F1 to impose tougher tests on Red Bull and Ferrari 'flexi-wings'

[steelstallions]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/aug/02/f1-red-bull-ferrari


Motor racing's governing body, the FIA, has written to all Formula One teams to warn that tests on front wings are to be strengthened to ensure they comply with the rules.

A number of teams have sought clarification over the legality of the Red Bulls and Ferraris, as they are concerned by the amount of extra speed their "flexi-wings" generate over the rest of the field.

The aerodynamic benefit of the wing flexing is thought to be in the region of a second per lap. McLaren, who do not have the technology, were 1.7 seconds off the pace of the Red Bulls in qualifying at the Hungarian grand prix and have trailed behind their rivals in recent weeks.

Poor Mclaren are 1.7 seconds off the pace :-(
Since the F-duct they have gone backwards, now they are desperate, so call in the scrutineers for a rule change on the tests, 2007 style.
Only thing is, this time they don't know how RB and our wings work as they didn't steal the blue prints, so the additional tests might count for nothing.
Would be nice to see them trail us another second a lap.

[steelstallions]

Brawn hopes the new tests will clarify the matter and prevent Mercedes and other teams being forced to develop flexible wing technology at considerable cost.

"That is our dilemma," said Brawn. "It is our dilemma, McLaren's dilemma. I don't know how they do it yet, but if we devoted enough resources to it, then I am sure we could end up in the same situation. But we would rather not do it.

"We want to see some clarity, because it would be very relevant for next year. And if that is considered the accepted approach, then we will want to tackle it for next year."

FFS Brawn, it was ok when your Brawns had double diffusers then? you didn't care a flying F about other teams having to spend massive budgets to adopt a system that was deemed illegal/outside of the regulations by other teams and therefore not developed before the season started.
Brawn would have been screwed without the double diffuser and Button would not be WDC. Ferrari would not have abandoned the season as without DD the car would have been on a level playing field from the start.

[Ferrari_Fanatic]

FFS Brawn, it was ok when your Brawns had double diffusers then? you didn't care a flying F about other teams having to spend massive budgets to adopt a system that was deemed illegal/outside of the regulations by other teams and therefore not developed before the season started.
Brawn would have been screwed without the double diffuser and Button would not be WDC. Ferrari would not have abandoned the season as without DD the car would have been on a level playing field from the start.

don't worry do all the test they want we'll make it stonger :clap

[REDARMYSOJA]

FFS Brawn, it was ok when your Brawns had double diffusers then? you didn't care a flying F about other teams having to spend massive budgets to adopt a system that was deemed illegal/outside of the regulations by other teams and therefore not developed before the season started.
Brawn would have been screwed without the double diffuser and Button would not be WDC. Ferrari would not have abandoned the season as without DD the car would have been on a level playing field from the start.

That's whats puzzling about this decision. Not only did they allow the double diffusers to stay, but McLaren's F-duct this year. The wings have passed the test that has been used up to this point, so why change it now? Much like the flexi-floors in 2007, it seems when McLaren goes crying to the FIA, the FIA listens.

[Brakefade]

It's not all bad though. RB's wings flexes about twice as much as ours, so they more to lose than we do. But, while we will catch up to RB on that respect, Mclaren might start giving us trouble again. Especially with Spa and Monza coming up. The F-ducts will be key in this races. So we have to refine ours to negate any advantage Mclaren might have.

[XXX132]

MacLyins are heaps faster in a straight line this season. Bring back Kimi! :lol

[mad_ani]

That's whats puzzling about this decision. Not only did they allow the double diffusers to stay, but McLaren's F-duct this year. The wings have passed the test that has been used up to this point, so why change it now? Much like the flexi-floors in 2007, it seems when McLaren goes crying to the FIA, the FIA listens.

DDD and F duct not moveable aero devices....like the felxible bodywork...rules interpreted differently

taken from the fia tech regs


3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 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.

So they can alter their tests at any event...and now have increased their load to 100kg and 20mm deflection for Spa

[mad_ani]

It's not all bad though. RB's wings flexes about twice as much as ours, so they more to lose than we do. But, while we will catch up to RB on that respect, Mclaren might start giving us trouble again. Especially with Spa and Monza coming up. The F-ducts will be key in this races. So we have to refine ours to negate any advantage Mclaren might have.

The composite wing layup might pass the new FIA deflection tests as the deflection tests are DOWNWARD ONLY...BUt on a awing there is drag and downforce and a combined movement which twists these wings...I belive most teams will pass the new tests with ease...

[WRX202]

It's no big deal. All the teams do this and we are not exempt. Remember Renault's mass dumper? Or this year Red Bull ride height adjustment everyone including us enquired about? When teams get into an alley and cannot find an explanation of how a device works they just speak between each other and then push the FIA to check it out. The only reason we are not asking questions is because we managed to get a similar device even though it is said that the Red Bull's version provides 20% more downforce [according to RAI Sport]

[Ste]

They haven't stated they would impose tougher tests on Ferrari and Red Bull, they've just said it in general - i.e. all the teams. You can't use a 50KG weight on one car and then 100KG on another.

When they say they 'reserve the right to impose more stringent tests', that clearly means we will.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Red Bull go to Spa with a stiffer front wing. Although, if the flexing floor they have is true, it won't matter. The front wing will still stand up to the load and Christian can continue to look smug.

[Greig]

They are also looking at the floor and fixings :-)

[Ste]

They are also looking at the floor and fixings :-)

In that case, they're screwed :-D

[Italian Spirit]

Trying to give a helping hand to McLaren and poor Mr Brawn? :-D

[WRX202]

Actually judging by how much the Red Bull's wing bends more than ours it will probably benefit us more than anyone else! If the wings are made stiffer than we're in the lead again. :thumb
I noticed that in the last race the RB were insanely quicker in the slow sections but struggled compared to us in the straight. RAI commented that since the front wing on the RB closes the airflow completely from under the wing they have higher downforce but it plays against them in a straight line. If you take that away from them they'll be even more vulnerable to our race pace.

[Brakefade]

Oh man Spa is gonna be so interesting. It's a track that doesn't suit the RB at all, and on top of that they're getting hammered (at least a lot more than us) by the FIA. My only concern now is Mclaren. I know the Vodafone Fairy is gonna be on our tails because of his straightline speed.

[SilverSpeed]

Oh man Spa is gonna be so interesting. It's a track that doesn't suit the RB at all, and on top of that they're getting hammered (at least a lot more than us) by the FIA. My only concern now is Mclaren. I know the Vodafone Fairy is gonna be on our tails because of his straightline speed.

Fast corners don't suit RB ehhh... Seems like you have been living in your fridge?

[gvsnraju85]

I was reading the other day about the engine remapping thing that the RBR supposedly use in detail and i dont think it is true because of the following reasons:

I hungary we saw that even in the race the Bulls were almost a second faster than everybody else.....and Engine remapping is pretty harsh on the engines and i am sure they coudnt have afforded to use it through the entire race
The engine remapping requires the burning of extra fuel on corners...i do not think any team can afford to carry so much extra fuel to be able to last it all through the twisty and curvy track of Hungary


Any comments/views/suggetions are welcome.

[Brakefade]

Fast corners don't suit RB ehhh... Seems like you have been living in your fridge?

Do you know anything about F1. Spa is a low downforce track. It's not fast corners that suit the RB, but high downforce tracks like Hungary.

[LAROSA SpA]

I was reading the other day about the engine remapping thing that the RBR supposedly use in detail and i dont think it is true because of the following reasons:

I hungary we saw that even in the race the Bulls were almost a second faster than everybody else.....and Engine remapping is pretty harsh on the engines and i am sure they coudnt have afforded to use it through the entire race
The engine remapping requires the burning of extra fuel on corners...i do not think any team can afford to carry so much extra fuel to be able to last it all through the twisty and curvy track of Hungary


Any comments/views/suggetions are welcome.

The Engine remapping 'thing' is apparently only used during Quali 3 because of said reasons, although in Hungry there was no need for them to use it :-(

[mad_ani]

They are also looking at the floor and fixings :-)

From F1.com


Although TV footage has shown the Red Bull front wing appear to almost touch the track surface at speed, the rules demand that when static it has to stay 75mm above the ground. Even so the car has passed all the necessary scrutineering checks, including a rigorous one on Saturday in Hungary with 200 kilogrammes applied to the RB6's underbody and the plank.

Their car has already passed these tests and FIA can randomly check any car for flexible bodywork...If you do look at Sauber's car down the straight..you do see a flex as well....:-)

[Greig]

AUTOSPORT understands that from the next event at Spa-Francorchamps, the FIA has activated Article 3.17.8 of F1's technical regulations, which allows it to increase load deflection tests at any point to prevent teams being able to run flexible wings.

Article 3.17.8 states: "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 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."

At the moment the endplates on the front wing are allowed to flex by a maximum of 10mm when a load of 50 kilogrammes (500 Newtons) is applied to them.
The FIA has told teams now that it reserves the right to increase that test up to 100 kilogrammes - and it will only allow a linear increase of deflection up to 20mm. The linear increase is designed to ensure that teams are not using clever material design to ensure that their cars pass the deflection test to stay within the regulations but then flex much more at higher loads.

It is also understood that the FIA is to clamp down on teams using clever fixings and joints on the underfloor of the car – amid suspicions that this is one area that teams could also be exploiting the regulations.

[JRX164]

For some years now, I'm hearing that F1 should be about racing again and not about adminstrators waving their rule-books. And every year, it's still more about rules instead of racing. Teams bring it upon themselves if they keep running to the FIA whenever they can't keep up. If the FIA has approved car and parts, teams should decide for themselves to copy something or not. And always remember that if it doesn't kill you, it makes you faster. That's what racing is about to me.

[goferrarigo]

For some years now, I'm hearing that F1 should be about racing again and not about adminstrators waving their rule-books. And every year, it's still more about rules instead of racing. Teams bring it upon themselves if they keep running to the FIA whenever they can't keep up. If the FIA has approved car and parts, teams should decide for themselves to copy something or not. And always remember that if it doesn't kill you, it makes you faster. That's what racing is about to me.
Totally agree with you:thumb

[sav_pap]

Trying to give a helping hand to McLaren and poor Mr Brawn? :-D

Agrre 100%

[FerrariF60]

i just read this on motorsport.com
it seems like Red Bull might be scruitinized even more for their flexi wing's endplates and not only that but also front wing in general as well as possible flexible front part of the floor

Those who believe only Red Bull's front wing endplates are flexing appear to be wide of the mark.

Pressure from McLaren, Mercedes and perhaps other rivals of the Austrian owned team has resulted in new wing flexibility tests being devised by the FIA for the forthcoming Belgian Grand Prix
.

Reports indicate that the new tests will involve the doubling of the testing load from 50kg to 100kg, amid suspicions Red Bull and Ferrari devised a way to have the endplates bend under disproportionately higher loads out on track.

But for Red Bull, there seems to be a much more complex story to emerge.

"It's very clever," said McLaren's Jenson Button on Thursday, whilst preparing for the London Triathlon.

"We've just got to understand it -- and as quickly as possible," he is quoted by the Telegraph.

After Hockenheim, where Ferrari finally got on terms with Red Bull, the photographs of the bending wings started doing the rounds.

And before running the F10s a few days later, Ferrari chief engineer Chris Dyer said the team was set to consider "some different front wing options" in Hungary.

The rumours about Ferrari's flexing wings subsequently quietened, as the focus on the RB6 intensified.

It is now being suggested in F1 circles that flexing endplates is only part of Red Bull's story.

"It doesn't just seem to be their wing that flexes," Button had said in Hungary.

Indeed, further scrutiny of the flexi-wing photographs from Hockenheim and Hungary seem to show Red Bull's entire front nose - not just the wing and its extremities - much closer to the ground than any of their rivals, including Ferrari.

How the team is achieving this is unknown, but the manner in which Sebastian Vettel's prototype broke at the mounting at high speed on Hangar straight during third practice at Silverstone might be a clue.

Another theory is that the front of the floor of the car is flexing towards the ground on track, whilst the rear is lifting.

And it is believed the flexing of the rear floor in particular would have a radical effect in terms of the front wing height.

"I've heard rumours about all sorts of things going on, including flexible floors," BBC radio commentator Anthony Davidson said in Hungary.

[Sempre_Ferrari]

:-E in other words the entire floor might be flexing.

[mandzipop]

I've just read in the Autosport print version that CH says nothing is going to be changed on the RB6, it will still pass the new tests. :Hmm

[Hornet]

For some years now, I'm hearing that F1 should be about racing again and not about adminstrators waving their rule-books. And every year, it's still more about rules instead of racing. Teams bring it upon themselves if they keep running to the FIA whenever they can't keep up. If the FIA has approved car and parts, teams should decide for themselves to copy something or not. And always remember that if it doesn't kill you, it makes you faster. That's what racing is about to me.
Many technical rules relating to the car's build are necessary to prevent teams from compromising safety for performance. There's a reason why the cars are suppose to have certain ride hide and stuff like that. And when you have rules, the FIA is obligated to ensure that the rules are followed and should there be a loophole, they have to change the rules to cover those loophole.

Otherwise, whats the point of having those rules and then allowing the team to exploit certain loophole which allows the car to circumvent the rules and nullifies the actual intention of the rule

[JRX164]

Otherwise, whats the point of having those rules and then allowing the team to exploit certain loophole which allows the car to circumvent the rules and nullifies the actual intention of the rule Exploiting loopholes is necessary to innovate and progress. In life and in racing.

Otherwise, what's the point of letting teams develop and build their own cars.

[Hornet]

Exploiting loopholes is necessary to innovate and progress. In life and in racing.

Otherwise, what's the point of letting teams develop and build their own cars.
Even at the cost of compromising safety?

Loophole are unforeseen weakness or shortcoming in a rules. It makes no sense to say that we should have rules, but we must intentionally allow team to exploit them. Then whats the point of having rules if we just sit back and let them circumvent their way around the rules. They will be nothing more than some fancy paperwork.

We've seen in the past that we can develop improvements without having to always venture into the gray area. Development doesn't mean they have to find a way to break the rules.

And sadly we've also seen how far teams are willing to push things in trying to be competitive, like the bottom effect which was dangerously affecting the car causing them to bottom out frequently and stuff like that, and we needed the FIA to ban them altogether to make the team stop using that technique.

[JRX164]

Even at the cost of compromising safety?

Loophole are unforeseen weakness or shortcoming in a rules. It makes no sense to say that we should have rules, but we must intentionally allow team to exploit them. Then whats the point of having rules if we just sit back and let them circumvent their way around the rules. They will be nothing more than some fancy paperwork.

We've seen in the past that we can develop improvements without having to always venture into the gray area. Development doesn't mean they have to find a way to break the rules.

And sadly we've also seen how far teams are willing to push things in trying to be competitive, like the bottom effect which was dangerously affecting the car causing them to bottom out frequently and stuff like that, and we needed the FIA to ban them altogether to make the team stop using that technique.

Oh boy. Road to nowhere ahead:-E
My final thoughts on the issue here. Let's go back to the topic-title: F1 to impose tougher tests on Red Bull and Ferrari 'flexi-wings'. So, tougher tests on already approved wings. Why? Because teams complained (that the other ones were faster than theirs) to FIA. Result, the rules are re-interpreted by FIA in favour of those complaining. End result, FIA is becoming more stronger.

[bladeswing]

Im waiting to hear a team complain that their rivals' tires are rounder than theirs. :lou

[ales]

Im waiting to hear a team complain that their rivals' tires are rounder than theirs. :lou

That was done in 2003 :-P

[Hornet]

Oh boy. Road to nowhere ahead:-E
My final thoughts on the issue here. Let's go back to the topic-title: F1 to impose tougher tests on Red Bull and Ferrari 'flexi-wings'. So, tougher tests on already approved wings. Why? Because teams complained (that the other ones were faster than theirs) to FIA. Result, the rules are re-interpreted by FIA in favour of those complaining. End result, FIA is becoming more stronger.
I see your point there ;-)
I agree this is more about the team complain, but I guess the FIA cannot be subjective here. If there's a loophole somewhere, then they had to take action regardless of the intentions of the person complain. In a perfect world, teams would report all loophole they discover. But in the real world, they will only report it when they can't make good use of it :-D

IMO, if their intention is to prevent flexing wings, then its the FIA right to try new ways to enforce that intention. Doubt its a case of FIA favoring McLaren

[Brakefade]

F1: No Changes For Red Bull In Flex Controversy ?


Christian Horner does not think Red Bull will need to modify its 2010 car ahead of the Belgian grand prix.

Amid suggestions the front of the RB6 and Ferrari's F10 are running too low to the ground at high speed, the FIA has served notice that scrutineering tests will be amended for Spa-Francorchamps and beyond.

It had been expected that most teams would need to make changes in order to pass the new tests, but team principal Horner does not think Red Bull will be among them.

"Based on the correspondence the FIA has sent us, we believe our car still meets those criteria," he told the print edition of Autosport magazine.

If true, and rival teams do need to make changes to pass the new tests, the Austrian team could find itself with an even bigger performance advantage.

Championship leader and Hungaroring winner Mark Webber thinks the RB6 will be competitive at every remaining circuit in 2010.

"We're a little bit worried about how the long straights might go at some of the other venues, at maybe Monza," he said in a Red Bull video interview.

"But the car is very, very strong at most tracks so we're ready to take on anyone at any venue and I'm looking forward to all the races coming up," added the Australian.


http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-142006.html


Is this guy just playing psychological games or what? I would hate it if we still see that wing flopping around in Spa. If the FIA wants to trully get rid of flexi wings, they should just put their own sensors on the cars and monitor flexing in real time.

[steelstallions]

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-142006.html


Is this guy just playing psychological games or what? I would hate it if we still see that wing flopping around in Spa. If the FIA wants to trully get rid of flexi wings, they should just put their own sensors on the cars and monitor flexing in real time.

If he said they have to make changes to the wing, he has just admitted they have a flexi-wing. The paddocks other teams would circle his team like vultures, especially the silver one that took so much joy 'NOT' reading our blue prints to know to complain about a flexi-floor and give details of how it works, so the scrutineers impose the right test to stop it working.
So I guess your opinion about psychological games is not quite right but in the right direction he is protecting his team by using a smoke screen.
I admit my opinion could be wrong, the next race will reveal all.

[FerrariF60]

does anybody have the footage they were showing at the Hungarian GP during the race of the three team's (Red Bull, Ferrari and MCCheaters) wing flexing at high speeds in SLOW MOTION???

i tried to look for it but couldn't find it.

[Brakefade]

I only have this. Ours flexes about half as much and the endplates are not as close to the ground. Mclaren's wing is pretty much rigid and the endplates are way off the ground compared to RB's and ours.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrovk_DQmbA

[FerrariF60]

they won't allow me to play it....formula 1 copyrights

[mad_ani]

Lots of photos on the Darren Heath website...esp of those in Germany...most are gif images...and some of qualifying clips are around...but then again...photos are clear... IMO

[Naeem]

I suspect that the RB wings are tapered explaining the exponential flexing in relation to high load. Tapered wings would also explain why when Webber hits anyone, they always seem to get punctures and punctures dont seem to happen that often when its any other front wing involved.

[zuludemon]

My bet is rbr turn up with the same wing designs ie load vs flex behaviour. they will prolly move the cameras back to the nose for aero reasons and ppl will speculate they have changed them. But in reality they will have the same questions asked...

Basically what they are doing and Ferrari is legal.

I think the floor ruling will hurt Ferrari more than rb tho...
Based upon what i think is going on with the floor fixings.

[Brakefade]

Excellent flexi wing article ---> http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/aero-elasticity-%E2%80%93-red-bulls-front-wing/

[mad_ani]

My bet is rbr turn up with the same wing designs ie load vs flex behaviour. they will prolly move the cameras back to the nose for aero reasons and ppl will speculate they have changed them. But in reality they will have the same questions asked...

Basically what they are doing and Ferrari is legal.

I think the floor ruling will hurt Ferrari more than rb tho...
Based upon what i think is going on with the floor fixings.

Why would moving the camera's have any effect on the wing flex...??? on the RBR, they are now mounted on the support pillars and close to the middle section wing exploiting the rule by using ground effect for slightly more downforce... That has noting to do with flexi wings...


The new FIA test will apply load 100kg load inwards from the outside of the wing, and a deflection of nothing more than 10mm.

[modza]

Excellent flexi wing article ---> http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/aero-elasticity-%E2%80%93-red-bulls-front-wing/

O weary good article, especially onboard camera part. i opened f1.com onboard video section and compeered my self some of onboard laps form Vettel and others. For reference you just can place mouse cursor near front wing sections and see how much it moves on RB car and how rigid it on Reno.

[zuludemon]

Why would moving the camera's have any effect on the wing flex...??? on the RBR, they are now mounted on the support pillars and close to the middle section wing exploiting the rule by using ground effect for slightly more downforce... That has noting to do with flexi wings...


The new FIA test will apply load 100kg load inwards from the outside of the wing, and a deflection of nothing more than 10mm.

I said they would move them for aero reasons ie lower downforce requirement tracks.
On Thursday it will be photographed and because the cameras are not on the pillars then ppl will think they have changed the wings when they will haven't really (other than a slightly lower down force wing)

The new test is 100kg for 20mm of movement, double that of the 50kg for 10mm of movement...or have I missed something?

[Greig]

Camera's are in fixed positions by the FIA I believe

[zuludemon]

Camera's are in fixed positions by the FIA I believe

Not true. Red bull have already moved them once this year.
Is there not just a 3d zone the teams are allowed to put them in.?

[Greig]

ARTICLE 20 : TELEVISION CAMERAS AND TIMING TRANSPONDERS
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.

20.2 Location of camera housings :
Camera housings, when used, must be fitted in the same location as cameras. Details concerning the size
and weight of all camera housings may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

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.

20.3.2 Any part provided by the Competitor for the purpose of aligning a camera or camera housing in positions 2
or 3 correctly will be considered part of the camera or housing provided it is being fitted for that sole
purpose.

20.3.3 Any camera or camera housing fitted in positions 2, 3 or 4 shown in Drawing 6 must be mounted in order
that its major axis does not subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane.http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i37/Ferrari27/dd564cdb.png

sounds like they are fixed positions

[zuludemon]

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i37/Ferrari27/dd564cdb.png

sounds like they are fixed positions

Seen as there are no dimensions mentioned I don't think so.
Teams move cameras around from time to time. When I am bk from holiday I will look at the regs... Not enough signal round here lol
I think the drawing just shows the rough locations...

[Greig]

No the drawings show the locations they can be mounted, not the rough location.

[zuludemon]

No the drawings show the locations they can be mounted, not the rough location.

Can you post the dimensions that the regs say then please?

[Greig]

Can you post the dimensions that the regs say then please?

What have the dimensions got to do with it?


1.15 Camera :
Television cameras the dimensions of which are defined in Drawing 6.

1.16 Camera housing :
A device which is identical in shape and weight to a camera and which is supplied by the relevant
competitor for fitting to his car in lieu of a camera.

[zuludemon]

Lol everything!
So scrutineering.... Hmmm let's just have a look at this drawing with no dims on and compare it to the cars.. Seriously????
The dimensions of the camera box are mandated of course because you have to have an identical dummy.

Rbr have moved the cameras already this year. So has mcl so has merc and Ferrari I think. I recall FI have too...
So quite clearly they are not in "fixed positions" in relation to the car.

[Salvador Dali]

Seen as there are no dimensions mentioned I don't think so.
Teams move cameras around from time to time. When I am bk from holiday I will look at the regs... Not enough signal round here lol
I think the drawing just shows the rough locations...

As I understand these are the fixed locations. Location 1 would have been moved as teams didn't have same mirrors at the same location, but not anymore since the rule changed. Location 2 is a gray area since teams could argue that the shape of the nose is not the same for everone so (you can't just bolt the thing on anywhere and you need space and a mounting point - on the inside of the nose) I think they could move them a bit, but that would still be by a small amount. IMHO...

But if you can find some more info on this please share as we are all eager to find out as much as possible. :-)

[Greig]

Lol everything!
So scrutineering.... Hmmm let's just have a look at this drawing with no dims on and compare it to the cars.. Seriously????
The dimensions of the camera box are mandated of course because you have to have an identical dummy.

Rbr have moved the cameras already this year. So has mcl so has merc and Ferrari I think. I recall FI have too...
So quite clearly they are not in "fixed positions" in relation to the car.

The rules state the dimensions are in picture 6, but they are not listed, maybe phone up Jean and ask him to update his PDF rules, but the rules seem clear to me that their is fixed dimensions and positions, don't see how you can argue it really :-) You admit the camera dimensions are mandated, so why are you wanting the rules to show it lol :-)

Where have these teams moved their cameras too?

[zuludemon]

As I understand these are the fixed locations. Location 1 would have been moved as teams didn't have same mirrors at the same location, but not anymore since the rule changed. Location 2 is a gray area since teams could argue that the shape of the nose is not the same for everone so (you can't just bolt the thing on anywhere and you need space and a mounting point - on the inside of the nose) I think they could move them a bit, but that would still be by a small amount. IMHO...

But if you can find some more info on this please share as we are all eager to find out as much as possible. :-)

Well rbr moved from nose to pylon that's a fairly long way and it's
Not like they needed to it was for performance so there has to be some sort of "zone"'for the camera pods is my thinking.
I'll have a look when I get bk from my holiday and share then

[zuludemon]

As I understand these are the fixed locations. Location 1 would have been moved as teams didn't have same mirrors at the same location, but not anymore since the rule changed. Location 2 is a gray area since teams could argue that the shape of the nose is not the same for everone so (you can't just bolt the thing on anywhere and you need space and a mounting point - on the inside of the nose) I think they could move them a bit, but that would still be by a small amount. IMHO...

But if you can find some more info on this please share as we are all eager to find out as much as possible. :-)

Well rbr moved from nose to pylon that's a fairly long way and it's
Not like they needed to it was for performance so there has to be some sort of "zone"'for the camera pods is my thinking.
I'll have a look when I get bk from my holiday and share then

[zuludemon]

The rules state the dimensions are in picture 6, but they are not listed, maybe phone up Jean and ask him to update his PDF rules, but the rules seem clear to me that their is fixed dimensions and positions, don't see how you can argue it really :-) You admit the camera dimensions are mandated, so why are you wanting the rules to show it lol :-)

Where have these teams moved their cameras too?

Hmmm what could I possibly want... I dunno maybe the dimensions in relation to car location? Something like distance to reference plane and centre line of car? Basic stuff! Can u see if that's in there!
Without dimensions they can't be Be checked other than yeah they are roughly in the right places.... There has to be zones.
Rbr moved cameras from nose cone (walrus nose) to lower part of pylon.
Clear as day lol

[Greig]

Hmmm what could I possibly want... I dunno maybe the dimensions in relation to car location? Something like distance to reference plane and centre line of car? Basic stuff! Can u see if that's in there!
Without dimensions they can't be Be checked other than yeah they are roughly in the right places.... There has to be zones.
Rbr moved cameras from nose cone (walrus nose) to lower part of pylon.
Clear as day lol

Show us pics of it then :-) loads of pics from every gp on the internet, the rules state the dimensions are listed in picture 6, I have shown you the rules, its quite clear that the cameras are of a fixed dimension from watching F1, there is no way teams can design their own camera housing and camera's its standard sizes so everyone has the same.

[zuludemon]

Show us pics of it then :-) loads of pics from every gp on the internet, the rules state the dimensions are listed in picture 6, I have shown you the rules, its quite clear that the cameras are of a fixed dimension from watching F1, there is no way teams can design their own camera housing and camera's its standard sizes so everyone has the same.

Go look at the redbull wings at silverstone. I'm on hols and using a phone so I cant post pics.
And I never said teams can design their own camera pods i said teams move the camera locations...
Chuffing Nora this place is hard work...'i thought it might appreciate someone who works in f1.. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Greig]

Go look at the redbull wings at silverstone. I'm on hols and using a phone so I cant post pics.
And I never said teams can design their own camera pods i said teams move the camera locations...
Chuffing Nora this place is hard work...'i thought it might appreciate someone who works in f1.. Maybe I'm wrong.

For someone who works in F1 you sure don't seem too certain about the rules then :-) I am just posting the rules nothing more, I don't really care to be honest, if the wing flexes it will still be seen no matter where the camera is or isn't :-) The RB cameras are on the nose at Silverstone in any case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-1293807/BRITISH-GRAND-PRIX-2010-Mark-Webber-holds-Lewis-Hamilton-Silverstone-win.html

[zuludemon]

For someone who works in F1 you sure don't seem too certain about the rules then :-) I am just posting the rules nothing more, I don't really care to be honest, if the wing flexes it will still be seen no matter where the camera is or isn't :-) The RB cameras are on the nose at Silverstone in any case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-1293807/BRITISH-GRAND-PRIX-2010-Mark-Webber-holds-Lewis-Hamilton-Silverstone-win.html

So now go find a pic of sebs wing. And I think it had the pylon cameras...

Nobody can possibly know all the rules that's why we have access to tech regs.

[Greig]

There is pic of both red bulls right there? anyway camera's are not going to be anything to do with the new front wing tests, so I really don't know why its going down this route :-)

Anyway you should be enjoying your holiday and not on the internet lol ;-)

[zuludemon]

There is pic of both red bulls right there? anyway camera's are not going to be anything to do with the new front wing tests, so I really don't know why its going down this route :-)

Anyway you should be enjoying your holiday and not on the internet lol ;-)
All I said was they would move them for spa and I got told u can't do that when u can. Nothing to do with flex of course. Ppl will say they have changed to non flexi wings when because of it.
Besides the flexibility of the wings is nothing more than other teams should be doing 10mm for 50kg.

[Greig]

So why has the FIA regulations got camera locations marked then?

[Fiondella]

zulu

Do you work in Woking? :-)

That kinda rhymes:-D

[zuludemon]

So why has the FIA regulations got camera locations marked then?

I think they indicate the regions, don't want teams putting 5 cameras on the front wing do they.. I can't answer any more q's till
I've read the regs which I've said I can't do while I'm on holiday but I will and I'll see if I can find the rules to what can be done ok?

[zuludemon]

zulu

Do you work in Woking? :-)

That kinda rhymes:-D

No, but I'll say that to all "which team u work for q's" sorry

[Brakefade]

For someone who works in F1 you sure don't seem too certain about the rules then :-) I am just posting the rules nothing more, I don't really care to be honest, if the wing flexes it will still be seen no matter where the camera is or isn't :-) The RB cameras are on the nose at Silverstone in any case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-1293807/BRITISH-GRAND-PRIX-2010-Mark-Webber-holds-Lewis-Hamilton-Silverstone-win.html

Pic from the article.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/11/article-1293807-0A66E587000005DC-128_634x429.jpg

:-??

[Ant Raikkonen]

^ ^ Hamilton opening his mouth a little wider.

[Fiondella]

No, but I'll say that to all "which team u work for q's" sorry

Ok, how long you been involved in F1?

[WRX202]

Ok, how long you been involved in F1?

I would re phrase that to: "Does the photo copy machine play a vital role at work?"
If the answer is yes we all know the rest :lol

[zuludemon]

I would re phrase that to: "Does the photo copy machine play a vital role at work?"
If the answer is yes we all know the rest :lol

Not that long about a year... No, a photocopier doesn't play a vital role...

[Salvador Dali]

I think they indicate the regions, don't want teams putting 5 cameras on the front wing do they.. I can't answer any more q's till
I've read the regs which I've said I can't do while I'm on holiday but I will and I'll see if I can find the rules to what can be done ok?

IMHO the regs just state that you have to have x many camera housings (and ofc cameras) so that all the teams have the same aero and weight add-ons so they all have the same base line to start from. But at certan events some cars will have a camera at an odd position for Bernie & TV to have a nice view.
Camera housings as far as I know CAN'T have a aero impact as they were designed in that way - same as a few years back was the case with the wishboes. So in a nutshell it doesn't matter where exactly the are as long as they are on the car.

Does this even make sense...?

P.S.: sorry for going on about off topic matters - please go on with the flex thingies :-)

[Greig]

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.

Rules seem to suggest otherwise, all cars have to have the camera above the cockpit for instance, otherwise they would not have it there at all :-)

[Salvador Dali]

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.

Rules seem to suggest otherwise, all cars have to have the camera above the cockpit for instance, otherwise they would not have it there at all :-)

Sorry Greig for not beeing clear enough. I was talking about position 2 only as that was what zuludemon was talking about... But I'm only human and can (or rather was) wrong on many occasions. But you are right the regs are clear, on the other hand zuludemon has a point as I have allso seen cars with different positions of the cameras (again talking about position 2 only)

Hope this makes it clearer (but not nessery right...) :-)


Please see the photo of Vettel in GB GP (copyright of ESPN F1...):
http://en.espnf1.com/PICTURES/CMS/5200/5279.jpg

[Brakefade]

New flexi floor article. ----> http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/753/

Makes me hate McScum even more. We should've dominated 2007. Instead we needed two miracles to win the Championship.

[steelstallions]

New flexi floor article. ----> http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/753/

Makes me hate McScum even more. We should've dominated 2007. Instead we needed two miracles to win the Championship.
Thanks for the link Brakefade, not everyone looks at links so I pasted this part.

One of the issues to fall out from the technical interchange between McLaren Mike Coughlan and Ferrari Nigel Stepney was Ferraris use of the splitter mounting. Knowing how Ferrari used the mounting allowed McLaren to ask the FIA technical delegate Charlie whiting for permission to use such as a system. this approach is a subtle workaround to a formal protest of another teams design, but ends up with the same result, either acceptance or a clarification banning the design. This issue arose at the start of 2007 and by the Spanish GP the teams were asked to remove deflecting splitter mounts, necessitating a redesign for most if not all teams. some people within the sport suggest Ferrari performance advantage from the previous few years was eroded by this rule change. since then teams run far stiffer splitter mountings and although several teams have been asked to revise their mountings since then by Charlie whiting, it is felt that there is little that can be done to deflect the splitter for performance benefit.........................Quote from Racecar-engineering.com “One of the defences used by McLaren was that Stepney, the former Ferrari employee, was ‘whistle blowing’ – something the court struggled to accept covered the whole affair, but it did certainly have an effect at the Australian Grand Prix. Ferrari won the race, but the FIA later outlawed the car’s floor. McLaren contended that the Ferrari that won was illegal, and a letter from Stepney to the FIA sent after the hearing revealed that it may well have been, as it was in effect a mass damper. Such devices were banned last season as they were controversially deemed to be a moveable aerodynamic device.
Stepney reveals in detail the exact workings of the floor that was used at the race: ‘The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system.
‘If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development.’
The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain.
Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives: ‘From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings at a reduced height relative to the ground.’ “That was an ingenious engineering solution to bend the rules but not break them as the car passed all the tests. That Stepney and Mcscum (who's unreliable slower cars all of a sudden improved immensely after Stepney's traitorous act) put Ferrari back years.
Had Stepney just retired from Ferrari with grace Ferrari would still be the dominant team as that system would work well regardless of who has f ducts or double diffusers.