I never claimed the Red Bull wing was illegal Martial, nor did I even suggest it.
Now come on, lets debate!
Give me some form of argument as to why clear as day images of flexing proves the wing isn't flexing. Give me something to work with if you wish to debate. There's no point claiming that you love to debate if you won't
n six
what can say nsix -- selective still photos prove very little if anything at all especially when all the wing shapes of the cars are different -
still photos are never going to prove that a front wing is flexing because it is just that -- a still photo of different shapes of front wings that are probably under a different load at any given time compared to each other anyway - ,
Well its a poor start from you in this debate if I'm to be honest but I will try to work with it just to be kind
"selective still photos prove very little if anything at all especially when all the wing shapes of the cars are different -"
Wings are all different, but they must all be build to specifications which is why they are all the same width and all have a minimal ground clearance etc.
"still photos are never going to prove that a front wing is flexing because it is just that"
Why is this true, why can't a still photo prove something as simple as a bending of a object. This statement makes no sense?
"a still photo of different shapes of front wings that are probably under a different load at any given time compared to each other anyway"
Again not much sense here. The comparison pictures showed cars at the same speed to within a few percent (same corner on hot laps etc). The video's and gifs show how the wing bends when under load.
I struggle to see where you're struggling here. I accept the wings weren't illegal but I can't see where in this whole thing you can form an argument that the red bull wing is not flexing?
Please form a sensible argument as to why you think clear as day images showing flex are in fact not showing flex. If you wish to debate martial then form an argument, stop just letting me prove something over and over without reply
n six
what makes you think you are actually proving something " over and over again" when we i dont actually agree with you nsix -
basically all you have done is show me a couple of still photos and declare you are right without forming any argument of why you think you are right -
basically nsix we are both talking about something that neither of us actually understand --
the FIA could not prove that the red bull front wings were flexing enough to break any rules what makes you think you can with a couple of still photos ?
personally i think the only way to form a more accurate opinion is to have an actual camera facing directly at the front wing when the car is at speed , i just dont think there is any other way --
Oh martial, again you seem to not understand the simplest concept. At no point have I claimed or implied that the red bull wings were illegal. You arguing the point just looks silly.
A picture of a wing flexing is just that. They have set dimensions so a picture of one bending means guess what... it's flexing.
The argument is simple, there are videos and pictures of the front wing flexing uunder load. That cannot be denied, I have shown you.
What is your counter argument, are all my pictures and videos optical illusions? I'm beginning to get the impression you don't know how to form an argument
I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
See it flex here again. Honestly martial, being obtuse when the evidence is right in front of you makes you come across as petulant.
You are not an expert in F1 or an authority or very knowledgeable. I am also a little concerned that you struggle to understand basic information. There's a word for people who refuse to believe the truth even when it stares them in the face, escapes me now
I hope this little episode proves why I question why people crave martials approval.
I chose a simple subject, not whether the wing was illegal, just simply did it flex.
Anyone and everyone can see it flex, heck all front wings flex to a degree, it's not difficult! Yet for some reason we have to prove it to martial to be accepted. Why is that?
Hopefully people can now understand what martial means when he says he wants to debate
comment by N_six0six (U13776)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
Oh martial, again you seem to not understand the simplest concept. At no point have I claimed or implied that the red bull wings were illegal. You arguing the point just looks silly.
A picture of a wing flexing is just that. They have set dimensions so a picture of one bending means guess what... it's flexing.
The argument is simple, there are videos and pictures of the front wing flexing uunder load. That cannot be denied, I have shown you.
What is your counter argument, are all my pictures and videos optical illusions? I'm beginning to get the impression you don't know how to form an argument
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i know you are desperate to beat me in an argument that much is clear and fair play to you for that but what exactly have your little selective still pics proved -
they have proved that the red bull wing is a different shape than the other wings as all wings are going to be so there is obviously a degree of optical illusion involved in the little selective pics ,and maybe the red bull wing like all the other respective manufactures front wings probably allowed for a degree of movement or moved up and down or flexion depending on what you wish to call it depending on what the car was doing at any given moment -
-- but the question you must ask yourself as you are desperate to prove me wrong was the degree of movement , flexion , or whatever you wish to call it illegal and was it doing anything that any of the other cars were not doing at any given moment at any track at any given track at any given point of that season -
----------- obviously not as the F1A gave the RB a clean bill of health so in effect it was a legal car and the FIA deemed the amount of front wing movement was nothing that was not allowed within the rules -
------------------ however fair play to you for attempting to get one over on me i respect that alot , one day you may be able to do it but on this occasion you have not applied enough logic to your argument and to me your argument would appear to be flawed
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
See it flex here again. Honestly martial, being obtuse when the evidence is right in front of you makes you come across as petulant.
You are not an expert in F1 or an authority or very knowledgeable. I am also a little concerned that you struggle to understand basic information. There's a word for people who refuse to believe the truth even when it stares them in the face, escapes me now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
seriously manx --- what exactly am i looking at in the film clip , there is nothing to see in the film clip as the front wing is all but invisible anyway in the clip and certainly it is not clear what the wing is actually doing as we struggle to actually see it in the first place -
----------------- as my old headmaster would say manx -
-------------- must try harder next time
No need to try martial, anyone who watches that video will notice the way the wing flexes.
Deliberately refusing to accept evidence staring you in the face further illustrates you are not here for debate.
Do whatever floats your boat my good man, I've had enough. There are other posters here who have open minds and are ready to discuss things, my energies will be directed towards such endeavour.
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 9 minutes ago
No need to try martial, anyone who watches that video will notice the way the wing flexes.
Deliberately refusing to accept evidence staring you in the face further illustrates you are not here for debate.
Do whatever floats your boat my good man, I've had enough. There are other posters here who have open minds and are ready to discuss things, my energies will be directed towards such endeavour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry manx you are not applying any logic to your point , despite the fact that the front wing was as clear as mud in that clip and to my naked eye all but invisible was it doing anything that any other wing on any other car was not doing -
from the clear as mud little you tube clip that you have provided i cant see how anybody can come to any reasonable and logical conclusions
MA take a look at the regulations.
You will find there is a minimum gap between the bottom of the wing and the floor, across its whole width ie the wing is flat. The Mclaren picture shows how it should be.
The Red Bull however is certainly not flat. It bends down at each end so that it nearly touches the ground.
However at rest it must be flat as it would not pass scrutineering. The only thing that could cause this is that it flexes under the aerodynamic load imparted on it.
This can be seen happening on numerous videos, you tube, the BBC etc. Yet again only you cannot see what is clearly presented to you.
And what's this sh/te about small lcd's? Are you implying none of have got 40+ inch LCD TV's. Or is it that all you have got is a small one
Look at the evidence, read the numerous articles.
go cell
yeh but then again the little pics are very selective and obviously cherry picked because they are selective , as i said the shape of the wings of every car is very different so there is always a degree of optical illusion involved in selective pics
as a neutral with logical reasoning how do we know that every other car of every other manufacturer would not give the same illusion if enough selective pics were taken on different circuits --
that is the trouble with little selective pics they dont give a very balanced view of the wider picture -
as for the little you tube clip -- not quite sure who the original contributer of the you tube clip was trying to convince with that one when he/she put in on you tube
--------- think my cat could have come up with something a little more convincing than that
MA, how come you say you cannot see the wing "the front wing was as clear as mud in that clip and to my naked eye all but invisible "
I am gobsmacked...
See the wheels, they are those big black things on the left and right. Then see the nose, that's the thing right in the middle and pointing forwards. In-between these two is the suspension. The top part of the suspended, the upper wishbones look a bit like this < > .
Can you see them?
OK just inside each of the wheels you will notice part of the air ducts for brake cooling. They poke up a bit another the wishbones. Got them?
OK now just beyond those you can see parts of the wing. These are those complicated bits that usually come from the endplates. See them?
Agreed you cannot see the main surface of the wing, but the end plated and the bits we can see are attached to the main wing.
OK, now if the wings were not flexing those bits of wing should stay at the same relative height as the brake ducts. There would be some up and down movement under braking and acceleration. However this would make the wing drop under braking as the suspension is put under load.
The videos show the opposite, the wings drop as the car accelerates, and lift again under braking. Not only that but it is the endplates that are dropping, as the nose itself (which the wings are attached to) stays relatively still.
I think I have described what you are looking for quite clearly, what say the rest of you?
If you still cannot see it you must have a very small one (screen) it you need glasses.
go cell
seriously i can barely see the front wing in the clip let alone be able to tell whether or not it was flexing -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
what do you seriously expect the suspension , wishbones ,airducks , endplates , brake ducts ,end plates , various wing bits ,and the rest of the parafanalia to actually do when each componant is as light as a feather and the suspension is rock hard and the cars are bouncing around on big lumps of hard rubber at warp speed 10
----------- do you seriously think or expect each of those feather light carbon fibre componants not to move about and stay rock hard rigidly still then --
--------- come on go cell lets apply just a little bit of logical thought to it mate
For flucks sake, how many times do I or anyone else need to tell you, this is not bouncing, it is flexing. You are refusing to watch and examine the evidence.
You need to take some of those eyesight vitamins you are an expert in, or get a bigger screen.....
Your last post has just done it for me. You are totally beyond help and unable to accept that you are wrong despite every other poster telling you so.
Basically a joke.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 4 minutes ago
For flucks sake, how many times do I or anyone else need to tell you, this is not bouncing, it is flexing. You are refusing to watch and examine the evidence.
You need to take some of those eyesight vitamins you are an expert in, or get a bigger screen.....
Your last post has just done it for me. You are totally beyond help and unable to accept that you are wrong despite every other poster telling you so.
Basically a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hey simmer down go cell just because " you or anyone else needs to tell me " which in effect is a couple of other of the bruvvers on here does not mean that it is cast in stone that they are correct or it is a fact or i am wrong ,
we are all allowed our opinions on here and in this instance i do not agree with yours and as yet you have produced nothing substantial to make me believe your opinion -
-------------- until you come up with something a little more substantial than a very suspect you tube clip i will believe that there is some substance in my opinion
You have been given links to articles in the press. Have you read them?
Do you remember in 2011 the FIA test was increased from 50kg to 100kg, yet the allowed deflection was increased to 20mm from 10mm. Do you think that was done on a whim?
Do you think 100kg is anywhere near the force that the aerodynamic effect has on the front wings. I read somewhere that the overall downforce is something like 1600kgs at 150mph, with the front wings providing about 30%, hence 500+ kg. Even passing this test a straight line equation (which it wouldn't be) would give up to 100mm deflection. However the trick they found was to allow a large amount of flex without breaking the supports. Breakages are also more likely to happen with bouncing, as this would be dynamic loading which is much higher.
To help get around this further RBR developed a flexible nose that allowed the whole front wing to drop at the front. Read James Allen's blog!
What does James Allen know
The redbull was one of the slowest cars on the grid but Vettel is 1.5 seconds faster than everyone else each lap because of his supreme intelligence
Slowest in a straight line, but quicker in the twisty bits due to their aerodynamics. I think the supreme intelligence moniker belongs to Adrian Newey. If it belonged to Vettel he would be running way with the WDC this year,or at least be within a shouting distance if Rosberg and Hamilton.
I wonder how much of a difference we will see at RBR now AN has his new role at RBT designing Americas Cup yachts.
I disagree with you my good man and I will provide no evidence.
Vettel is the bestest ever and is 1.5 seconds faster than the rest of the field and makes the pirelli tyres last for whole races.
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
You have been given links to articles in the press. Have you read them?
Do you remember in 2011 the FIA test was increased from 50kg to 100kg, yet the allowed deflection was increased to 20mm from 10mm. Do you think that was done on a whim?
Do you think 100kg is anywhere near the force that the aerodynamic effect has on the front wings. I read somewhere that the overall downforce is something like 1600kgs at 150mph, with the front wings providing about 30%, hence 500+ kg. Even passing this test a straight line equation (which it wouldn't be) would give up to 100mm deflection. However the trick they found was to allow a large amount of flex without breaking the supports. Breakages are also more likely to happen with bouncing, as this would be dynamic loading which is much higher.
To help get around this further RBR developed a flexible nose that allowed the whole front wing to drop at the front. Read James Allen's blog!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
good morning gc
yeh i saw the various reports in the autosport and bleacher and the like that red bull passed every test and then some with flying colors because nothing suspect was found with there designs -
lets have it right the main reason and probably the only reason that the FIA were forced to implement such rigorous tests was because of mainly mclaren who were always red bull"s main competitors desperately trying to find something suspect with the red bull machine -
very likely if vettel had not been so brilliant during the EBD era mclaren would not have thrown there dummy out of the playpen so many times and nothing would have ever been said about any of newey"s designs
naturally the media picked up on this and as was to be expected we saw various selective still pics that was used to fill there pages but in effect proved a big fat zero -
then again quite naturally and fully expected we had the you tube wallah"s posting little clips taken with there mobile phones from there tv sets many of which were so lacking in any kind of substance were almost laughable
The point about James Allen's blog is to show MA that the subject if flexing wings has been going on for ages and plenty if people have written about it. Not saying JA is an expert.
Yet the guru says the wings are just bouncing when they hit a bump or the kerb.
He refers to technical drawings showing the deflection on the Red Bull wing (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hYwqixNL1C0/TZ5GLBeAu3I/AAAAAAAACGM/QZOosV_EoR8/s320/flexible.jpg)
as a 'little kiddies join by numbers cartoon picture' yet still refuses to see the obvious.
Non abusive words to describe him elude me at present.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Toto Wolff
Page 4 of 22
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 14/6/14
I never claimed the Red Bull wing was illegal Martial, nor did I even suggest it.
Now come on, lets debate!
Give me some form of argument as to why clear as day images of flexing proves the wing isn't flexing. Give me something to work with if you wish to debate. There's no point claiming that you love to debate if you won't
posted on 14/6/14
n six
what can say nsix -- selective still photos prove very little if anything at all especially when all the wing shapes of the cars are different -
still photos are never going to prove that a front wing is flexing because it is just that -- a still photo of different shapes of front wings that are probably under a different load at any given time compared to each other anyway - ,
posted on 14/6/14
Well its a poor start from you in this debate if I'm to be honest but I will try to work with it just to be kind
"selective still photos prove very little if anything at all especially when all the wing shapes of the cars are different -"
Wings are all different, but they must all be build to specifications which is why they are all the same width and all have a minimal ground clearance etc.
"still photos are never going to prove that a front wing is flexing because it is just that"
Why is this true, why can't a still photo prove something as simple as a bending of a object. This statement makes no sense?
"a still photo of different shapes of front wings that are probably under a different load at any given time compared to each other anyway"
Again not much sense here. The comparison pictures showed cars at the same speed to within a few percent (same corner on hot laps etc). The video's and gifs show how the wing bends when under load.
I struggle to see where you're struggling here. I accept the wings weren't illegal but I can't see where in this whole thing you can form an argument that the red bull wing is not flexing?
Please form a sensible argument as to why you think clear as day images showing flex are in fact not showing flex. If you wish to debate martial then form an argument, stop just letting me prove something over and over without reply
posted on 14/6/14
n six
what makes you think you are actually proving something " over and over again" when we i dont actually agree with you nsix -
basically all you have done is show me a couple of still photos and declare you are right without forming any argument of why you think you are right -
basically nsix we are both talking about something that neither of us actually understand --
the FIA could not prove that the red bull front wings were flexing enough to break any rules what makes you think you can with a couple of still photos ?
personally i think the only way to form a more accurate opinion is to have an actual camera facing directly at the front wing when the car is at speed , i just dont think there is any other way --
posted on 14/6/14
Oh martial, again you seem to not understand the simplest concept. At no point have I claimed or implied that the red bull wings were illegal. You arguing the point just looks silly.
A picture of a wing flexing is just that. They have set dimensions so a picture of one bending means guess what... it's flexing.
The argument is simple, there are videos and pictures of the front wing flexing uunder load. That cannot be denied, I have shown you.
What is your counter argument, are all my pictures and videos optical illusions? I'm beginning to get the impression you don't know how to form an argument
I
posted on 14/6/14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
See it flex here again. Honestly martial, being obtuse when the evidence is right in front of you makes you come across as petulant.
You are not an expert in F1 or an authority or very knowledgeable. I am also a little concerned that you struggle to understand basic information. There's a word for people who refuse to believe the truth even when it stares them in the face, escapes me now
posted on 14/6/14
I hope this little episode proves why I question why people crave martials approval.
I chose a simple subject, not whether the wing was illegal, just simply did it flex.
Anyone and everyone can see it flex, heck all front wings flex to a degree, it's not difficult! Yet for some reason we have to prove it to martial to be accepted. Why is that?
Hopefully people can now understand what martial means when he says he wants to debate
posted on 14/6/14
comment by N_six0six (U13776)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
Oh martial, again you seem to not understand the simplest concept. At no point have I claimed or implied that the red bull wings were illegal. You arguing the point just looks silly.
A picture of a wing flexing is just that. They have set dimensions so a picture of one bending means guess what... it's flexing.
The argument is simple, there are videos and pictures of the front wing flexing uunder load. That cannot be denied, I have shown you.
What is your counter argument, are all my pictures and videos optical illusions? I'm beginning to get the impression you don't know how to form an argument
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i know you are desperate to beat me in an argument that much is clear and fair play to you for that but what exactly have your little selective still pics proved -
they have proved that the red bull wing is a different shape than the other wings as all wings are going to be so there is obviously a degree of optical illusion involved in the little selective pics ,and maybe the red bull wing like all the other respective manufactures front wings probably allowed for a degree of movement or moved up and down or flexion depending on what you wish to call it depending on what the car was doing at any given moment -
-- but the question you must ask yourself as you are desperate to prove me wrong was the degree of movement , flexion , or whatever you wish to call it illegal and was it doing anything that any of the other cars were not doing at any given moment at any track at any given track at any given point of that season -
----------- obviously not as the F1A gave the RB a clean bill of health so in effect it was a legal car and the FIA deemed the amount of front wing movement was nothing that was not allowed within the rules -
------------------ however fair play to you for attempting to get one over on me i respect that alot , one day you may be able to do it but on this occasion you have not applied enough logic to your argument and to me your argument would appear to be flawed
posted on 14/6/14
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
See it flex here again. Honestly martial, being obtuse when the evidence is right in front of you makes you come across as petulant.
You are not an expert in F1 or an authority or very knowledgeable. I am also a little concerned that you struggle to understand basic information. There's a word for people who refuse to believe the truth even when it stares them in the face, escapes me now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
seriously manx --- what exactly am i looking at in the film clip , there is nothing to see in the film clip as the front wing is all but invisible anyway in the clip and certainly it is not clear what the wing is actually doing as we struggle to actually see it in the first place -
----------------- as my old headmaster would say manx -
-------------- must try harder next time
posted on 14/6/14
No need to try martial, anyone who watches that video will notice the way the wing flexes.
Deliberately refusing to accept evidence staring you in the face further illustrates you are not here for debate.
Do whatever floats your boat my good man, I've had enough. There are other posters here who have open minds and are ready to discuss things, my energies will be directed towards such endeavour.
posted on 14/6/14
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 9 minutes ago
No need to try martial, anyone who watches that video will notice the way the wing flexes.
Deliberately refusing to accept evidence staring you in the face further illustrates you are not here for debate.
Do whatever floats your boat my good man, I've had enough. There are other posters here who have open minds and are ready to discuss things, my energies will be directed towards such endeavour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry manx you are not applying any logic to your point , despite the fact that the front wing was as clear as mud in that clip and to my naked eye all but invisible was it doing anything that any other wing on any other car was not doing -
from the clear as mud little you tube clip that you have provided i cant see how anybody can come to any reasonable and logical conclusions
posted on 14/6/14
MA take a look at the regulations.
You will find there is a minimum gap between the bottom of the wing and the floor, across its whole width ie the wing is flat. The Mclaren picture shows how it should be.
The Red Bull however is certainly not flat. It bends down at each end so that it nearly touches the ground.
However at rest it must be flat as it would not pass scrutineering. The only thing that could cause this is that it flexes under the aerodynamic load imparted on it.
This can be seen happening on numerous videos, you tube, the BBC etc. Yet again only you cannot see what is clearly presented to you.
And what's this sh/te about small lcd's? Are you implying none of have got 40+ inch LCD TV's. Or is it that all you have got is a small one
Look at the evidence, read the numerous articles.
posted on 14/6/14
go cell
yeh but then again the little pics are very selective and obviously cherry picked because they are selective , as i said the shape of the wings of every car is very different so there is always a degree of optical illusion involved in selective pics
as a neutral with logical reasoning how do we know that every other car of every other manufacturer would not give the same illusion if enough selective pics were taken on different circuits --
that is the trouble with little selective pics they dont give a very balanced view of the wider picture -
as for the little you tube clip -- not quite sure who the original contributer of the you tube clip was trying to convince with that one when he/she put in on you tube
--------- think my cat could have come up with something a little more convincing than that
posted on 14/6/14
MA, how come you say you cannot see the wing "the front wing was as clear as mud in that clip and to my naked eye all but invisible "
I am gobsmacked...
See the wheels, they are those big black things on the left and right. Then see the nose, that's the thing right in the middle and pointing forwards. In-between these two is the suspension. The top part of the suspended, the upper wishbones look a bit like this < > .
Can you see them?
OK just inside each of the wheels you will notice part of the air ducts for brake cooling. They poke up a bit another the wishbones. Got them?
OK now just beyond those you can see parts of the wing. These are those complicated bits that usually come from the endplates. See them?
Agreed you cannot see the main surface of the wing, but the end plated and the bits we can see are attached to the main wing.
OK, now if the wings were not flexing those bits of wing should stay at the same relative height as the brake ducts. There would be some up and down movement under braking and acceleration. However this would make the wing drop under braking as the suspension is put under load.
The videos show the opposite, the wings drop as the car accelerates, and lift again under braking. Not only that but it is the endplates that are dropping, as the nose itself (which the wings are attached to) stays relatively still.
I think I have described what you are looking for quite clearly, what say the rest of you?
If you still cannot see it you must have a very small one (screen) it you need glasses.
posted on 14/6/14
*Another* = above
posted on 14/6/14
go cell
seriously i can barely see the front wing in the clip let alone be able to tell whether or not it was flexing -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhfw8i64UM
what do you seriously expect the suspension , wishbones ,airducks , endplates , brake ducts ,end plates , various wing bits ,and the rest of the parafanalia to actually do when each componant is as light as a feather and the suspension is rock hard and the cars are bouncing around on big lumps of hard rubber at warp speed 10
----------- do you seriously think or expect each of those feather light carbon fibre componants not to move about and stay rock hard rigidly still then --
--------- come on go cell lets apply just a little bit of logical thought to it mate
posted on 14/6/14
For flucks sake, how many times do I or anyone else need to tell you, this is not bouncing, it is flexing. You are refusing to watch and examine the evidence.
You need to take some of those eyesight vitamins you are an expert in, or get a bigger screen.....
Your last post has just done it for me. You are totally beyond help and unable to accept that you are wrong despite every other poster telling you so.
Basically a joke.
posted on 14/6/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 4 minutes ago
For flucks sake, how many times do I or anyone else need to tell you, this is not bouncing, it is flexing. You are refusing to watch and examine the evidence.
You need to take some of those eyesight vitamins you are an expert in, or get a bigger screen.....
Your last post has just done it for me. You are totally beyond help and unable to accept that you are wrong despite every other poster telling you so.
Basically a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hey simmer down go cell just because " you or anyone else needs to tell me " which in effect is a couple of other of the bruvvers on here does not mean that it is cast in stone that they are correct or it is a fact or i am wrong ,
we are all allowed our opinions on here and in this instance i do not agree with yours and as yet you have produced nothing substantial to make me believe your opinion -
-------------- until you come up with something a little more substantial than a very suspect you tube clip i will believe that there is some substance in my opinion
posted on 14/6/14
You have been given links to articles in the press. Have you read them?
Do you remember in 2011 the FIA test was increased from 50kg to 100kg, yet the allowed deflection was increased to 20mm from 10mm. Do you think that was done on a whim?
Do you think 100kg is anywhere near the force that the aerodynamic effect has on the front wings. I read somewhere that the overall downforce is something like 1600kgs at 150mph, with the front wings providing about 30%, hence 500+ kg. Even passing this test a straight line equation (which it wouldn't be) would give up to 100mm deflection. However the trick they found was to allow a large amount of flex without breaking the supports. Breakages are also more likely to happen with bouncing, as this would be dynamic loading which is much higher.
To help get around this further RBR developed a flexible nose that allowed the whole front wing to drop at the front. Read James Allen's blog!
posted on 15/6/14
What does James Allen know
The redbull was one of the slowest cars on the grid but Vettel is 1.5 seconds faster than everyone else each lap because of his supreme intelligence
posted on 15/6/14
Slowest in a straight line, but quicker in the twisty bits due to their aerodynamics. I think the supreme intelligence moniker belongs to Adrian Newey. If it belonged to Vettel he would be running way with the WDC this year,or at least be within a shouting distance if Rosberg and Hamilton.
I wonder how much of a difference we will see at RBR now AN has his new role at RBT designing Americas Cup yachts.
posted on 15/6/14
I disagree with you my good man and I will provide no evidence.
Vettel is the bestest ever and is 1.5 seconds faster than the rest of the field and makes the pirelli tyres last for whole races.
posted on 15/6/14
comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
You have been given links to articles in the press. Have you read them?
Do you remember in 2011 the FIA test was increased from 50kg to 100kg, yet the allowed deflection was increased to 20mm from 10mm. Do you think that was done on a whim?
Do you think 100kg is anywhere near the force that the aerodynamic effect has on the front wings. I read somewhere that the overall downforce is something like 1600kgs at 150mph, with the front wings providing about 30%, hence 500+ kg. Even passing this test a straight line equation (which it wouldn't be) would give up to 100mm deflection. However the trick they found was to allow a large amount of flex without breaking the supports. Breakages are also more likely to happen with bouncing, as this would be dynamic loading which is much higher.
To help get around this further RBR developed a flexible nose that allowed the whole front wing to drop at the front. Read James Allen's blog!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
good morning gc
yeh i saw the various reports in the autosport and bleacher and the like that red bull passed every test and then some with flying colors because nothing suspect was found with there designs -
lets have it right the main reason and probably the only reason that the FIA were forced to implement such rigorous tests was because of mainly mclaren who were always red bull"s main competitors desperately trying to find something suspect with the red bull machine -
very likely if vettel had not been so brilliant during the EBD era mclaren would not have thrown there dummy out of the playpen so many times and nothing would have ever been said about any of newey"s designs
naturally the media picked up on this and as was to be expected we saw various selective still pics that was used to fill there pages but in effect proved a big fat zero -
then again quite naturally and fully expected we had the you tube wallah"s posting little clips taken with there mobile phones from there tv sets many of which were so lacking in any kind of substance were almost laughable
posted on 15/6/14
The point about James Allen's blog is to show MA that the subject if flexing wings has been going on for ages and plenty if people have written about it. Not saying JA is an expert.
Yet the guru says the wings are just bouncing when they hit a bump or the kerb.
He refers to technical drawings showing the deflection on the Red Bull wing (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hYwqixNL1C0/TZ5GLBeAu3I/AAAAAAAACGM/QZOosV_EoR8/s320/flexible.jpg)
as a 'little kiddies join by numbers cartoon picture' yet still refuses to see the obvious.
Non abusive words to describe him elude me at present.
posted on 15/6/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 4 of 22
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10