Fwon

Rbr Cheats

66 posts in this topic

I am surprised no one has picked up on this article yet

Alonso is my Prost

So that means Hamilton is Ayrton Senna! Alonso is Prost. And I am the President of the United States of America.

By the way, I think Red Bull are cheating! There should be no flexible parts to car what so ever! I don't care if they pass FIA load tests - those tests don't mean s*** to me. Charlie and his crew are totally incompetent! The rules say, if the component moves more than x mm, it is illegal (apart from the rear wing of course). It is clear from the footage that Vettel's wings are moving in the way of centimetres! Front wings should remain totally rigid. If I were the FIA, I would attach sensors on the edge to the front and one to the nose to measure the difference in distances during a lap.

Watch the video here and see what I mean!

RBR Wings

The FIA stewards are just hopeless!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the car passed the tests, then it's legal. Stop whinging. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first off there is a post about Alain Alonso and Aryton Hamilton....

Secondly, RBR are not cheating. There is no rule about chassis flex.

In 1973 Lola Cars produced the iconic T340 formula ford car. This car became affectionately named the Flexi Flyer...Flexi, because the chassis flexed with very little effort, Flyer because right out of the box, the car won races. HU01, the first off the production line, went on to win the British Formula Ford Championship of 1973, driven by Patrick Nieve...the same chassis went on to win the NZ FFord Championship twice. In an era of countless manufacturers, all with varying degrees of success, like Crossle, Van Diemen, Zink, Reynard, Merlyn et al, competition was fierce, and this flexible car, whose chassis was coined as "the fifth spring" spanked. Everyone wanted them.

It evolved a little in 1974, designated the T342, and this too was a formidable car in even average hands. The T340/2 went on to run in many countries top flight FFord comps, and was more than competitive up until 1984 when Swift produced the DB-1 - a radical, skinny (read very low aero silhouette), total re-think of Formula Ford - and spanked people left right and center.

So, whilst stiff is good, so too can a flexi chassis when the rest of the geometry of the suspension is designed around knowing there is flex, things such as roll centers, and spring rates etc. can be designed to maximise the cars potential.

Newey is a genius. I don't need to make a technical dissertation to prove that point (aye, Mike) - his cars are the most aero efficient out there (like the Swift was), and he has been tinkering for some time with his suspension. If he has made the chassis / monocoque flex, there is a very good reason for it. It's not illegal, and many designers would think its the worst thing they could possibly do, but that is not always true.

Also, wings get closer to the ground through suspension movement, so why the furore over the chassis flexing? The same result brought on from another aspect of the cars design. That's all it is. It's legal.

Any team would give sell their grandmothers if it meant they had Adrian and his team. It may take three years or four years for things to bear fruit, but when they do.....eat my dust!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one has picked up on this article yet

Alonso is my Prost

So that means Hamilton is Ayrton Senna! Alonso is Prost. And I am the President of the United States of America.

By the way, I think Red Bull are cheating! There should be no flexible parts to car what so ever! I don't care if they pass FIA load tests - those tests don't mean s*** to me. Charlie and his crew are totally incompetent! The rules say, if the component moves more than x mm, it is illegal (apart from the rear wing of course). It is clear from the footage that Vettel's wings are moving in the way of centimetres! Front wings should remain totally rigid. If I were the FIA, I would attach sensors on the edge to the front and one to the nose to measure the difference in distances during a lap.

Watch the video here and see what I mean!

RBR Wings

The FIA stewards are just hopeless!!!

I have had the privilege to work closely with Charlie and the last thing I would label him as is 'incompetent'. Overworked? Certainly. I have re-run a lot of footage from Sunday's race and there does appear to be an unusual amount of movement in the RBR front wing. The problem is, there are a lot of variables involved and it is virtually impossible to prove if a front wing is flexing in a way which makes it illegal through load testing criteria. My conclusion was that the nose cone was certainly dipping down at certain points in a lap and thereby bringing the wing closer to the ground. This may be due to either the fuel load, chassis flex , [which is completely legal] the DRS being deployed or suspension movement. I have to admit that I suspect there is also apparent lateral flex in the wing pillars and a degree of vertical movement in the centre which obviously pushes the wing forward and down too. I am not an expert in these matters though. Interestingly, I only saw this on Vettel's RB7. It was nor apparent on Webber's car. Other than creating a monumental logistics problem by impounding any car it suspects of breaking the rules and taking it to a full size wind tunnel, the FIA have little or no way of ruling on these alleged diversions from the regulations. In my opinion, the most sensible solution would be to scrap the rigid front wing rule altogether and remove all possibility of 'loophole' exploitation and the huge expense and inconvenience of policing rules that strangle innovation.

EDIOT: Can't spellblush.gif

Edited by Insider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If RBR are cheats, then so are McLaren for the F-duct, and Brawn for the blown diffusers. Newey is without doubt the class of the field, and I have to say probably the most scary thing any team member not in RBR will ever see is, Newey standing there on the pre race grid, notebook in hand, arms crossed... and looking at YOUR car! He had a good look at the Sauber which was interesting. Next someone will say this is cheating too lol.

F1 of the modern era has always been about pushing the limits in terms of rules. There is nothing different here than in years past. Mass dampers anyone? They were eventually deemed illegal, but before that they were legal and just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If RBR are cheats, then so are McLaren for the F-duct, and Brawn for the blown diffusers. Newey is without doubt the class of the field, and I have to say probably the most scary thing any team member not in RBR will ever see is, Newey standing there on the pre race grid, notebook in hand, arms crossed... and looking at YOUR car! He had a good look at the Sauber which was interesting. Next someone will say this is cheating too lol.

F1 of the modern era has always been about pushing the limits in terms of rules. There is nothing different here than in years past. Mass dampers anyone? They were eventually deemed illegal, but before that they were legal and just.

Everyone 'cheats'. It goes with the territory. What's new? FIA regs should be about safety and formula specifications like engine and tyre size. The rest should be competitor-driven innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had the privilege to work closely with Charlie and the last thing I would label him as is 'incompetent'. Overworked? Certainly. I have re-run a lot of footage from Sunday's race and there does appear to be an unusual amount of movement in the RBR front wing. The problem is, there are a lot of variables involved and it is virtually impossible to prove if a front wing is flexing in a way which makes it illegal through load testing criteria. My conclusion was that the nose cone was certainly dipping down at certain points in a lap and thereby bringing the wing closer to the ground. This may be due to either the fuel load, chassis flex , [which is completely legal] the DRS being deployed or suspension movement. I have to admit that I suspect there is also apparent lateral flex in the wing pillars and a degree of vertical movement in the centre which obviously pushes the wing forward and down too. I am not an expert in these matters though. Interestingly, I only saw this on Vettel's RB7. It was nor apparent on Webber's car. Other than creating a monumental logistics problem by impounding any car it suspects of breaking the rules and taking it to a full size wind tunnel, the FIA have little or no way of ruling on these alleged diversions from the regulations. In my opinion, the most sensible solution would be to scrap the rigid front wing rule altogether and remove all possibility of 'loophole' exploitation and the huge expense and inconvenience of policing rules that strangle innovation.

EDIOT: Can't spellblush.gif

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Newey is a genius. History shows how Newey has lifted teams up to World Champion status with the design of his cars.

In this case, part of Newey's genius has been to come up with a way to circumvent the load tests while having flexible components. I mean initially, the tests were set at 50kgs (arbitrarily plucked out the the air by the stewards). Then they raised it to 100kg where it currently stands. What is the justification of such numbers? Given the speed and the downforce generated at 200mph, Newey's front wings probably don't flex until about a tonne of force is applied. Remember in Silverstone 2010 qualifying, when Vettel's nose cone snapped off because the the downforce generated? How much force was required to achieve that?

Insider makes some good points about flexi-components. There is clearly some movement in the entire nose cone. If the load tests are applied vertically, the pillars could be very strong. However, if the force is applied laterally (sideways), the pillars could flex outwards, driving the nose to the ground. Imagine two sheets of cardboard, when the force is applied vertically, it can support a man's weight. Give the sheets a slap sideways the the cardboard bend with ease.

See the Demo video:

So again, we come back to the stewards. If the pass mark to get into medical school was 10 of out 100, then everyone would "pass the test" and would qualify for medical school (in the case, illegal cars would be deemed legal)

If fans can think of ways to circumvent these load tests, it makes the the stewards look pretty silly. :mf_tongue:

Edited by Fwon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first off there is a post about Alain Alonso and Aryton Hamilton....

Secondly, RBR are not cheating. There is no rule about chassis flex.

Also, wings get closer to the ground through suspension movement, so why the furore over the chassis flexing? The same result brought on from another aspect of the cars design. That's all it is. It's legal.

Can anyone confirm that chassis flex is legal?

I thought the ruling was there is to be no moving parts. I would assume this would also mean the chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think nobody could deny the front wing flexes, not even Red Bull say such thing. They just say it passes FIA tests which is true, and that makes the front wing completely legal. I think it's against the spirit of the rule (no moveable/flexable aerodynamic parts) but as long as they pass the tests it is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is, even in principle, impossible to make a front wing that was completely rigid, the rules must state what is meant by "rigid front wing". They state that in such a way that when subjected to a certain load, the wing must not bend more than a certain amount. Red Bull front wing obviously satisfies this rule, and is hence completely legal. If one claims Red Bull cheats, then one must agree that everyone else cheats too, as everyone's front wing will bend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think nobody could deny the front wing flexes, not even Red Bull say such thing. They just say it passes FIA tests which is true, and that makes the front wing completely legal. I think it's against the spirit of the rule (no moveable/flexable aerodynamic parts) but as long as they pass the tests it is legal.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about this rule please look ? does video or photo material of RBR wings taken during the race count as evidence? you can't convince me that their wings are in accordance with this rule. everybody sees that. they are not "in the spirit of the rules",are they? they may pass every test but we all see what is going on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about this rule please look ? does video or photo material of RBR wings taken during the race count as evidence? you can't convince me that their wings are in accordance with this rule. everybody sees that. they are not "in the spirit of the rules",are they? they may pass every test but we all see what is going on .

Of course it counts as evidence but it doesn't make the car illegal straight away.

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.

It's up to the FIA to exercise their right to change the deflection tests and to enforce the rules. We've seen them sometimes eager to enforce some rules about safety and this is one of those they should do as much as possible to make all the teams comply with the rules. They did it with the mass-dumper (considered a moveable aerodynamic device) or the flexi floor in the past.

They should have changed the tests last year but they didn't.

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than 250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the reference plane.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

We've seen the front wing literally touching the ground. There's no better prove than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it passes the test then it is not cheating.

Cheating is cutting a corner to overtake and think that it is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are saying the ride height of the car is 75mm....about the same as FFord actually....

However the only time you can measure that is at static rest. The car does, and will get closer to the ground as it travels over circuit undulations and suspension moves up and down. The wing is not moving in the tests...the chassis is not an aerodynamic component....(although it is, it's not really, and only rally would be with ground effects).

Ahhh...technical loopholes...gotta love em, and gotta love the solutions smart engineers come up with to achieve a goal without breaking a rule. Farking marvelous, and keep it up, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh...technical loopholes...gotta love em, and gotta love the solutions smart engineers come up with to achieve a goal without breaking a rule. Farking marvelous, and keep it up, I say.

That is what F1 is about.

That and a bunch of millionaires (and pay drivers :P ) in the cars.

Edited by AleHop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying they are cheats but if FIA come up with a chassis flex test it most likley wouldnt pass. And yea theres a rule that stats that all parts are rigid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first off there is a post about Alain Alonso and Aryton Hamilton....

Secondly, RBR are not cheating. There is no rule about chassis flex.

In 1973 Lola Cars produced the iconic T340 formula ford car. This car became affectionately named the Flexi Flyer...Flexi, because the chassis flexed with very little effort, Flyer because right out of the box, the car won races. HU01, the first off the production line, went on to win the British Formula Ford Championship of 1973, driven by Patrick Nieve...the same chassis went on to win the NZ FFord Championship twice. In an era of countless manufacturers, all with varying degrees of success, like Crossle, Van Diemen, Zink, Reynard, Merlyn et al, competition was fierce, and this flexible car, whose chassis was coined as "the fifth spring" spanked. Everyone wanted them.

It evolved a little in 1974, designated the T342, and this too was a formidable car in even average hands. The T340/2 went on to run in many countries top flight FFord comps, and was more than competitive up until 1984 when Swift produced the DB-1 - a radical, skinny (read very low aero silhouette), total re-think of Formula Ford - and spanked people left right and center.

So, whilst stiff is good, so too can a flexi chassis when the rest of the geometry of the suspension is designed around knowing there is flex, things such as roll centers, and spring rates etc. can be designed to maximise the cars potential.

I remember when I worked for RALT cars in thge UK back in 1987, they decided to go into F3000 carbon fibre chassis. The car was not successful first time up because the chassis was too STIFF. I think it was Johnny Herbert at a spanish circuit who ran off the road on the straight and wiped out a STEEL posted banner, but with no injuries to himself, such was the strength of the Chassis.

Newey is a genius. I don't need to make a technical dissertation to prove that point (aye, Mike) - his cars are the most aero efficient out there (like the Swift was), and he has been tinkering for some time with his suspension. If he has made the chassis / monocoque flex, there is a very good reason for it. It's not illegal, and many designers would think its the worst thing they could possibly do, but that is not always true.

Also, wings get closer to the ground through suspension movement, so why the furore over the chassis flexing? The same result brought on from another aspect of the cars design. That's all it is. It's legal.

Any team would give sell their grandmothers if it meant they had Adrian and his team. It may take three years or four years for things to bear fruit, but when they do.....eat my dust!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is, even in principle, impossible to make a front wing that was completely rigid, the rules must state what is meant by "rigid front wing".

Sorry, disagree. If the wings were made of concrete they would be completely rigid :D

Damn another good suggestion to pass onto the FIA. Concrete cars!!! eusa_think.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, disagree. If the wings were made of concrete they would be completely rigid :D

Damn another good suggestion to pass onto the FIA. Concrete cars!!! eusa_think.gif

Haven't you heard? Jean Todt is pushing for concrete / carbon fibre composite materials to be introduced in 2013, along with the puny 4 cylinder engines.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when we have to try hard, we have to be smart enough to exploit the loopholes, or break rules without getting caught.....RBR is doing a good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it passes the test then it is not cheating.

Cheating is cutting a corner to overtake and think that it is ok.

Careful!nono1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now