2010 F1 Magyar Nagydíj

[Piket]

Ferrari haven't "suddenly" been faster than McLaren - they've been faster since Monaco! The reason you haven't noticed is because they kept screwing up their races or being screwed by safety cars or penalties.
The effect has been far bigger at Hungary and Hockenheim because McLaren's updates haven't been working as they would like and these tracks have favoured Ferrari.

Its never just one thing that makes a car better, Ferrari have always been bringing updates and they have been getting ahead of McLaren on pace.

Sometimes it is.And the front wing on the latest era of cars is perhaps the most important aero part. I won't get into deails.You'll see what happens when RBR and Ferrari front wings are banned...

 

[Matti_Dude]

Wait, are you suggesting that incident wasn't serious because there wasn't a resultant accident? I don't see it getting reported any more than the average close call such as Buemi's suspension failure, Webber's brake failure, etc. All close calls but no serious deaths or "news".

This was a very serious incident, there was big potential for serious injuries from both pit crew, marshalls, spectators and the drivers themselves if Rubens had actually hit the pit wall (or even someone exiting the pits!). The fact Schumacher visibly showed that he had seen Rubens and knew he was pushing him into the wall alone is worth reporting and made an example of - should we just gloss over it as "just aggressive driving"? What message does that send to everyone else, particularly younger drivers in lower formula?
Personally, I don't want to find myself karting and being shoved into a wall because people think its fine. It happens anyway but we need to uphold some standards - you just don't force people into an accident to stop them overtaking like that.

Michael didn't need to push Rubens to the limit like that and he sets a bad example, what if everyone did that for every overtake? He was pushing Rubens into a smaller and smaller margin of error, with the consequences being a nasty crash. Completely not the right attitude for fair racing.

Also - the media will report it because this is the umpteenth time Schumacher has chopped someone on the track. The funny thing is, after all these incidents of his poor judgement of fair racing, it would really warrant taking away his super license. But it will never happen until someone gets seriously hurt.

I just think that motorsport is always going to be dangerous and if it wasn't, it would be boring. Aggressive overtakes like that are very dangerous and exciting to watch. Obviously, had there been an accident it would have been a completely different story but at the end of the day there wasn't one. The sport is the safest it has ever been so surely drivers can be more aggressive now.

 

[niky]

I mean how did they figure (*cough* guess *cough*) the rate of deflection of the front wing while a car was on track with much greater loads than 100kg in total?

Scrutineer#1: mumble-grumble-sodding-heavy-stupid-weight.

(dragging sounds... scraping sounds...)

Scrutineer#2: Patrick, we got nineteen more of these cars to do today...

(loud CLUNK)

Scrutineer#1: Bloody... 🤬

I agree...particularly with the bold print. Can't say I agree with the underlined print - I hope the panel didn't think the front wing might break with more than 100kg of load in total Anyway, if they are so worried about flexi wings, they should have had a much more stringent and accurate testing procedure in place to begin with, instead of changing things mid season because they found out it was completey inaccurate (which is rather obvious) compared to the levels of load the wing sees on track. Time for them to appoint a ex-F1 engineer to their side I'd say...

100kg probably won't break the wing, but we're talking about a concentrated load induced on a single spot instead of spread evenly over the entire wing (as TheCracker points out). Just because a crate of eggs can carry the weight of a man if you lay a plank across them doesn't mean a child can stand on them in golf cleats.

I can think of one or two ways of making the nose flex down if you apply a bilateral load yet maintain resilience if they do the load test on the wing endplates one side at a time... Actually applying full race loads to the wings might not actually be practical, either... maybe reduce the allowable deflection measurement at the loads they can actually apply to the wings?

 

[Greycap]

You'll see what happens when RBR and Ferrari front wings are banned...

The same thing was said when sidepod mirrors were banned. They were said to be worth several tenths per lap but if anything Red Bull has become faster after that. On the other hand McLaren was sure to steamroll everyone after introducing the blown diffuser but you can see where it's taken them.

What people (including F1 engineers, it sometimes seems) don't get is that the car has to work as a whole. Putting a blown diffuser on a car never designed to take one won't give nearly the advantage it could. On the other hand the rest of the RB6 works together so well that the mirrors meant nothing and the overall superior aerodynamics will play down the loss of the front wing advantage - if there will be any loss to begin with. The claims of 30mm more flexing than McLaren are quite ridiculous, either the McLaren wing is fully rigid (which means their car designer is stupid) or the Red Bull wings should be pretty much scraping the tarmac. And what if the wing doesn't flex but the front suspension is so soft that the entire nose gets lower to the ground?

 

[TheCracker]

I just think that motorsport is always going to be dangerous and if it wasn't, it would be boring. Aggressive overtakes like that are very dangerous and exciting to watch. Obviously, had there been an accident it would have been a completely different story but at the end of the day there wasn't one. The sport is the safest it has ever been so surely drivers can be more aggressive now.

I'm sure any of the marshalls, track officials or spectators who could have quite easily been injured by that potential accident would have a different view.

That incident alone might have been blown a little out of proportion by the media, but Schumacher has been driving like that all season. Not for race wins either, but for minor points positions.

I agree that accidents do make the sport more interesting, especially to the casual fan, and that the cars are much safer these days, but freak incidents can still happen that could quite easily kill a driver or someone at the event. Minimising accidents by discouraging dangerous driving is a good thing in my opinion.

There are enough racing incidents, Webber and Vettel at Turkey and the Webber and Kovaleinen collision at Valentia as recent examples, to make the sport spectacular enough without the bad sportsmanship that Schumacher's been showing.

 

[niky]

RE: McLaren front end being too stiff: There is something to that idea. The front end of the McLaren looks so jittery that it's painful to watch them braking into the corners at times.

 

[TheCracker]

RE: McLaren front end being too stiff: There is something to that idea. The front end of the McLaren looks so jittery that it's painful to watch them braking into the corners at times.

That could quite easily be down to how the individual drivers like their cars to be set up.

 

[Matti_Dude]

I agree that accidents do make the sport more interesting, especially to the casual fan, and that the cars are much safer these days, but freak incidents can still happen that could quite easily kill a driver or someone at the event. Minimising accidents by discouraging dangerous driving is a good thing in my opinion.

There are enough racing incidents, Webber and Vettel at Turkey and the Webber and Kovaleinen collision at Valentia as recent examples, to make the sport spectacular enough without the bad sportsmanship that Schumacher's been showing.

I think that Schumacher chose to be so aggressive because of the two's history, Barrichello loved putting one over his old team mate and Schumacher was just racing for his own pride. But I can see what you are saying, marshalls and spectators should never be at risk, just the drivers themselves.

 

[The Outlaw]

That could quite easily be down to how the individual drivers like their cars to be set up.

The Mclaren's stiffness is more or less there to help maintain a consistant ride height, so that the underbody aerodynamics (particularly the rear diffuser which is the most extreme in the field) can work as efficiently as possible at all times. Although we so how this tends to hurt them on bumpier tracks where their car isn't too compliant mechanically.

Sorry I can't responds to your other post...I'm off to work

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The claims of 30mm more flexing than McLaren are quite ridiculous, either the McLaren wing is fully rigid (which means their car designer is stupid) or the Red Bull wings should be pretty much scraping the tarmac.

Both of those seem to be true when looking at coverage. The sides of the Red Bull wing almost dip to the tarmac. The McLaren wing appears to be completely stiff from end to end. The Ferrari wing is pretty close to the Red Bull wing, but not as flexible.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Can we get a picture to represent red bulls wing while stopped and while flexed to compare?

 

[Ardius]

I just think that motorsport is always going to be dangerous and if it wasn't, it would be boring. Aggressive overtakes like that are very dangerous and exciting to watch. Obviously, had there been an accident it would have been a completely different story but at the end of the day there wasn't one. The sport is the safest it has ever been so surely drivers can be more aggressive now.

This is not racing though, if you allow such aggressive driving you actually discourage racing - drivers will be afraid to overtake because they are given no chance.
People complain about the lack of overtaking, well there certainly will be very little if drivers think its ok to push their opponents into walls like that!

I know motorsport is dangerous and I accept that. But that doesn't mean we should accept everything that is dangerous, and forcing someone towards a concrete wall who has already won the position is not an unavoidable risk.
Personally, I would have found a battle for the position more exciting than what happened. I sometimes wonder what battles we missed out on for Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 - Michael could have easily re-overtaken both and had a good race long battle. But instead we have "exciting" aggression which ended the battles early.

I find Schumacher vs Hakkinen or Schumacher vs Hill at Spa-Francorchamps more exciting than the many controversial incidents caused by Schumacher.

 

[niky]

Proper racing is picking your line and making it stick. As with Button and Hamilton at Turkey and Alonso and Massa last time around (before the team told Felipe to pull over).

That was exciting. Right? Wheel to wheel action, each driver trying his darnedest not to stray a millimeter to far in the other guy's direction. With dicing going on over several corners before it finally works out.

If you shut the door or stray too far off-line. Bump. End race. Not exciting at all. And fisticuffs. Which are exciting, but I'd rather watch 250 pound hockey players do that rather than 150 pound racing drivers.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Can we get a picture to represent red bulls wing while stopped and while flexed to compare?

Don't have a picture, but the upwards movement of the wing when Vettel brakes for the Hockenheim hairpin is noticeable:


[YOUTUBEHD]vR07o6yIegg[/YOUTUBEHD]


EDIT - Found some "comparison" pictures, but I think the clip is more clear on what happens with the wing:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/photo-exclusive-red-bull-flexi-front-wing-judge-for-yourself/

 

[Radracing]

I don't think there is any flex from the wing attachment and that is why it passed the FIA test. The movement is from the suspension dipping a few inches at braking. So I am assuming the height of the wing is adjusted by the downforce produce by the front wing on the suspension. Which leads me to believe that they have tuned the suspension to compress a few inches at speed and under braking so that is what makes it lower than normal but at legal height when at a stand still.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Proper racing is picking your line and making it stick. As with Button and Hamilton at Turkey and Alonso and Massa last time around (before the team told Felipe to pull over).

That was exciting. Right? Wheel to wheel action, each driver trying his darnedest not to stray a millimeter to far in the other guy's direction. With dicing going on over several corners before it finally works out.

If you shut the door or stray too far off-line. Bump. End race. Not exciting at all. And fisticuffs. Which are exciting, but I'd rather watch 250 pound hockey players do that rather than 150 pound racing drivers.

Yeah I completely agree, except in this case there was never going to be a corner to corner battle because Schumacher was so much slower than rubens. Schumacher made a mistake in the last corner and new he had comprised himself, so rather than give Rubens an easy position (yes Rubens would have easily have driven straight past Michael) instead he tried to defend his position. He said it in an interview afterwards, he wanted Rubens to go the other side and then things got a little tight when he didn't. now obviously he did close the gap even more when Rubens got along side him but that was what made what would have been a very boring and normal pass, a lot more exciting.

 

[Ardius]

Hmm, this is dangerously close to "its exciting to see drivers in horrific crashes". Micheal went over the line, the line being putting a driver close to an accident.

...I can't believe people are defending such actions really. This is no better than Piquet Jr crashing on purpose. The driver is putting people at risk unnecessarily.

What if that had happened further up the pit wall? What if one of the many mechanics with their heads stuck out had been hit by debris? What if Rubens had been killed? Would you still claim its exciting and hard racing?

There are lines that have to be drawn where you have fair and safe racing. What Schumacher has done and still does is neither of those.

Yes, no one was hurt and in the end it was all fine....but it was so very close to a horrific accident. F1 isn't about being close to horrific accidents. I don't understand a logic of "well, it would have been a boring overtake so it made it more exciting". Just beyond me.

 

[Matti_Dude]

That is my point exactly, you are saying what could have happened, and I completely agree, if something bad like that did happen it would have been completely out of order. But because it was fine the aggression added to the excitement for me. In no way am I suggesting that watching drivers in horrific crashes is exciting either, nobody wants to see that. But seeing driver's push each other so hard with such little margin for error makes me respect them more as a driver. If Rubens thought it was really 'that' dangerous as he has been quoted saying, I'm sure he could have pulled out of the overtake. But he didn't because he was prepared to risk a lot in order to pass Schumacher, that is what racing is about. Schumacher on the other hand is probably frustrated with his own performances, and he did not want to let Rubens past because of the history between them. Stirling Moss quote;

"I certainly had an appreciation of the danger which to me was part of the pleasure of racing. To me now racing is - the dangers are taken away: if it's difficult, they put in a chicane. So really now the danger is minimal - which is good, because people aren't hurt. But for me the fact that I had danger on my shoulder made it much more exciting. It's rather like if you flirt with a girl, it's more exciting than paying for a prostitute, because while you know you're gonna get it, the other one you don't. And I think with driving a motor car, the danger is a very necessary ingredient. Like if you're cooking, you need salt. You can cook without salt, but it doesn't have the flavour. It's the same with motor racing without danger. For me."

That's sort of what I'm talking about, driver's from that era are respected more for what they did, when the danger was a lot higher. But like he said, it's good now because not many people get hurt.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I don't think there is any flex from the wing attachment and that is why it passed the FIA test. The movement is from the suspension dipping a few inches at braking. So I am assuming the height of the wing is adjusted by the downforce produce by the front wing on the suspension. Which leads me to believe that they have tuned the suspension to compress a few inches at speed and under braking so that is what makes it lower than normal but at legal height when at a stand still.

Then why would they introduce more stringent testing?


The BBC showed some slow-motion clips as the cars were going over "bumps". The McLaren wing was almost completely stiff from end to end. The Red Bull wing ends clearly wobbled, or flexed, up and down.

 

[Ardius]

That is my point exactly, you are saying what could have happened, and I completely agree, if something bad like that did happen it would have been completely out of order. But because it was fine the aggression added to the excitement for me. In no way am I suggesting that watching drivers in horrific crashes is exciting either, nobody wants to see that. But seeing driver's push each other so hard with such little margin for error makes me respect them more as a driver. If Rubens thought it was really 'that' dangerous as he has been quoted saying, I'm sure he could have pulled out of the overtake. But he didn't because he was prepared to risk a lot in order to pass Schumacher, that is what racing is about. Schumacher on the other hand is probably frustrated with his own performances, and he did not want to let Rubens past because of the history between them. Stirling Moss quote;

"I certainly had an appreciation of the danger which to me was part of the pleasure of racing. To me now racing is - the dangers are taken away: if it's difficult, they put in a chicane. So really now the danger is minimal - which is good, because people aren't hurt. But for me the fact that I had danger on my shoulder made it much more exciting. It's rather like if you flirt with a girl, it's more exciting than paying for a prostitute, because while you know you're gonna get it, the other one you don't. And I think with driving a motor car, the danger is a very necessary ingredient. Like if you're cooking, you need salt. You can cook without salt, but it doesn't have the flavour. It's the same with motor racing without danger. For me."

That's sort of what I'm talking about, driver's from that era are respected more for what they did, when the danger was a lot higher. But like he said, it's good now because not many people get hurt.

Stirling isn't referring to people running each other into walls though...

I'm know your saying its exciting because it almost happened, and whats what I'm shocked about - you are adovating moves that almost cause fatal accidents just because its exciting and nothing serious has happened yet!

And Rubens didn't pull out of the overtake becuase he didn't expect Michael to go that far and by the time he was close to the wall, he was already committed to the overtake. Remember this all happened in split seconds, its difficult to make a decision to stop a committted overtake just like that. We rarely see anyone pull out of such committed moves.
This is why Michael's move was dangerous - he was pushing Rubens when was already committed to the overtake.

 

[Imari]

Do we need to pull out this video again?



I'm sure a lot of you have seen this already because the racing leading up to this incident was fantastic, but this shows exactly what could have happened in the Schumacher/Rubens incident.

While I understand what Matti is saying in terms of danger being a part of the sport, there's a difference when the danger is created by the driver. Risky cars, high speeds, racing incidents? Sure, that's what the sport is about. Stupid moves to try and retain a position after a driver admitted to making a mistake on the previous corner? That's just not cool.

 

[Peter]

Questio nabout that ALMS incident there. Did the Corvette get awarded victory? Did the Porsche even get punished for it?

 

[Crashbroke23]

Questio nabout that ALMS incident there. Did the Corvette get awarded victory? Did the Porsche even get punished for it?

No, the Flying Lizard Porsche still won GT2 overall. Both of the drivers who were a part of the accident, (Jörg Bergmeister and Jan Magnussen) got 3 race probations each.

 

[niky]

But seeing driver's push each other so hard with such little margin for error makes me respect them more as a driver.

In fighting, there's a nice hard fight and there's hitting a guy in the crotch or throat. One's exciting, one's just plain dirty. Schumi aimed for the neck. A few millimeters more, he would have crushed Rubens' windpipe. That's not a fight. That's just brutal.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Stirling Moss is talking about how safe the cars are now etc. But because we rarely see any fatal accidents anymore, people forget just how dangerous the sport still is. What Schumacher did was unnecessary but I don't think he crossed the line. It's just my opinion on the matter.

Look at 1:35 on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zznJjSncGCE

My opinion was just the same for that overtake.

 

[Seismica]

I don't think there is any flex from the wing attachment and that is why it passed the FIA test. The movement is from the suspension dipping a few inches at braking. So I am assuming the height of the wing is adjusted by the downforce produce by the front wing on the suspension. Which leads me to believe that they have tuned the suspension to compress a few inches at speed and under braking so that is what makes it lower than normal but at legal height when at a stand still.

So why does the nose dip under braking, but the wing clearly rises in the braking zone? Obviously all wings will flex to an extent, and they have all passed the test that the cars haver to undertake. But at high speeds it is very clear that the Red Bull wing is running much lower to the ground. The distance from the front wing to the ground is related to ride height, the lower it is the more efficient the car is aerodynamically. Which is why there is a regulation in place to restrict the distance of the wing from the ground.

The problem is, flexible aero like that is banned (i think - If not it is certainly against the spirit of the rules, like the F-duct was) and the FIA tests were too lenient and it left a gap that Red Bull exploited to gain an advantage.

Now the FIA can choose, let the other teams catch up or ban it. Or one, then the other, like with the F-duct. When there is all this talk about the cost to participate in the sport, it's odd that the FIA doesn't seem to do much about it. They allowed the F-duct, which meant most of the other teams had to spend a sum developing it etc. And then they banned it for next year. If they allow this flexible wing, loads of teams are going to have to spend money developing it, and then the chances are it will be banned in the future anyway

What they do will be based on the result of the tighter tests they have.

 

[Radracing]

So why does the nose dip under braking, but the wing clearly rises in the braking zone? Obviously all wings will flex to an extent, and they have all passed the test that the cars haver to undertake. But at high speeds it is very clear that the Red Bull wing is running much lower to the ground. The distance from the front wing to the ground is related to ride height, the lower it is the more efficient the car is aerodynamically. Which is why there is a regulation in place to restrict the distance of the wing from the ground.

The problem is, flexible aero like that is banned (i think - If not it is certainly against the spirit of the rules, like the F-duct was) and the FIA tests were too lenient and it left a gap that Red Bull exploited to gain an advantage.

Now the FIA can choose, let the other teams catch up or ban it. Or one, then the other, like with the F-duct. When there is all this talk about the cost to participate in the sport, it's odd that the FIA doesn't seem to do much about it. They allowed the F-duct, which meant most of the other teams had to spend a sum developing it etc. And then they banned it for next year. If they allow this flexible wing, loads of teams are going to have to spend money developing it, and then the chances are it will be banned in the future anyway

What they do will be based on the result of the tighter tests they have.

Looks more to me that the nose is dipping down and exposing more of the wing to the camera. Must be from the camera angle giving the illusion of front wing lifting.

 

[Imari]

Stirling Moss is talking about how safe the cars are now etc. But because we rarely see any fatal accidents anymore, people forget just how dangerous the sport still is. What Schumacher did was unnecessary but I don't think he crossed the line. It's just my opinion on the matter.

Look at 1:35 on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zznJjSncGCE

My opinion was just the same for that overtake.

Where the line is in racing differs from person to person and from driver to driver. No doubt Schumacher thought what he did was acceptable, just as Rubens thought it was too much. It's an interesting conversation to have though.

There is the point to be made that these people are drivers of the highest calibre, with superb car control. It may be that while it looks like there's no room to us, Schumacher knows exactly how much space Rubens needs and gives him that and no more. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, but given that no crash occurred I can see the argument that they're just both superbly skilled drivers right at the edge of what they can do. No problem with that.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Looks more to me that the nose is dipping down and exposing more of the wing to the camera.

If that was the case, then the wing should move with it. The camera is fixed so there shouldn't be any major trickery.

 

[Radracing]

If that was the case, then the wing should move with it. The camera is fixed so there shouldn't be any major trickery.

It is (wing) moving with it but the A arms seems to swing slightly backwards and showing more of the wing and the camera does not seem stationary too looks like it can move left and right. Unless the video clip is being cropped 'cuz when I leave my curser point from my computer mouse on one part of the body of the car it moves to the right. I don't know I can't tell for sure.