Is this cheating?

[ric zito]

Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
me...
http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

--
riczito at gmail dot com

[Bruce Hoult]

They have to release the old wing somehow. I note that the new one slips straight on, with no twisting of that bar. So the removal may well be destructive.

[Bobster]

On 6 Nov, 07:49, ric zito <addr...@in.sig> wrote:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to

> me...http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

>
> --
> riczito at gmail dot com

If it passes the current FIA tests, then it might be clever, it might
be something that the rule makers did not anticipate, but it's legal.

I doubt any car at present has totally inflexible aero. Watch any
slomo replay of a car riding curbs and watch how the front wings are
bouncing all over the place.

[Bigbird]

ric zito wrote:

> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible
> aero to me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

I expect they will have to ban all 24 cars under revised
testing...though with a bit of luck the HRT's will pass...

[RzR]

On 6.11.2012. 6:49, ric zito wrote:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>

lol

red bull gets away with murder

[Mower Man]

On 06/11/2012 5:49 AM, ric zito wrote:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>

No wonder I didn't see it when looking at the video link posted earlier.
I was looking at the WING!

Thanks for this link - now I think I'm seeing the tip of the deformable
structure twisting, right?

Can't see a rule problem with that, it's not cheating by any measure I
can imagine.


--
Chris

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

(Oscar Wilde.)

[Phil Carmody]

ric zito <add...@in.sig> writes:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

That's not flexible - apart from the fact that everything is flexible
to some extent - that is non-rigid, or having a mechanical degree of
freedom. The first clause that comes to mind is this one:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to
minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) 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.

And that image, showing a pivotting action, demonstrates there is a
single degree of freedom. And as such that looks illegal to me. And
looks so *blatently* illegal I can't believe it hasn't been spotted in
scrutineering.

However, Kimi's Ferrari had mechanically-jointed structures (the
"flexi-floor") which the FIA considered to not have a degree of
freedom, so it would be entirely consistent for the FIA to simply
overlook their own regulations on a whim.

Thanks for forwarding that link, Ric.

Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.

[Phil Carmody]

Bruce Hoult <bruce...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:49:10 PM UTC+13, ric zito wrote:
> > Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> > me...
> >
> > http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

> They have to release the old wing somehow.

Yeah - that what the guy at the side with the spanner's doing!
(the arm coming in from the top left in the above image)

> I note that the new one slips straight on, with no twisting of that bar. So the removal may well be destructive.

It seems that it's probably latched and sprung. In the same way that
you don't notice the door handle moving when you slam some doors,
there would be no need for this lever to move when clipping a new nose
on. So it's not necessarily destructive.

The motion's not used for anything aerodynamic (it's not used while
the car's in motion), so I think they've got plenty of wiggle room for
having that mechanical degree of freedom, unless there's some rule
that explicitly says that all modifications to the bodywork must be
effected purely via the use of spanners and screwdrivers, which sounds
absurd. It would be good to see some other nose changes, to see if
this kind of mechanism is common (when was the last RB nose change?).

[Bigbird]

Nothing to do with it.

[ric zito]

Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> ric zito <add...@in.sig> writes:
> > Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> > me...
> > http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>
> That's not flexible - apart from the fact that everything is flexible
> to some extent - that is non-rigid, or having a mechanical degree of
> freedom. The first clause that comes to mind is this one:
>
> 3.15 Aerodynamic influence : With the exception of the driver adjustable
> bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely
> associated with its actuation) 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.
>
> And that image, showing a pivotting action, demonstrates there is a
> single degree of freedom. And as such that looks illegal to me. And
> looks so *blatently* illegal I can't believe it hasn't been spotted in
> scrutineering.

Yes. What struck me was the ease with which the mechanic appears to
deform the bodywork, compared to the 200kg FIA load test on the wing.
I'm wondering what material that part of the nose cone is made of - I
doubt it's carbon fibre.

Whilst we only see it pivoting in this view, if the bodywork is soft and
squishy to some extent it may deform in other directions too, and I
reckon that if a mechanic can twist it that easily, then wind pressure
at high speed might easily provoke a deformation, such as a slight droop
of the nosecone.

> However, Kimi's Ferrari had mechanically-jointed structures (the
> "flexi-floor") which the FIA considered to not have a degree of
> freedom, so it would be entirely consistent for the FIA to simply
> overlook their own regulations on a whim.

Heh, yes.

> Thanks for forwarding that link, Ric.

My pleasure.

> Phil


--
ric zito

[Phil Carmody]

Mower Man <chris...@nospamf2s.com> writes:
> On 06/11/2012 5:49 AM, ric zito wrote:
> > Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> > me...
> > http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
> >
>
> No wonder I didn't see it when looking at the video link posted
> earlier. I was looking at the WING!
>
> Thanks for this link - now I think I'm seeing the tip of the
> deformable structure twisting, right?
>
> Can't see a rule problem with that, it's not cheating by any measure I
> can imagine.

You don't see a non-rigid structure?

[AC]

ric zito wrote:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>

Where is the original bit of film?

--
AC

[Phil Carmody]

names...@gmail.com (ric zito) writes:
> Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ric zito <add...@in.sig> writes:
> > > Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> > > me...
> > > http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
> >
> > That's not flexible - apart from the fact that everything is flexible
> > to some extent - that is non-rigid, or having a mechanical degree of
> > freedom. The first clause that comes to mind is this one:
> >
> > 3.15 Aerodynamic influence : With the exception of the driver adjustable
> > bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely
> > associated with its actuation) 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.
> >
> > And that image, showing a pivotting action, demonstrates there is a
> > single degree of freedom. And as such that looks illegal to me. And
> > looks so *blatently* illegal I can't believe it hasn't been spotted in
> > scrutineering.
>
> Yes. What struck me was the ease with which the mechanic appears to
> deform the bodywork

But he doesn't deform the bodywork, that's the point. Deforming would
be insufficient stiffness in a rigid structure (a.k.a. flexing), but
this is not flexing, this is an articulated joint, not a rigid
structure, which moves the two little wings independently of the
bodywork. The nose does not dip when the crew press down on the
winglet, only the winglet moves. Freeze-frame at the "Pit Lane 5.4"
mark in the official (BBC) feed, and see how far the winglet has moved
relative to the bodywork.

You can even see some

> , compared to the 200kg FIA load test on the wing.

Those forces are transferred through the uprights to the nose cone
itself, which is rigid, it's the winglets that are non-rigidly mounted.

[larkim]

Is it actually a winglet that is deforming? Isn't it the FIA mandated camera fixings? (Though it does appear that the yellow surface of the top of the nose deforms, as if made of rubber; could be shadows though).

Matt

[Mower Man]

On 06/11/2012 1:29 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Mower Man <chris...@nospamf2s.com> writes:
>> On 06/11/2012 5:49 AM, ric zito wrote:
>>> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
>>> me...
>>> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>>>
>>
>> No wonder I didn't see it when looking at the video link posted
>> earlier. I was looking at the WING!
>>
>> Thanks for this link - now I think I'm seeing the tip of the
>> deformable structure twisting, right?
>>
>> Can't see a rule problem with that, it's not cheating by any measure I
>> can imagine.
>
> You don't see a non-rigid structure?
>
> Phil
>

I certainly do. But I cannot imagine how a twist in the deformable
structure could confer an advantage.

Face it, both "wings" are non-rigid ultimately. Rigid within prescribed
limits, that's all.

[ric zito]

No idea. This was from a retweet by Scarbs.
--
ric zito

[RzR]

http://www.gaiaconscience.com/img/trucorb2.gif

[News]

On 11/6/2012 9:43 AM, Mower Man wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 1:29 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Mower Man <chris...@nospamf2s.com> writes:
>>> On 06/11/2012 5:49 AM, ric zito wrote:
>>>> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible
>>>> aero to
>>>> me...
>>>> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>>>>
>>>
>>> No wonder I didn't see it when looking at the video link posted
>>> earlier. I was looking at the WING!
>>>
>>> Thanks for this link - now I think I'm seeing the tip of the
>>> deformable structure twisting, right?
>>>
>>> Can't see a rule problem with that, it's not cheating by any measure I
>>> can imagine.
>>
>> You don't see a non-rigid structure?
>>
>> Phil
>>
> I certainly do. But I cannot imagine how a twist in the deformable
> structure could confer an advantage.
>
> Face it, both "wings" are non-rigid ultimately. Rigid within prescribed
> limits, that's all.
>

So the wing itself conforms, but its mounting points are, shall we say,
flexible...

[News]

[Mower Man]

Not as far as I can see - as the tip of the nose-cone appears to twist
whilst the wing stays steady. The mounting points for the wing are quite
a way back on the nose...

[Bobster]

On Nov 6, 1:28 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> ric zito <addr...@in.sig> writes:
> > Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> > me...
> >http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>
> That's not flexible - apart from the fact that everything is flexible
> to some extent - that is non-rigid, or having a mechanical degree of
> freedom. The first clause that comes to mind is this one:
>
> 3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
>      With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to
>      minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) 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.
>
> And that image, showing a pivotting action, demonstrates there is a
> single degree of freedom. And as such that looks illegal to me. And
> looks so *blatently* illegal I can't believe it hasn't been spotted in
> scrutineering.

I'd be surprised if it WAS spotted. What are being grasped there are
the housings for the FOM nose cams (or the blanks you must fit if you
don't have an actual camera) and those are shaped to be
aerodynamically neutral.

[Bobster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ZA&v=GKm59ktOeI0

[ric zito]

This is all being discussed on the f1technical forum. As on any forums,
opinions are wild and various, but towards the end of the thread people
are saying that it may simply be down to a broken nose. That camera was
placed precisely in harm's way when Vettel hit the DRS marker.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=390210&f=12

However, another gif on that forum shows Webber's RBR going over some
rumble strips, and the flexing of the front wings and nosecone is pretty
blatant.
--
ric zito

[Bigbird]

ric zito wrote:

> Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > names...@gmail.com (ric zito) writes:
> > > Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ric zito <add...@in.sig> writes: > Don't know what to make of
> > > > this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to > me... >
> > > > http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
> > > >
> > > > That's not flexible - apart from the fact that everything is
> > > > flexible to some extent - that is non-rigid, or having a
> > > > mechanical degree of freedom. The first clause that comes to
> > > > mind is this one:
> > > >
> > > > 3.15 Aerodynamic influence : With the exception of the driver
> > > > adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to
> > > > minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) 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.
> > > >
> > > > And that image, showing a pivotting action, demonstrates there
> > > > is a single degree of freedom. And as such that looks illegal

> > > > to me. And looks so blatently illegal I can't believe it hasn't

Yup, they wobble like jelly. The same has been said of several cars off
and on though most notably the RBR. This is an old discussion, the
bottom line being that the FIA can introduce 'stiffer' tests if they
see something they don't like.

[WrongWayWade]

Making the wing wobble when you hit a curb can hardly be considered an
advantage. I'm sure that disturbs the airflow and reduces downforce.

Now if flexible mountings could somehow make the front wing flatten (flip
'up' and reduce the downforce) the faster you go, then you'd have something.
But I don't think that's the case just because the wing mounting are not
100% rigid. If anything it probably works the other way, (increased angle
of attack with increased speed.)

[Bigbird]

That is hardly the point.

[AC]

OK that's better. From the gif it looks like the yellow nose deforms and
twists. From the video, you can see its just the nose camera pod
pivoting. That is a camera pod, right?

Dont see a problem.

--
AC

[AC]

No it doesn't, look at a proper video and not a compressed fecked up
animated gif.

--
AC

[Bobster]

Yes.

I think there's a trick of the light too. Remember that the flood
lights were on early in the race, if not at the start, and with all
those mechanics moving around there's lots of moving shadow.

If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
aero then he's gone down in my estimation.

[CatharticF1]

ric zito <add...@in.sig> wrote in
news:588015482373873601....@news.free.fr:

> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible
> aero to me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>

I think the deformation seen indicates only the principle that is likely
used elsewhere = or indirectly - to advantage.

So if (say) the nose is dipping at speed, then the FW may rotate to reduce
drag, as here:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/226/rbflexiblenose.jpg

--
CatharticF1

I can't resist no crossing signs

[CatharticF1]

CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA104913BCA4E1r...@203.26.24.228:

Oh and this (more tellingly):

http://www.gaiaconscience.com/img/trucorb2.gif

[Bobster]

On Nov 7, 6:18 am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote innews:XnsA104913BCA4E1r...@203.26.24.228:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ric zito <addr...@in.sig> wrote in

> >news:588015482373873601....@news.free.fr:
>
> >> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible
> >> aero to me...
> >>http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>
> > I think the deformation seen indicates only the principle that is
> > likely used elsewhere = or indirectly - to advantage.
>
> > So if (say) the nose is dipping at speed, then the FW may rotate to
> > reduce drag, as here:
>
> >http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/226/rbflexiblenose.jpg
>
> Oh and this (more tellingly):
>
> http://www.gaiaconscience.com/img/trucorb2.gif

Another grainy GIF.

Elsewhere in this thread I posted a URL to a youtube clip showing the
pit stop where the RBR nose cone was changed. It shows the ENTIRE
stop, and it shows it at better quality. Both that clip and the GIF
that Ric refers to are taken from the FOM feed, but the better quality
is... well... better, and without the excessive graining it's much
easier to draw a conclusion about what moved and when.

[AC]

Bobster wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:17 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Bobster wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 3:54 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>> ric zito wrote:
>>>>> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
>>>>> me...
>>>>> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>>
>>>> Where is the original bit of film?
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ZA&v=GKm59ktOeI0
>>
>> OK that's better. From the gif it looks like the yellow nose deforms and
>> twists. From the video, you can see its just the nose camera pod
>> pivoting. That is a camera pod, right?
>
> Yes.
>
> I think there's a trick of the light too. Remember that the flood
> lights were on early in the race, if not at the start, and with all
> those mechanics moving around there's lots of moving shadow.

Which is pretty clear if one looks at the original. Shame that isn't
higher definition.

Would be interesting to know what the pivoting camera pod if actually
for though.

>
> If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
> aero then he's gone down in my estimation.
>

Relying on a terrible animated gif is silly. Perhaps he knows more about
F1 than image formats?

--
AC

[Bobster]

On Nov 7, 11:03 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 11:17 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Bobster wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 3:54 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >>>> ric zito wrote:
> >>>>> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> >>>>> me...
> >>>>>http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>
> >>>> Where is the original bit of film?
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ZA&v=GKm59ktOeI0
>
> >> OK that's better. From the gif it looks like the yellow nose deforms and
> >> twists. From the video, you can see its just the nose camera pod
> >> pivoting. That is a camera pod, right?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > I think there's a trick of the light too. Remember that the flood
> > lights were on early in the race, if not at the start, and with all
> > those mechanics moving around there's lots of moving shadow.
>
> Which is pretty clear if one looks at the original. Shame that isn't
> higher definition.
>
> Would be interesting to know what the pivoting camera pod if actually
> for though.

Maybe it's a clip on. Maybe it's not designed to have a mechanic
twisting it. It doesn't serve any role that's of any use to RBR, so
I'd guess they make it as light as possible and design for easy
removal or fitting- and that other teams have done the same.

>
>
>
> > If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
> > aero then he's gone down in my estimation.
>
> Relying on a terrible animated gif is silly. Perhaps he knows more about
> F1 than image formats?

Maybe. But it took me about 30 seconds to find the better quality
footage. Why didn't he research the matter properly? Where's the
rigour?

[build]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:23:37 PM UTC+11, Bobster wrote:
> If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
> aero then he's gone down in my estimation.

G'day Bob,
Think you are being a bit harsh on Craig there. He is not an F1 engineer, he may not be an engineer, i do not know. He is however a bloody good F1 tech blogger. Even the best at any skill do make errors. His talents are spotting techy stuff and bringing it to the fans attention in a layman's language and he does that very damned well and his pics are second only to Giorgio.

If you want the next step up the ladder I reckon you have to go to the top, Giorgio Piola (forgive spelling guess). So bugger off :-) I like Scarbs, he is good value.

Giorgio can be found at www.formula1.com.

beers,

[Bobster]

On Nov 7, 12:09 pm, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:23:37 PM UTC+11, Bobster wrote:
> > If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
> > aero then he's gone down in my estimation.
>
> G'day Bob,
> Think you are being a bit harsh on Craig there. He is not an F1 engineer, he may not be an engineer, i do not know. He is however a bloody good F1 tech blogger

Well it's the same problem as with any other blog. How do you know the
blogger is competent or not, objective or not, rigorous or not, a copy
and paste artist or not?

However, if he wants to be taken seriously he can be a little more
rigorous than this. It would have taken him less than 5 minutes
(that's googling, watching the clip, rewinding and watching the
relevant bit a couple of times) to get a much better idea of what
actually took place.

> If you want the next step up the ladder I reckon you have to go to the top, Giorgio Piola (forgive spelling guess). So bugger off :-) I like Scarbs, he is good value.

Really? I've been keeping an eye on him, and he's said sod all about
those "track kit" thingies.
>
> Giorgio can be found atwww.formula1.com.
Yes. I know about him.

[Bigbird]

ROFL

Are you blind?

[AC]

I don't think it has any aero purpose at all as it is supposed to be an
aero neutral camera pod, but to me it looks like the mechanic
deliberately twists it or pushes one side down to pivot it. My
assumption is that it connects to some sort of locking or locating
mechanism. Dunno what else it could be. Unless of course it just came
loose due to some sort of mechanic clumsiness.

>>
>>
>>
>>> If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
>>> aero then he's gone down in my estimation.
>>
>> Relying on a terrible animated gif is silly. Perhaps he knows more about
>> F1 than image formats?
>
> Maybe. But it took me about 30 seconds to find the better quality
> footage. Why didn't he research the matter properly? Where's the
> rigour?
>

It was a tweet, right? Well, I take tweets as instant reaction and
little to do with rigour. A sort of, "hey, look at that" thing. So I
would suggest that Craig just highlighted it as something interesting to
look in to further later on. And it was, for a while.

I would expect his blog and published articles to be of a much higher
standard, and as far as I know, they are. Hopefully he will write up
something rigorous explaining what he things is actually going on.


--
AC

[Bigbird]

Perhaps you can't tweet full frame HD clips very easily. I expect the
gif indicates what he wanted it to.

[Bigbird]

Bobster wrote:

> On Nov 7, 12:09�pm, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:23:37 PM UTC+11, Bobster wrote:
> > > If Scarbs retweeted that gif and started speculating about movable
> > > aero then he's gone down in my estimation.
> >
> > G'day Bob,
> > Think you are being a bit harsh on Craig there. He is not an F1
> > engineer, he may not be an engineer, i do not know. He is however a
> > bloody good F1 tech blogger
>
> Well it's the same problem as with any other blog. How do you know the
> blogger is competent or not, objective or not, rigorous or not, a copy
> and paste artist or not?
>
> However, if he wants to be taken seriously he can be a little more
> rigorous than this. It would have taken him less than 5 minutes
> (that's googling, watching the clip, rewinding and watching the
> relevant bit a couple of times) to get a much better idea of what
> actually took place.
>

Are you comparing your first impressions with your later comprehension
or something Scarbs tweeted (which incidentally I haven't noticed
repeated here).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Nov Craig Scarborough Craig Scarborough ?@ScarbsF1

Odd! look how the nose tip\cameras flex when the mechanic changes the
nose cone at 10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKm59ktOeI0 � via @N15ck
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It took me 2 minutes to find this.

Now what exactly was you problem.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously unless you can be a
little more rigorous than this. It would have taken 2 minutes (that's
googling twitter and scanning Scarbs tweets) to get a much better idea

of what actually took place.

;)

I thank you.

[Noj]

ric zito wrote ...

>
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1

There we have it - at long last.

The fabled TRACK KIT.

[Noj]

AC wrote ...

>
> No it doesn't, look at a proper video and not a compressed fecked up
> animated gif.

One of the videos is about 2 seconds long, the *movement* in it is
caused by shadows/light on the wing.

[Mower Man]

I just looked at the video. Three times.

The wing's main plane stays level.

The only object that "twists" is the tiny fin intended to house a camera
when fitted, on the r/h tip of the nose cone.

Not even the tip of the deformable structure.

[Mower Man]

On 07/11/2012 2:43 AM, AC wrote:

I just looked at the video. Three times.

The wing's main plane stays level.

The only object that "twists" is the tiny fin intended to house a camera
when fitted, on the r/h tip of the nose cone.

Not even the tip of the deformable structure.

[Bobster]

On Nov 7, 12:39 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bobster wrote:

> > Maybe. But it took me about 30 seconds to find the better quality
> > footage. Why didn't he research the matter properly? Where's the
> > rigour?
>
> It was a tweet, right? Well, I take tweets as instant reaction and
> little to do with rigour. A sort of, "hey, look at that" thing. So I
> would suggest that Craig just highlighted it as something interesting to
> look in to further later on. And it was, for a while.

Fair enough.

[AC]

Yeah, I know. That is why I asked for the original, where there is no
ambiguity.

--
AC

[AC]

Yeah, I know.

Why is this rubbish even being discussed?

--
AC

[AC]

Possibly. Might have not been easily available. I downloaded the race
just to look at it in the best definition I could get and that pit stop
wasn't part of that coverage. What Bob posted from youtube is the best
I've seen and I dont know if when that was available compared to then
the gif was available.

--
AC

[Mower Man]

Search me, squire. (As London Barbers used to say)

[Bigbird]

Having seen the tweet; someone else tweeted the gif, Scarbs reply
included a youtube clip.

[AC]

Oh right, OK.

I assume then his reply was his rebuttal to the gif.

Ahhhhhh, all is well with the Scarbs worship after all !!!!!

--
AC

[AC]

ric zito wrote:
> Don't know what to make of this - it certainly looks like flexible aero to
> me...
> http://img.imgur.com/sbeeM.gif?1
>

Now this:
http://www.f1technical.net/development/382

Which states the nose does flex...

Then I watch Sky's F1 Show, and Ted explains why it is nothing. Sadly, I
wasn't paying enough attention to relay his explanation here.

Yeah, I know....

--
AC

[ric zito]

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> Having seen the tweet; someone else tweeted the gif, Scarbs reply
>> included a youtube clip.
>>
>
> Oh right, OK.
>
> I assume then his reply was his rebuttal to the gif.
>
> Ahhhhhh, all is well with the Scarbs worship after all !!!!!

Nope. It was a retweet, with a comment "Wow!", and the link to the gif.
I think this discussion about image quality misses the point - the nose
does flex. Look at the right hand side of the underside of the nose tip. It
distinctly squishes up.

Anyway, I believe Ted Kravitz has got to the bottom of this and revealed
all in yesterday's episode of The F1 Show. I will have to track that
down...
--
riczito at gmail dot com

[ric zito]

Never mind - I found this instead :
http://english.gazzetta.it/Motor_sports/08-11-2012/red-bull-and-the-controversial-front-wing-the-fia-sees-no-problem-913158624619.shtml

[build]

I have dual layer, industrial grade foil, Kevlar lined and carbon fibre reinforced hats ideally suited for blokes in this thread. For several easy payments of approximately $99 you too can have the clarity of thought that I have when I say this is a conspiracy !

[News]

It's movable aero -- it clearly allows the wing to change angle of
incidence under bump loads (shown in video of car cutting kerbs) so it
would similarly allow a change of incidence at speed under aero loads.

We belled this cat earlier in the week as a flexible mounting of an
otherwise "legal" wing structure.