See told you it was the fairies

Sparky · 30 Mar 2011 at 15:54

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-red-bull-wing-flex-not-illegal-whiting/

dalin80 · 30 Mar 2011 at 15:57

Clears the way for all the other teams to develop bendy cars.

Sparky · 30 Mar 2011 at 15:57

Kerming · 30 Mar 2011 at 16:09

pff.......I think we got this a while back.

JRS · 30 Mar 2011 at 16:27

FIA technical delegate Whiting told Germany's Bild newspaper: "We have found nothing unusual. The car is in order."

We have found nothing unusual

found

There's a key word there....

We all know it passes the FIA tests, after all. Isn't it time a rival team led a 'Doc Postlethwaite' style raid on the Red Bull garage one race weekend to photograph the car in minute detail?

deuse · 30 Mar 2011 at 16:43

BS

EDIT=there should be a new test for the front wing and nose.

EDIT2=They should make a rule to how much it can flex on the track because rb wing touches the ground.

Duke · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:01

Surprised they didn't bring in new rules to stop this, after stopping the f-duct, double diffuser and other new innovations. Just hope the other teams catch up

deuse · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:12

Duke said:
Surprised they didn't bring in new rules to stop this, after stopping the f-duct, double diffuser and other new innovations. Just hope the other teams catch up

Do you know how much flex is allowed Duke?

Shimmy · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:15

deuse said:
Do you know how much flex is allowed Duke?

5mm.

deuse · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:19

Shimmy said:
5mm.

Thanks

I take it that's off the track(not running)?

ZG002 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:26

Will be yeah, As they can't measure it while the car is running, That is the problem.

Merlin5 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:35

"The real issue for Red Bull's rivals is the overall lap time gap witnessed particularly in qualifying, although it is suggested Sebastian Vettel sandbagged en route to Melbourne victory."

'Sandbagged'. Que?

deuse · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:35

ZG002 said:
Will be yeah, As they can't measure it while the car is running, That is the problem.

Again thanks

This is so easy to resolve i.e put skid block wear test on the front wing of all the cars.
The blocks will be mounted on the end plates of the front wing. If the blocks wear out it's to low.

ZG002 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:45

The FIA really don't seem to be all that bothered about it tbh. It's time for other teams to step up and figure it out to compete. Then it will be looked into more and banned. typical FIA way

dannyjo22 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:46

Shimmy said:
5mm.

Link?

deuse · 30 Mar 2011 at 18:20

ZG002 said:
The FIA really don't seem to be all that bothered about it tbh. It's time for other teams to step up and figure it out to compete. Then it will be looked into more and banned. typical FIA way

Pity the FIA never did that with Mclaren's F-Duct last season

Shimmy · 30 Mar 2011 at 18:21

dannyjo22 said:
Link?

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/820.html

TaKeN · 30 Mar 2011 at 18:27

Merlin5 said:
"The real issue for Red Bull's rivals is the overall lap time gap witnessed particularly in qualifying, although it is suggested Sebastian Vettel sandbagged en route to Melbourne victory."

'Sandbagged'. Que?

Hid the true pace of his car.

dannyjo22 · 30 Mar 2011 at 18:44

Shimmy said:
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/820.html

Thats for floor flex in a vertical direction, not wing.

Demon · 30 Mar 2011 at 18:46

dannyjo22 said:
Link?

He's probably referring to the 3.17 tests (which the RBR passes)

FIA 2011 Regs

Lots of it is vague,

e.g.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts
solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or 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, with the exception of the skid block
in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

And if the flex outline comparison you have previouslt posted is correct,

You'd think it contravenes that at least.

However, something CS||Nuts said possibly rings true, and that is that regulation seems quite clear, but they then put Section 3.17 in with all the specific tests, which implies that 3.15 is to be interpreted as a guideline,not a regulation?

I can't believe that looking at the video evidence etc, that it actually isn't contravening something in there, but if the FIA insist on treating a regulation as a guideline, I guess it's a case of 'when in Rome..'

I've never said it's illegal, since it clearly always was OK'd by the FIA, However I just see it in the same vein as glitchers in FPS Games, not the kind of 'innovation' I'd be proud of.. (And don't take that too literally, I'm not hopping up and down all hot under the collar!)