Fwon

Rbr Cheats

66 posts in this topic

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.

Yes, the rule is clear - no moving parts. However, that will only cover mechanical manipulation and not aerodynamic genius. The chassis, nose and front wing are moving because the rake of the car is being altered by the way it interacts with airflow at a given speed. Pure genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the rule is clear - no moving parts. However, that will only cover mechanical manipulation and not aerodynamic genius. The chassis, nose and front wing are moving because the rake of the car is being altered by the way it interacts with airflow at a given speed. Pure genius.

If Carlsberg made F1 Engineers...........:lol:

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.

RBR came up with the blown diffuser, Brawn came up with the double diffuser. Both designs were inspected by the FIA and found to be legal, as was the F-Duct. The suspicion is that Red Bull are actually achieving the front wing lowering through the way the nosecone is mounted to the floor of the car, and none of the teams know how they are doing it yet, which is why nothing has been found, the teams don't know what they are looking for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0NMi51B2Xw

If you watch this video carefully, it's subtle but the nosecone of the car does visibly lower when the car is at it's highest aerodynamic load, and then it pops back up when Seb breaks, a lot more so than when you view onboard laps from other cars. If what Christian Horner was saying was true, the nose of the car should be lowering under breaking, not raising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBR came up with the blown diffuser, Brawn came up with the double diffuser. Both designs were inspected by the FIA and found to be legal, as was the F-Duct. The suspicion is that Red Bull are actually achieving the front wing lowering through the way the nosecone is mounted to the floor of the car, and none of the teams know how they are doing it yet, which is why nothing has been found, the teams don't know what they are looking for

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=N0NMi51B2Xw

If you watch this video carefully, it's subtle but the nosecone of the car does visibly lower when the car is at it's highest aerodynamic load, and then it pops back up when Seb breaks, a lot more so than when you view onboard laps from other cars. If what Christian Horner was saying was true, the nose of the car should be lowering under breaking, not raising.

all teams know that, probably there is unwritten rule to allow these kind of advantages to your oponents if they were more inventive and smarter then you, and try to catch them as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all teams know that, probably there is unwritten rule to allow these kind of advantages to your oponents if they were more inventive and smarter then you, and try to catch them as soon as possible.

Sure. I bet all the teams go and ask Mystic Meg what the results of the race are going to be as well :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch this video carefully, it's subtle but the nosecone of the car does visibly lower when the car is at it's highest aerodynamic load, and then it pops back up when Seb breaks, a lot more so than when you view onboard laps from other cars. If what Christian Horner was saying was true, the nose of the car should be lowering under breaking, not raising.

My point exactly. The video evidence just can't be ignored. Watch it again and tell me you don't see something sus!

I agree with most of you that the RB7 is TOTALLY LEGAL. It's just that Whiting and his crew are getting old and can't be bothered anymore!

There has to be a better way of testing these damn things. Hanging bricks from a front wing just won't cut it anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point exactly. The video evidence just can't be ignored. Watch it again and tell me you don't see something sus!

I agree with most of you that the RB7 is TOTALLY LEGAL. It's just that Whiting and his crew are getting old and can't be bothered anymore!

There has to be a better way of testing these damn things. Hanging bricks from a front wing just won't cut it anymore!

I think the most questionable role in this is being played by the FIA. If you look at side on shots of the car, it's abundantly clear that the wing is coming far closer to the ground than the 85mm stipulated by the regulations, that should be enough evidence for the FIA to force RBR to change their car. I am all for innovation, but when a team is clearly breaking the rules, more should be done. Video evidence is used in a lot of jury trials, so why it can't be used by the FIA to disqualify a car with an illegal competitive advantage is beyond me :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. I bet all the teams go and ask Mystic Meg what the results of the race are going to be as well :rolleyes:

who is Mystic Meg ?

well..., find transcripts of yesterday press conferences, where they have asked drivers and team managers to comment RBR's flexi wing. from their answers i guess they have never heard about it.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most questionable role in this is being played by the FIA. If you look at side on shots of the car, it's abundantly clear that the wing is coming far closer to the ground than the 85mm stipulated by the regulations, that should be enough evidence for the FIA to force RBR to change their car. I am all for innovation, but when a team is clearly breaking the rules, more should be done. Video evidence is used in a lot of jury trials, so why it can't be used by the FIA to disqualify a car with an illegal competitive advantage is beyond me :/

Video evidence is usually subjective, though, and can be explained away. Subjective evidence should only be applied to subjective rules, like a racing incident, for example. Most of the technical rules are much more objective, and you need objective tests for objective rules (like how much load something should take or the dimensions of a component). Perhaps the FIA should try to improve some of the load tests on the front wing, that would at least be a start. I gather the current test doesn't put anything like the same amount of stress on it as it is under at high speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an old saying in motorsport...."if he's faster than me, he must be cheating"

Doesn't mean they are cheating....you're just slower.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc. can complain about Red Bull flexi wing as it was flexing last year and they did very little to either copy it or force the FIA to introduce a realistic load test. Now they should just copy it ASAP if they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video evidence is usually subjective, though, and can be explained away. Subjective evidence should only be applied to subjective rules, like a racing incident, for example. Most of the technical rules are much more objective, and you need objective tests for objective rules (like how much load something should take or the dimensions of a component). Perhaps the FIA should try to improve some of the load tests on the front wing, that would at least be a start. I gather the current test doesn't put anything like the same amount of stress on it as it is under at high speed.

Load tests are useless, it's clear that it's the behaviour of the chassis that's making the wing lower itself, rather than flex in the wing itself, it would be immensely complex to try and create a test to mimic accurately how the car behaves under aero load. But video evidence is not as subjective as you think, simple physics can tell you if a car complies or not (for example it's not unusual for the nose of the car to dip under breaking due to the weight transfer). Some of the video shots I saw, especially last season showed the wing running so low, it was almost touching the ground at high speed. That's clearly against the 85mm rule, and just tell me this if video evidence can convict in law, why not in sport?

I don't think McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc. can complain about Red Bull flexi wing as it was flexing last year and they did very little to either copy it or force the FIA to introduce a realistic load test. Now they should just copy it ASAP if they can.

Red Bull said the loads being placed on the wing were almost breaking it they were that high. If you can suggest a reasonable way the FIA could test the way the car behaves under aero load i'd love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all teams know that, probably there is unwritten rule to allow these kind of advantages to your oponents if they were more inventive and smarter then you, and try to catch them as soon as possible.

Good point, and I agree. The problem here is that the other teams can't figure out what RBR are doing, thus they bleat. For the double diffuser, blown exhaust and F-duct, once they worked out how it operated, they shut up and copied it. Since they can't copy or workout what RBR are doing, they then want to stop them at all costs.

So if you come up with a great modern day innovation, it's "legal" if all the other teams can work it out and copy it, but "illegal" if they can't wrap their brains around it. Hypocrisy.

Edited by KoolMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Bull said the loads being placed on the wing were almost breaking it they were that high. If you can suggest a reasonable way the FIA could test the way the car behaves under aero load i'd love to hear it.

Change the rules, use sensors, do whatever you want. They had this very same problem last year and they didn't change the rules to avoid it nor they have been able to copy it. If you can't change the rules to enforce the spirit of the rule and you can't copy it you should do yourself a favor and stop complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in summary, all innovation is cheating?

Ferk it....make it a spec series NOW!!! We just can not have cheating...must not stand for it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only cheating if other teams can't work out the trick. Or so says the naysayers anyway. Kudos to RBR. As Horner said, we make the car to pass the FIA's tests... not McLarens. So Whitmarsh can suck it as far as I'm concerned. Either get more intelligent, or stfu about Newey and his designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc. can complain about Red Bull flexi wing as it was flexing last year and they did very little to either copy it or force the FIA to introduce a realistic load test. Now they should just copy it ASAP if they can.

Apart from Handy's and Insider engineering wisdom, best post by far :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying my post was crap are you? I'm gonna git you, sucker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the FIA should try to improve some of the load tests on the front wing, that would at least be a start. I gather the current test doesn't put anything like the same amount of stress on it as it is under at high speed.

There is sentence in Technical Regulation that all tests are done on the car when not moving and on the flat level surface. So, it is irrelevant what happens when car is moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this is what Ross Brawn says over the subject...

“There's a regulation which says the bodywork should be rigid,” the Englishman explained, “[but] we all know that's impossible because everything moves. It's a question of degrees, so the FIA has a series of tests to measure the degree to which bodywork moves – and as long as you pass those tests, then your car is to all intents and purposes legal.

“Those tests can change – in fact they changed over the winter because, as they do in a lot of areas, the FIA try and improve them. There's a new test this year. Red Bull obviously pass it, so that's all there is to say about it.

“They've got a philosophy of their car and approach, and teams have got to decide if that's the reason – or one of the reasons – for their level of performance. If it is, then you need to consider going that route yourself, or make sure it's not an excuse for the fact they're winning everything at the moment. You have to ask yourself whether it makes sense to change tack; McLaren have shown that you can be fast even with a completely different approach.

“It's fair to say that probably, over the winter, a lot of teams assumed with the new test that the situation was going to change and it hasn't, so we're faced with what we have and we have to make sure we produce as competitive a car as we can and comply with the FIA tests.”

It is just incredible that the Red Bull front wing debate has cropped up again,” the Scot wrote in his regular column for The Daily Telegraph. “I am sick to the back teeth of hearing the same story regurgitated time and again.

“To be absolutely clear, a car has to pass scrutineering to be allowed to race. Once it has done so, it is the right of any team, if they feel a car is running outside of the regulations, to lodge a protest. To do that would not even amount to a team's soft drinks budget for a weekend – small beer – so anyone who complains repeatedly about something but does not lodge a protest is either scaremongering, trying to devalue someone else's achievements or has serious doubts about the solidity of their argument.

“Red Bull's front wing has repeatedly passed every test put in front of it, so their rivals either need to copy it – if they can – or challenge it if they think it is illegal. Put up, or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only cheating if other teams can't work out the trick. Or so says the naysayers anyway. Kudos to RBR. As Horner said, we make the car to pass the FIA's tests... not McLarens. So Whitmarsh can suck it as far as I'm concerned. Either get more intelligent, or stfu about Newey and his designs.

No, it's cheating if it contravenes the technical regulations.

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