Flexible wings controversy 2010

[Richard]

Thanks DaveW – that’s a very neat description.

The FIA testing point is roughly in line with the pylons. So to get the correct test results, the elastic shear centre of the section will be at that point so the wing appears to be stiff. Meanwhile the centre of aero pressure is much further back because that’s where the wing cascade is located. I suspect RB are exploiting the resulting eccentric forces to cause the wing to deflect.

The issue of divergence is interesting. I guess this could lead to a positive feedback whereby the ground effect forces pull the wing further down than it would if it were operating in free air?

[DaveW]

I suspect that the centre of pressure might be further forward than you suggest, Richard. Its ideal location would depend on the rest of the vehicle, I guess. If the overall c.p. is too far aft without flexing, then it might be a good idea to increase front wing incidence with airspeed (using, the "positive feedback" you mentioned). I rather thought that might be RBR's strategy, & they miscalculated the divergence airspeed first time out (assuming they did actually think about it).

[gareth25]

Now sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but would it be possible for teams to develop a system that could "relax" the wing to bow, and tense to straighten, kind of like a pull string?
I was thinking that, in theory, the system could be a manual "push button" affair as an automatic kit might counted as active aero control and so illegal.

[djos]

Now sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but would it be possible for teams to develop a system that could "relax" the wing to bow, and tense to straighten, kind of like a pull string?
I was thinking that, in theory, the system could be a manual "push button" affair as an automatic kit might counted as active aero control and so illegal.

Like you said active aero is illegal and no Team would be stupid enuf to try it!

[myurr]

Now sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but would it be possible for teams to develop a system that could "relax" the wing to bow, and tense to straighten, kind of like a pull string?
I was thinking that, in theory, the system could be a manual "push button" affair as an automatic kit might counted as active aero control and so illegal.

Like you said active aero is illegal and no Team would be stupid enuf to try it!

Flexible aero is illegal and no team would be stupid enough to try it!
Team orders....
Asking one of your drivers to crash....

etc.

[marcush.]

isn´t porpoising a phenomen to be accounted towards divergence in a ways ,only that the proximity of the road surface leads to a breakdown of flow and downforce at a certain speed ,allowing mechnical(spring ) forces to raise the car again asnd start the next cycle...?

[DaveW]

isn´t porpoising a phenomen to be accounted towards divergence in a ways ,only that the proximity of the road surface leads to a breakdown of flow and downforce at a certain speed ,allowing mechnical(spring ) forces to raise the car again asnd start the next cycle...?

Porpoising is the whole vehicle equivalent of flutter, Marcus. Whole vehicle divergence was demonstrated famously (but not uniquely) by Mercedes a few years ago at Le Mans....

Same Equations of Motion. Complex roots with negative damping = porpoising. Real roots with one diverging = divergence.

[forty-two]

A bit of news on this one. (ok, so it was news Last Friday!)

Christian Horner has stated that the "Car still meets the regulatory criteria"
http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=157

I notice that that item says that the CAR still meets the regulatory criteria, no specific mention of the front wing.

If for example they replace the wing with a "stiff" one, they have not changed the "CAR", and the new "package" might indeed pass the test.

Sorry for being off topic, but for those familiar with Only Fools and Horses, this could be a little bit like Trigger's broom which lasted for years without replacement, but had had twelve new heads and fourteen new handles! Alternatively, here's an article which explains it better than me! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[forty-two]

I doubt very much that this would actually have much of a bearing on the flexi-wing story, but it would appear that Adrian Newey has been hospitalised following a crash at Snetterton:
http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=157

I wonder if, knowing that their Front Wing was, lets say "questionable" in it's legality, whether Red Bull would have designed a "Stiff" variant which could be slapped on in case of dispute in advance?

If I were in RB's management, I would probably hold such a thing in reserve for just such an eventuality. Especially now their cheif designer (or whatever his official title is) has been put out of action for the time being.

[thestig84]

What do you guys make of this tweet on the flexi wing saga.

Darren Heath F1Photographer
Looking at 'spy' comparison shots by rival team.@speed RBR frnt wing cntre 75mm,Ferrari 72mm off ground.Merc 94mm and McLarn 97mm.Nuff said

Think he is quite convinced its a whole droop thing going on if the centre is also low?!

[747heavy]

What do you guys make of this tweet on the flexi wing saga.

Darren Heath F1Photographer
Looking at 'spy' comparison shots by rival team.@speed RBR frnt wing cntre 75mm,Ferrari 72mm off ground.Merc 94mm and McLarn 97mm.Nuff said

Think he is quite convinced its a whole droop thing going on if the centre is also low?!

that RBR & Ferrari running softer front suspension settings and/or less front ride height / more rake then the other two.

McLaren is known for running very stiff settings in the front, and you could see that their car´s are very bouncy at the front lacking mechanical grip.

O.k. this part is pure speculation:
One reason that McLaren is so vocal about the flexy FW could be the fact, that they know, even if they had it, it would not bring them the same advantage as it does for RBR/Ferrari or other teams.
They try to get it banned instead of just copying it.

[Krispy]

During the summer break I would be working to copy/ improve on that design, however I think the teams are required to take this time off. I wonder if behind the scenes activity could be enforced? Or is there no such rule preventing work while on summer shutdown?

There needs to be a backup plan in place when (not if) RBR and Ferrari pass the new test.

[Richard]

During the summer break I would be working to copy/ improve on that design, however I think the teams are required to take this time off. I wonder if behind the scenes activity could be enforced? Or is there no such rule preventing work while on summer shutdown?

There is a thread discussing the summer shut down ...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8791

[siskue2005]

deleted

[marcush.]

the question here is. how could RedBull run the front wing that much closer to the ground WITHOUT scraping the splitter on the ground????

fact is:the plank starts were front wheels end and ends were rear wheels start...
and the front wing section has a specified height to the plank ...there is not much to be discussed there ..is there a tolerance just how high or low you ight put the front wing centre section relative to the reference plane?