The F1 season 2006

Someone made a good comment on Imola on the BBC's website - he said words to the effect that, had he been in front, he would have won in his wife's Corsa. While it was tense stuff with Alonso all over the back of Schumi, you knew there was no chance unless Schumi made a mistake. And I guess that's the problem for me and the current Formula 1 - Alonso was several seconds a lap faster and by rights should have won, but couldn't, because he couldn't get past (as was the reverse situation last year). The race result is largely determined by starting grid position and pitstops. It has ceased to be racing in any real sense.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport technologically, so technological advances have brought us inevitably to this situation. Unless something drastic is done, we'll never again see races won by sheer driving ability such as (puts on nostalgic old git's hat) the likes of Stirling Moss beating the Ferraris at Monaco and the (old) Nurburgring in 1961 or Jim Clark in a Lotus with what was essentially a Ford Anglia engine thrashing the pants off the cream of the sports car world at the Nurburgring.

 

Honda have complained to the FIA about Ferrari's rear wings, apparently claiming that they still flex.

I would have thought that Honda have more pressing things to do than spending time analysing whether Ferrari's wings are legal or not. The fact that the Ferraris were 6km/h faster than anyone else in the speed traps simply means they're using less wing.

It seems to be a case of "they're faster than us so they must be cheating"

The wings issue was all knocked on the head in Australia and if Ferrari were doing anything fishy I'd expect Renault and McLaren to be the ones to be complaining, not Honda, who have more important things to worry about.

Michael.

 

"I would have thought that Honda have more pressing things to do than spending time analysing whether Ferrari's wings are legal or not. The fact that the Ferraris were 6km/h faster than anyone else in the speed traps simply means they're using less wing."

Honda have enough resource to do both and that is what we are doing.

You are completely incorrect re difference just being due to a different wing level. The speed difference seen was in part due to the use of flexible aerodynamic devices. Many of the teams and the FIA were not happy with Ferrari taking the mickey out of the rules like that. Honda were the team that went public.

"It seems to be a case of "they're faster than us so they must be cheating" "

That may be the case for some people in F1. But in this case you are again completely wrong. They are using aerodynamic devices outside of the spirit of the rules.

"The wings issue was all knocked on the head in Australia and if Ferrari were doing anything fishy I'd expect Renault and McLaren to be the ones to be complaining, not Honda, who have more important things to worry about."

It hasn't been knocked on the head at all. See my comment re the other teams and the FIA.

All we want is a level playing field to compete upon.

Ian

 

There are reports floating around that imply Stowe is now flat, or at least doesn't involve brakes. I don't believe it. IanW will know. Will he tell???

Paul

 

I'm interested to see how/if the resurgence of the flexible wings issue gets resolved. Until then I won't say any more but, with the greatest respect to Ian, Honda's complaint looks very much like sour grapes and deflecting attention from their own (entirely unnecessary) poor performance.

Michael.

 

A year or two ago I understand that BAR (as was) had some clever soft 'vibration damping' supports in their wing structures. The effect was that they collapsed over a certain load, effecitvely changing the wing structure and reducing drag. The wing itself wasn't flexible. Charlie Whiting said 'no'. Or so I hear. This has all been going on for a very long time.

Paul

 

Also, if "the FIA weren't happy with Ferrari taking the mickey out of the rules" then why didn't they just DQ Schumacher's winning Ferrari after post-race scrutineering?

Michael.

 

In Imola? I wonder how the Tifosi would react?

FIA will need to be really, really certain. Also, aren't Ferrari their (only?) ally?

 

Hi Michael,

"I'm interested to see how/if the resurgence of the flexible wings issue gets resolved."

We are a lot closer to having this sorted. Ferrai have reduced their advantage in this area.

"Until then I won't say any more but, with the greatest respect to Ian, Honda's complaint looks very much like sour grapes and deflecting attention from their own (entirely unnecessary) poor performance."

I can understand why as Ferrari supporter you would feel that way.

I am looking at it from a technical viewpoint. All of the issues have been assessed from an engineering viewpoint.

"Also, if "the FIA weren't happy with Ferrari taking the mickey out of the rules" then why didn't they just DQ Schumacher's winning Ferrari after post-race scrutineering?"

The issue is not one that the stewards are able to deal with. It starts and ends with Charlie Whiting of the FIA.

Ian

 

"This has all been going on for a very long time."

Indeed it was led by Ferrari who had a team of people working on this in 1998.

The rule is and has been very clear for about a year now, with a few clarifications. No flexible aerodynamic devices.

Which given that all comonents deflect means no parts designed to flex and produce an aerodynamic advantage.

Ian

 

Well, you're free to copy Ferrari's wing design, that's a level playing field. Renault's front wing flexes very noticably but no one seems to be complaining about that.

This is like traction control all over again, if you can't police it then just allow it.

After Honda's secret fuel tank debacle last year they are hardly in a position to lecture people about the "spirit" of the rules!

Michael.

 

"Well, you're free to copy Ferrari's wing design, that's a level playing field. Renault's front wing flexes very noticably but no one seems to be complaining about that."

Ferrari are the main target for the grid as they took the mickey far more than any other team iover the past n years. All flexi wings are being or will be investigated by the FIA so no-one will get away with it forever.

"This is like traction control all over again, if you can't police it then just allow it. "

Sadly I think that would be a mistake, tempting though it maybe. The more flexible you make it the more dangerous it becomes. There needs to be limits on what is allowed.

"After Honda's secret fuel tank debacle last year they are hardly in a position to lecture people about the "spirit" of the rules!"

That was a grey area. The flexi wings are in a very clearly not allowed area!!

Ian

 

There are. The static load tests the FIA do are already pretty stringent and are more than enough to avoid wings that flex dangerously.

Ferrari passes the tests the FIA have for flexi wings. If the FIA decide to change or augment those tests (which they are perfectly at liberty to do) then I've no doubt that Ferrari will make sure their car will pass those tests.

The rules say no moveable aerodynamic devices but everyone knows that all wings flex to some extent so what exactly is allowed is quite clearly a grey area!

Michael.

 

"There are. The static load tests the FIA do are already pretty stringent and are more than enough to avoid wings that flex dangerously."

Unfortunately they don't guarantee any form of safety and may even do the opposite. The tests are to catch the most obvious forms of flexi wings. Devising tests to stop any performance gain from any designed aero-elastic effect is very difficult.

So the rule was clarified to: if a component is clearly designed to offer an aerodynamic advantage through load based deflection then the team would be told to take it off the car as soon as it is practically safe to do so.

That is how the incredibly flexi Ferrari rear wing that Ferrari used last year and for part of this year was removed through the FIA telling them to do so. It passed all the tests but was clearly very flexible, designed to be so, and offered a significant performance advantage.

Ian

 

ISTR they were introduced in 98 or 99 when people (not just Ferrari) started really taking the mickey with the whole rear wing assembly significantly bending backwards under load to reduce drag. There were a number of dangerous rear wing failures (the whole thing flying off) as a result as all the flexing stress was going through the wing supports. The static load tests put and end to all that.

Any flexing that may be going on now is necessarily, because of the tests, minor (but nevertheless very effective if it's, say, causing two elements to join together and become one) and I can hardly see how that could be dangerous.

As far as I know Ferrari's front wing that caused so much controversy at Sepang still flexes just as much as it always did (and just as much as the similar Renault front wing), they just covered up the sliding post where it joins the nose so the flexing wasn't so obvious from the TV nose-cam.

Michael.

 

A wing designed to flex to aerodynamic benefit will put less stress on its mounts since the downforce and drag will rise at less than the normal rate with speed (it would be a pointless exercise otherwise)

I think it should be allowed, if only because it's elegant.

Paul

 

"Any flexing that may be going on now is necessarily, because of the tests, minor (but nevertheless very effective if it's, say, causing two elements to join together and become one) and I can hardly see how that could be dangerous."

The flexing seen on the Ferrari wing was far more significant than was seen on the wings of a few years ago. The tests have got more and more stringent but it was still fairly easy to get around them, as Ferrari showed.

It is likely to be more dangerous because you have to be clever how you do it. When you have to work harder to get the effect in a certain area it is more difficult to guarantee that you haven't made the wing weaker.

Incidentally all the wing failures that I have seen resulted from poor quality manufacturing. Which if you make the wings more complicated will become more likely.

Ian

 

"A wing designed to flex to aerodynamic benefit will put less stress on its mounts since the downforce and drag will rise at less than the normal rate with speed (it would be a pointless exercise otherwise)"

Seeing as all components are designed to have the minimum weight for the load that they see then they are just as likely to fail!

Ian

 

OK. Less load on its mounts.

Anyway how much braking for Stowe? From what I saw from Bridge/Luffield the other day the most impressive bit of an F1 cars performance is the dive into the pits. And some of the junior teams need to either get a vaguely competent driver or have someone actually go out and about the track to watch the car.

Paul

 

"Anyway how much braking for Stowe?"


Haven't looked at Stowe. Turn 1 and Turn 2 are flat for the Renaults. With the reduction in power from the V8s quite a few corners are less of a corner or in some cases not corners anymore. As in we define a corner as a section of track where the driver has some lateral acceleration and is not able to use 100% throttle.

Ian