Red Bull flexi front wing - judge for yourself
Discussion
edb49 said:
Remember, these rules have to be complied with at all times - when the car is moving as well as static. There's no way you can read the rule that flexi wings are allowed as long as their mounting points are static - it's just not what the rules say.
The definition of "immobile" is "not moving, motionless" so you can substitute either of those in too.
This is just what the rules say...
What rules say, and how they are interpreted, are often two very different things....The definition of "immobile" is "not moving, motionless" so you can substitute either of those in too.
This is just what the rules say...
It's our respective interpretation of the rules which differs, not a disagreement over what the rules say. Hence why I am indeed reading the rule as saying that a degree of flex (as regulated by rule 3.17) is allowed provided the mounting points are fixed.
My view remains that 'immobile' means you nail the bodywork on and that it shall not move from where you nailed it, but that the rules accept there is a degree of flexibility in those pieces of bodywork which is accounted for and limited by rule 3.17.
So it's not a case of you needing to clarify anything for me, it's just a difference of interpretation of how the words which make up the rules should be applied (ultimately, by the FIA).
IainT said:
3.15 said:
Any construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances. No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
The key, as I read it is the bridging section. Of course that is also open to a degree of interpretation - what if it closes the gap a little under load but not completely bridges the gap from the reference plane to the ground?
If something is designed to flex, but not so much that it is able to bridge the gap between the bodywork and the ground, then it has not fallen foul of the section in bold above.
That rule is designed, among other things, to prevent the use of skirts to seal the underside of the car to the ground, as they used to do with the proper 'ground effect' cars. The skirts on those cars were contained in vertical channels and the skirts were able to move up and down vertically in those channels so they maintained a seal with the road pretty much all the time. They were clearly designd to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground.
Edited by Nick M on Tuesday 10th August 17:42
I doubt this will change anything (although some may become more resolute), but FWIW I found this web page: http://www.jomenvisst.de/fia/ . With the exceptions of '95 and '96, it has the tech-regs for the past sixteen years. It looks like the current 3.15 (formerly called 3.14) was all by itself. In 1999 the regs added the provisio that they can introduce deflection tests to "3.15". Then in 2003, they add 3.17.
35secToNuvolari said:
I doubt this will change anything (although some may become more resolute), but FWIW I found this web page: http://www.jomenvisst.de/fia/ . With the exceptions of '95 and '96, it has the tech-regs for the past sixteen years. It looks like the current 3.15 (formerly called 3.14) was all by itself. In 1999 the regs added the provisio that they can introduce deflection tests to "3.15". Then in 2003, they add 3.17.
Great post - thanks!Nick M said:
edb49 said:
Remember, these rules have to be complied with at all times - when the car is moving as well as static. There's no way you can read the rule that flexi wings are allowed as long as their mounting points are static - it's just not what the rules say.
The definition of "immobile" is "not moving, motionless" so you can substitute either of those in too.
This is just what the rules say...
What rules say, and how they are interpreted, are often two very different things....The definition of "immobile" is "not moving, motionless" so you can substitute either of those in too.
This is just what the rules say...
It's our respective interpretation of the rules which differs, not a disagreement over what the rules say. Hence why I am indeed reading the rule as saying that a degree of flex (as regulated by rule 3.17) is allowed provided the mounting points are fixed.
My view remains that 'immobile' means you nail the bodywork on and that it shall not move from where you nailed it, but that the rules accept there is a degree of flexibility in those pieces of bodywork which is accounted for and limited by rule 3.17.
So it's not a case of you needing to clarify anything for me, it's just a difference of interpretation of how the words which make up the rules should be applied (ultimately, by the FIA).
I think a matter of interpretation would be when there's a disagreement over what a word may mean when it's not tightly defined. E.G. "bridge the gap" - does partial bridging count as bridging? Or is it only when things are fully bridged?
edb49 said:
You're saying that flex is allowed because of 3.17 - e.g. you are reading rules together. This isn't how legal docs work IME, everything is independent. So they have to comply with 3.15 independently of whatever every other rule says. This logic is confirmed by the fact (as per previous post) that 3.15 used to exist independently. This is not a matter of interpretation, it's just a misunderstanding of how to read the rules.
But if you go back in history and see how the rules evolved, rule 3.15 existed to desribe how the bodywork is fixed to the car. Flexible bodywork hadn't been contemplated (or wasn't as obvious if it was being done) so there was no need for rule 3.17 to exist.Only when people (Ferrari for example) took the piss with flexible body work, rear wing structures which bent backwards to reduce drag, etc., did the FIA have to introduce tests to ensure the bodywork was not flexing beyond specified limits.
So I'm reading the rules as being separate, because they do different things, but recognise that the two are linked and the reasons why the tests outlined in 3.17 were put in place.
edb49 said:
I think a matter of interpretation would be when there's a disagreement over what a word may mean when it's not tightly defined. E.G. "bridge the gap" - does partial bridging count as bridging? Or is it only when things are fully bridged?
You mean like the word "immobile" ?? And you bridge a gap by linking both sides, not getting close to it. So in this case, the wing does not 'bridge the gap', nor is it designed to do so. Hence no problems with that part of the rules, IMO.
Nick M said:
But if you go back in history and see how the rules evolved, rule 3.15 existed to desribe how the bodywork is fixed to the car. Flexible bodywork hadn't been contemplated (or wasn't as obvious if it was being done) so there was no need for rule 3.17 to exist.
It was not for exactly the same thing, but this issue came up in the '07 hearings wrt the flexible floor.In them, Paddy Lowe explained how, at least at McLaren (one of only 2 teams with continuous history over the entirety of F1 aerodynamics rule-making and regulation), their interpretation of 3.15 was as an overarching principle: the requirement not to go out of one's way to induce performance-enhancing movement or deformation unless allowed by explicit exception or common consent of the entrants.
I think the the RB6 will pass the new deflection test with ease. And I don't believe that there is non linear deflection, not in the sense that the deflection is non-linear in relation to vertical load.
The key is that the load applied to the wing is not linear in proportion to speed. The faster the car goes, the more downforce. The more downforce the more deflection. The more deflection the more downforce.
For example, if at 100kph you have 500N of downforce and the wing is deflected 5mm. At 250kph, you have 1500N of downforce, which causes 15mm deflection. But if 90% of this downforce increase would have been available on a rigid wing, the other 10% is produced by the wing running 3mm closer to the ground, due to the load applied. So, without the deflection we would only have 1350N, and 10mm deflection. But, because the wing is 5mm closer to the ground, and we have gained 150N and a wing 5mm closer to the ground, which will produce more downforce in relation to further speed increase than the rigid wing.
Hope that makes sense.
Steve
The key is that the load applied to the wing is not linear in proportion to speed. The faster the car goes, the more downforce. The more downforce the more deflection. The more deflection the more downforce.
For example, if at 100kph you have 500N of downforce and the wing is deflected 5mm. At 250kph, you have 1500N of downforce, which causes 15mm deflection. But if 90% of this downforce increase would have been available on a rigid wing, the other 10% is produced by the wing running 3mm closer to the ground, due to the load applied. So, without the deflection we would only have 1350N, and 10mm deflection. But, because the wing is 5mm closer to the ground, and we have gained 150N and a wing 5mm closer to the ground, which will produce more downforce in relation to further speed increase than the rigid wing.
Hope that makes sense.
Steve
You only know when you've pushed the limits of the rules to the maximum when the FIA don't penalise you but introduce a new rule to prevent you from what you were doing previously
The secret is to work out exactly what you can't do rather than think you can't do and that is all in how each rule is worded rather than intended. It's extremely hard to write rules to cover every idea people can come up with to get around the wording of a rule.
I've been on both sides of the fence and I think writing rules is a lot harder than trying to find creative way around them.
In F1 intelligent people are writing rules for more intelligent people so it will always be a game of catch up, always has been and always will.
The secret is to work out exactly what you can't do rather than think you can't do and that is all in how each rule is worded rather than intended. It's extremely hard to write rules to cover every idea people can come up with to get around the wording of a rule.
I've been on both sides of the fence and I think writing rules is a lot harder than trying to find creative way around them.
In F1 intelligent people are writing rules for more intelligent people so it will always be a game of catch up, always has been and always will.
Edited by marine boy on Friday 27th August 21:42
sjn2004 said:
I wonder what would happen if the FIA asked for the previous wing and wanted to carry out retrospective tests.
Nothing- they would pass the test that was in force when they were used. I don't see flexible wings as cheating, in that there are regulations stating the test they must pass. Assuming the wing passes the test, what's the problem?I think too many of the teams rely on a 'spirit of the regulations' argument to claim some moral high ground. The likelyhood is that they resort to it when they don't have the resources or knowledge to copy an idea.
McLaren in particular seemed so hell bent on assuming the blown diffuser was the answer to their speed deficit that they missed the major element at the front of the car that was equally, if not more important.
10 Pence Short said:
I think too many of the teams rely on a 'spirit of the regulations' argument to claim some moral high ground. The likelyhood is that they resort to it when they don't have the resources or knowledge to copy an idea.
It's not quite that theoretically Olympian.In the frequent case of technical or intellectual development exceeding the imagination of the rules-writers, the team principals will often reach understandings either amongst themselves or by using the FIA Technical Dep't for liaison, as to the limit of what "may" be done.
They will become particularly bent out of shape when, having reached a common, unwritten understanding, one of the teams will subsequently exceed it, and then hide behind the fact that the rules didn't explicitly forbid what they'd done.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/
Interesting to see how much the wing is moving as the downforce is changing as he swerves. Wonder how a "normal" wing moves in the same situation ??.
Interesting to see how much the wing is moving as the downforce is changing as he swerves. Wonder how a "normal" wing moves in the same situation ??.
jamied3 said:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/
Interesting to see how much the wing is moving as the downforce is changing as he swerves. Wonder how a "normal" wing moves in the same situation ??.
Im no aero expert, but(!), my money goes on the loss of control being caused by the increase in downforce as he left JB's slip stream. The wing moved several cm as soon as the extra airflow hit it. This must have caused a huge change of balance.Interesting to see how much the wing is moving as the downforce is changing as he swerves. Wonder how a "normal" wing moves in the same situation ??.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff