FIA To Increase the Front Wing Test

Loren, please contact me soon at ICQ (196194846) or mail (manuel.nea@gmx.de). I've asked a long time ago for permissions of 1994 3d work of you, but you never answered! It's very important!

Lucifer[93] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loren, please contact me soon at ICQ (196194846)
> or mail (manuel.nea@gmx.de). I've asked a long
> time ago for permissions of 1994 3d work of you,
> but you never answered! It's very important!


Unless that 3d work is from a front wing I guess that is very unrelated...

what do you mean? So what has loren actually done for this mod?

Your in the wrong thread

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Yeah...but in the other threads...he's not answering...

Try PM'ing him?

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

I tried it 3 times and no answer came back.

He hates you.

Why should he hate me? I simply ask one question...and I never talked with him...

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

I'm totally lost here. What could the teams be doing to their cars' underfloors and what does this have to do with load and deflection tests?

---

Um dois três quatro cinco seis sete oito nove dez
Eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs sieben acht neun zehn
One two three four five six seven eight nine ten
Один два три четыре пять шесть семь восемь девять десять

there wasnt an issue about Ferrari and BMW´s floors back in 2007?

sorry mate, I guess I never really check PMs on this site. I haven't touched the 1994 cars in quite some time....really hard to get them up to the standard I want.

So you've done something on it? Whatever you done, can I have permission to convert it when i remember your name in every credits?

Lex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is also understood that the FIA is to clamp
> down on teams using clever fixings and joints on
> the underfloor of the car – amid suspicions that
> this is one area that teams could also be
> exploiting the regulations.
>
> I'm totally lost here. What could the teams be
> doing to their cars' underfloors and what does
> this have to do with load and deflection tests?


from here discussing how Webber's car could grind the plank in qualification on an extremely low fuel load, but be high enough not to grind the plank in the race with a full fuel load:

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simplest solution to the no-fuel qualifying,
> no refuelling race dilemma is to make the gas tank
> act as a counter-weight in the suspension. That
> way, the more the gas tank weighs, the higher up
> it pulls the car. An empty tank exerts little to
> no pull on the suspension, thus the car is low. I
> am not even sure this would be illegal in the
> current regulations and clarifications.

You could also have the car set at a specific ride height so it passes inspections. Then have a clever device which locks the loaded suspension when triggered, say when braking press the brake pedal to the left and the car locks ride height at the lower setting. After qualification you release the fixing by pushing the pedal to the right, thus it can pass inspection and can handle a race fuel load.

Also, flexing the floor of the car would increase under car downforce which is almost free of drag, as opposed to say an improved rear wing.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

They are going to be making more changes to the test for Monza.

[www.autosport.com]

I think it's very probable that RBR and Ferrari have areo kits that might go against the "spirit" of the regs but dammit it's some clever engineering which is a huge part of F1. They passed current tests hence can only considered legal, if they fail revised tests then the results will (and should) stand, but obviously they'll have to carry out the modifications to pass the new tests.

This reminds me of the double deck diffusers... A little bit cheeky but ultimately very clever.

There is a substantial difference.

The rules ban flexing, and then proscribe a test method to determine flexing. Thus the current flexing is not only against the spirit of the rules, it also against the letter of the rules. The current test to determine flexing is just inadequate, which is why the FIA left a provisio for changing the specifications of the test, should a situation like this arise.

The diffuser situation was against the spirit of the rules, but not against the letter.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

To my knowledge flexing itself isn't against the rules (whereas movable aerodynamic devices are), but as you say, there are tests to determine flex and they pass. The FIA know that parts have to flex to a degree, hence the tests to measure it, whereas movable aerodynamic devices are to cover intentional flexing and adjustment (primarily to avoid the bendy wings of previous decades to allow for staggering downforce and straight-line speed... ironically something not a million miles away from what they're introducing for next year).

Anyway, for whatever reason, the movable aero rules cannot cover this, as no team has even mentioned them - only fans. If the complaining teams felt they contradicted those particular rules, they'd have been all over it.

Thus the current flexing is not only against the spirit of the rules, it also against the letter of the rules.

The problem with saying "flexing is against the rules" is the entire car flexs, thus making the entire car illegal. All you can do is define the maximum amount of flex under a specific load.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

It would serve you both well to read the rules before you comment on them.

F1 technical regulations

This is the paragraph covering flexing:

Quote

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.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block
in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

This means, a skid block divided into small pieces, so it flexes and either lowers the front wing, goes below the reference plane, or just flexes to increase under car downforce is prohibited. Indeed ANY device that does this is against the rules. It is prohibited under ALL circumstances. This is not just against the spirit of the rules, it is against the factual letter of the rules.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.