Quote:
Originally Posted by Killed by Death
Do you think that finding a way to sneak answers into a proctored test is good thinking or cheating? CHEATING
Do you think that the VW emissions test mode program was cheating? YES
The difference is lack of Intent.
A student sneaking answers into a test does so with intent.
VW intended to cheat.
Red Bull produced a wing that passed the current FIA test. Plus to the naked eye the wing is flexing. There was no intent to deceive in the Red Bulls case thus no cheating occurred. Other teams just weren't smart enough to figure it out.
|
I will respond to you on this post. Beating the test is not complying with the rules. The rule on aero on cars is specifically worded:
Article 3.8 of the F1 technical regulations states that bodywork must be "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car"
Passing a test doesn't make one a master of any subject matter in college or in any school.
Red Bull Racing, as has been done historically in that shop, have created a wing that passes the test, which has know levels of pressure in a static application, but successfully deforms under full load at a certain dynamic aero pressure level. Passing the test designed by the FIA doesn't mean they are complying with Article 3.8. Article 3.8 doesn't read, "rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car and pass the static deformation test performed by the FIA."
Now as to intent:
The way you design a CF part to do this is to alter the density of the matrix solution and alter the number of carbon strands and their diameter in that area relative to the number in the remaining portion of the cf material.
To design in this way is the very definition of intent to circumvent the rules. And for context, I worked on CF as a young engineering student in 1983 when I ran the materials lab in college. We ran fracture, bulk modulus, elasticity, and dozens of other test on CF back then when it was still relatively new and exotic...especially in the states. If memory serves correctly, McLaren was the first to build a fully CF monocoque under John Bernard.
Edit: Smart isn't the right word to define what RBR did with the wing. Clever is probably closer to accurate with duplicitous being most accurate.
Duplicitous: n. Deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
n. An instance of deliberate deceptiveness; double-dealing.