Formula One - 2021 Season

Current Formula One related news, information and discussion.
Michkov
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 15 years ago

Re: Formula One - 2021 Season

Post by Michkov » 1 month ago

Latest post of the previous page:

Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
Everso Biggyballies wrote:
1 month ago
Hmmm..... I saw the video without the reference line on it and could not really tell any difference..... with the reference line it is clear to see thaat Red Bull have done something pretty smart that is strong enough to pass a 50KG weight deflection test but deflect in real life when it is beneficial.
Well, they clearly designed the wing to it does not bend until there is at least 51 KG of weigh on itt. So, do you simply just increase the weight being used for the test and give them credit for a clever cheat? Is a cheat that bypasses the measurements not worthy of a penalty?
No it isn't, because the rules say you have to pass the test and it passes the test ergo it's not cheating it's clever. I dont get why people think clever problem solving is cheating, just because it is used to gain an advantage over the opposition. Isn't that the whole point of constructing your own car in F1 is about? If we'd outlaw clever thinking we might as well order 20 Dallaras, put stickers on them and call it a day..

White six
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 1 year ago

Post by White six » 1 month ago

Red bull allowed to be benders for a few weeks yet.

User avatar
jimclark
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 years ago
Real Name: jim
Favourite Motorsport: auto racing (just about all)
Favourite Racing Car: Lotus49B
Favourite Driver: Hafta' ask??? Aie yi-yi...
Favourite Circuit: Bridgehampton, NY; 'golf course now
Location: Champion Porsche/Audi territory

Post by jimclark » 1 month ago

......and if the Red Bull "moving" wing is illegal, what about all the other down force producing aero parts on everyone's cars? Their whole function is to make the cars stick to the ground better by applying downward pressure.....hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds worth.
Is that not making everything illegal as the springs compress?....even evvvv-er so slightly....they're moving.
Hell, just the cars rolling along....all those aero parts are moving to function, no???
Considering the above, all teams are cheating.

Just some food for thought........ ;)
Those were the days my friends, we thought they'd never end.....

jimclark

User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 32771
Joined: 15 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Kimi,Niki,Jim(none called Michael)
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: Audi SQ5 3.0L V6 TwinTurbo
Location: Just moved 3 klms further away so now 11 klms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

Post by Everso Biggyballies » 1 month ago

When is legal illegal? :dunno:

They passed the test in place at the moment to define what is legal surely means they are legal.

Clever I call it. We know it moves, but only under greater loads than the test calls for it not to move at. All they need to do is up the stringency of the test and then they might be illegal.

Yes I guess it could be said to be circumventing the spirit of the rule as it is, but the smarts who set the rules just need to get smarter. As it is now the smarts designing the parts are smarter than those setting the rules. The way it should be.

A bit like (non F1 I know) when Smokey Yannick beat the rule of fuel tank capacity..... the rules set the fuel tank size. Smokey's fuel tank was the correct capacity. But the oversize fuel pipe he.used between tank and carbs was oversized and added 6 litres to his fuel capacity. Brilliant.

Is it cheating when all you do is break the spirit of the rule, but dont actually break the rule as it is written?

Of course the fix is easy. Rewrite the rules to incorporate some words that render the wing flex to be illegal. Then the design smarts have to find another way to legally cheat.

*Sebastian, Lance is faster than you... do you understand?*


*I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always

User avatar
Ruslan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 1 year ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

Post by Ruslan » 1 month ago

3.8 Aerodynamic influence

With the exception of the parts described in Articles 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, and the rear view
mirrors described in Article 14.3, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic
performance:

a. Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.

b. Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means
not having any degree of freedom).


With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to
minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the parts described in Articles 11.4,
11.5 and 11.6, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must
remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the
car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of
the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.11, 3.7.12 and 3.7.13, may under any circumstances be
located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any
car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the
aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

3.9 Bodywork flexibility

....

3.9.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
870mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 32771
Joined: 15 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Kimi,Niki,Jim(none called Michael)
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: Audi SQ5 3.0L V6 TwinTurbo
Location: Just moved 3 klms further away so now 11 klms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

Post by Everso Biggyballies » 1 month ago

Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago


3.9 Bodywork flexibility

....

3.9.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
870mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.
A visual of how they do the flex tests that are causing the problems. (And which the RBR flexy/bendy what ever we are calling it now wing seems to pass without problem, arguably making it legal in terms of the test in place to monitor bendy bits.)

Image

Im not ignoring the other relevant points you have made, but am not going to comment after a quick skim read. I understand in principle what they are saying which is nothing movable that might affect the aero efficiency..... yet the obviously aero influencing factor of for instance DAS, they ignore totally and say its ok (for this or was it last) year. I think it has been outlawed for this year.

It seems as if anything is difficult or contentious (ie DAS last year), and I suspect this wing thing will be the same, it will get swept under the carpet with a we have it covered better under the new regs coming next year. :dunno:

It seems also that Mercedes have a similar thing happening with their front wing frrom what I read.

Bottom line is that (and lets not kid ourselves it has always been the way in F1) that they are all circumnavigating rules somewhere. There would not be one single 100% legit car there if they did it all with a fine toothcomb. Some of the teams secrets are so subtle and well disguised they perhaps get overlooked by teams in a manner of not upsetting the hornets nest..... like may be happening now to Mercedes. They have kicked up about the RB wing and now all of a sudden their front wing is under scrutiny and debate.

*Sebastian, Lance is faster than you... do you understand?*


*I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always

DoubleFart
Supreme Member
Supreme Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: 6 years ago
Real Name: YouKnowWho
Favourite Motorsport: F1

Post by DoubleFart » 1 month ago

So Ferrari were cheating and still couldnt beat the Mercedes over a season. Red Bull were cheating and can't beat the Mercedes over 4 races.

But the Mercedes isn't cheating, and it's all because Lewis is the GrEaTeSt EvAr!!!1!1!1

This stinks like Usain Bolt having 7 of the fastest times in the world on the 100m, and being the only clean runner out of the first 25 names.
Founder and Life President: Lance Stroll Hate Club

Gavle Yule Goat Predictor 2018 Champion
Gavle Yule Goal Predictor 2019 Champion

White six
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 1 year ago

Post by White six » 1 month ago

Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird

User avatar
jimclark
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 years ago
Real Name: jim
Favourite Motorsport: auto racing (just about all)
Favourite Racing Car: Lotus49B
Favourite Driver: Hafta' ask??? Aie yi-yi...
Favourite Circuit: Bridgehampton, NY; 'golf course now
Location: Champion Porsche/Audi territory

Post by jimclark » 1 month ago

I thought it was DRS (drag reduction system).....it's changed?
Those were the days my friends, we thought they'd never end.....

jimclark

White six
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 1 year ago

Post by White six » 1 month ago

jimclark wrote:
1 month ago
I thought it was DRS (drag reduction system).....it's changed?
Das was the front wheel adjustment system from last year at Merc jim

User avatar
Ruslan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 1 year ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

Post by Ruslan » 1 month ago

White six wrote:
1 month ago
Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird
Red Bull did and complained to FIA about it.

White six
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 1 year ago

Post by White six » 1 month ago

Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird
Red Bull did and complained to FIA about it.
But I don't think that was about the aero effect? Then of course the FIA let them keep it

Yep, the RB complaint was about suspension systems, not aero

User avatar
Ruslan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 1 year ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

Post by Ruslan » 1 month ago

White six wrote:
1 month ago
Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird
Red Bull did and complained to FIA about it.
But I don't think that was about the aero effect? Then of course the FIA let them keep it

Yep, the RB complaint was about suspension systems, not aero
https://www.racefans.net/2020/07/03/red ... -mercedes/

It says:

"Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint."

Also: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/53285413

White six
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 1 year ago

Post by White six » 1 month ago

Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird
Red Bull did and complained to FIA about it.
But I don't think that was about the aero effect? Then of course the FIA let them keep it

Yep, the RB complaint was about suspension systems, not aero
https://www.racefans.net/2020/07/03/red ... -mercedes/

It says:

"Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint."

Also: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/53285413
Cheers, the source I saw mentioned only the suspension part. So the precedent is the FIA gets an aero complaint yet allows it to continue all season

User avatar
Ruslan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 1 year ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

Post by Ruslan » 1 month ago

White six wrote:
1 month ago
Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Ruslan wrote:
1 month ago
White six wrote:
1 month ago
Why did nobody point out das was an aerodynamic aid? That was just weird
Red Bull did and complained to FIA about it.
But I don't think that was about the aero effect? Then of course the FIA let them keep it

Yep, the RB complaint was about suspension systems, not aero
https://www.racefans.net/2020/07/03/red ... -mercedes/

It says:

"Mercedes are accused of an “alleged breach of FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations, Articles 3.8 and 10.2.3, during free practice session P2”. The rules in concern the rigidity of aerodynamic devices on the car and alterations to the suspension system, indicating DAS is the focus of Red Bull’s complaint."

Also: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/53285413
Cheers, the source I saw mentioned only the suspension part. So the precedent is the FIA gets an aero complaint yet allows it to continue all season
Yes, because das was not a movable aerodynamic device, unlike Red Bull’s rear wing.

User avatar
erwin greven
Staff
Staff
Posts: 17164
Joined: 16 years ago
Real Name: Erwin Greven
Favourite Motorsport: Endurance Racing
Favourite Racing Car: Lancia Delta 038 S4 Group B
Favourite Driver: Ronnie Peterson
Favourite Circuit: Nuerburgring Nordschleife
Car(s) Currently Owned: Peugeot 206 SW Air-Line 3 2007
Location: Stadskanaal, Groningen
Contact:

Post by erwin greven » 1 month ago

DAS can be used as an aerodynamic device. By changing the angle of the tires you can change the ride height too. And 1 mm makes a lot of difference.
Brian Redman: "Mr. Fangio, how do you come so fast?" "More throttle, less brakes...."
DJ at www.metalmessiahradio.com *** Every Tuesday 1pm - 4pm EST - Every Wednesday 1pm - 3pm EST

Post Reply