Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cavallino

Dc And Newey - The Veteran Cheats Are At It Again

Recommended Posts

I don't value your opinion of me much. Actually I don't value it at all.

To be precise, since we're nitpicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said DC has nothing to do with it, what on earth do you mean? And you still haven't told me how a stationary camera takes pictures from different angles.

I asked you if you believed that Newey and DC were cheats. You replied that they had both knowingly violated the rules. Read it for yourself.

A stationary camera would take pictures from the same angle, i grant you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked you if you believed that Newey and DC were cheats. You replied that they had both knowingly violated the rules. Read it for yourself.

Not on this occasion, I meant the past, Newey excluded of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't value your opinion of me much. Actually I don't value it at all.

To be precise, since we're nitpicking.

Since when was my opinion of you an issue in our discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when was my opinion of you an issue in our discussion?

Since you made it personal. Again:

You do nothing to endear yourself to the people who see you as a purely pro-Ferrari vigilante.

Flexi wings have affected your flexi brain.

I hope you noticed that you haven't said a single word about the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not on this occasion, I meant the past, Newey excluded of course
Any other painfully obvious statements that I need to clarify, since we're into petty nitpicking now?

Petty nitpicking? You could save yourself a lot of pain if you were to clarify yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you made it personal. Again:

You do nothing to endear yourself to the people who see you as a purely pro-Ferrari vigilante.

Flexi wings have affected your flexi brain.

You are pro-Ferrari, biased and quite aggresive in your defence of them. I use the term 'pro-Ferrari vigilante' because i think it aptly describes this behaviour. It's not a personal attack, it's an observation about a trait of yours which makes objective debate difficult at times. Mine would be sarcasm or a tendancy to use humour or mickey taking as a defence mechanism.

'Flexi wings have affected your flexi brain' is a reference to your insistence that this is going on. I haven't said that it's not going on, in fact the evidence you have presented suggests that it is. I hope you will grant me that if i can see that i may be wrong, i have the good sense to admit it.

Sarcasm doesn't always travel well across the internet. If i had got it in for you, or was intent on some sort of hate campaign, you would know about it by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's perfectly clear to anyone not trying to be deliberately obtuse.

Deliberately obtuse? Oh, come on, that's not fair. You said initially that 'you did not value my opinion atall'. I had a right to question that because i know i can spout a lot of nonsense but if someone like you in particular really doesn't value a word i say, that makes me sit up and think.

It was you who then had to emphasize that you meant 'your opinion of me'. That is something quite different and in light of the way that i can be around this place, quite understandable and easy for me to accept.

Be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems everyone disagrees with you on everything cavallino, and you dont have any hard evidence for the outrageous accusations and theories that you have come up with.

You say there was an enquiry, could you clarify when this enquiry was made and what the outcome was? i'd be interested to know.

There must be a deeper reason why you dislike DC, because the reasons you give are woefully lame, you just make up stories about him plotting with Ron Dennis, without any evidence whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is normal flexing of the rear wing. As c21 has said, the issue with flexible wings was the slot gap opening. When you have two elements of the rear wing, they act together as one large wing. If you develop a wing that opens up that gap in the middle of the two elements, you kill the drag of that big wing allowing air to flow through the gap easily and increasing straight-line speeds.

Look at the pic Cav posted, specifically at the central area where the two images converge. You will see that even though the wing is bending down in the middle, that slot gap between the two elements remains more or less the same. I suppose you could argue that if you got in there and measured the gap you could find that it had openend up, but how can anyone get in there to prove that? Certainly you'd get blurry pixels if you tried it with that image.

Anyway, all wings will move up and down to a certain degree, but the key thought to keep in mind is this: does the movement kill the drag of the wing? If it doesn't (as I believe the rear wing of the Red Bull doesn't) then there isn't a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is normal flexing of the rear wing. As c21 has said, the issue with flexible wings was the slot gap opening. When you have two elements of the rear wing, they act together as one large wing. If you develop a wing that opens up that gap in the middle of the two elements, you kill the drag of that big wing allowing air to flow through the gap easily and increasing straight-line speeds.

Look at the pic Cav posted, specifically at the central area where the two images converge. You will see that even though the wing is bending down in the middle, that slot gap between the two elements remains more or less the same. I suppose you could argue that if you got in there and measured the gap you could find that it had openend up, but how can anyone get in there to prove that? Certainly you'd get blurry pixels if you tried it with that image.

Anyway, all wings will move up and down to a certain degree, but the key thought to keep in mind is this: does the movement kill the drag of the wing? If it doesn't (as I believe the rear wing of the Red Bull doesn't) then there isn't a problem.

So you are saying that this is a normal wing??????

I cant agree with that.

However, if you are saying that if it passes the tests, then its legal (although not really in the spirit of the rules), then I'm with you.

Edit: I believe that they are trying to reduce the area of the wing by tilting it backwards. I guess this would stall it on the straits?

Anyhow, Im very surprised that they got the rear lower wing to flex that much, and still got it to pass the load test.

I wonder if it is of the same spec as the "tested" (and passed) wing from the winter.

It would be interesting if Red Bull were to surrender the wing to the FIA for a control test if it would pass the test again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wings at speed do tend to flex; mainly because of the thin carbon fibre they are made from. The flexing in the picture looks to be a uniform flexing and there isn't a large opening of the gap between wing elements. That's why I would guess the flexing in the picture was 'normal'. I would be interested in seeing that pic done with a different cars for comparison. The important part to remember is "does the flexed wing reduce drag or downforce on the straights?"

As for it causing a stall: the flattening out of the trailing edge of the bottom element could slow up the air and cause a stall, but if the wing were stalling, it wouldn't be bowing down in the center, as if it still had a downforce load on it (as the picture shows). I'd expect to see a straight wing (and a bigger gap between the elements as the wing's trailing edge flattens) because stalling kills downforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wings at speed do tend to flex; mainly because of the thin carbon fibre they are made from. The flexing in the picture looks to be a uniform flexing and there isn't a large opening of the gap between wing elements. That's why I would guess the flexing in the picture was 'normal'. I would be interested in seeing that pic done with a different cars for comparison. The important part to remember is "does the flexed wing reduce drag or downforce on the straights?"

As for it causing a stall: the flattening out of the trailing edge of the bottom element could slow up the air and cause a stall, but if the wing were stalling, it wouldn't be bowing down in the center, as if it still had a downforce load on it (as the picture shows). I'd expect to see a straight wing (and a bigger gap between the elements as the wing's trailing edge flattens) because stalling kills downforce.

You are looking in the wrong place.

Look at the lower wing (between the wheels), thats the flexing bugger, its bringing the whole rear wing assembly down.

http://www.supload.us/free/RBRCheatwing.gif/view/

Have a look at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are looking in the wrong place.

Look at the lower wing (between the wheels), thats the flexing bugger, its bringing the whole rear wing assembly down.

http://www.supload.us/free/RBRCheatwing.gif/view/

Have a look at this.

That doesnt prove anything. Everything is bouncing around it impossible to tell. Even the Speed logo in the top right hand corner is moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does appear that whole wing assembly is flattening on the straights. Is it enough to reduce drag and stall the wing? That I don't know. I also don't know how much of this 'flexing' is normal. We would need to see other cars at the same spots to really make a judgement.

The gap between the two elements seems to remain constant, which could argue that the wing is still in it's airfoil shape and just moving down because of normal downforce levels. Remember that a wing moving up and down like that isn't really the issue; we need to determine if that movement is eliminating drag or downforce on the straights. I suppose that a strict interpretation of the rules would have that wing illegal....

I would say that the wing is flexing down and is flattening under speed, giving the car less drag and a better straightline speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wing flexes because that is precisely what it has been designed to do, no other wing flexes that way. c21 has already told us how it can be done. Even if the wing elements do not stall, just by significantly varying the angle of attack of the rear wing elements, they can reduce the angle of attack on straights, reducing drag and downforce, of course only for the wings to pop up again when they are neded. This is a travesty, whichever way you see it.

The gap is't the only way to make flexi wings work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesnt prove anything. Everything is bouncing around it impossible to tell. Even the Speed logo in the top right hand corner is moving.

Why're you so bothered with peripheral details? Look at two things, a) the wing clearly changes shape, and B) the elements more relative to the fixed camera and fixed reference points on the car. The camera is fixed, look at parts of the car relative to other parts of the car. Everything else is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why're you so bothered with peripheral details? Look at two things, a) the wing clearly changes shape, and B) the elements more relative to the fixed camera and fixed reference points on the car. The camera is fixed, look at parts of the car relative to other parts of the car. Everything else is irrelevant.

Correct!

I would like to have seen the FIA confiscate the rear lower wing and have the normal load test applied to it. (not the flex test. I'm sure that the wing passes it) but I would seriously doubt that it would pass the required load test.

The age old story of homologate (is that a word?) one part and race another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wing flexes because that is precisely what it has been designed to do, no other wing flexes that way. c21 has already told us how it can be done. Even if the wing elements do not stall, just by significantly varying the angle of attack of the rear wing elements, they can reduce the angle of attack on straights, reducing drag and downforce, of course only for the wings to pop up again when they are neded. This is a travesty, whichever way you see it.

The gap is't the only way to make flexi wings work.

Why're you so bothered with peripheral details? Look at two things, a) the wing clearly changes shape, and B) the elements more relative to the fixed camera and fixed reference points on the car. The camera is fixed, look at parts of the car relative to other parts of the car. Everything else is irrelevant.

The Red Bull rear wing assembly moves and is therefore a moveable aero device. The front McLaren wing assembly moves and is therefore a moveable aero device. The wheel covering on the Ferrari and the Renault (and STR?) are also moveable aero devices. All of these are innovative to be sure, but in the end illegal.

After reading a bit more about it and seeing numerous pics and movie clips I've come to the above conclusion. Now we shall see what the FIA does about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...