2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[PhillipM]

Anyone know how much of wing flex seen on camera is down to rake. Guess not to much if Horner says they actually need to make changed.

Horner nor anyone in Red Bull has admitted that their wing is illegal, Ferrari and Alfa are the only teams so far that have admitted the aero flexibility. Horner only made a statement regarding the estimated costs of making a new wing, but no one in RBR is admitting their wing is illegal.

But people at Red Bull have admitted they would need to change the wing to meet both the interim tests and the final ones. Which is what he actually said.

But to actually answer you Datco, none of the flex seen on camera is down to rake changes.

[RZS10]

Relax man, i just answered a simple question with a simple animated image. Haven't brought up anything else.

Ok, and I'm discussing the accuracy of your answer, not saying you're wrong, or right. It could be, and we need to make sure. Engine cover and camera mounting have some flex, and can cause optical illusions. Until we account for all variables we can only make guesses from images. Most people don't even know how far the wing is from the camera, which has a big influence in perception. I wish there were some fixed markings on the car that would make direct comparisons easy, but there's no such thing.

We can only make observations, that is true, but as i wrote - i specifically did not bring up any amount of flex or comparisons or any other teams since that has it's own thread. It was merely about the impact of rake on the wing and i kept it short so this thread wouldn't derail into another team vs. team argument.

[dans79]

You can pick whichever reference you want, how much is it bending? Until you answer that, I can't agree the wing is illegal. The camera frame also has a 1 degree freedom of movement. Those pesky engineering tolerances and reality prevent anything from having zero degrees of freedom.

Regardless of your claims, you still can't answer by how much the wing is illegal, if at all, so this is all kind of irrelevant isn't it?

As I said before, no one on this forum has access to enough information to give you a quantitative answer as to how much it's flexing. As I have said before under the current flexing tests, it is legal. All anyone in the public domain can do is compare and contrast to the other teams on the grid.

However, the FIA feels that an unknown (to the public) number of teams are not complying with the spirit of the rules, and thus are changing the testing regime. Thus if it's currently legal or not is irrelevant/academic, as RBR has already said they will need to make changes to comply with the new tests.

[Datco]

Anyone know how much of wing flex seen on camera is down to rake.

None. High rake, low rake, doesn't matter - the camera moves with the entire car and the wing moves relative to the camera.
https://i.imgur.com/y3Lrjaa.gif

Thanks, I'm referring to when the rear end gets pushed down at high speed more appent on high rake. Yes the camera is fixed, but modern day cameras are gyroscopic stabilised to take away the bumps, in other words it holds a fixed plane external to the car. A technology that does prevents motion sickness but also takes away the feeling of speed.

[RZS10]

Those aren't gyro cams, OIS (if it's even being used on those particular cams) isn't = gyro. You do mean what some racing sims call "lock to horizon" right? If those were gyro cams that would stay perfectly horizontal the observable difference would be a lot larger, and it would be very evident at tracks like Portimao. The squatting (rear of the car lowering at speed) does affect the AOA though. (we're getting really off topic here though)

[godlameroso]

Anyone know how much of wing flex seen on camera is down to rake. Guess not to much if Horner says they actually need to make changed.

Horner nor anyone in Red Bull has admitted that their wing is illegal, Ferrari and Alfa are the only teams so far that have admitted the aero flexibility. Horner only made a statement regarding the estimated costs of making a new wing, but no one in RBR is admitting their wing is illegal.

But people at Red Bull have admitted they would need to change the wing to meet both the interim tests and the final ones. Which is what he actually said.

But to actually answer you Datco, none of the flex seen on camera is down to rake changes.

No, he didn't.

[PhillipM]

No, he didn't.

"Guess not to much if Horner says they actually need to make changed"

He didn't mention illegal, he said need to be changed. And yes, Red Bull team members did say the wing needs to be changed for the new tests.

[dans79]

Horner nor anyone in Red Bull has admitted that their wing is illegal, Ferrari and Alfa are the only teams so far that have admitted the aero flexibility. Horner only made a statement regarding the estimated costs of making a new wing, but no one in RBR is admitting their wing is illegal.

But people at Red Bull have admitted they would need to change the wing to meet both the interim tests and the final ones. Which is what he actually said.

But to actually answer you Datco, none of the flex seen on camera is down to rake changes.

No, he didn't.

they did!

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... n/6512038/

Team principal Christian Horner said: "For a team like us, that's obviously running up against the cap, then of course strategically you have to make choices.

"You know the impact of something like this is probably about half a million dollars, so that will prevent something else from happening. So that's the juggling act that we're now having to make."

[GhostF1]

But people at Red Bull have admitted they would need to change the wing to meet both the interim tests and the final ones. Which is what he actually said.

But to actually answer you Datco, none of the flex seen on camera is down to rake changes.

No, he didn't.

they did!

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... n/6512038/

Team principal Christian Horner said: "For a team like us, that's obviously running up against the cap, then of course strategically you have to make choices.

"You know the impact of something like this is probably about half a million dollars, so that will prevent something else from happening. So that's the juggling act that we're now having to make."

At the same time, none of this is an admission it's illegal. It's an admission yes it will probably need adjustments to meet a brand new test. this is true of McLaren, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, all of them.

Horner's response is entirely reasonable of any team:

Horner asserted his team’s rear wings are legal when asked if he was concerned about the possibility of a protest. “The car complies with the tests, it complies with the rules,” he said. “So that’s just a statement of fact.”

“The car is designed to comply with the regulations and, of course, there are tests that the FIA have to measure that,” he explained. “Our car complies with all of those tests.

“Now, occasionally the FIA will change those tests, which they have the right to do. They’ve done that and that, of course, then means that, effectively it’s a change in regulation in many respects.”

“But it is just one aspect of the car. We’ve seen these tests change many, many times and there is a lot of noise being made about it, it’s been stoked up all for obvious reason and of course you guys [the media] fall for it hook, line and sinker.”

“Look, I think if the camera was facing the other way on our rival’s car, we would be having the same discussion [about legality],” Horner told Sky F1.

Horner was then shown onboard footage of the Mercedes front wing from Imola.

“Look at the front wing endplate/flap, as you can see it starts to disappear out of shot and then it reappears more so than any other car on the grid, Toto implied it's not possible to reinforce them.. I mean he can have a chat to the rest of us about how we've done it, I'm sure we'll lend them a hand” Horner commented.

“So what’s the difference between that and the rear?”


The more this carries on, the more obvious it's becoming it's a desperate tactic off the track.

[dans79]

No, he didn't.

they did!

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... n/6512038/

Team principal Christian Horner said: "For a team like us, that's obviously running up against the cap, then of course strategically you have to make choices.

"You know the impact of something like this is probably about half a million dollars, so that will prevent something else from happening. So that's the juggling act that we're now having to make."

At the same time, none of this is an admission it's illegal.

I specifically said in my previous post (and several others) that it was legal.

As I said before, no one on this forum has access to enough information to give you a quantitative answer as to how much it's flexing. As I have said before under the current flexing tests, it is legal. All anyone in the public domain can do is compare and contrast to the other teams on the grid.

However, the FIA feels that an unknown (to the public) number of teams are not complying with the spirit of the rules, and thus are changing the testing regime. Thus if it's currently legal or not is irrelevant/academic, as RBR has already said they will need to make changes to comply with the new tests.

[Sieper]

You can’t have moveable aero. Point.

You can’t be burning oil as fuel or as a method to introduce additives. Point.

You can’t change the set up of the car after parc ferme. Point.

If Merc wants to go to the ICA (which I never knew existed and never even heared RBR threaten with) after the fact, then perhaps RBR should also take these other spirit of the rules cases to court. After the fact. It could mean several world titles.

[Ricdijk]

You can’t have moveable aero. Point.

So what is your opinion on Mercedes T-wing, Shark-fin and Front-wing? (all movable aero)

[Sieper]

All are against the spirit of moveable aero rule. But let’s talk about RBR here and let the Mercedes mind games be. I am sure we will get inundated with them. I hope RBR will keep their leg straight. FIA has already made a rule change (better said, even stricter testing limits than before) during the current season. With a very short grace period. That is the shortest period in which you can safely engineer a new wing. This cant be a rush job with a car potentially spinning into the barrières, or even go flying at 300+ in Baku.

[i70q7m7ghw]

All are against the spirit of moveable aero rule. But let’s talk about RBR here and let the Mercedes mind games be. I am sure we will get inundated with them. I hope RBR will keep their leg straight. FIA has already made a rule change (better said, even stricter testing limits than before) during the current season. With a very short grace period. That is the shortest period in which you can safely engineer a new wing. This cant be a rush job with a car potentially spinning into the barrières, or even go flying at 300+ in Baku.

There are allowances for unintended flex that provides no advantage. The FIA will only intervene if the flex is excessive and could be deemed a safety issue, which is what happened a few years ago when wing mirrors started falling off the cars.

The FIA have not changed any rules, they are simply excercising 3.15.1 of the existing technical regulations:

3.15.1 Introduction of load/deflection tests
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.2.1 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

There is no requirement for the FIA to provide a grace period, they could have introduced the new test immediately.

[Sieper]

They decided not too. Teams need time to built a new wing. It must be safe to race the new wing as well. We can’t have a crash at 300kmh because of a rushed implementation of stricter exercising of an existing rule. 3mm flex is now down to 1mm.

Mercedes not respecting the decided upon grace period, even threatening to do it after the fact instead of upfront is against already decided FIA ruling and imho unsportsmanlike . It is a powerplay that FIA should not bow for. That is taking risks with lifes.

We have had many rules, like not allowing oil to be burned, decreased in very small steps. In total with a grace period of multiple years.