http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85532
A row over flexible front wings looks set to overshadow the German Grand Prix with a number of teams expressing concerns to the FIA about the designs on the Red Bull Racing and Ferrari cars.
AUTOSPORT has learned that several outfits are unhappy with the fact that photographs of the RB6 and F10 at speed appear to show the front wings running much lower to the ground than rival outfits.
Full Version: RBR flexible front wing
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
QUOTE (Gilles4Ever @ Jul 25 2010, 13:19) 
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85532
A row over flexible front wings looks set to overshadow the German Grand Prix with a number of teams expressing concerns to the FIA about the designs on the Red Bull Racing and Ferrari cars.
AUTOSPORT has learned that several outfits are unhappy with the fact that photographs of the RB6 and F10 at speed appear to show the front wings running much lower to the ground than rival outfits.
A row over flexible front wings looks set to overshadow the German Grand Prix with a number of teams expressing concerns to the FIA about the designs on the Red Bull Racing and Ferrari cars.
AUTOSPORT has learned that several outfits are unhappy with the fact that photographs of the RB6 and F10 at speed appear to show the front wings running much lower to the ground than rival outfits.
well if true there seems to be an edge in performance because of it; toyota were excluded for a flexible rear wing in australia 08 were they not?
If they pass the test, there will be a clarification issued with new test specs I would assume...
Wow
How can the FIA be so clueless? RBR are finding new ways to cheat every day
How can the FIA be so clueless? RBR are finding new ways to cheat every day
QUOTE (raiseyourfistfor @ Jul 25 2010, 23:05)
Wow
How can the FIA be so clueless? RBR are finding new ways to cheat every day
How can the FIA be so clueless? RBR are finding new ways to cheat every day
I think you need to change that record - it's broken.
You guys should read the pages before... we've been through this already.
Its just the media running out of things to f*** around with... well until today.
Its just the media running out of things to f*** around with... well until today.
QUOTE (mtknot @ Jul 26 2010, 01:37)
until today.
apparently there are some new darren heath photos that have just come to light. tried to find them on the site of the paper autosport referenced, no luck.
QUOTE (djned @ Jul 26 2010, 00:40)
apparently there are some new darren heath photos that have just come to light. tried to find them on the site of the paper autosport referenced, no luck.
Well that'd be interesting to look at.
F1 wings these days aren't manufactured like i beams... they're just beams of CF + tungsten or titanium laminated on so naturally they would bend. The amount of downforce that the ferrari and red bull have may mean under the current regulations, actually will bend due to the load.
This doesn't exist in other formulae, or hasn't happened before because wings have typically been 'organic' and with a distinct shape that would serve as a stiffening structure, so i think this characteristic applies to all the cars. The front fastener snapping on vettel's RB6 at silverstone pretty much shows how brutal this is.
Maybe, its not a flexible front wing, but a springy front wing fastener which lowers the wing just by millimetres when there's downforce, pivoting at the bottom fasteners... even if its just one millimetre in movement, its more than enough to give a lot more downforce. It'd also invalidate my camera + top deck comparisons.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85563
The FIA has given the front wing designs of Red Bull Racing and Ferrari the all-clear in post German Grand Prix inspections, following a flexi-parts row in the build-up to the race.
The FIA has given the front wing designs of Red Bull Racing and Ferrari the all-clear in post German Grand Prix inspections, following a flexi-parts row in the build-up to the race.
Can anybody remember the slow-mo shots of the car's front wings going through the chicanes at Monaco? I distinctly remember seeing the Ferrari's front wings flexing a large amount then. If I recall AD actually commented that he thought the FWEP's were actually toughing the floor they were flexing so much. So I wonder if Ferrari (and maybe Red Bull) have actually had these flexi wings for quite a while now.
http://www.darrenheath.com/season/2010/gre...0/image-gallery
stop slide and check fourth pic, look like fwep almost touching ground. is it normal? maybe its misleading angle..
stop slide and check fourth pic, look like fwep almost touching ground. is it normal? maybe its misleading angle..
QUOTE (Rockets @ Jul 26 2010, 23:22)
http://www.darrenheath.com/season/2010/gre...0/image-gallery
stop slide and check fourth pic, look like fwep almost touching ground. is it normal? maybe its misleading angle..
stop slide and check fourth pic, look like fwep almost touching ground. is it normal? maybe its misleading angle..
That's exactly what I was on about. I think the front wings on the Ferrari have been doing this for quite a few races now.
Sorry but I don't see it.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
QUOTE (Lights @ Jul 27 2010, 01:52)
Sorry but I don't see it.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
Flexible wing gives advantage in corners especially in high speed ones
QUOTE (Lights @ Jul 26 2010, 23:52)
Sorry but I don't see it.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
What's this flexible FW supposed to do? Reach the ground at high speeds?
In that case, showing a picture of a Red Bull offtrack in a corner doesn't make any sense.
Well it is widely regarded that Ferrari and Red Bull have adapted their front wings in a way which means that they will flex once a certain amount of force is upon them. Thus when taking high-speed corners the downforce the front-wing receives provides enough force to make the wing flex just enough to allow the FWEP's to almost touch the ground. This is more efficient as the lower the wing is the more downforce it can produce. It is believed that this method could provide up to 3 tenths per lap.
The reason I posted the picture of the Red Bull is that it clearly shows the flex in the wing. Now by going off track there will be a significant bounce in the front of the car, probably providing a reasonably similar force to that which would be required to flex the wing while cornering. Maybe this picture of the Ferrari (that shows the flex while corning) is clearer:
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1718/fa...ritain10273.jpg
Thats not flex... look at the roll in the car.
What in your mind is making the wing flex?
If it's aerodynamic force then why is it only flexing down on one side?
I agree that the wings are flexing, you can see it quite clearly from the on board shots of the Red Bull.
The pictures you guys are showing are not wing flex.
What in your mind is making the wing flex?
If it's aerodynamic force then why is it only flexing down on one side?
I agree that the wings are flexing, you can see it quite clearly from the on board shots of the Red Bull.
The pictures you guys are showing are not wing flex.
QUOTE (syph0nJZ05 @ Jul 27 2010, 01:09)
Well it is widely regarded that Ferrari and Red Bull have adapted their front wings in a way which means that they will flex once a certain amount of force is upon them. Thus when taking high-speed corners the downforce the front-wing receives provides enough force to make the wing flex just enough to allow the FWEP's to almost touch the ground. This is more efficient as the lower the wing is the more downforce it can produce. It is believed that this method could provide up to 3 tenths per lap.
The reason I posted the picture of the Red Bull is that it clearly shows the flex in the wing. Now by going off track there will be a significant bounce in the front of the car, probably providing a reasonably similar force to that which would be required to flex the wing while cornering. Maybe this picture of the Ferrari (that shows the flex while corning) is clearer:
The reason I posted the picture of the Red Bull is that it clearly shows the flex in the wing. Now by going off track there will be a significant bounce in the front of the car, probably providing a reasonably similar force to that which would be required to flex the wing while cornering. Maybe this picture of the Ferrari (that shows the flex while corning) is clearer:
QUOTE (Vegetableman @ Jul 27 2010, 01:30)
Thats not flex... look at the roll in the car.
What in your mind is making the wing flex?
If it's aerodynamic force then why is it only flexing down on one side?
I agree that the wings are flexing, you can see it quite clearly from the on board shots of the Red Bull.
The pictures you guys are showing are not wing flex.
What in your mind is making the wing flex?
If it's aerodynamic force then why is it only flexing down on one side?
I agree that the wings are flexing, you can see it quite clearly from the on board shots of the Red Bull.
The pictures you guys are showing are not wing flex.
I think that on both that Red Bull and Ferrari picture, it's mostly an illusion. The Red Bull is a bit tilted because it's offtrack on dirt. If you look at the angle between the FW endplates and the RW endplates, they're actually the same.
The Ferrari hits a kerb which tilts the car as well. If it really flexes as much as on that picture without the rest of the car tilting, I'd say it would have unpredictable effects for the general airflow over the car.
QUOTE (Lights @ Jul 27 2010, 02:22)
I think that on both that Red Bull and Ferrari picture, it's mostly an illusion. The Red Bull is a bit tilted because it's offtrack on dirt. If you look at the angle between the FW endplates and the RW endplates, they're actually the same.
The Ferrari hits a kerb which tilts the car as well. If it really flexes as much as on that picture without the rest of the car tilting, I'd say it would have unpredictable effects for the general airflow over the car.
The Ferrari hits a kerb which tilts the car as well. If it really flexes as much as on that picture without the rest of the car tilting, I'd say it would have unpredictable effects for the general airflow over the car.
Trust me that is what it flexes like. There's a slow-mo video which shows it quite well, I'll try and find it.
maybe the whole front nose is flexing, not the wing itself on the Ferraris and RBs
I am guessing that it isn't just the front wing that flexes but the entire nose has some kind of flex built into the fixing positions and it was this movement that caused Vettels nose to snap at Silverstone.
A few more DarrenHeath flexi wings pics... Lol, Mr. Heath always uncovering technical irregularities!
Seems to be quite obvious...
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
Seems to be quite obvious...
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
u are right, its obvious them things is flexing....
problem now is it seems Mclaren is clueless as to how this is happening
problem now is it seems Mclaren is clueless as to how this is happening
QUOTE (bauss @ Jul 27 2010, 07:54)
u are right, its obvious them things is flexing....
problem now is it seems Mclaren is clueless as to how this is happening
problem now is it seems Mclaren is clueless as to how this is happening
I don't think they are, it's pretty obvious how it is achieved.
Well, it seems that the FIA scrutineering applies pressure in such a way that these flexy wings are passing the mandatory tests. Either it's to little kN's applied, or it is applied somewhere outside the flexing area. Nevertheless, brilliant thinking by Reds and Redbulls, you gotta give them that.
QUOTE (peroa @ Jul 27 2010, 13:59)
I don't think they are, it's pretty obvious how it is achieved.
Achmed is hilarious... but I digress.
I don't have any technical background, but how are they able to get that much flex, but are able to pass the FIA pressure-tests?
QUOTE (Sinister @ Jul 27 2010, 08:13)
Achmed is hilarious... but I digress.
I don't have any technical background, but how are they able to get that much flex, but are able to pass the FIA pressure-tests?
I don't have any technical background, but how are they able to get that much flex, but are able to pass the FIA pressure-tests?
Guess we have to study these. There were some drawings somewhere sometime ago on this forum or f1technical where exactly the flexing is measured.
Did scarbs post something on this matter?
QUOTE
3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm
forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams
must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm
forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size. Teams must supply the
latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied
simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 925mm above the reference plane and 20mm
forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate.
3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 500N load is applied simultaneously to each
side of it 200mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 325mm from the car centre line and 970mm above the
reference plane. The deflection will be measured at the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point
345mm behind the rear wheel centre line.
The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm which conform
to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost horizontal surface 970mm above the
reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter
when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at a point
which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be
applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram. Stays or structures between the front of the
bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are
completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of
the test.
3.17.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm
horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 950mm above the reference
plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 190mm either side of it. The loads will be
applied in a rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant
team.
3.17.7 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 730mm
above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically.
The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads
will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.
3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to
introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of),
moving whilst the car is in motion.
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm
forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams
must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm
forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size. Teams must supply the
latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied
simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 925mm above the reference plane and 20mm
forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate.
3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 500N load is applied simultaneously to each
side of it 200mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 325mm from the car centre line and 970mm above the
reference plane. The deflection will be measured at the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point
345mm behind the rear wheel centre line.
The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm which conform
to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost horizontal surface 970mm above the
reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter
when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at a point
which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be
applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram. Stays or structures between the front of the
bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are
completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of
the test.
3.17.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm
horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 950mm above the reference
plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 190mm either side of it. The loads will be
applied in a rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant
team.
3.17.7 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 730mm
above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically.
The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads
will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.
3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to
introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of),
moving whilst the car is in motion.
If you look to car's floor you'll see that Ferrari and Red Bull have lower ride height settings
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
that is pretty obvious
QUOTE (f1rules @ Jul 27 2010, 08:23)
that is pretty obviousand it's perfectly legal...and worth around 3-4 tenths of a sec...
QUOTE (Looserke @ Jul 27 2010, 08:31)
and it's perfectly legal...and worth around 3-4 tenths of a sec...
Illegal suspension, CPU mapping, blown diffuser, tiny flap and now front wing? When will some teams learn that moaning about random components on Red Bull's car (then just copying them) might be the wrong approach...
QUOTE (Baddoer @ Jul 27 2010, 08:59)
If you look to car's floor you'll see that Ferrari and Red Bull have lower ride height settings
Don't really see it. When comparing the 1. and the 3. pic Button and Webbo, the Mac seems lower at the back.
QUOTE (Baddoer @ Jul 27 2010, 07:59)
If you look to car's floor you'll see that Ferrari and Red Bull have lower ride height settings
so ??
Could the Redbull and Ferrari have a softer suspention (for the first 2-3cm) at the front meaning that when the downforce kicks in it lowers the whole front of the car.
Then the suspention gets stiffer afterwards..
So the spring would look a bit like the Text graphic below?
I---I---I---I-I-I-IIIIII
Then the suspention gets stiffer afterwards..
So the spring would look a bit like the Text graphic below?
I---I---I---I-I-I-IIIIII
So, this obviously has much to do with the quali pace of the RBR's all season and now the Ferrari's improved pace I would assume.
Could this have been the real reason behind all the whispers about RBR having the ability to run lower when required? I mean those rumors all started because some people said they could hear the red bull scraping on the ground in places (am I right in remembering this?) looking at the pics the end plates look as if they are almost touching the ground - could it be those that were heard scraping the track?
They have been deemed legal, so does that mean they are not flexing? If they are not flexing then can someone explain what is happening here?
FIA say this...
Now, I am not an engineer, nor an expert in aerodynamics, but I am also not stupid and it is clear as can be from these photographs that the front wing end plates are somehow moving closer to the ground, regardless of what angle the pics have been taken from or how much fuel is in the car. The idea that these pics do not indicate anything suspicious is astounding, Though I gather the FIA have tested them, so they are legal, although one suspects it is more likely to be that RBR have found (and Ferrari worked out) a very clever loophole in the regs.
Surely every other team knows exactly what is happening here by now? I don't understand why McLaren have not worked this out already to be honest. Hopefully they will have a new wing this weekend.
Could this have been the real reason behind all the whispers about RBR having the ability to run lower when required? I mean those rumors all started because some people said they could hear the red bull scraping on the ground in places (am I right in remembering this?) looking at the pics the end plates look as if they are almost touching the ground - could it be those that were heard scraping the track?
They have been deemed legal, so does that mean they are not flexing? If they are not flexing then can someone explain what is happening here?
FIA say this...
QUOTE
The FIA was happy that the explanations – which included the fact that photographs were not guaranteed to have been taken from the same angle, that the cars may not have been running the same amounts of fuel, or had different rear ride heights that would affect the front wing design – did not indicate anything suspicious.
Now, I am not an engineer, nor an expert in aerodynamics, but I am also not stupid and it is clear as can be from these photographs that the front wing end plates are somehow moving closer to the ground, regardless of what angle the pics have been taken from or how much fuel is in the car. The idea that these pics do not indicate anything suspicious is astounding, Though I gather the FIA have tested them, so they are legal, although one suspects it is more likely to be that RBR have found (and Ferrari worked out) a very clever loophole in the regs.
Surely every other team knows exactly what is happening here by now? I don't understand why McLaren have not worked this out already to be honest. Hopefully they will have a new wing this weekend.
So the test load is only 500N (50kg). Is that it? Simple as that?
The on-track loads being more like 8000N IIRC. Maybe 4000N per side? That's an old memory from Ratzenberger's crash, anyone got a better figure?
The on-track loads being more like 8000N IIRC. Maybe 4000N per side? That's an old memory from Ratzenberger's crash, anyone got a better figure?
QUOTE (Baddoer @ Jul 27 2010, 08:59)
If you look to car's floor you'll see that Ferrari and Red Bull have lower ride height settings
False. The McLaren is extremely stiff for a reason! The stiffer cars can have lower ride height. Even the photos show this.
Those Ferrari and Red Bull wings are flexing. I don't say they're flexing illegally, but flexing significantly more than the wings of the other teams including McLaren. This is why McLaren is going to make its wings more flexing too.
wonder how they get pass the stewards when its obvious they are lower then they should be.
The flex cars will rule Hungary...and possibly beyond if we dont get to the bottom of this flex thing fast. Compared to their cars, ours is understeery and they'll get an advantage whenever there is turn in (i.e. a corner)...fk lol
my swing-o-meter = oh so low
my swing-o-meter = oh so low
Definitely flexing, especially Red Bull, you can see the bend in the wing.
QUOTE (undersquare @ Jul 27 2010, 09:53)
So the test load is only 500N (50kg). Is that it? Simple as that?
The on-track loads being more like 8000N IIRC. Maybe 4000N per side? That's an old memory from Ratzenberger's crash, anyone got a better figure?
The on-track loads being more like 8000N IIRC. Maybe 4000N per side? That's an old memory from Ratzenberger's crash, anyone got a better figure?
IIRC James Allison in latest Renault podcast said that it is around 6-7 people standing on the wing while driving with high speed.
QUOTE (syph0nJZ05 @ Jul 27 2010, 03:38)
Trust me that is what it flexes like. There's a slow-mo video which shows it quite well, I'll try and find it.
QUOTE (Sinister @ Jul 27 2010, 07:43)
A few more DarrenHeath flexi wings pics... Lol, Mr. Heath always uncovering technical irregularities!
Seems to be quite obvious...
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
Seems to be quite obvious...
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/f...man10_002ii.jpg
Ok, lol, now I see it.
I can't believe that they can run this.
The Red Bull front wing just seems so low in general. Even in the middle. Just seems too low. I can't see how that passes the rule of 'amount of mm off the ground'.
The Ferrari front wing seems the same height as the McLaren in the middle, but the endplates are lower.
Here's an onboard shot of the front wing lowering on the straights.
QUOTE (Lights @ Jul 27 2010, 09:18)
Here's an onboard shot of the front wing lowering on the straights.
it has got a big advantage in the fast corners
QUOTE (lbennie @ Apr 20 2010, 13:14)
dosnt seem to flex any more than the others.
did you compare with other car onboards?
did you compare with other car onboards?
I have hours of inboard of all cars at Silverstone and the Red Bull flexes an amazing amount compared to all the rest that pretty much don't move. The cheat is out.
Another oddity is the Renault tail (the rear of the airbox that extends to nearly the wing) it flexes from side to side an amazing amount, don't know what the go is there....
QUOTE (MadYarpen @ Jul 27 2010, 09:10)
IIRC James Allison in latest Renault podcast said that it is around 6-7 people standing on the wing while driving with high speed.
Yeah, that sounds quite likely. So there has to be more to it than clause 3.17, surely? Otherwise what question could there be, everyone would have a flexi front wing.
QUOTE (Anomnader @ Jul 27 2010, 08:56)
wonder how they get pass the stewards when its obvious they are lower then they should be.
Well they can only do the tests that they have. with the flex floor they introduced a new test.
QUOTE (Murphster @ Jul 27 2010, 15:53)
The FIA was happy that the explanations – which included the fact that photographs were not guaranteed to have been taken from the same angle, that the cars may not have been running the same amounts of fuel, or had different rear ride heights that would affect the front wing design – did not indicate anything suspicious.
Seriously, why is it that a bunch of forumers can work this shit out but the FIA can't?
Geez you only have to watch the incars to get a clue and this isn't the first time Journo's or Forumers have picked up on illegal things, maybe the FIA should just read more forums - and thats not a joke.
QUOTE (Mika Mika @ Jul 27 2010, 10:23)
Well they can only do the tests that they have. with the flex floor they introduced a new test.
Well, there is 3.17.8 but Bauer said it was OK on sunday, so it is OK to use for the remaining races.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.