Red Bull illegality?

Neil McD.

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 2:36:25 PM6/9/12

to

Something on the front suspension (a hole in it somewhere?) has been
declared a "moving aerodynamic device" and therefor illegal - anybody know
what this "hole" is and where it is?

--
Neil McD.

build

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 2:43:12 PM6/9/12

to

Hole in the hub.

beers,

News

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 2:46:40 PM6/9/12

to

Vettel in his post-race interview suggested it was wheels.

build

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 2:47:20 PM6/9/12

to

Here ya go:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100230

beers,

Neil McD.

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 4:31:52 PM6/9/12

to

"build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:766ead0d-e9c0-4aa7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for that. If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic device"
providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to revisit their decision
that the little wings on the outside of everybody's brake cooling ducts are
not illegal under the same rule!

Neil

Mower Man

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 5:58:37 PM6/9/12

to

How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

News

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 6:26:55 PM6/9/12

to

On 6/9/2012 5:58 PM, Mower Man wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 9:31 PM, Neil McD. wrote:
>>
>> "build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:766ead0d-e9c0-4aa7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 10, 4:43 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 4:36 am, "Neil McD." <norespo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Something on the front suspension (a hole in it somewhere?) has been
>>> > declared a "moving aerodynamic device" and therefor illegal -
>>> anybody > know
>>> > what this "hole" is and where it is?
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Neil McD.
>>>
>>> Hole in the hub.
>>>
>>> beers,
>>
>> Here ya go:
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100230
>>
>> beers,
>>
>> Thanks for that. If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic device"
>> providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to revisit their
>> decision that the little wings on the outside of everybody's brake
>> cooling ducts are not illegal under the same rule!
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
> How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.
>

Anything on the corner moves independent of the tub.

Mark Jackson

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 8:33:20 PM6/9/12

to

On 6/9/2012 6:26 PM, News wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 5:58 PM, Mower Man wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 9:31 PM, Neil McD. wrote:

>>> If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic device"
>>> providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to revisit their
>>> decision that the little wings on the outside of everybody's brake
>>> cooling ducts are not illegal under the same rule!

>> How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.

> Anything on the corner moves independent of the tub.

As long as they lie within the dimensions defined, and otherwise comply
with the restrictions, in article 11.4 of the Technical Regs they are
specifically exempted from the requirement you're thinking of. See
article 3.15.

--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Sometimes you think you're standing on the shoulders of
giants, but it's really just an unstable stack of dwarves.
- Nick Gentile

News

unread,

Jun 9, 2012, 9:03:16 PM6/9/12

to

On 6/9/2012 8:33 PM, Mark Jackson wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 6:26 PM, News wrote:
>> On 6/9/2012 5:58 PM, Mower Man wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2012 9:31 PM, Neil McD. wrote:
>
>>>> If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic device"
>>>> providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to revisit their
>>>> decision that the little wings on the outside of everybody's brake
>>>> cooling ducts are not illegal under the same rule!
>
>>> How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.
>
>> Anything on the corner moves independent of the tub.
>
> As long as they lie within the dimensions defined, and otherwise comply
> with the restrictions, in article 11.4 of the Technical Regs they are
> specifically exempted from the requirement you're thinking of. See
> article 3.15.
>

Tell it to FIA and the SOM.

Bigbird

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 12:33:01 AM6/10/12

to

Suddenly very unsure of your own view?

Bobster

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 4:59:17 AM6/10/12

to

On Jun 9, 11:58 pm, Mower Man <chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 9:31 PM, Neil McD. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:766ead0d-e9c0-4aa7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 10, 4:43 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 4:36 am, "Neil McD." <norespo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Something on the front suspension (a hole in it somewhere?) has been
> >> > declared a "moving aerodynamic device" and therefor illegal -
> >> anybody > know
> >> > what this "hole" is and where it is?
>
> >> > --
> >> > Neil McD.
>
> >> Hole in the hub.
>
> >> beers,
>
> > Here ya go:
> >http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100230
>
> > beers,
>
> > Thanks for that. If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic device"
> > providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to revisit their
> > decision that the little wings on the outside of everybody's brake
> > cooling ducts are not illegal under the same rule!
>
> > Neil
>
> How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.

That's not the issue. A part doesn't have to move or rotate to have an
aero benefit.

The rules allow specifically for ducts in a certain area on the inside
of the wheels. The rules don't actually say that they have to be used
for brake cooling. So as long as those structures comply with the
regulations in terms of positioning and their extent they are legal.
What's more, those ducts are specifically exempted from the regulation
that says that parts having an aero influence may not move relative to
the sprung part of the car.

Using them via exhaust gasses blowing on them is perhaps something
that was not envisaged. I don't see a way that there can be even a
clarification about this practice - because the rule allows for ducts
but doesn't say what they may be used for. So I'd expect this rule to
be modified for 2013.

Bigbird

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 9:14:08 AM6/10/12

to

Bobster wrote:

> On Jun 9, 11:58 pm, Mower Man <chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
> > On 09/06/2012 9:31 PM, Neil McD. wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for that. If that is officially a "moving aerodynamic
> > > device" providing an aero benefit then the FIA might have to
> > > revisit their decision that the little wings on the outside of
> > > everybody's brake cooling ducts are not illegal under the same
> > > rule!
> >
> > > Neil
> >
> > How so? Do they move or rotate? Don't think so.
>
> That's not the issue. A part doesn't have to move or rotate to have an
> aero benefit.
>

That is precisely the issue that Neil raised.

AC

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 9:17:53 AM6/10/12

to

Interestingly Ted Kravitz (Sky) pointed this out in (IIRC) FP1. He
managed to get footage of the RBR hub and some one else's to compare.
RBR's one had holes or slots, the other one was solid. His angle was
that the hub axle was an example of how Newey liked to shave off every
gram to save weight. At the time I wondered if it was an air flow thing,
and nothing to do with weight. (I certainly had no thoughts of illegality)

Retrospectively I wonder if he had heard a pit lane rumbling then
decided to get some info, of if it was his piece that caused a protest.
What ever the case, his report was the first I heard of it.

--
AC

News

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 9:57:21 AM6/10/12

to

Connecting the dots where none exist; tell it to Jackson.

Bobster

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 11:26:17 AM6/10/12

to

Maybe you need to consider my post
1) as a whole
2) in context

Or are you just looking for an argument?

News

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 12:27:27 PM6/10/12

to

Shocker! That would be a first...

Bigbird

unread,

Jun 10, 2012, 12:31:12 PM6/10/12

to

On the contrary. I was pointing out that you should jump on that same
train and consider the post you are replying to and it's context.