursuit of wins. The FIA has a specific series of dimensions and load tests for the rear wngs. They passed those tests. They may not follow the spirit of the rules, but they managed to design a component that bends in a favourable manner under aero load, yet still pass the obligatory FIA test.
It's called a loophole, and Ferrari utilized it. That's what racing is about.
I fully agree with the points that have just been made.
I'd like to add a bit and point out that the FIA have focused the rules so heavily on safety in recent years and have applied that to the scrutineering laws too.
If x weight is applied to a wing and it does not break, then it should be strong enough to last the race distance. Hence, safe. But now they are trying to push a different agenda and it ain't safety.
I'm surprised they haven't said 'the wings must be changed for safety' because that's the usual cop-out response!
!!), but in this case they have taken a pragmatic approach and informed the teams (that have been caught!!) that they expect to see new wings in Oz - with the implcit threat that the rules will be changed if they don't comply. The alternative will be that they have to introduce a new rule which will outlaw the current wings, that takes time. But then the techies will simply design a new wing, which complies with the new rules, but gives the maxium performance within those confines - just as they have done until now...
