Technical Red Bull's Front Wing (Revisited)

[FB]

I don't think this helps a great deal but it's pretty cool video.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Was that shot in super slo-mo, or was the RBR just going very slowly?

 

[ramilas1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/12996753.stm

.... sounds like Horner has had enough of the finger pointing and picked out McLaren as the main whingers.

"I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane, and it complies with the regulations, which is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one, and it complies fully with that."

Now, Christian, about this KERS battery of yours ......

 

[Brogan]

Horner can say what he likes.
The images and video are all the proof I need.

And his explanation is, quite frankly, insulting:

"We run quite a high rake angle in our car. So inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Obviously he says it all, yes it complies with the rules, but clearly the rules cannot sufficiently measure the flex of a front wing and Horner does all but say this. Frankly Horner is becoming an embarassment to Red Bull and F1 and seems to consistently be putting his foot in it.

 

[teabagyokel]

Frankly Horner is becoming an embarassment to Red Bull and F1 and seems to consistently be putting his foot in it.

Sorry, thats not true. It would be embarassing for F1 and Red Bull if he'd said:

Yes, our front wing flexes, yes its illegal. The only question is what the hell you're going to do about it

As it is, he's being asked at pretty much every press conference:

Hack: {Martin Whitmarsh/Lewis Hamilton/Ron Dennis/Paddy Lowe/the late Bruce McLaren via Ouija board} thinks your front wing is illegal. How do you respond to that?

And the guy responds to it with the legitimate and reasonable opinion of his designers, namely:

We think its fine, its passed every test the FIA have put infront of it, move on!

I don't know enough to allow me to make a decision on the Red Bull front wing, but Horner's comments are certainly not 'embarrassing'.

 

[Enja]

Horner can say what he likes.
The images and video are all the proof I need.

And his explanation is, quite frankly, insulting:

I don't know what any of that means, Bro.

Why is it insulting?

 

[Brogan]

Because it's nothing to do with the rake of the car or the back being higher than the front.
The wing (and nose) clearly flex and lower under aerodynamic load.

Horner's statement is a load of hogwash and insulting to those of us who are able to see the facts for ourselves.

 

[Jen]

Because it's nothing to do with the rake of the car or the back being higher than the front.
The wing (and nose) clearly flex and lower under aerodynamic load.

Horner's statement is a load of hogwash and insulting to those of us who are able to see the facts for ourselves.

I tend to agree with this - I say "tend" because I'm not very technical but all the images suggest that more is going on than should do.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Because it's nothing to do with the rake of the car or the back being higher than the front.
The wing (and nose) clearly flex and lower under aerodynamic load.
Horner's statement is a load of hogwash and insulting to those of us who are able to see the facts for ourselves.

I agree. I remember last season making a CAD drawing of the side view of an F1 car, experimenting with rake angle and ride height to see how it might affect front wing height. Even the most extreme rake angle I applied was nowhere near enough to get the front wing as close to the ground as the RBR was still is achieving.

 

[snowy]

The Rake of the Red Bull Racecar

Another classic Redbull Herring or a fact of life?

Mercedes GP team principal Ross Brawn believes Red Bull Racing's rivals may need to adopt its high rear ride-height concept if it is found to be a big contributor to its front-wing advantage.

There's a regulation which says that the bodywork should be rigid. 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 those tests. There's a new test this year. Red Bull obviously pass it so that's all there is to say about it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90537

 

[Brogan]

with the FIA having found no problem with the visible flexing of the RB7's front wing

Am I the only one who can see the obvious problem with that statement?

 

[Grizzly]

I don't know what your talking about?

 

[Incubus]

Igreat images, but I think we've already established the fact that Red Bull are capable of producing a front-wing package that sticks to the letter of the law when stationery, but not so when in motion. No point intrying to graphically demonstrate it, we've known that for a long time. The question is, what will rival teams come up with, and do they have the ability to copy it?

 

[snowy]

Am I the only one who can see the obvious problem with that statement?

It's a typo, it was supposed to say "invisibly", we have all been kidding ourselves for the past 9 months. We were fixating on the wing when we should have noticed the rake that kept on smashing us in the face when we stepped on it.

We're a bunch of Sideshow Bob's!

 

[Enja]

We're a bunch of Sideshow Bob's!

Bit unfair on Marco Simoncelli..

 

[Speshal]

Ahh they've been at it for a while though.

 

[Pyrope]

I'm going to fall back onto a point made by McCabe (again). Red Bull have been investing an awful lot of time in computational fluid-structure interaction modelling. This couples deformation in structures to changes in fluid flows and models the feedbacks between the two. It's pretty impressive stuff, but... if your structure doesn't deform then it is a complete waste of time and money! Yet again (see: wingtip skid plates) Red Bull's actions speak louder than the words.

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-red-bull-simulate-front-wing.html

 

[Josephiah]

I'm going to fall back onto a point made by McCabe (again). Red Bull have been investing an awful lot of time in computational fluid-structure interaction modelling. This couples deformation in structures to changes in fluid flows and models the feedbacks between the two. It's pretty impressive stuff, but... if your structure doesn't deform then it is a complete waste of time and money! Yet again (see: wingtip skid plates) Red Bull's actions speak louder than the words.

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-red-bull-simulate-front-wing.html

As some others have said before me, I'm torn between awe of the prodigious engineering that goes on in the background, and the blatant (at least spirit-of-the-)law-breaking in the foreground.

 

[snowy]

I actually don't have a problem with the Red Bull car. However I dislike intensely the team and Christian Horner's unpleasant way of obscuring their engineering. If their competitor's are actually dumb enough to be outwitted or misdirected by the garbage that comes out of Christian Horner, then that is unbelievably tragic and doesn't bare thinking about! If the FIA are allowing themselves to be hoodwinked then that too is too hideous to contemplate.

So that just leaves us the fans of F1 and F1 engineering! We are being toyed with, talked down to and treated like shit! Any one of these alternatives, however playful, creative, mysterious or interesting Christian thinks he is being is simply unacceptable and is pissing off a lot of people.

A simple "No comment" would suffice.