New ways to test F1 cars legality for next year?
Discussion
No I don't know of anything being introduced.
However the flexible wing thing irritates me. I think Red Bull have done something really clever and I applaud them for their creativity, and their realisation you have to comply with the tests for the rules not the rules themselves. But I think they should really build the car to the rules.
Anyway as I understand it the current test is to put a weight of "W" on the wing to simulate downforce, and if it flexes more than "X", it's illegal.
But how about they change the test to When "W" weight is applied to the wing it MUST structurally fail if it flexes more than "X". I see this having 2 benefits. 1 reducing downforce. No point generating so much down force you break the wing and it becomes useless. 2 no more flexing wings.
Is this a terribly rubbish idea? And is there a better test to uphold the rules?
However the flexible wing thing irritates me. I think Red Bull have done something really clever and I applaud them for their creativity, and their realisation you have to comply with the tests for the rules not the rules themselves. But I think they should really build the car to the rules.
Anyway as I understand it the current test is to put a weight of "W" on the wing to simulate downforce, and if it flexes more than "X", it's illegal.
But how about they change the test to When "W" weight is applied to the wing it MUST structurally fail if it flexes more than "X". I see this having 2 benefits. 1 reducing downforce. No point generating so much down force you break the wing and it becomes useless. 2 no more flexing wings.
Is this a terribly rubbish idea? And is there a better test to uphold the rules?
How do you test that? By applying more weight, which would be set out in the regs, so they'd use that as the design target 
And how many lawsuits do you want to fend off when a driver is killed because the vibration/shock loading from a bump/kerb snaps the wing off every single car?
It's easy, increase the test to weight to double that of any level expected to be produced, sorted.
And how many lawsuits do you want to fend off when a driver is killed because the vibration/shock loading from a bump/kerb snaps the wing off every single car?
It's easy, increase the test to weight to double that of any level expected to be produced, sorted.
Edited by PhillipM on Thursday 11th November 17:05
PhillipM said:
How do you test that? By applying more weight, which would be set out in the regs, so they'd use that as the design target
And how many lawsuits do you want to fend off when a driver is killed because the vibration/shock loading from a bump/kerb snaps the wing off every single car?
It's easy, increase the test to weight to double that of any level expected to be produced, sorted.
Well if we put aside the getting killed bit as a minor irritation.... ah hemAnd how many lawsuits do you want to fend off when a driver is killed because the vibration/shock loading from a bump/kerb snaps the wing off every single car?
It's easy, increase the test to weight to double that of any level expected to be produced, sorted.
Edited by PhillipM on Thursday 11th November 17:05
They would yes use the weight as a design target. That's the idea.
Say the target is 10KG. If the FIA apply 10KG and it's not broken it's illegal. If it is broken it passes. It's then not possible to cheat the test and gain an advantage by doing so.
Although yes dead drivers would look a little bad.... ah well.
There is no way you will ever be able to avoid anyone using the rules as a starting point and manipulating them to get a jump on the opposition.
I personally think that bending the rules makes for more interesting racing. I recall being sat watching, amazed, as the red bulls were able to take corners flat out, while others were having to lift (if forget the track and corner). F1 engineering is breathtaking. Watching people like Adrian Newey do his stuff is awe inspiring
(I do like your idea in principle though!)
I personally think that bending the rules makes for more interesting racing. I recall being sat watching, amazed, as the red bulls were able to take corners flat out, while others were having to lift (if forget the track and corner). F1 engineering is breathtaking. Watching people like Adrian Newey do his stuff is awe inspiring
(I do like your idea in principle though!)
Nick M said:
Munter said:
Say the target is 10KG. If the FIA apply 10KG and it's not broken it's illegal. If it is broken it passes. It's then not possible to cheat the test and gain an advantage by doing so.
It might just make it a tiny bit tricky to use if you've broken it though... 
The problem is coming up with a test that can only have two outcomes - A pass is within the rules, and a fail is outside the rules. At present we have a test which does not do this. It is apparently possible to design such that the component passes the test, but does not fully comply with the rules.
There are two ways to resolve this - rewrite the rules to be explicit in conjunction with the tests that can be feasibly done; and to change the testing methodology to accurately reflect the rules.
The only way I can think of to test the rules as they stand, is to test the components under the circumstances in which they will be used. It isn't very practical to do this on a moving car, so the next best thing would be to use a wind tunnel. Testing over a race weekend would be very difficult, so there would need to be some way to homologate components. I don't think it would be impossible, but I can't see it being very popular with the teams.
There are two ways to resolve this - rewrite the rules to be explicit in conjunction with the tests that can be feasibly done; and to change the testing methodology to accurately reflect the rules.
The only way I can think of to test the rules as they stand, is to test the components under the circumstances in which they will be used. It isn't very practical to do this on a moving car, so the next best thing would be to use a wind tunnel. Testing over a race weekend would be very difficult, so there would need to be some way to homologate components. I don't think it would be impossible, but I can't see it being very popular with the teams.
barely anyone watching gives a crap about all the intricate bits of aeroDangerousMike said:
it is dead easy to measure the height of a wing on a moving car, there are sensors that can do it;
Loads of variables in the real world make it far from "dead easy", particularly if you're trying to measure wing deflection rather than its height off the ground. Plus the sensors you are talking about (IR displacement sensors) are notoriously difficult to calibrate accurately against a moving road surface.The simplest option would be to increase the test load significantly to avoid teams fudging the wing deflection characteristics above the current nominal 50 kg load.
uktrailmonster said:
DangerousMike said:
it is dead easy to measure the height of a wing on a moving car, there are sensors that can do it;
Loads of variables in the real world make it far from "dead easy", particularly if you're trying to measure wing deflection rather than its height off the ground. Plus the sensors you are talking about (IR displacement sensors) are notoriously difficult to calibrate accurately against a moving road surface.The simplest option would be to increase the test load significantly to avoid teams fudging the wing deflection characteristics above the current nominal 50 kg load.
BigBen said:
uktrailmonster said:
DangerousMike said:
it is dead easy to measure the height of a wing on a moving car, there are sensors that can do it
Loads of variables in the real world make it far from "dead easy", particularly if you're trying to measure wing deflection rather than its height off the ground. In lab conditions I can imagine it would be simple enough to calibrate the sensors and they would give you plenty of data about the distance between sensor and the ground.
But on an F1 car with an uneven road surface, suspension, tyre deflection, vibration, flexing bodywork
, acceleration, braking, etc., etc., etc., then in reality I'd imagine a sensor to have its work cut out sending back accurate data, let alone all the computing required to make sense of that data.
I guess the only issue is that the wing isn't supposed to be anywhere near the track surface, so a 'wear test' like that used on the plank might only serve to give people a better target to aim at in terms of how far they could push things.
You could even see some extreme measures taken by some teams who may accidentally
damage the front wing on another car, thus forcing them to change the nose during a last minute pit-stop....Nick M said:
BigBen said:
uktrailmonster said:
DangerousMike said:
it is dead easy to measure the height of a wing on a moving car, there are sensors that can do it
Loads of variables in the real world make it far from "dead easy", particularly if you're trying to measure wing deflection rather than its height off the ground. In lab conditions I can imagine it would be simple enough to calibrate the sensors and they would give you plenty of data about the distance between sensor and the ground.
But on an F1 car with an uneven road surface, suspension, tyre deflection, vibration, flexing bodywork
, acceleration, braking, etc., etc., etc., then in reality I'd imagine a sensor to have its work cut out sending back accurate data, let alone all the computing required to make sense of that data.BigBen said:
uktrailmonster said:
DangerousMike said:
it is dead easy to measure the height of a wing on a moving car, there are sensors that can do it;
Loads of variables in the real world make it far from "dead easy", particularly if you're trying to measure wing deflection rather than its height off the ground. Plus the sensors you are talking about (IR displacement sensors) are notoriously difficult to calibrate accurately against a moving road surface.The simplest option would be to increase the test load significantly to avoid teams fudging the wing deflection characteristics above the current nominal 50 kg load.
1. a rigid section of the bodywork, from the reference plane (so the plank height or the edge of the sidepod or something)
2. the front wing.
clearly the ride height of both will change with increasing speed/downforce, however if the wing flexes clearly this will change more than the measurement obtained from a rigid part of the car.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff