Flexible wings controversy 2010

[xpensive]

Eithr way, the entitire busdiness shows just how ridicilöous the aero-spin has become, get rid of it, ban FW altogether.

[myurr]

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.

I agree that it is ambiguous, but I believe that the rule that states 'must remain immobile...' applies to the whole aerodynamic body and not just the mountings or wing root. The previous line specifically covers the way the part is mounted, which would make the third clause redundant were that to also apply to just the wing root. I believe that flexing would make that part mobile and thus in contravention of the rules.

The provisions in 3.17 are to detail the specific material requirements that the FIA will test for to ensure that 3.15 is met, and as stated in 3.17.8 they can modify the tests should these tests prove inadequate in enforcing 3.15.

Whilst the wording of 3.15 is ambiguous I believe the intention, as repeatedly stated by the FIA, is clear - no aerodynamic parts that gain from their flexing. With the loads involved it is clear that there will be some flexing in the parts, 3.17 sets out limits that the FIA considers as satisfactory in meeting 3.15 without modifying that original intention. Now that Red Bull have found a way to get around the testing provisions and limits set in 3.17 to clearly gain aerodynamic advantage from flexible parts the FIA are modifying the tests to ensure compliance with 3.15.

[Scuderia_Russ]

It's not a flexi wing it's a flexi chassis!

[fausto cedros]

I don't think so.It's just light. Just take a look at the bull, and you'll realize it.

[ESPImperium]

Shadows in that pic.

The thing is in F1 in recent years we have became too adverse to new engineering solutions;

2006 = Mass Dampers - Banned
2008 = Traction Control - Banned, rightly
2009-2010 = Double Diffusers - banned from 2011
2010 = F-Duct - Banned from 2011
2006-2010 - Wide mirror placement - Banned, rightly for safety.
2004/5 & 2007 - Flexable rear wings - Banned
2004(?) = Front Torque Transfer Bar - Banned
1999 - Single Sided Braking - Banned
2010? - Flexable front wings - Banned/Restricted]

Wheres the sence in the sport, If theres a loophole in the rules thats bringing safety into compromise, ban it yes, but if its giving a talking point, leave it as is. Please would the sport have a stable set of rules for at least 2011 and 2012 please, no triming arround the edges. If theres a loophole, close it next full reg change cycle, not just the next year. This will cut costs dramatically and make teams closer on the grid.

[marcush.]

excerpt from an Racecar- Engineering interview with steve newey about their simulation technology in 12/ 2009:

The use of composite materials continues to dominate much of the F1 car, and although the computational modelling is already sophisticated, further improvements in defining lay-ups, representing material performance, and modelling failure analysis are anticipated over the coming seasons. Multi-physics or multi-discipline simulation is another important area in which we anticipate further progress. Using MSCs latest MD (multi-discipline) software versions of Nastran and Adams, we already combine mechanism and deformable finite element simulations. We also increasingly use aerodynamic output directly from CFD analysis to generate more accurate loads for the structural simulations. There are rule restrictions to limit this, but multi-physics coupling of these effects allows us to legally enhance the performance of deformable components, for example to optimise down-force and drag characteristics for flexible wing components. Chaining the various analyses stages is time consuming and prone to error. As well as removing these limitations, coupled multi-physics simulation also allows an iterative interaction between the various behaviours, hence capturing more of the true physics into the simulation model. There are others, but like the F1 sport, simulation technology moves quickly, so we are confident that MSC's solutions will continue to keep pace with the unique demands of the sport.


You should have listened to the swede... it`s layup methods...

[SiLo]

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.

The wear from curbs and such would be minimal compared to the wear of running along the ground constantly at high speed. This idea is a very simple way to address something which I feel is almost cheating. If the FIA can't find something on your car which is actually illegal, should you be allowed to keep it?

[747heavy]

good find Marcus =D>

How close is this to an smoking gun in your hand?

Or the best diversation /smoke screen tactic I have seen in a while

[ringo]

excerpt from an Racecar- Engineering interview with steve newey about their simulation technology in 12/ 2009:

The use of composite materials continues to dominate much of the F1 car, and although the computational modelling is already sophisticated, further improvements in defining lay-ups, representing material performance, and modelling failure analysis are anticipated over the coming seasons. Multi-physics or multi-discipline simulation is another important area in which we anticipate further progress. Using MSCs latest MD (multi-discipline) software versions of Nastran and Adams, we already combine mechanism and deformable finite element simulations. We also increasingly use aerodynamic output directly from CFD analysis to generate more accurate loads for the structural simulations. There are rule restrictions to limit this, but multi-physics coupling of these effects allows us to legally enhance the performance of deformable components, for example to optimise down-force and drag characteristics for flexible wing components. Chaining the various analyses stages is time consuming and prone to error. As well as removing these limitations, coupled multi-physics simulation also allows an iterative interaction between the various behaviours, hence capturing more of the true physics into the simulation model. There are others, but like the F1 sport, simulation technology moves quickly, so we are confident that MSC's solutions will continue to keep pace with the unique demands of the sport.


You should have listened to the swede... it`s layup methods...

It could be, but this excerpt doesn't directly say that. It says many things which could be responsible.

But on the topic of laying up the carbon fiber. Is this based on the weave of the fiber or the resins?
If the resins are cured, isn't it supposed to be rigid plastic? Or is is that there is some elastic behavior.
It's hard to imagine cured layers of carbon fiber sliding against each other, while in a cured resin state. And we're talking about large variances in displacement and strength here.
If anything it's the carbon weave. A complicated matrix, that behaves an-isotropically, how i don't know and cannot visualize. I only know of anisotropic organic molecules from A level chemistry.

[747heavy]

in simple terms, what you call the weave

But the wing is not only made from cabon fibre, you have different fibres, such as Kevlar, Arimid etc. as well.

So different fibres have different characteristics, and when you combine them into "one cloth" you can tailorder some of the mechanical characteristics to your liking.

The other point is oriantation of the fibres. Imagine a single fibre (like your hair)
it´s much stronger when you try to pull on it, then if you try to bend it.


as an example a "cloth" made from carbon and kevlar fibres



vs. a cloth only made fom carbon fibres

[n_anirudh]

http://www.mse.mtu.edu/~drjohn/my4150/compositesdesign/

That site will give you a very basic understanding of a the composite laminate and the ABD matrix which I referred to earlier.

Laying the fibers in different orientations such as +/- 45 or 30 60 90 alters the characteristics of the final product

[learenault]

Hello everyone, it´s not the place to introduce myself, but its my first post.
I think the moveable wings can be achieved with a specially designed fiber layout, you know, with products such as vistagy, you can design a composite with specyfic resistance and deformation knowing the loads it will withstand. It not necesarilly needs to bend down only with the lift force, it can be achieved with a combination of drag/lift force to do that movement.(in order to pass fia tests)
Other idea that comes to my mind is the use of piezoelectric fibers.
Piezo materials contract/extend under electric charges, and when they contract or extend they generate electric charges. I dont say that they bend down the external part of the wing by piezo fibers, but the can "add" a small qty of load to bend it down.

[mariano.torre.gomez]

WELL WELL some bought my theory
it is flexi nose!!!!!
look carefully on the picture you will see an aprox 1 to 2 mmm less nose when FW goes down
and when nose down chassis wider by 1 2 mm too no doubt is more tha light effect.
finally somebody found the probe
good job Russ !!!

[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.

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.

Bottom planks go through the same problems, too low and your done. Concessions are made for damage even for the bottom plank...

[speedsense]

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.

I disagree, the FIA wants balance in DF, overall they are trying to reduce DF, but more so to balance the DF between cars and increase passing.
Personally I believe they should do away with front wings and go back to full body noses ALA 1976 and before... this would completely change all the aero packages and automatically reduce rear wing size and DF.