Flexible wings 2011

[Lurk]

It's Vettel overtaking Hamilton just before their 1st pit stop.
It is why Vettel DRS is enabled

[Jeffsvilleusa]

Applying 'flexi juice'

[DaveW]

Gary Anderson's precis of what has appeared in this forum.

What follows is a parable (parables are useful to get ideas across without worrying too much about the details - or reality).

Suppose, as a starting point, a vehicle has an aero set-up with a level of downforce at a given speed and a centre of pressure in the required longitudinal position. Suppose also that increasing rear ride height will reduce rear and increase front downforce, thus moving the centre of pressure forward and moving aero lateral balance towards oversteer.

Now suppose that a way is found of increasing rear downforce by, say, 20 percent. The result will be an increased overall downforce, but it is not as useful as it might be because the centre of pressure will have moved aft, moving aero lateral balance towards understeer. Now, increasing rear ride height (rake) will reduce rear downforce, but will also reduce front wing ride height, thereby increasing front downforce which, when tuned, will result in an increase in overall downforce of, say, 10 percent, but with the aero centre of pressure back at the desired location. The increased downforce produced by the front wing will mean that it will flex more, thus increasing the effect of rake. The overall result might be, say, a 10 percent increase in overall downforce, and a "balanced" centre of pressure location.

If my parable has any basis in fact, then it would suggest that many have been looking at the wrong place to explain RBR's "flexible front wings"..

[ianwit]

I presume everyone is desperately searching for good pics of Seb's wrecked front end from FP1 this morning.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

[bgroovers]

Hi aero-people,

I'm Matthew, I've been keeping track of this forum for several years now and have found these pics & comments extremely interesting. Nice way to gain some extra insight into the F1 world.

I registered because I spotted this:


If I'm not mistaken, this is Hamilton overtaking Vettel in the China GP, but Vettel's DRS sees to be opened, which would be forbidden in that turn. Is this really the case or did they just run a low df setup?

Great photo of the McL and RBR side by side and clearly showing that the RBRs front wing is coser to the ground than the McL. Both cars flat out (RBR a little faster) but massive difference in both centre plane height off the ground and wing end plates almost touching. Could be rake for the centre section, or dipping nose cone.
Just seen Vettel crashing in turkey and clearly 2 wires coming out of each piller. What are these for? Normal tethers is my generous suggestion. Electric wires providing current to wings enabling them to flex whilst on track is my intial reaction.
Passing a current through wing could enable with to become flexible but stiff when static tested in parc ferme. Havent we seen these wires before too, was it when Webber flipped in spain or another of vettels many crashes.

[shelly]

Gary Anderson's precis of what has appeared in this forum.

What follows is a parable (parables are useful to get ideas across without worrying too much about the details - or reality).

Suppose, as a starting point, a vehicle has an aero set-up with a level of downforce at a given speed and a centre of pressure in the required longitudinal position. Suppose also that increasing rear ride height will reduce rear and increase front downforce, thus moving the centre of pressure forward and moving aero lateral balance towards oversteer.

Now suppose that a way is found of increasing rear downforce by, say, 20 percent. The result will be an increased overall downforce, but it is not as useful as it might be because the centre of pressure will have moved aft, moving aero lateral balance towards understeer. Now, increasing rear ride height (rake) will reduce rear downforce, but will also reduce front wing ride height, thereby increasing front downforce which, when tuned, will result in an increase in overall downforce of, say, 10 percent, but with the aero centre of pressure back at the desired location. The increased downforce produced by the front wing will mean that it will flex more, thus increasing the effect of rake. The overall result might be, say, a 10 percent increase in overall downforce, and a "balanced" centre of pressure location.

If my parable has any basis in fact, then it would suggest that many have been looking at the wrong place to explain RBR's "flexible front wings"..

I do not think people have been looking in the wrong direction. The flexibility of the front wing plays a big part in increasing rear downforce also.
A lower front wing gives better flow to the back fo the car, thus more rear downforce. Rake, flexibility, blown exhausts act together as causes

[DaveW]

...I do not think people have been looking in the wrong direction. The flexibility of the front wing plays a big part in increasing rear downforce also.
A lower front wing gives better flow to the back fo the car, thus more rear downforce. Rake, flexibility, blown exhausts act together as causes

I'm sure you're right, shelly. However, I would hazard a guess that reducing pressure under the front wing by moving it closer to the ground plane will also move the centre of pressure forward. Similarly, harnessing exhaust energy more efficiently than the competition might be expected to result in an aft centre of pressure, perhaps too far aft. I was trying to suggest that the first might be a signature of the second - explaining, perhaps, why the competition complained rather than copied....

[Jef Patat]

Just seen Vettel crashing in turkey and clearly 2 wires coming out of each piller. What are these for? Normal tethers is my generous suggestion. Electric wires providing current to wings enabling them to flex whilst on track is my intial reaction.
Passing a current through wing could enable with to become flexible but stiff when static tested in parc ferme. Havent we seen these wires before too, was it when Webber flipped in spain or another of vettels many crashes.

The 4th pic on the BBC site is clearly showing evidence of this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula ... 309147.stm

Edit: other pics

[delsando]

Back in 2010, RB6 and Flexible wings controversy 2010 threads.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4[/youtube]

I just re-watched this clip and noticed something. Look at the image around 21-22 seconds, and you will see Vettel running off the circuit after the smash with Button. As he begins to catch up with his front wing which is sliding along the ground in front of him, you can quite clearly see a stiff cable (looks like high-tensile steel), standing up approximately one metre out of the remaining wing pylon.

If this were a cable for adjusting the FW flap, it would be an electrical cable, probably featuring at least three cores, which would more than likely be a flexible cable, which would not stand up on it's own (if you don't believe me, grab a 1 metre flex from the back of your PC and try and make it stand up on the palm of your hand!).

What on earth is this cable for? Could this be the key to their flexi-wings? I know others have suggested the RB6 wing might feature a cable concealed within it which could be tightened or slackened to allow the wing to remain stiff (for the test) or flex (for the race), but I've never seen any evidence of such a cable actually existing before now!

i had that theory way back in the thread, looks similar!

Do the FIA , test the front wing flexibility, whilst the wing is in an adjusted position +/- 6 degrees. I'm asking this because teams might find a way to make it rigid during the tests and flexible on track.

Could this be a loophole, anyways made another sketch explaining how teams might be able to get away with it if the tests are not as thorough.

The sketches are not scaled/ proportional but you get the idea.

If true they're using tension cables to determine the flexibility of the front wing and With the change in rules(ie no movable front wing) they could be adjusting it via locking mechanism when removing/fixing the nose cone on the the monocoque . So that the FIA flexibility test don't pick up on it (since FW tested by itself)

or maybe this device..

[malcolm]

I would highly doubt that the cable would adjust the wing flap... but I could see that it could somehow adjust the stiffness of the wing.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I would highly doubt that the cable would adjust the wing flap... but I could see that it could somehow adjust the stiffness of the wing.

I dont know if it hasnt already been mentioned, but this morning during FP1, and after the accident, Charlie Whiting made a Bee line straight to the RB garage and was inspecting the front end of the car behind the screens.

I wouldnt be surpirsed if a team spotted something and have asked for "clarification". We shall see.

[SiLo]

I can't fathom how rake can determine the height of the front wing, when the height of the front wing is defined by the rules. People say it gets a larger AoA, but surely that could be designed into the wing without the need for rake?

This whole rake things seems a bit stupid to me, but please feel free to prove me wrong, I find it quite intriguing

[Just_a_fan]

I can't fathom how rake can determine the height of the front wing, when the height of the front wing is defined by the rules. People say it gets a larger AoA, but surely that could be designed into the wing without the need for rake?

This whole rake things seems a bit stupid to me, but please feel free to prove me wrong, I find it quite intriguing

It's quite simple: the rules define the car relative to the reference plane. This is not the ground/track - it's just an arbitrary plane. The aero parts are defined with reference to the reference plane, not the ground/track. So you can position the reference plane as you wish. The only limit on the reference plane is the plank - this prevents the reference plane coinciding with the ground/track.

Thus if the rules state "an object must be 10mm above the reference plane" the teams can place the reference plane such that the +10mm is neutralised (as long as the plank isn't worn away too much).

In essence, the rules do not limit ride height - they just limit wear on the plank. Design the car to protect the plank and you can run the car how you like.

[forty-two]

+1 JAF

If a team sets up their car's static rake such that the reference plane is NOT coplanar with the road, the line projected by the "reference plane" may easily extend into the ground before the wing begins. The only kicker to this is of course that doing so would put the bib very close to the ground.

My belief is that the 2010 RB bib was in danger of doing this, especially when kerb riding, and to combat this they designed an articulated bib stay which allowed the bib to flex upwards when required so as to reduce plank wear beneath the bib.

I wonder if anyone can help me out on the tech regs a little?

Do the rules actually mandate how far forward the bib must extend? In other words, could Red Bull be running a bib which finishes say 10cm farther aft than anyone else? I think the rules stipulate that the bib may not extend forward of the line between the rearmost extent of the front tyres, but I don't know if it MUST reach that far forward?