[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Ngilbe36

This Thread is about flexible rear wings

I didn't asked anything . I responded to a question from the man in question " MKSixer "
Mate . Do you understand ?

Check post # 142

[yco]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

MAX was the moral winner of race 1 at Bahrain . .Everyone knows that !

So I have to post the red line again .Why ? That's why ....

mate with that red line.. its not aligned with where wheel bearings are facing..

Originally Posted by Ngilbe36

This Thread is about flexible rear wings

but the topic itself is getting flexible as well like always how great Max "supposed to be"..

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by yco

mate with that red line.. its not aligned with where wheel bearings are facing..



but the topic itself is getting flexible as well like always how great Max "supposed to be"..

Mate listen to this ...
As you know I'm not religious at all .But I'll try to pray for you anyway ..

'In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti'

[inTgr8r]

Originally Posted by yco

mate with that red line.. its not aligned with where wheel bearings are facing..

Exactly!
Perspective angle is completely ignored.
Plus the fact that VER had to go to full opposite lock with the steering to complete the pass which resulted in the off track excursion to complete the pass.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by inTgr8r

Exactly!
Perspective angle is completely ignored.
Plus the fact that VER had to go to full opposite lock with the steering to complete the pass which resulted in the off track excursion to complete the pass.

How about a rear angle ?

It's just one of "29....At Bahrain !

[yco]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Mate listen to this ...
As you know I'm not religious at all .But I'll try to pray for you anyway ..

'In Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti'

ok thank you mate..

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by yco

nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics..

Merc's fin vibrates, Red Bull's rear wing bends.. lets separate them first..

and even if we assume your conspiracy is right.. bending rear wing gives a vast amount of advantage.. you dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know this..

yes i agree with one part that, they re ahead of time..

It's not a consipracy.
Seeing something flapping around and not understanding it's true purpose is a limitation to us.
Yes we can understand the RB wing sagging (or at least we think we can). That doesn't mean we can understand the merc fin flapping.
I can think of a dozen reasons for that finn to flap (maybe it creates a turbulance that hits the wing just at a certain spot, maybe it creates a turbulance that just misses the wing at a certain spot. Maybe it steers a turbulance in a corner to guide it to one side or maybe it steers the turbulance to guide it to the other side.
Whatever it does, it'll probably be way to complicated to understand its exact workings for any of us.

At the point that you start using relativation to the workings of an F1 car (like: "you dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know this" or "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.. "), you are way way out of your leage claiming to understand the workings of an F1 car.
None of us understands it.
I've worked 3 times in a windtunnel. Did some CFD modelling (Euler and Navier Stokes), but I don't presume to understand. Not even that RB sagging wing. In reality modelling and testing that effect will be way way to complicated for us. Even designing a non sagging wing is way to complicated for us.
I'm pretty sure that if we would design a sagging wing, it would still be the worst performing wing in the field. By a mile.

Saying something like "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.." has no added value in this discussion. It's like saying water is wet. Stating the obvious.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by yco

ok thank you mate..

Amen !

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It's not a consipracy.
Seeing something flapping around and not understanding it's true purpose is a limitation to us.
Yes we can understand the RB wing sagging (or at least we think we can). That doesn't mean we can understand the merc fin flapping.
I can think of a dozen reasons for that finn to flap (maybe it creates a turbulance that hits the wing just at a certain spot, maybe it creates a turbulance that just misses the wing at a certain spot. Maybe it steers a turbulance in a corner to guide it to one side or maybe it steers the turbulance to guide it to the other side.
Whatever it does, it'll probably be way to complicated to understand its exact workings for any of us.

At the point that you start using relativation to the workings of an F1 car (like: "you dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know this" or "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.. "), you are way way out of your leage claiming to understand the workings of an F1 car.
None of us understands it.
I've worked 3 times in a windtunnel. Did some CFD modelling (Euler and Navier Stokes), but I don't presume to understand. Not even that RB sagging wing. In reality modelling and testing that effect will be way way to complicated for us. Even designing a non sagging wing is way to complicated for us.
I'm pretty sure that if we would design a sagging wing, it would still be the worst performing wing in the field. By a mile.

Saying something like "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.." has no added value in this discussion. It's like saying water is wet. Stating the obvious.

I actually worked on CF when it became more popular as a structural material in 1983 and 1984. I stated in a post the proper way to make the material behave with my knowledge and I don't have the information a top tier F1 team has. If anyone believes that they can't do this in light of evidence that they have...it's a pretty amazing.

Thanks for your post. It is very helpful!!

[yco]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It's not a consipracy.
Seeing something flapping around and not understanding it's true purpose is a limitation to us.
Yes we can understand the RB wing sagging (or at least we think we can). That doesn't mean we can understand the merc fin flapping.
I can think of a dozen reasons for that finn to flap (maybe it creates a turbulance that hits the wing just at a certain spot, maybe it creates a turbulance that just misses the wing at a certain spot. Maybe it steers a turbulance in a corner to guide it to one side or maybe it steers the turbulance to guide it to the other side.
Whatever it does, it'll probably be way to complicated to understand its exact workings for any of us.

At the point that you start using relativation to the workings of an F1 car (like: "you dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know this" or "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.. "), you are way way out of your leage claiming to understand the workings of an F1 car.
None of us understands it.
I've worked 3 times in a windtunnel. Did some CFD modelling (Euler and Navier Stokes), but I don't presume to understand. Not even that RB sagging wing. In reality modelling and testing that effect will be way way to complicated for us. Even designing a non sagging wing is way to complicated for us.
I'm pretty sure that if we would design a sagging wing, it would still be the worst performing wing in the field. By a mile.

Saying something like "nothing on any car is "rigid" there is nothing like infinite rigidity in physics.." has no added value in this discussion. It's like saying water is wet. Stating the obvious.

thank you for the long post.. but one thing i ve said which was clear for everybody was bending rear wings benefit.. if you want to be skeptic about it, i respect.. but i do believe 100% it has benefit in the end for RB..

for Merc's fin.. its not obvious yes maybe they dont want to make it more rigid by adding 200g of more carbon.. maybe less weight is better than vibration at that point.. maybe the things you ve said.. nobody except Merc' engineers really knows that.. but RB's obvious..

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by yco

but RB's obvious..

What is obvious?
Obvious that it has a benefit or obvious in its workings?
I think everything we see has benefit. Because nothing we could ever see on these cars is left to 'coincidence'.
Everything we could possibly see on these cars has been seen by the engineers, and probably has been exactly and carefully engineered in this way. So everything we could ever see on these cars has a benefit. This is stating the obvious. If we don't see that benefit, we just lack the knowledge, aka are too stupid.
As for it's workings: does it change geometry? does it move in or out of a particular turbulance? Does it have a weight advantage? No one here can comment on that. No one here knows it's exact workings. So no one can claim that that is 'obvious'

As for if it's allowed or not... that is something for the FIA to decide.
Currently the car passed all the tests, so what RB is doing is according to the current rules. We have to see how the FIA is going to change the rules (if they are going to) and what the teams then have to do to potentionally comply with these new rules.

[yco]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

What is obvious?
Obvious that it has a benefit or obvious in its workings?
I think everything we see has benefit. Because nothing we could ever see on these cars is left to 'coincidence'.
Everything we could possibly see on these cars has been seen by the engineers, and probably has been exactly and carefully engineered in this way. So everything we could ever see on these cars has a benefit. This is stating the obvious. If we don't see that benefit, we just lack the knowledge, aka are too stupid.
As for it's workings: does it change geometry? does it move in or out of a particular turbulance? Does it have a weight advantage? No one here can comment on that. No one here knows it's exact workings. So no one can claim that that is 'obvious'

As for if it's allowed or not... that is something for the FIA to decide.
Currently the car passed all the tests, so what RB is doing is according to the current rules. We have to see how the FIA is going to change the rules (if they are going to) and what the teams then have to do to potentionally comply with these new rules.

you re saying nothing is a coincidence on these cars.. true..
so RB made a rear wing like this for PR purposes?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by yco

so RB made a rear wing like this for PR purposes?

No, for optimum performance to their abilities.
Just as merc made that rear finn for optimum performance to their abilities.
I have been saying this all the time, so I have no idea why you're now asking me this question.
Have you forgotten what I've written?

[M5Rick]

[QUOTE=GuidoK;27599804] obvious?

It is default saying for Merc worshiper should they run out of things to say trying to make out wing is illegal.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Currently the car passed all the tests, so what RB is doing is according to the current rules.

I would disagree with that.
The regulations do *not* in any way state that passing any load testing regime indicates that the car is legal.

The latest regulations April 2021 (unchanged over recent years)
,
3.2.2 [....] all aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing
the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference"

"3.15.1 Introduction of load/deflection tests
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.2.2 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."

ISTM that the load test regulations are designed to ensure compliance not to legitimise.

[erikejw]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I would disagree with that.
The regulations do *not* in any way state that passing any load testing regime indicates that the car is legal.

The latest regulations April 2021
,
3.2.2 [....] all aerodynamic components or bodywork influencing
the car’s aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured and immobile with respect to their frame of reference"
[....]
"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."

"3.15.1 Introduction of load/deflection tests
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.2.2 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."

ISTM that the load test regulations are designed to ensure compliance not to legitimise.

In reality it is deemed legal if it passes the load tests. That's is how FIA operate and govern that rule. And that is why they do change the tests from time to time. If they think some component is in the gray zone they can change their testing procedure with some heads up to the teams.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by erikejw

In reality it is deemed legal if it passes the load tests. That's is how FIA operate and govern that rule. And that is why they do change the tests from time to time. If they think some component is in the gray zone they can change their testing procedure with some heads up to the teams.

The FIA have surely known Red Bull (and likely some other teams) have been cheating the aero regulations but seemed content to turn a blind eye as long as it evened up the field wrt Mercedes and no one was talking about it.
Once it was talked about then they had to react.
It puts the FIA in a difficult position (in trying to retrospectively punish teams) having been complicit in its blind eye approach to obvious rear wing movement visible in footage from the rear facing cameras since at least last year.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I would disagree with that.
The regulations do *not* in any way state that passing any load testing regime indicates that the car is legal.

So the FIA tests the cars before entering the race for nothing?

Be sure to tell the FIA that

The FIA also said:
"The FIA did not suggest any particular team was breaking the rules when informing the 10 squads of the new tests, which come into force on June 15." according to www.formula1.com
So there's your answer I guess .

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

So the FIA tests the cars before entering the race for nothing?
Be sure to tell the FIA that
The FIA also said:
"The FIA did not suggest any particular team was breaking the rules when informing the 10 squads of the new tests, which come into force on June 15." according to www.formula1.com
So there's your answer I guess .

Come on...its really not that complicated....that some teams were circumventing the static loads tests doesn't make their cars legal.
3.2.2 still stands and takes precedence.
In the same way that Ferrari somehow cheated the fuel flow regulations by altering the output data of the fuel flow sensor didn't make their car legal even though the FIA couldn't figure how they were doing it.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Come on...its really not that complicated....that some teams were circumventing the static loads tests doesn't make their cars legal.
3.2.2 still stands and takes precedence.
In the same way that Ferrari somehow cheated the fuel flow regulations by altering the output data of the fuel flow sensor didn't make their car legal even though the FIA couldn't figure how they were doing it.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Come on...its really not that complicated....that some teams were circumventing the static loads tests doesn't make their cars legal.

So you imply that you know better than the FIA...
What a surprise

In the same way that Ferrari somehow cheated the fuel flow regulations by altering the output data of the fuel flow sensor didn't make their car legal even though the FIA couldn't figure how they were doing it.

This is different. It's not that the FIA cant figure out the stiffness of the RB rear wing. It's not that the FIA can't proove something in case of the RB rear wing. RB isn't 'circumventing' any tests. They pass each test as they now stand. It's just that the FIA (or better said: mercedes) thinks that the specs of the tests arent stringent enough.
I cant believe that you think something like that is the same.

And like I said:
"The FIA did not suggest any particular team was breaking the rules when informing the 10 squads of the new tests, which come into force on June 15." according to www.formula1.com

The FIA's current standpoint is that no team is breaking the rules of tests as they now stand.
They are going to change the procedure how rigidness of wings are tested, making the specs of the tests more stringent and give teams the time to adapt.
Doesn't that say all? What don't you understand about these actions?
It means that until those tests are changed and date is set to meet those tests, none of the cars have illegal wings regarding this issue.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It's just that the FIA (or better said: mercedes) thinks that the specs of the tests arent stringent enough.

Ah OK got it...I'll leave you to it.