Flexible wings controversy 2010

[gridwalker]

Could they not have announced exactly what the new test would be? They have given another opportunity for teams to get round the test.

If they had just said the test will be made stricter then flexi teams would have had to go to a worst case scenario?

Transparency is the key here : there would be cries of playing foul if there was no way to know the tolerances that you have to design for.

You cannot prepare for a test when you do not know its parameters, which is unacceptable in an engineering based sport.

[thestig84]

Fair point. We will just have to wait and see how much flexing the new test will allow.

Hopefully it will at least stop the end plates scraping the ground which I thought was a pretty hard to ignore display that the current test wasnt effective in stopping flexi wings.

[WhiteBlue]

The new test will allow 20 mm of deflection where the old test allowed 10 mm. Additionally the new test asks for a linear deflection. I guess that means that the tests will be run in steps of increasing load and the deflection will be measured. Load and deflection must then be found to vary in a linear function or a fixed ratio. This would exclude some of the design tricks which were discussed.

[delsando]

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.

[xpensive]

But the point is that the new test will still be performed according to 3.17.1, simply vertical load at one position only,
why it will not be very realistic and here lies the trick I'm certain.

[marcush.]

the mechanism is in how the wing is build ,eg the fibre orientation and the design of the stringers and their connection to the spars .

[wesley123]

well what i think is really easy, Red bull for example just heats the front wing in some way, which causes it to lose rigidity and starts to flex. Such thing cant be stopped, but no matter how you put it, the car has to stand tests wich it passes. What also funny is is the front wing flap change, wich actually make this idea completely legal, as the no front wing movements are banned due to the on track adjustment. The only thing to stop this is to use really big loads or make the movement allowance smaller, now with 50N it can flex 10mm, if you change that to 2 it would change alot, and it wouldnt cause problems as every team will pass this test(for example the McLaren wing had no movement at all), except for the flex wing users.

[xpensive]

well what i think is really easy, Red bull for example just heats the front wing in some way, which causes it to lose rigidity and starts to flex.
...

In all honesty wesley, I do not subscribe to that theory of yours, not by a long-shot. As marcush and others say, a clever orientation of the fibre-layers, optimized to the combined load-case, vertical as well as horizontal, is most probably doing the trick here.

[marcush.]

it is fairly obvious ,that the front wing of the red bull constitutes an array of A LOT OF SEPARATE WING SECTIONS .This alone will help to create areas of more or less flex occuring ,with the outer sections surely quite stiff along the chord with the slot ending before the wing meeting the endplate..

with the black connection between flap and main wing profile at speed there could be a big moment to lift the main flap in that area effectively bending down the complete
otersection of endplate and cascades in the process ...it could be very stiff in pressure from above but very weak in an upward bowing ..

[wesley123]

sure it is possible, just like my theory, wich is with the adjustable front wing not even that hard.The FIa increases its load test by the double amount on it, and it can flex the double amount, but imo the front wing creates on its flexing speed alot more downforce. The front wing gets an 10okg load and can flex a maximum of 20mm. If you simply make sure that with the 50kg test you can flex 2mm and with the 100kg test you can flex 4mm, then it is clear wich cars were running the flex wings, now it is not.

[xpensive]

For the sake of argument wesley, how would this heating be performed and what is the composite matrix which responds to it?

[WhiteBlue]

But the point is that the new test will still be performed according to 3.17.1, simply vertical load at one position only,
why it will not be very realistic and here lies the trick I'm certain.

If the existing wings pass the new test and still droop on track they will come up with something different until they have found a way to counter the tricks of the designers. The test adaptation option is there to catch those who design around the testing definitions. You can not win against increasing test sophistication for a long time. You can only win one race. If the wings pass the test and still droop they will make it successively more difficult.

The problem lies in the definition of the rigidity of body work. No body can be designed with zero deflection. In reality a certain flexibility is always there. The letter of the rule looks for something that is impossible. To heal that fundamental flaw they have come up with the § 3.17.1.

The whole limitation of wing flexibility is antiquated IMO, as is the idea of limiting downforce by geometric restrictions.

[Scania]

how about the flap can make the wing stronger @ appointed angle?

[xpensive]

I believe that with today's knowledge in anisotropic materials, the only way for the FIA to keep up would be to test respective body-component in the wind-tunnel. But then you have the technical limitations of the FIAs representative in these matters, Charlie Whiting, who is little more than an x-Brabham spannerman.

You set him up against the Neweys, Simons and Gascoynes, ah well.

[marcush.]

But the point is that the new test will still be performed according to 3.17.1, simply vertical load at one position only,
why it will not be very realistic and here lies the trick I'm certain.

If the existing wings pass the new test and still droop on track they will come up with something different until they have found a way to counter the tricks of the designers. The test adaptation option is there to catch those who design around the testing definitions. You can not win against increasing test sophistication for a long time. You can only win one race. If the wings pass the test and still droop they will make it successively more difficult.

The problem lies in the definition of the rigidity of body work. No body can be designed with zero deflection. In reality a certain flexibility is always there. The letter of the rule looks for something that is impossible. To heal that fundamental flaw they have come up with the § 3.17.1.

The whole limitation of wing flexibility is antiquated IMO, as is the idea of limiting downforce by geometric restrictions.

I think this is the culprit there .the more detailed you define the more ingenious the workarounds.you have to restrain total allowed elastic bending in all directions , not define test methods and demand proof of compliance from the competitor

My view is :put a simple string distance measurement sensor to the endplate (measuring the distance from nosecone to the endplate ,any deflection will show
increased distance (or you take a laserbeam or ultrasonic the movement is big enough ). whiting has without a doubt heard of these measurng methods ..