Flexible Wings? More Stringent Tests for Monza

[Chad Stewarthill]

sportsman said:
Drawing #6 right at the bottom shows camera positions.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 6-2010.pdf
Interesting.

McLaren appear to have one even lower though as it is almost level with the floor.

Look here,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 952087.stm

and it appears that Mclaren's camera mount is half way down the trailing edge of the front wing support posts as opposed to the others which are mounted on the body of the nosecone. but even here positions vary quite a lot, with the Red Bull and Williams having the mounts right at the front of the nose, and the Renault and Ferrari ones just in front of the suspension.

The rules state that while the mounts must be provided, the decision as to whether to fit an actual camera (other than position 4) is agreed between FOM and the individual team:

20.1 Presence of cameras and camera housings :
All cars must be fitted with at least five cameras or camera housings at all times throughout the Event.

20.3 Location and fitting of camera equipment :
20.3.1 All cars must be equipped with five positions in which cameras or camera housings can be fitted. Referring to Drawing 6, all cars must carry (i) a camera in position 4 and (ii) a camera or camera housing in positions 2 (both sides), 3 and either 1 or 5.
Any decision as to whether a camera or camera housing is fitted in those positions will be by agreement
between the relevant Competitor and the Commercial Rights Holder.

 

[MajorDanby]

Autosport has published a piece stating that Brawn and Whitmarsh firmly believe that the flexing wing is less of an issue with the regulation changes, and that Ferrari and RedBull are running their wings significantly higher than in previous races.

Whitmarsh also goes on to say that the regulations coming in for Monza should firmly put the issue to bed.

 

[Flood1]

Brawn thinks is the bib stays and their attachments that are providing the flexibility. I think he may be right, and if so, it is a bit of brilliant engineering. But, as a result of improved scrutineering, RBR's last six races may change the championship standings.

http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/08/ ... lood1.html

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Flood1 said:
Brawn thinks is the bib stays and their attachments that are providing the flexibility. I think he may be right, and if so, it is a bit of brilliant engineering. But, as a result of improved scrutineering, RBR's last six races may change the championship standings.

Some great pictures there Flood, to illustrate what might be going on with the splitter and bib stay. But I still don't see how the nosecone itself can droop, 'Concorde' style. It must be fixed rigidly to the monococque in order to be part of the crash structure.
I think it is more to do with raising the rear ride height to lower the front end, with the splitter being able to 'hinge' or flex upwards so that the front of the plank doesn't foul on the track surface.

Whatever it actually is though, I agree that the run-in is starting to look a lot more interesting, especially if the evidence of Mclaren's relative performance this weekend is in any way connected with this issue. Surely such a large narrowing of the gap to Red Bull is more than just coincidence, and not just explainable because the circuit might be more in their favour?

I know we've still got one hell of a race in prospect today, but I'm already looking forward to Monza!

 

[sportsman]

Great detective work Flood
Fascinating article and pics.You can clearly see how this would allow the front wing to run so much lower and ideed run below the reference plane which is clearly illegal.
The bit I find dificult to comprehend is why the other teams could not work this out for themselves.They are after all stuffed full of very highly paid engineers and aerodynamacists who should have spotted this much earlier.
The question is "what happens now".If indeed both RBR and Ferrari's results have been gained by using an illegal car will their previous results be annulled.?

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Actually Flood, while Brawn and Whitmarsh do seem to concur about the issue, according to Autosport the quote in your article was made by the latter. Still an eye-opener though.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86211

 

[Jru]

As far as I am aware parts found to be illegal having previously used are normally just removed and previous results left as they were. A precedent that clearly promotes bending the rules but at the same time promotes ingenuity. I just wish we found out about each cars parts that were found to have been not allowed!

 

[Brogan]

Nice work Flood.

I'm all for clever engineering but this I feel is blatant cheating as the front wing has been designed to drop below the 85mm reference line under race conditions.
It has also been done in such a way as to bypass the normal scrutineering checks.

That's no different to having illegal ballast in the fuel tanks or suspension which can be lowered during the race.

 

[Flood1]

Actually Flood, while Brawn and Whitmarsh do seem to concur about the issue, according to Autosport the quote in your article was made by the latter. Still an eye-opener though.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86211

Thanks, I've corrected it. I still don't have any idea how it could actually work.

 

[MajorDanby]

Cheers for the info flood. Very interesting.

On the matter of penalties for RBR and Ferrari. They won't and in my opinion shouldn't get one. They have been clever in getting by the tests, although are still contravening the regulations. As such the wings should be removed but no further action taken.

 

[sportsman]

Nice work Flood.

I'm all for clever engineering but this I feel is blatant cheating as the front wing has been designed to drop below the 85mm reference line under race conditions.
It has also been done in such a way as to bypass the normal scrutineering checks.

That's no different to having illegal ballast in the fuel tanks or suspension which can be lowered during the race.

I second that.
During the Brawn double diffuser argument last year if it had been found to be illegal Brawn would have been stripped of their points.

 

[snowy]

Christian Horner's recent claims that RBR haven't altered their front wing have now morphed into an inference/accusation that McLaren's front wing is now flexing more than Red Bull!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86297

"I can categorically tell you that they are the same wings that ran in Hungary a month ago,"
"Whether that is the same for our competitors I can't say but I would be very interested to know - and you might find it was a silver wing that was most flexible this weekend."

"On the basis that nothing has changed on our car, I cannot see why they should not be happy," explained Horner. "I would be interested to know who had the most flexible front wing this weekend, because I can guarantee it wasn't us."

 

[MajorDanby]

Ooh,

Does anyone else get the feeling this whole incident is starting to look like a screaming contest between two old ladies? Time for the handbags to come out girls!!!

I'm now going to trawl through the race and quali footage to see if there is any evidence of the McLaren wing flexing. I'll take a look at Merc as well. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt, they are silver as well

 

[MCLS]

Basically for Red Bull (and probably McLaren as well) the only defence is to attack each other (in Vettels case, literally)

 

[Galahad]

Don't waste your time on McLaren - it was the Merc, I'm sure of it.

 

[snowy]

So it was. Fat lot of good it did them!

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Mclaren's wings are not silver anyway, they're red.

 

[Jru]

McLaren think that all teams will have had to make alterations due to the new tests, and say that theirs has actually allowed a small performance enhancement:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86474

Edit: Just noticed I've earned my L plates

 

[ATL11]

Call me cynical.....cynical

But both Spa & Monza are similar types of track, RBR did well at Spa in Qualifying (1st & 4th) but for Monza this is by far their worse performance with 4th & 6th, first time too they been off the front row this season.

So what's changed since then? There is no way that Ferrari & McLaren could find that much improvement.

No of course the Wing & Floor test got more stricter, but of course RBR haven't changed anything.

I'm confused.

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

Cheers for the info flood. Very interesting.

On the matter of penalties for RBR and Ferrari. They won't and in my opinion shouldn't get one. They have been clever in getting by the tests, although are still contravening the regulations. As such the wings should be removed but no further action taken.

I agree too.

I remember saying here once perhaps even on the that other forum, when everybody was getting there knickers in a twist about the ferrari bendy floor that they were legal because ferrari found a way round the appropriate tests. That Formula 1 was always about bending* the rules, stretching them to there limits and finding loopholes its what teams have always done thought out history from Lotus to Brabham to Ferrari and at the time you had to question why Mclaren and other rivals were missing these.

I got asked that if McLaren and co did the same thing if i would say the same thing and well Yes now Mclaren and RedBull have found similar loopholes and are doing the same thing.

If they past the Scrutineering tests there legal , and if the FIA's tests are not upto standards thats there fault. Its always been my opinion.

On another note anybody notice how the RedBull wings looked ... err ... more rigid this weekend. Think the new tests have forced Redbull to change there front wing??

*No pun intended