An ok amount from an onboard with Carlos.
Hard to judge on this track where we don't have many 330 to 100 breaking zones.
A lot more aggressive in the middle.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 22:29The best, most relevant photo comparison of Imola (used in Monaco and Hungary) and Singapore spec flaps. Note the new downward tapering of the fixed top flap element on the nose, previously completely flat
https://storage.googleapis.com/fp-media ... gapore.jpg
Full article https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-ana ... -molto-piu
To me it seems even the nose has a new shape, kind of flatter and more pointy. I am not sure if it is because of the different lighting though.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 22:29The best, most relevant photo comparison of Imola (used in Monaco and Hungary) and Singapore spec flaps. Note the new downward tapering of the fixed top flap element on the nose, previously completely flat
https://storage.googleapis.com/fp-media ... gapore.jpg
Full article https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-ana ... -molto-piu
I see what you mean, but it really is just different light reflections. I don't think they have too much room to change the nose cover shape, crash structure underneath is very close to it
I don't think that's the case, but the outboard (the part which is most visible on onboards), is a lot less loaded on the Ferrari wing compared to McLaren's wing so you see less movement.
The "curl" at the end of the front wing is somewhat reminiscent of the end plate extensions used in the early 1990s and certainly has a similar purpose with regard to the front wheel wake, albeit in a different form as its in a different position.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 15:03The transition tip of the 4th flap (mid span) is seriously cranked up, leaves an impression of a section that might get substantial local separation but it's highly unlikely. There might be some cross flow there, inwash on the bottom and outwash on top
https://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detai.webp
https://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detai.webp
For some reason, there was a lot of flow vis on the rear, it doesn't look like there's anything new, but there may be some subtle beam wing changes. Looks to me like the tips of the second element are smaller now, very subtle change.
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... sf-24.webp
That's not fibre direction, what you see as grey and black is twill reflection. Fibres are actually under slightly different angles on 4th flaps, while 3rd flap is almost the sameamr wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 14:04Interesting pictures here
In the first picture (supposedly new on the stand) - the top flap has the carbon fibres arranged horizontally and the second one vertically
In the second picture (old) - both top flaps have the carbon fibres arranged horizontally
In the last picture (supposedly new but on track) - both top flaps have the carbon fibres arranged vertically.
I guess they are really trying things out to achieve the flexibility they need.
I highly doubt that a flexing wing could have that big of an effect on altering the entire car balance. If the flaps have been flexed backwards at the maximum of their capacity, the car is either on a straight, or going through a corner which is probably easily flatout on these cars for everyone. A while back I went to see exactly how much the wing was flexing on McLaren and Mercedes on the 100-250 kmh range where most corners would fall to, and the flex wasn’t nearly as dramatic as it appears when going from 320kmh+ on a straight down to <100kmh after a heavy braking zone.Andi76 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2024, 07:52What you say is not quite true. Of course a driver doesn't like extreme understeer. But in fast corners, an understeering balance is definitely preferred, as is a slightly oversteering balance in slow corners. It is therefore quite correct that the main aim of the flexible wings is to "adjust" the aerodynamic balance accordingly. In slow corners you want more "front bite" and a little more downforce at the front, while in fast corners the aerodynamic balance should move slightly towards the rear. No driver wants a car that constantly threatens to break out at the rear at 300 km/h.Emag wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 14:24There is no scenario where any driver would want to induce understeer mid corner, except to counteract snap oversteer. Understeer is especially hurtful on a long radius corner that you take as an example here.venkyhere wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 07:23I believe the prime benefit of flexi front wings is not 'reduced drag'. Reduced drag in a straight line at high speed, is a secondary benefit that. The prime benefit, according to me is in high speed corners. The FW flexes, reduce the front downforce, shifts the center of pressure rearwards in the car "automatically" and introduces understeer. That's what the driver wants in a long radius high speed corner. In slower corners, no FW flex, high downforce in the nose => helps rotate the car faster. This 'dynamic balance change to suit different types of corners' is the real benefit of a flexi FW.
The benefit of flexing wings comes from the fact that you can run with a lot more load at the front, without a drag penalty which would otherwise nullify the advantages in (certain) corners with losses on the straights.
You can doubt it, but it is a fact it does. Front and rear wings are always an element to "trim" the aerodynamic balance. This is done by changing the angle of attack and thus the downforce generated. And nothing different happens when the wing bends backwards. The angle of attack becomes smaller, the downforce lower and, in the case of a front wing, you have less downforce at the front, which shifts the aerodynamic balance to the rear. It's actually a simple and logical thing. I don't have exact data on what today's wings bend, but in 2002 the front wing of the F2002 bent by seven centimeters. I must even have the exact data regarding x, y and z axis somewhere, unfortunately I couldn't find it quickly, but I'll try to post it later. Of course Ferrari in this era was the masters in this area (my greatest respect to this day Richard!), but even the worst teams reached 2cm and I think I heard that the McLaren wing today is supposed to bend in an area in between. So we are talking about several centimeters that the wing bends. This fact alone should make it clear that this has a significant effect on the aerodynamic balance of the car.Emag wrote: ↑24 Sep 2024, 09:59I highly doubt that a flexing wing could have that big of an effect on altering the entire car balance. If the flaps have been flexed backwards at the maximum of their capacity, the car is either on a straight, or going through a corner which is probably easily flatout on these cars for everyone. A while back I went to see exactly how much the wing was flexing on McLaren and Mercedes on the 100-250 kmh range where most corners would fall to, and the flex wasn’t nearly as dramatic as it appears when going from 320kmh+ on a straight down to <100kmh after a heavy braking zone.Andi76 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2024, 07:52What you say is not quite true. Of course a driver doesn't like extreme understeer. But in fast corners, an understeering balance is definitely preferred, as is a slightly oversteering balance in slow corners. It is therefore quite correct that the main aim of the flexible wings is to "adjust" the aerodynamic balance accordingly. In slow corners you want more "front bite" and a little more downforce at the front, while in fast corners the aerodynamic balance should move slightly towards the rear. No driver wants a car that constantly threatens to break out at the rear at 300 km/h.Emag wrote: ↑20 Sep 2024, 14:24
There is no scenario where any driver would want to induce understeer mid corner, except to counteract snap oversteer. Understeer is especially hurtful on a long radius corner that you take as an example here.
The benefit of flexing wings comes from the fact that you can run with a lot more load at the front, without a drag penalty which would otherwise nullify the advantages in (certain) corners with losses on the straights.
Anyway, there was a missunderstanding with the comment I replied to, because if I recall the word “induce understeer” was used and that’s a terrible thing to have on a long radius high speed corner (china t12-13 and sochi t3). Ideally you want neither, but at those speeds you will get some understeer no matter what you do.
However, the fastest cars are almost always oversteery and the best drivers deal with it. It becomes more manageable as the downforce piles up for F1, a luxury which GT cars for example don’t have. Yet drivers still prefer that because it’s easier to induce rotation on low-medium speed corners under braking. In racing, that’s where most of the time is made/lost. If you take a high speed corner perfectly, you can maybe gain half a tenth, but if you take a medium speed corner perfectly you can easily gain 1-2 tenths.
It’s true that there have been successful drivers that have made understeery cars work too, but frankly I have no clue how they have done it.