FIA favouring McLaren?

[ioan]

Let's see:

<<On-board video footage from Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton's cars showed the front wing moving down on the straights when exposed to the forces experienced at high speed.>>

<<In the wake of those worries, however, it is understood that the FIA's technical department examined the wing's flexibility and its behaviour prior to the race and found there to be no issues with its design at all.

An FIA spokesman confirmed to autosport.com: "The matter has been investigated and no action is required.">>

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58815

So if it's BMW, Ferrari and Renault than it's movable aero device if it's McLaren than it isn't even when it's clear that it is!

Where are all the people that were so concerned about movable aero devices in the past? :p :

[ioan]

A very fair stance by Ferrari:

<<McLaren's main championship rivals Ferrari also made it clear that they were not worried about the movement of the wing - despite themselves having been accused in the past of running flexi-wings.

Ferrari technical director Mario Almondo said: "At the moment, we think we do not have anything against McLaren. Full stop.">>

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58815

So it wasn't them complaining! :)

[raphael123]

Seems like a story out of nothing, but if that amuses you... :)

[CarlMetro]

Seems like a story out of nothing

What? you mean like all the Ferrari mechanics stopping work as soon as Michael walked into the garage, or Kimi leaving the circuit early?

:p :

[ioan]

Seems like a story out of nothing, but if that amuses you... :)

It certainly does amuse me, although it is a bit sad that this happens again.

As for out of nothing, maybe that wing doesn't even exist?!

[truefan72]

It's a non story...even from the Ferrari camp

[raphael123]

What? you mean like all the Ferrari mechanics stopping work as soon as Michael walked into the garage, or Kimi leaving the circuit early?

:p :

a) There was a discussion on the influence of Schumacher attending the GP. I posted an article on a reporter who was there.

b) Kimi leaving the circuit early - what's wrong with that? Drivers do it all the time


:rolleyes:

[ioan]

a) There was a discussion on the influence of Schumacher attending the GP. I posted an article on a reporter who was there.

b) Kimi leaving the circuit early - what's wrong with that? Drivers do it all the time


:rolleyes:

Don't get so worked up mate, it was just a joke. :rolleyes:

[CarlMetro]

a)I posted an article

Which is what ioan did with this.


b) Kimi leaving the circuit early - what's wrong with that? Drivers do it all the time

Nothing, I've already stated that I have no issue with that.

[luvracin]

A very fair stance by Ferrari:

<<McLaren's main championship rivals Ferrari also made it clear that they were not worried about the movement of the wing - despite themselves having been accused in the past of running flexi-wings.

Ferrari technical director Mario Almondo said: "At the moment, we think we do not have anything against McLaren. Full stop.">>

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58815

So it wasn't them complaining! :)


If Mclaren had won the race, then I assure you, Ferrari would have protested.

[ioan]

If Mclaren had won the race, then I assure you, Ferrari would have protested.

I imagine that having the 2 McLarens disuqalified would help Ferrari a lot even if they won the race.

[Gannex]

I think you make a very fair point, ioan. If there had been suggestions that the Ferrari front wing were flexing and the FIA had taken no action, you know for sure that forumers would be howling and screaming that Ferrari were cheating and the FIA were favouring them. But this is McLaren, and there is not a murmur on the board. I think it's well worth noting that.

[ioan]

I think you make a very fair point, ioan. If there had been suggestions that the Ferrari front wing were flexing and the FIA had taken no action, you know for sure that forumers would be howling and screaming that Ferrari were cheating and the FIA were favouring them. But this is McLaren, and there is not a murmur on the board. I think it's well worth noting that.

In fact I expected a while before posting, maybe someone would make my day and post something, but nothing happened.

And not only that, but as we can see very few have expressed an opinion about this, and even fewer said something sensible.

[janneppi]

I think you make a very fair point, ioan. If there had been suggestions that the Ferrari front wing were flexing and the FIA had taken no action, you know for sure that forumers would be howling and screaming that Ferrari were cheating and the FIA were favouring them. But this is McLaren, and there is not a murmur on the board. I think it's well worth noting that.
And now we have Ferrari supporter(s) crying about how unfair treatment Fefe get's, or would get. ;)

[GRAVETT]

haha and now all the ferrari schumacher obsessives have a chance to get thier own back ( no matter how little or zero evidence they have )on everyone who has dared critise their supposedly almighty team over the past few years.

[F1boat]

McLaren lost with a lot from Ferrari, no way FIA is gonna punch them now.
But if FIA bans winglets, McLaren will suffer - their car is covered with freaky devices.

[ioan]

Why people can't take things for what those are?
I don't question McLaren for coming up with their new wing, but the FIA for not handing out the same treatement.

Still very few sensible posts here.

[janneppi]

Where are all the people that were so concerned about movable aero devices in the past? :p :
Moveable aero device, such as Ferraris last years front wing is quite different from a flexing "top wing"
One had a mechanism with degrees of freedom, the other flexes with in a legal way, in a area where i'm not sure rules enforce flexing that well.

Moveable aero device, such as Ferraris last years front wing is quite different from a flexing "top wing"

Yes, the difference is that one was on a red car and is therefore guilty to you and the other is on a silver car and is therefore innocent to you.

Atleast the Tifosi know they are biased.

[janneppi]

Come on, there is lot of red in the new McLaren livery, that hasn't stopped ioan of critisizing it. ;)
Saying i'm some sort of a macca fan really shows how clueless you are.

[DonJippo]

Yes, the difference is that one was on a red car and is therefore guilty to you and the other is on a silver car and is therefore innocent to you.

Atleast the Tifosi know they are biased.

I think this one sums it up pretty clearly...


An FIA spokesman confirmed to autosport.com: "The matter has been investigated and no action is required."

[schmenke]

I've always felt that the entire issue surrounding flexing wings has always been blown out of proportion, regardless of which team is under scrutiny :mark:

[bblocker68]

You could see the wing visibly move back into place on hard braking. That's an infraction and action should be taken. I thought it was pretty ballsy for McLaren to put the wing out on the track for everyone to scrutinize.

Give it another day, something will come out about it.

[schmenke]

You could see the wing visibly move back into place on hard braking. That's an infraction and action should be taken. ...

No. It's normal flex under aerodynamic loads which is permissible.

The purpose of the regulation is to eliminate "movable" aero devices, i.e. those that are purposely designed to alter the aerodynamic profile of the wing.

[raphael123]

I think you make a very fair point, ioan. If there had been suggestions that the Ferrari front wing were flexing and the FIA had taken no action, you know for sure that forumers would be howling and screaming that Ferrari were cheating and the FIA were favouring them. But this is McLaren, and there is not a murmur on the board. I think it's well worth noting that.

I think that's because say in the past e.g. 10yrs, how often have McLaren benefitted from decisions the FIA have made, in comparison to Ferrari?

Every time a decision is made, which could be an advantage/disadvantage to Ferrari, it usually works out in their favour. Very rarely does the FIA come back with a decision which really hurts Ferrari.

If it was McLaren who always favoured from the FIA's decision, I'm sure you'd have a case.

We shouldn't just look at individual situations when discussing why people moan when Ferrari are punished, we should look at the history if FIA's decision.

I think it's quite obvious the FIA, when it's 50/50, will side with Ferrari.

[Ian McC]

Well the point of this forum is to discuss issues relating to F1 so I don't see a problem with this. I can't see why the FIA would favour McLaren, no doubt they have checked it out and found that this is illegal.

[ioan]

Moveable aero device, such as Ferraris last years front wing is quite different from a flexing "top wing"
One had a mechanism with degrees of freedom, the other flexes with in a legal way, in a area where i'm not sure rules enforce flexing that well.

I remember they imposed some kind of separator parts on the rear wings some time ago because Honda complained that those were flexing.

When is that they will do the same in the case at hand? This is my question.


The purpose of the regulation is to eliminate "movable" aero devices, i.e. those that are purposely designed to alter the aerodynamic profile of the wing.

I didn't see a movable aero device on a F1 car for many years. As long as a part of the car is firmly attached to the body at least at one end this part is flexing but not moving.
A movement, by definition, means that all the points of a body will translate or rotate, or translate + rotate in reference to a fix coordinates system (in our case the car's body).


I've always felt that the entire issue surrounding flexing wings has always been blown out of proportion, regardless of which team is under scrutiny

Maybe Max ran out of Helium this time?

[wmcot]

Moveable aero device, such as Ferraris last years front wing is quite different from a flexing "top wing"
One had a mechanism with degrees of freedom, the other flexes with in a legal way, in a area where i'm not sure rules enforce flexing that well.

What about the Ferrari flexing rear wing or floor? If aerodynamic devices are supposed to be fixed and immoveable, then it doesn't matter if Spyker has them, they are not legal! A rule is a rule for ALL teams! The only other solution is for the FIA to allow all cars to have flexing front wings!

[wmcot]

No. It's normal flex under aerodynamic loads which is permissible.

You mean like Ferrari's rear wing last year? That was normal flex under aero loading but they were forced to put a spacer on it to make it rigid and remove the flex.

[ioan]

What I also want to see is what happens when all the teams come to the next testing session or race with similar front wings?
Will the FIA tolerate them, or will they suddenly ban them all?

[janneppi]

I remember they imposed some kind of separator parts on the rear wings some time ago because Honda complained that those were flexing.

When is that they will do the same in the case at hand? This is my question.

I haven't really been paying attention to the aerostuff lately, i have kept my eye on Kimis front wing with some curiosity but it doesn't seem to move the same way it moved last year.

I'm guessing FIA will won't do anything until that kind of a top wing breaks, number of teams complain loud enough or some team will make stupidly big top wing that is too ugly to pass the safety test. :)

[schmenke]

You mean like Ferrari's rear wing last year? That was normal flex under aero loading but they were forced to put a spacer on it to make it rigid and remove the flex.

I guess it flexed enough to alter the profile of the rear wing.
This is not evident in the case of McLaren's front "bridge" wing.

[CarlMetro]

no doubt they have checked it out and found that this is illegal.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. But if this wing was on a Ferrari and the FIA had said the same thing would people be accepting that or would they be questioning the FIA's decision?

[Ian McC]

Yes, I couldn't agree more. But if this wing was on a Ferrari and the FIA had said the same thing would people be accepting that or would they be questioning the FIA's decision?

Oh hell I could give you a long list...................... ;)

[Hawkmoon]

A lot of stuff that people moan about Ferrari doing gets little or no comment when another team does exactly the same thing.

Put it this way. If it was Ferrari's front wing being questioned and it was Schumi in the car instead of Massa, how long do you think the thread would be that's blasting Schumi for runnning Alonso off the road and then winning with an illegal car? I reckon it'd be about 10 pages by now.

[Valve Bounce]

I think you make a very fair point, ioan. If there had been suggestions that the Ferrari front wing were flexing and the FIA had taken no action, you know for sure that forumers would be howling and screaming that Ferrari were cheating and the FIA were favouring them. But this is McLaren, and there is not a murmur on the board. I think it's well worth noting that.

I think this is because everyone else wants a flexi wing like McLarens (or may already have one in the pipeline

[janneppi]

Put it this way. If it was Ferrari's front wing being questioned and it was Schumi in the car instead of Massa, how long do you think the thread would be that's blasting Schumi for runnning Alonso off the road and then winning with an illegal car? I reckon it'd be about 10 pages by now.
And what does some ex driver's possible actions and the imaginary discussion of it have to do with a wing in the nose of a McLaren?

Oh wait, i understand now, the wing is not the issue, the fact people aren't too bothered about it makes the Ferrari fans unhappy campers :p :

[Hawkmoon]

And what does some ex driver's possible actions and the imaginary discussion of it have to do with a wing in the nose of a McLaren?

Oh wait, i understand now, the wing is not the issue, the fact people aren't too bothered about it makes the Ferrari fans unhappy campers :p :

The point was raised that if the wing was on a Ferrari then it would not have been largely ignored. I agree. The anti-Ferrari/Schumi brigade were always very quick to get all indignant whenever something occurred relating to Ferrari/Schumi, but were, and still are, fairly quiet when a similar thing occured with another team.

The wing has been passed by the FIA. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

[ShiftingGears]

I think this is because everyone else wants a flexi wing like McLarens (or may already have one in the pipeline


I think this is the case.

But, you can see it flexing in race footage, and I thought that was not allowed under FIA regulations?... Does it take an official protest from a team before that is done or does the FIA just enforce it without other teams protesting first?

[Flat.tyres]

There seems to be the usual ferrari / anti ferrari brigade here. I suppose its expected because of the historical stance the FIA has taken but this really is a non event.

if you dont know, the FIA test for acceptable flex of deflectors involves static weight and the angle of deflection measured. if it is within tollerence, then no problem. this element is within tollerence according to the FIA and ferrari have no problems with it either.

problem is, you get some twattish reporter who needs to maintain his column inches coming up with this sort of rubbish for the sake of it. NOBODY CARES

Most posts here are from ferrari fans with a "what if" scenario. there is no what if. stop feeling persecuted.

[janneppi]

I think this is because everyone else wants a flexi wing like McLarens (or may already have one in the pipeline
That seems to be the case, there was a mention in a Finnish newspaper F1 area that Ferrari have put some engineer called John Iley working on a top wing developement.

[raphael123]

Yes, I couldn't agree more. But if this wing was on a Ferrari and the FIA had said the same thing would people be accepting that or would they be questioning the FIA's decision?

No, people wouldn't be accepting, but thats because of the FIA's previous decisions, which always seem to end up favouring Ferrari. If Ferrari hadn't benefitted from the FIA's somewhat absurb decisions as many times as they have, then no, I don't think people would be questioning the decision, but as FIA's decision almost always end up favouring Ferrari, questions are asked.

Until some of the 50/50 decisions the FIA take, which don't end up favouring Ferrari all the time, this will continue to happen, and rightly so.

[ioan]

No, people wouldn't be accepting, but thats because of the FIA's previous decisions, which always seem to end up favouring Ferrari. If Ferrari hadn't benefitted from the FIA's somewhat absurb decisions as many times as they have, then no, I don't think people would be questioning the decision, but as FIA's decision almost always end up favouring Ferrari, questions are asked.

Until some of the 50/50 decisions the FIA take, which don't end up favouring Ferrari all the time, this will continue to happen, and rightly so.

Who is favored by the FIA depends on the POV and is a very subjective matter. What I am questioning is the commitment of the FIA to enforce the rules.



if you dont know, the FIA test for acceptable flex of deflectors involves static weight and the angle of deflection measured. if it is within tollerence, then no problem. this element is within tollerence according to the FIA and ferrari have no problems with it either.

We all know the rules and have discussed them to nausea last season when front and rear wings were required to be changed, although those parts passed the static tests of the FIA, because they were not in the spirit of the rules.

Let's not forget, not this fast at least, that this year the FIA issued two modifications regarding the cars floor that was considered to be an aerodynamical device not complying to the spirit of the rules, as we all know the floors passed the FIA tests initially and even after the first change in the regs.

So why does the FIA need to make 2 drastic changes concerning flexing floors (in the end they increased 4 times the static load they use for the test) but doesn't give a damn about a front wing that was proved to be flexing and thus not respecting the spirit of the rules?[/quote]



Most posts here are from ferrari fans with a "what if" scenario. there is no what if.

There is no "what if" scenario, there is a wing that flexes and is clearly in the same case as other devices that were required changes in the past, however this one is deemed legal.

[raphael123]

Who is favored by the FIA depends on the POV and is a very subjective matter. What I am questioning is the commitment of the FIA to enforce the rules.



Not really. It's quite clear some decisions the FIA take favour Ferrari.

The most recent example was Monza last year. Are you really suggesting that some people don't believe that gave an advantage to Ferrari?

Ferrari wouldn't have lodged the ridiculous complaint in the first place if they didn't think they would benefit from it.

[Flat.tyres]

ioan

i no more know what was discussed on here last year than what color underwear your wearing although I am a bit surprised because people seem confused about why ferrari, mclaren, FIA and the man in the moon have no problem with this wing. i also fail to see what the split chassis ruling has to do with a very specific thread about spurious bias from the FIA towards mac.

[ioan]

ioan

i no more know what was discussed on here last year than what color underwear your wearing although I am a bit surprised because people seem confused about why ferrari, mclaren, FIA and the man in the moon have no problem with this wing. i also fail to see what the split chassis ruling has to do with a very specific thread about spurious bias from the FIA towards mac.

I'm not discussing this topic from Ferrari's point of view, nor from McLaren's one.

I'm discussing it from the POV of a F1 fan that finds out that following plenty of changed and banned aero devices (include here also the Renault and Ferrari mass dampers) we come to the point where a very controversial design is given the green light without the smallest problem!

[ioan]

Not really. It's quite clear some decisions the FIA take favour Ferrari.

From your POV, as I said! :p :

[GRAVETT]

looks like we have a fan who thinks he knows better than ferrari, mclaren the fia and the entire f1 paddock here. and by the way ioan, flat.tyres has not personally attacted you by saying you are talking rubbish, because my freind you are. stop moaning on about a complete non issue.

[Flat.tyres]

I know you are new around here and I give you and advice about personal attacks like your last one. I don't like them but I can live with, but those are not welcome around here, and you seem to be excelling at this chapter given that you are insulting 2 forum members in the same time.

PS: try also to read the smilies in the posts, it will help you avoid unnecessary trouble in the future.

personal attack? christ on a bike your a bit thin skinned (is that a personal attack or a comment). are you suggesting that eki will be insulted by being related to you, the other way around or that you both would be agrived?

looks like I may have been right :p :

as for trouble, i have been wandering pits and paddocks long enough to not be upset by some silly comments on a forum so you are welcome to keep your advice :D

now, is that better?

[ioan]

looks like we have a fan who thinks he knows better than ferrari, mclaren the fia and the entire f1 paddock here. and by the way ioan, flat.tyres has not personally attacted you by saying you are talking rubbish, because my freind you are. stop moaning on about a complete non issue.

I'm not you friend and I don't understand your frustration and need to insult me.

Sooner or later most of the threads about a difficult topic turn into a bashing and insulting match because some take it to personally when they shouldn't, and this one doesn't seem to fare any better.

[GRAVETT]

its not a difficult topic !!!! there is no topic. simple as that. typical armchair followers who think they know the sport they watch on the tv inside out. i too have been around the paddock and pits of high class motorsport for many years and know when there is an issue that needs a debate. but any man and his dog can see that here there is'nt anything to discuss at all. i just see another ferrari fan moaning and whinging that something must be wrong because another team is doing better.
come down to the silverstone test get in the paddock/pitlane ( it can be arranged ) and have a look at the real debates going on about real issues within the sport and you will see flexie wings are not on the agenda.

[ioan]

its not a difficult topic !!!! there is no topic. simple as that. typical armchair followers who think they know the sport they watch on the tv inside out.

Most of us are exactly that.


i too have been around the paddock and pits of high class motorsport for many years and know when there is an issue that needs a debate.

Than go back to the paddock and leave us "typical armchair followers" to enjoy what we like.
No need coming here on a high horse and looking down to us just because you "have been around the paddock and pits of high class motorsport for many years".
It clearly isn't beneficial for you being here with poor us. :\

[GRAVETT]

hahahahahaha on that note i shall leave this thread. cant be doing with the attitide of a little kid, clearly shown by you ioan

[Robinho]

if it fits the FIA's current rule on flexing, then it is currently legal. same as some of ther other devices over the last couple of years. Some are found to be beyond the tolerances and are changed, or they change the rules to measure things differently.

this part has assumedly been designed to the FIA's current design tolerances (after all the fuss of the last few years you surely wouldn't design a part that obvious outside th current rules!), and i'd expect everyone else to be doing the same. if its allowed and works then expect it to appear on other cars. if teh FIA change their minds, again, then it will be illegal from then and no-one will have it.

it doesn't matter which team, these are the way these rules work, and it will always be the teams nearest the front who puch the envelope on these designs, trying to get the max from the regs, sometimes they overstpe and lose, sometimes its fine and they win, sometimes its fine until some one changes their mind.

Ioan, in this case, i think is playing devils advocate, in that it was McLaren investigated and not some clamoutr over Ferrari and became newsworth in his eys, as McLaren were cleared, and as a result he is drawing parallels to previous comments that FIA favour someone (they have too don't they?!) ;) i don't think that he actually belives that this is anything more than a run of the mill test and pass a part, but for the protaganists. meanwhile some others have gone for the bait and seem to be detemined to prove that they know best, when perhaps ignoring the "non-topic" would have worked better.

Ioan is right in one thing he says, these things, however trivial do descend into name calling and attacks after a while, particularly when people become so polarised by their favourites and perceptions of the workings of F1.

(Ioan, sorry if i have read you wrong on this one, or you feel i have needlessly tried to explain what i think you were doing)

[Valve Bounce]

It is interesting that, so far, nobody has discussed this point. Ron Dennis insists the top wing is really stiff and doesn't flex all that much.

Now I have been trying to figure out how it can work. The top wing can be installed to either provide a tensile or compression force on the bottom wing.
If it's in compression, then downward loading on the outside of the bottom wing will flatten the top wing. The top wing could also provide the force to reduce vibrations of the outside part of the bottom wing.

Does anyone else have any ideas on this?

[ioan]

if it fits the FIA's current rule on flexing, then it is currently legal. same as some of ther other devices over the last couple of years. Some are found to be beyond the tolerances and are changed, or they change the rules to measure things differently.

this part has assumedly been designed to the FIA's current design tolerances (after all the fuss of the last few years you surely wouldn't design a part that obvious outside th current rules!), and i'd expect everyone else to be doing the same. if its allowed and works then expect it to appear on other cars. if teh FIA change their minds, again, then it will be illegal from then and no-one will have it.

it doesn't matter which team, these are the way these rules work, and it will always be the teams nearest the front who puch the envelope on these designs, trying to get the max from the regs, sometimes they overstpe and lose, sometimes its fine and they win, sometimes its fine until some one changes their mind.

Ioan, in this case, i think is playing devils advocate, in that it was McLaren investigated and not some clamoutr over Ferrari and became newsworth in his eys, as McLaren were cleared, and as a result he is drawing parallels to previous comments that FIA favour someone (they have too don't they?!) ;) i don't think that he actually belives that this is anything more than a run of the mill test and pass a part, but for the protaganists. meanwhile some others have gone for the bait and seem to be detemined to prove that they know best, when perhaps ignoring the "non-topic" would have worked better.

Ioan is right in one thing he says, these things, however trivial do descend into name calling and attacks after a while, particularly when people become so polarised by their favourites and perceptions of the workings of F1.

(Ioan, sorry if i have read you wrong on this one, or you feel i have needlessly tried to explain what i think you were doing)

You were pretty much on it, also Gannex made a good point in his post.

[ioan]

It is interesting that, so far, nobody has discussed this point. Ron Dennis insists the top wing is really stiff and doesn't flex all that much.

Now I have been trying to figure out how it can work. The top wing can be installed to either provide a tensile or compression force on the bottom wing.
If it's in compression, then downward loading on the outside of the bottom wing will flatten the top wing. The top wing could also provide the force to reduce vibrations of the outside part of the bottom wing.

Does anyone else have any ideas on this?

Good points there Valve.
I thought that the top element of the McLaren front wing was more to direct the airflow towards different parts of the car's body.
But you have a good point over the way it could influence the bottom element of the wing.

[ioan]

Meanwhile a few links to technical discussions about the McLaren wing:

http://www.f1technical.net/development/72

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technical_analysis/team/2007/5/414.html

[raphael123]

From your POV, as I said! :p :




No Ioan, in some cases, it's 100% clear if Ferrari benefit from an FIA's decision.

Tell me, how can ANYONE come to the conclusion Alonso being penalised in Monza last year didn't work to the advantage of Ferrari? :rolleyes:

[ioan]

No Ioan, in some cases, it's 100% clear if Ferrari benefit from an FIA's decision.

Tell me, how can ANYONE come to the conclusion Alonso being penalised in Monza last year didn't work to the advantage of Ferrari? :rolleyes:

And 1 case would make that a general view on the matter?

[SGWilko]

Moveable aero device, such as Ferraris last years front wing is quite different from a flexing "top wing"
One had a mechanism with degrees of freedom, the other flexes with in a legal way, in a area where i'm not sure rules enforce flexing that well.

If I understand the flexing issue correctly, the difference appears to be thus....

The front wing of Ferrari, in the early part of the '06 season appeared to twist under load, thus reducing drag, and was indeed attached to the nose in such a way that facilitated this twisting. The resulting protest(s) ensured that the FIA insisted Ferrari had the wing mounted solidly to the nose.

In the new McLaren wing, the flexing is merely a result of the load due to air pressure at speed, but as there is no twisting or flattening of the profile, there appears to be no 'cheating or advantage gaining' issue.

Some of the rear facing shots of the red bull worried me a bit, as they appeared to show the rear wing tilt back under load........

[ioan]

If I understand the flexing issue correctly, the difference appears to be thus....

The front wing of Ferrari, in the early part of the '06 season appeared to twist under load, thus reducing drag, and was indeed attached to the nose in such a way that facilitated this twisting. The resulting protest(s) ensured that the FIA insisted Ferrari had the wing mounted solidly to the nose.

In the new McLaren wing, the flexing is merely a result of the load due to air pressure at speed, but as there is no twisting or flattening of the profile, there appears to be no 'cheating or advantage gaining' issue.

Both wings deformed because of the aero load and I would go as far as suggesting that both were/are twisting and thus achieving similar effects.

[schmenke]

Both wings deformed because of the aero load and I would go as far as suggesting that both were/are twisting and thus achieving similar effects.

Nope. The McLaren wing flexes but the profile does not change. Hence no aerodynamic advantage. The profile of the Ferrari wing changed, hence a potential aero advantage.
At least, that's how I understand it...

[janneppi]

If I understand the flexing issue correctly, the difference appears to be thus....

The front wing of Ferrari, in the early part of the '06 season appeared to twist under load, thus reducing drag, and was indeed attached to the nose in such a way that facilitated this twisting. The resulting protest(s) ensured that the FIA insisted Ferrari had the wing mounted solidly to the nose.


For me the difference isn't the change in the profile, but the way the pin moved in relation to the the chassis, that translation movement was one degree of freedom which made it illegal (for me at least) , i hadn't even though about the pin rotating in it's hole at the time. That gave it another degree of freedom, thanks. :)

It hard for FIA to try and control deformation of "solid" materials, thatäs why aero designers have the advantage here.

[ioan]

For me the difference isn't the change in the profile, but the way the pin moved in relation to the the chassis, that translation movement was one degree of freedom which made it illegal (for me at least) , i hadn't even though about the pin rotating in it's hole at the time. That gave it another degree of freedom, thanks. :)

It hard for FIA to try and control deformation of "solid" materials, thatäs why aero designers have the advantage here.

There is no such as degree of freedom of the wing as long as it is rigidly attached at least at one point to the car.

Do not confuse movement with deformation.

[janneppi]

There is no such as degree of freedom of the wing as long as it is rigidly attached at least at one point to the car.

Do not confuse movement with deformation.
Didn't we go through this last year?
From the FIA rule book:


3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
...
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any
degree of freedom).
Having a pin/hole means there is both translation and rotation movement, it doesn't matter if the other end complies with the rules if the other end doesn't.
If the pin didn't touch the hole walls i'd be okay with it, but what's the point of putting a pin inside a hole if not to guide movement?

I am curious where in the rules you dug up the at least at one point to the car ?

[mstillhere]

And now we have Ferrari supporter(s) crying about how unfair treatment Fefe get's, or would get. ;)

I know that you are kidding but when it was Ferrari being accused of cheating I don't recall anybody having a good laugh about it. On the contrary. And now that the FIA founf the new nose legal, would not you expect other teams coming up with similar front/rear/side wings? It's going to be a mess.

[mstillhere]

And now we have Ferrari supporter(s) crying about how unfair treatment Fefe get's, or would get. ;)

I know that you are kidding but when it was Ferrari being accused of cheating I don't recall anybody having a good laugh about it. On the contrary. And now that the FIA found the new nose legal, would not you expect other teams coming up with similar front/rear/side wings? It's going to be a mess.

[ioan]

Having a pin/hole means there is both translation and rotation movement, it doesn't matter if the other end complies with the rules if the other end doesn't.


From the point of view of Solids Mechanics, that's wrong.

And to put it even more clear, the end of every little aero widget on those cars is completely free to move under the aero loads (having 6 degrees of freedom, 3 rotations and 3 translations), that Ferrari wing's end only had 2 degrees of freedom (one trasnlation and one rotation), still it was deemed illegal. I followed your logics.


If the pin didn't touch the hole walls i'd be okay with it, but what's the point of putting a pin inside a hole if not to guide movement?

Maybe the point was to get rid of the other 4 degrees of freedom that would have made the wing's end completely free and illegal?

[ioan]

And now that the FIA found the new nose legal, would not you expect other teams coming up with similar front/rear/side wings? It's going to be a mess.

Yes and they will clean it up by banning them all, after giving McLaren the advantage in a futile attempt to keep everything closer than it really is in the championship.

[janneppi]

From the point of view of Solids Mechanics, that's wrong.

And to put it even more clear, the end of every little aero widget on those cars is completely free to move under the aero loads (having 6 degrees of freedom, 3 rotations and 3 translations), that Ferrari wing's end only had 2 degrees of freedom (one trasnlation and one rotation), still it was deemed illegal. I followed your logics.

No you didn't, you followed your own weird interpretation of my logic. :)
From a mechanics standpoint(and in this case) , degrees of freedom are found in joints, not in thin air. A mirror for example has no degrees of freedom because it is fixed on one place to the chassis.
In the same way, the ferrari's upper wing would have been legal if it hadn't been in contact with the chassis at all from the pin area, ot if it was fixed on the chassis there.
A flexing area isn't looked as a joint, because that would make it impossible to manufacture an F1 car, but a pin/hole is.


Maybe the point was to get rid of the other 4 degrees of freedom that would have made the wing's end completely free and illegal?In that way of thinking every aero bit is illegal, they are not, because that is a completely wrong way to look at it. :)
Besides, two degrees of freedom is still illegal, ifFIA doesn't allow any.

[wmcot]

Have the FIA officials actually found the wing legal? Last I heard it was only the stewards in Spain who found it legal. Kind of like the stewards in Australia found Ferrari's floor legal.

I expect many of the other teams to develop their own version of the wing just in time for the FIA to officially ban them and the teams will waste millions on research in the meantime.

[ioan]

From a mechanics standpoint(and in this case) , degrees of freedom are found in joints, not in thin air.

How many degrees does have a ball on a floor?

Degrees of freedom aren't found only in joints! Each and every body has them.


No you didn't, you followed your own weird interpretation of my logic.

What I tired to do was to logically show you that your interpretation was weird. ;)
And you should pick up the solid mechanics book again. :p :


In that way of thinking every aero bit is illegal, they are not, because that is a completely wrong way to look at it.
Besides, two degrees of freedom is still illegal, ifFIA doesn't allow any.

Well the aero bits aren't illegal for a reason that is completely independent of your initial point of view regarding the degrees of freedom and that reason is that these bits do not flex more than a certain limit imposed by the FIA under a certain static load. And that Ferrari wing did pass those FIA tests but still was declared illegal.

My question is once again why isn't the FIA consistently doing the same judgements?

[Flat.tyres]

i dont want to turn this into a big debate as this really is a non subject but heres a couple of clips of the ferraris front and rear wings

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8AklGfuzNLQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzFTeRomfg&NR=1


in the first, you clearly see the element moving in and out, up and down depending on g loading and downforce. this is quite obviously a moving aero part and illegal.

the second shows a rigid rear wing but mounted in a way that the whole assembly can deflect down at high speeds thus reducing drag. again highly illegal and from crashes we have seen in previous years where the read mounting has failed at high speed, its also ****ing dangerous. they got away with it because the loading was static on the elements and not on the housing but it was a clear breach of the spirit of the rules as BARs, ferraris and renaults scavenger tanks were.

for the sake of impartiality, i searched on youtube for evidence of the mac wing video but couldn't find any. if anyone else has one then please post it as it would be interesting.

[janneppi]

How many degrees does have a ball on a floor?

Degrees of freedom aren't found only in joints! Each and every body has them.

We are not talking about a ball on a floor, we are talking about a part attached to a chassis, if it's fixed on the chassis, it has no degrees of freedom. Think system of bodies instead of simple mechanics.


What I tried to do was to logically show you that your interpretation was weird. ;)
And you should pick up the solid mechanics book again. :p :Well, you failed, both in your logic and in your interpretation of mechanics regarding FIA rules about degrees of freedom :p :



Well the aero bits aren't illegal for a reason that is completely independent of your initial point of view regarding the degrees of freedom and that reason is that these bits do not flex more than a certain limit imposed by the FIA under a certain static load. And that Ferrari wing did pass those FIA tests but still was declared illegal.So according to you, parts are allowed to have degrees of freedom if they don't flex too much, my i suggest you pick up the FIA rule book once, it's a good read

Aero bits have to pass both rules, maximum flexing under load and no degrees of freedom



My question is once again why isn't the FIA consistently doing the same judgements?FIA was well within it's rights to ban the pin/hole wing

[aryan]

its not a difficult topic !!!! there is no topic. simple as that. typical armchair followers who think ...

Mods, I should be the last one to defend ioan here, but some of the personal attacks towards him are really pushing it a bit, don't you think?

[andreag]

for the sake of impartiality, i searched on youtube for evidence of the mac wing video but couldn't find any. if anyone else has one then please post it as it would be interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXzCduAWG0

[Big Ben]

I remember they imposed some kind of separator parts on the rear wings some time ago because Honda complained that those were flexing.

When is that they will do the same in the case at hand? This is my question.



I didn't see a movable aero device on a F1 car for many years. As long as a part of the car is firmly attached to the body at least at one end this part is flexing but not moving.
A movement, by definition, means that all the points of a body will translate or rotate, or translate + rotate in reference to a fix coordinates system (in our case the car's body).


Maybe Max ran out of Helium this time?

movement:

* motion: a change of position that does not entail a change of location

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AklGfuzNLQ

as far as I can remember FIA took no action against this "innovative" wing either. If that wasn't designed to move than nothing ever was.

[Big Ben]

A lot of stuff that people moan about Ferrari doing gets little or no comment when another team does exactly the same thing.

Put it this way. If it was Ferrari's front wing being questioned and it was Schumi in the car instead of Massa, how long do you think the thread would be that's blasting Schumi for runnning Alonso off the road and then winning with an illegal car? I reckon it'd be about 10 pages by now.

Well... it's quite off topic but I'll say it... I believe it was an unfair move... because Massa lost the corner and than touched Alonso... pushed him out of track... if there had been no collision and Alonso had left the track because of his speed in the corner I would admit it was FA's fault...obviously... but Massa decided FA's line was better and pushed him out... i don't see another way for FA in that position.

[jjanicke]

Why people can't take things for what those are?
I don't question McLaren for coming up with their new wing, but the FIA for not handing out the same treatement.

Still very few sensible posts here.

The only difference I see in this case, is that no other team has lodged a complaint. In the past, with incidents related to Ferrari, I seem to always recall a complaint being lodged with the FIA, and not the FIA acting on their own.

Until there's evidence that another team has lodged a complaint I believe the FIA is considering this matter a non issue. Let's see what happens if Mclaren take the performance advantage.

[jjanicke]

You could see the wing visibly move back into place on hard braking. That's an infraction and action should be taken. I thought it was pretty ballsy for McLaren to put the wing out on the track for everyone to scrutinize.

Give it another day, something will come out about it.

It's only an infraction if it moves more than the predefined load and deflection tolerance.

[jjanicke]

The point was raised that if the wing was on a Ferrari then it would not have been largely ignored. I agree. The anti-Ferrari/Schumi brigade were always very quick to get all indignant whenever something occurred relating to Ferrari/Schumi, but were, and still are, fairly quiet when a similar thing occured with another team.

The wing has been passed by the FIA. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure you can equate a little downward deflection to a fixed end wing, with the horizontal deflection of a front wing, massive flexing of the rear wing uprights, tire ovens, ...

At least IMO!

[jjanicke]

...
We all know the rules and have discussed them to nausea last season when front and rear wings were required to be changed, although those parts passed the static tests of the FIA, because they were not in the spirit of the rules.

Let's not forget, not this fast at least, that this year the FIA issued two modifications regarding the cars floor that was considered to be an aerodynamical device not complying to the spirit of the rules, as we all know the floors passed the FIA tests initially and even after the first change in the regs.

So why does the FIA need to make 2 drastic changes concerning flexing floors (in the end they increased 4 times the static load they use for the test) but doesn't give a damn about a front wing that was proved to be flexing and thus not respecting the spirit of the rules?........

Maybe because one is clearly a violation of the spirit of the rule, containing a device that would maintain a given test load right up until the requirement and then "give", while the other is merely the result of a fixed static object flexing under a load.

Just maybe! ;)

[wmcot]

Maybe because one is clearly a violation of the spirit of the rule, containing a device that would maintain a given test load right up until the requirement and then "give", while the other is merely the result of a fixed static object flexing under a load.


Looks like you're defining the same principle two different ways. :)

[jjanicke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXzCduAWG0

That wing barely moves, and has no degrees of freedome.

[jjanicke]

Looks like you're defining the same principle two different ways. :)


:confused: I don't follow!

[ArrowsFA1]

Who is favored by the FIA depends on the POV and is a very subjective matter.
Very true.

What I am questioning is the commitment of the FIA to enforce the rules.
In the case you mentioned at the beginning of this thread it is clear that the FIA have examined McLaren's wing and found it to be legal. How does that bring into question the FIA's committment to enforce the rules? Because they found nothing wrong doesn't mean they chose not to enforce the rules, it just means they found nothing wrong!

They may not have ruled against McLaren in this case, but that has no bearing on previous decisions relating to McLaren or any other team.

It's human nature that if the FIA rule against your (meaning an F1 fan generally!) team they're biased, and if they don't rule against your team's rivals then they're biased too. I have a certain empathy with Max & the FIA on this one ;)

[ioan]

We are not talking about a ball on a floor, we are talking about a part attached to a chassis, if it's fixed on the chassis, it has no degrees of freedom. Think system of bodies instead of simple mechanics.
Well, you failed, both in your logic and in your interpretation of mechanics regarding FIA rules about degrees of freedom :p :

I will just point out that laws of mechanics are the same no matter if the system is made of 2 or more components, no matter if it's a ball on the floor or an F1 wing!
My interpretation of mechanics is scientific, without FIA rules or any other thing that has little to do with physics.


So according to you, parts are allowed to have degrees of freedom if they don't flex too much, my i suggest you pick up the FIA rule book once, it's a good read

You my twist it as you wish but I didn't say that those wings have any degrees of freedom, so I say your suggestion doesn't fit in this case. And I still prefer my mechanics books to the FIA rule book you are using! :p :


Aero bits have to pass both rules, maximum flexing under load and no degrees of freedom

FIA was well within it's rights to ban the pin/hole wing

Man you still don't understand what degree of freedom means, so I'll stop this conversation until proof of you studying some more about the subject.

[ioan]

In the case you mentioned at the beginning of this thread it is clear that the FIA have examined McLaren's wing and found it to be legal. How does that bring into question the FIA's committment to enforce the rules? Because they found nothing wrong doesn't mean they chose not to enforce the rules, it just means they found nothing wrong!

FIA always investigates everything, no problem with their consistency on this front,but in some cases, more of it lately, they decided that even if the parts passed their static load tests the testing methods needed to be changed and thus made the parts illegal.

In this case at hand there is no talk about such thing, everything is so clear and exceptionally perfect with the McLaren wing. It doesn't flex, it doesn't twist, with the ordinary statical load test, so it's OK.

[raphael123]

And 1 case would make that a general view on the matter?

Ioan. FIA decisions are easy to see who it favours. When a team complains about another team, and the FIA penalises the team who are under investigation, it's blatantly obvious the team who have been penalised are going to be disadvantaged.

If they didn't think the team would be disadvantaged by complaining, they wouldn't make the complaint in the first place!

[ArrowsFA1]

It's Red Bull's turn now :crazy:


The growing competitiveness of the team meant the outfit gained more television exposure that normal in Spain, and some of the subsequent on-board footage of Coulthard's car has caused some concern among rivals teams about the behaviour of the rear wing.

The images appear to show the rear wing pivoting back around the front support strut as the car gains speed on the main straight, before dramatically popping back up into its vertical position under braking for Turn One.

Autosport.com understands that several rival teams are unhappy about what they believe is flexing of the rear wing, although there are no suggestions yet that they will go so far as lodging a protest against Red Bull.

It is not clear whether the FIA has been asked to investigate the Red Bull wing yet, but it is understood that questions will likely be asked about the matter at the Monaco Grand Prix.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58922

[ioan]

It's Red Bull's turn now :crazy:


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58922

Maybe they get a ban on their wing, just to make the McLaren case stand out even more! :D

[jjanicke]

Maybe they get a ban on their wing, just to make the McLaren case stand out even more! :D

What stands out with the Mclaren wing? It's clearly rigidly fixed in position, unlike last years ferrari's top wing that had 1 unrestricted end.

Anyway, given the precedent the FIA set with Ferrari's flexing rear uprights last year, I would assume that Redbull will be investigated if evidence is available and presented.

[wmcot]

One more take on the McLaren front wing. The way I understand the upper wing is that it is rigidly mounted to the endplates of the lower wing. If the upper wing is flexing in either a downwards or upwards direction, the lower wing must do the same. If it didn't, the mounts would snap off.

[ioan]

One more take on the McLaren front wing. The way I understand the upper wing is that it is rigidly mounted to the endplates of the lower wing. If the upper wing is flexing in either a downwards or upwards direction, the lower wing must do the same. If it didn't, the mounts would snap off.

Exactly, but people doesn't seem to be really interested about this, for now only you and Valve brought this point up!


... unlike last years ferrari's top wing that had 1 unrestricted end.


All the winglets on the car (ex: viking horns on several cars, chicken wings on the sidepods etc ) have 1 unrestricted end, yet those are considered legal!
The FIA is simply not constant in their approach.

[janneppi]

I will just point out that laws of mechanics are the same no matter if the system is made of 2 or more components, no matter if it's a ball on the floor or an F1 wing!
My interpretation of mechanics is scientific, without FIA rules or any other thing that has little to do with physics.
Laws of mechanics are the same, you just don't seem to know how to apply them.




Man you still don't understand what degree of freedom means, so I'll stop this conversation until proof of you studying some more about the subject.
May i ask what knowledge you have of mechanics, i do hope it's more than what you've read on wikipedia?

Calculating robot arm movements, and doing hydraulic boom simulations have given me enough base to say your idea of mechanics is flawed when you apply it to a winglet attached on only one point.

[ioan]

Laws of mechanics are the same, you just don't seem to know how to apply them.

I'll ignore this little ego burst for now.


May i ask what knowledge you have of mechanics, i do hope it's more than what you've read on wikipedia?

Calculating robot arm movements, and doing hydraulic boom simulations have given me enough base to say your idea of mechanics is flawed when you apply it to a winglet attached on only one point.

My knowledge of mechanics goes way beyond what you might be thinking.

Robot arm movements are not the same as a rigidly attached wing on an F1 car, be it at only one end but rigid however.

[janneppi]

Robot arm movements are not the same as a rigidly attached wing on an F1 car, be it at only one end but rigid however.
But a ball on the ground is the same thing? :p :

Robot arm movements are result of degrees of freedom in it's joints, which apply to the Ferrari's pin/hole wing issue perfectly.

As i have said before(or at least should have said) FIA has the No DOF rule to prevent moveable mechanisms in aeroparts. In that context flexing isn't an issue, especially when they have seperate rules for that behaviour.

[ioan]

Robot arm movements are result of degrees of freedom in it's joints, which apply to the Ferrari's pin/hole wing issue perfectly.

Try to rigidly attach that robot arm to a wall and than tell me how many DOF it has and if it can be called movable!

[janneppi]

Try to rigidly attach that robot arm to a wall and than tell me how many DOF it has and if it can be called movable!
http://www.sugano.mech.waseda.ac.jp/wendy/arm/image/arm01.jpg
There you, rigidly attached from the base to the wall while having 7 DOF's :p :

[ioan]

http://www.sugano.mech.waseda.ac.jp/wendy/arm/image/arm01.jpg
There you, rigidly attached from the base to the wall while having 7 DOF's :p :

Luckily you put that smilies there, or I would have thought you are serious! :)