Flexible wings controversy 2010

[Richard]

I'm afaid that 500 or 1000 N vertical test won't chance much really, the Neweys and Simons are way too smart for that.

This is something else, involving horizontal loads on an anisotrop body

That behaviour could be tested with a vertical load, it just needs to be eccentric. An eccentric vertical load would be the same as vertical plus horizontal. It would induce torsion that would reveal the suspected deflection behaviour.

I bet that wing is specifically designed to resist the test load at the defined point near the front of the wing, that's where they've located the the shear centre. Apply an eccentric load (at the centre of aero pressure) and a vertically stiff, but torsionally weak, wing would flop.

The FIA need to apply the test load at both the front and rear edge of the wing.

As for others' comments about potential droop in the nose cone ... Is the test carried out on the complete car? So if there is droop in the nose or pylons, then that would be tested by the point load.

[Krispy]

Subscribed. These types of issues are what I love about F1. Lets keep the information flowing! =D>

[myurr]

the best example came out from the BMW concept car , which changes the exterior
shape as per driver wish.
Or Concorde nose!!!!

I'm afraid that Concorde's nose does not droop for active aerodynamics; it was built to droop for visibility whilst on the ground. The test pilots found that the long nose obscured their view whilst taxiing and during take-off, so they built it with the ability to drop the nose when they aren't in flight.

Off topic, but the Concorde's nose was also drooped for takeoff and landing (I believe 5 degrees for the former, 15 degrees for the latter) to provide acceptable visibility during those operations. The nose was raised along with a secondary windscreen for streamlining during normal flight.

[WhiteBlue]

There is a theory among engineers, based on looking at the whole front wing when its loaded up, that there is some kind of spring loaded device in the crash structure to deflect the whole wing down, over and above what the wing tips do.
This theory was given some added impetus when Sebastian Vettel’s wing snapped in practice at Silverstone.
This theory goes beyond grabbing a bit of extra downforce from wing endplates being close to the ground, it brings a gain of lowering the front of the car, which is very attractive under the 2010 rules.

I fail to see how it can be in the nose box as that is visible all the time by the air box camera. The wing pylons appear much more probable as a candidate.

[Shaddock]

Looking at the those two photos there is one obvious difference

The RB wires, whether they are for support or sensors are also there to measure the 'twist' in the wing, and not just the vertical deformation - hence the second wire per side located at the rear of the wing.

Martin Whitmarsh did mention that every mm of vertical flex equates to 1 point of extra downforce.

[donskar]

I agree with Hamilton (in Autosport):

"I've seen the wings flex, but I don't know why it's an issue now - they've been doing it since China."

Let's encourage new ideas in F1, not stomp on anything that distinguishes one car from another.

[gibells]

I have a few questions:

1. Could it be related to the shape of the spars supporting the front wing? I mean could their shape be deflecting under a much greater loading?

2. It seems to me that when you look at the flex of the wing, it must be done in relation to the pitch of the entire car. Could it be that McLaren can't achieve this pitch on the 25 because it is sprung so stiffly, and that Red Bull and Ferrari can achieve the pitch because theirs are much more softly sprung?

3. Do we have photographic evidence that the cornering cars are under accelerative loading?

[myurr]

I agree with Hamilton (in Autosport):

"I've seen the wings flex, but I don't know why it's an issue now - they've been doing it since China."

Let's encourage new ideas in F1, not stomp on anything that distinguishes one car from another.

I think everyone's gripe is that this isn't a new idea - it's an old idea that is outlawed and they are merely inventing ways of circumventing the tests the FIA use to prohibit it. In my view that isn't innovation in any useful or interesting sense.

If wings were allowed to bend and flex as much as teams wanted and Red Bull came up with the best implementation of this then I would be impressed. As it is all they're doing is breaking the rules in a way which the FIA haven't yet figured out how to police.

[WhiteBlue]

I do not agree with myurr's view. The rule about flexible wings is a badly written one. Any piece of bodywork like a front wing that sticks out from the sprung body will always be flexible to a certain degree and the cantilevered end of such a part will always show some motion. This is inevitable even when the part itself is rigidly fixed to the sprung body in the wing root and has no degree of freedom. It follows that the rule itself in not enforceable without testing tolerances. So designing a wing to meet the testing tolerances and achieve a desired flexibility is not in breach of the regulation.

The FiA can only police the regulations as they are. If the regulations are ambiguous and badly written from an engineering point of view the teams have a legitimate case in searching for loop holes and exploiting them.

[myurr]

I do not agree with myurr's view. The rule about flexible wings is a badly written one. Any piece of bodywork like a front wing that sticks out from the sprung body will always be flexible to a certain degree and the cantilevered end of such a part will always show some motion. This is inevitable even when the part itself is rigidly fixed to the sprung body in the wing root and has no degree of freedom. It follows that the rule itself in not enforceable without testing tolerances. So designing a wing to meet the testing tolerances and achieve a desired flexibility is not in breach of the regulation.

The FiA can only police the regulations as they are. If the regulations are ambiguous and badly written from an engineering point of view the teams have a legitimate case in searching for loop holes and exploiting them.

I agree that the rules are written very badly, as is the case for many of the rules, but the intention from the FIA is clear: No flexing aero. Due to material limits their tests allow for linear deformation within given tolerances, but the rules themselves say that all aero pieces should be rigid so there can be no misinterpretation about the rule makers intentions.

All Red Bull have done is find a way to pass those tests whilst providing flexible aero under greater loads. Whilst their solution is no doubt clever this is not innovation in the sense of coming up with something new and useful, it is a new way of circumventing the tests the FIA use to judge whether aero parts are rigid or not. All they've really done is show that there are clever ways of proving the FIA's tests are inadequate.

This would be the same as McLaren, for example, finding a clever way to load traction control into the ECU that the FIA's tests couldn't detect. This isn't bringing anything new to the world of traction control, it would merely demonstrate that with a bit of cunning you could get past the FIA's test.

I would judge Ferrari's wheel rims in the same light. What they've done isn't clever from a technical point of view, most of the teams were running more aerodynamically complex parts last year. All they've done is find a clever way to circumvent their gentlemans agreement.

[mariano.torre.gomez]

if the rules says 75 mmm avobe ground
explain to me why it looks less than that , but not at the end plates that will support the flex idea
it looks less than 75 just in the car center line
therefore IMHO should be something else than a pure flex wing

[speedsense]

A simple FIA solution, could be to mandate an end plate with small plates on the bottom that are long enough that if the wing flexes or the ride height is below a set level, it will contact the ground. Wear the "small planks" below a certain thickness and your DQ'ed. Just like the floor plank rule.

[WhiteBlue]

I agree that the rules are written very badly, as is the case for many of the rules, but the intention from the FIA is clear: No flexing aero. Due to material limits their tests allow for linear deformation within given tolerances, but the rules themselves say that all aero pieces should be rigid so there can be no misinterpretation about the rule makers intentions.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

IMO your interpretation of the rule 3.15 is not correct. There is no specification of flexibility in this rule and flexibility isn't prohibited either. It only says the parts must be rigidly secured (meaning fixed) to the sprung body and must not have a degree of freedom of movement which excludes fixing the part with a bearing, slide bush or hinge. The rule also requires that a part does not move relatively to the sprung body. A flexible wing does not move in its wing root. Only the end plates will move and such movements can never be entirely prohibited while substantial aerodynamic forces are loading the wing. This is the legal reason why 3.15 was never a prohibition of flexibility. To eliminate this ambiguity the FiA has introduced flexibility limits for front wings in § 3.17.1 and provisions to modify the test in §3.17.8 in case parts of the bodywork (read parts of the wings) are moving while the car is in motion. §3.17.8 is a pretty good example of a catch all phrase. Unfortunately this formulation cannot be used for the rule itself because deflections under aero loads and deformation on track aren't things the FiA wants to check.

[WhiteBlue]

A simple FIA solution, could be to mandate an end plate with small plates on the bottom that are long enough that if the wing flexes or the ride height is below a set level, it will contact the ground. Wear the "small planks" below a certain thickness and your DQ'ed. Just like the floor plank rule.

It would be effective if the drivers did not damage the end plates over curbes. But how often are curbes hopped and end plates worn these days, or they get damaged in collisions. This could also lead to disqualification. So the proposal isn't quite as good as I thought initially.

[Lurk]

I'm not an expert at all but, this kind of endplate would "trap" airflow behind the front causing some ground effect. Am I wrong?

It is effective to avoid flex wing but it will add a lot of downforce too. Adding downforce is against what FIA wants.