Flexible Wing Controversy Again

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 29 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  Eggry 6 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
  • #129122



    “Looking at the forward facing onboard shots during FP1 and Q, I’d suggest RBR & Mac have different spec wings re: flexibility”

    It seems like flexible wing contrversy is not gone anywhere.

    ScarbsF1 and some F1 fans found out Redbull’s wing is still flexible and none of the rest copy that until now. We all know new loading test is not effective and still we can see Redbull’s wing has been bended after change of the test.

    I don’t care if anyone make similar one but only Redbull knows the secret formula of flexible wing and gains aero advantage, FIA should investigate much harder than now. Why don’t they use onboard sensor rather than static load test which is proven useless?



    I posted this after the friday practice… The telly pictures seemed pretty obvious imo.




    Oh I read it now. it’s so obvious. Why no teams protest againt it?




    FIA should just ban any flexing of the wing and be done with it. No weight tests, no controversy. They’ve punished Sauber for a illegal rear wing, arent flexing parts illegal too?



    Well Red Bull’s wing has passed the FIA’s test, Sauber’s didn’t, that’s the fundamental difference and thats also why Red Bull shouldn’t be punished.

    Red Bull’s wing is clearly flexing BUT it still manages to pass the FIA’s Load tests (which are now more stringent than ever) so I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Red Bull have been innovative, now its up to the others to work out what they are doing or find their own innovations, that’s what F1 is all about!



    @geemac Rule is not all about test literally. That is why Mclaren protested so much on the wing last year. Yeah. I agree with what you said it’s innovative. however if someone keep it secret so long and anyone else have to struggle until the secret is exposed, it’s not real spirit of innovation. F1 is about technology and innovation, but also sport.



    To be fair, McLarens wing is now flexing, in a clear and obvious manner. AN you’d assume if they’d figured that out, they’ve probably figured out how to flex other bits of the car.



    I don’t see what the controversy is about. There are rules and regulations that prevent body parts, including the front wing, flexing beyond a certain threshold. Weight tests exist to uphold these rules. If a car passes the tests, how can there possibly be controversy?

    All the teams have the same rules, and so long as they keep to them, how can they possibly complain when somebody else produces a better car? It’s utterly ridiculous, and such a non-story.



    @vettels If it had been enough that they pass the test, FIA would not have modified the test. They did because it’s the spirit of the rules but failed to prevent it. Do they have to give up now? or introduce another certain solution(such as onboard sensor)?



    I agree as well that there really isn’t a controversy, but with the opposite outcome. The rules are very clear, no flexing is allowed. The tests are clearly not up to finding out when they do however because everyone can see the bloody things move up and down like elevators. Passing the tests or not, they are very clearly against both the letter and the spirit of the rules and are therefore illegal.



    Burn Red Bull for being better than all the other teams ???

    Reminds me of Williams in 1993-94




    Can some one paste the actual restriction as it is in the rules?



    3.15 Aerodynamic influence :

    With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

    – must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;

    – must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;

    – 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.

    This is just a statement and exact method of tests follow in Article 3.16. The problem is that the tests(3.16) are not enough to satisfy the spirit of the rules(3.15)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.