Flexible wings controversy 2010

[mep]

Now we can see that the wing tips are droping.

It's been obvious that the tips have been drooping for some time.

The whole nose is definetly not droping I think we can stop this theory now.

I don't think so. You're still going to get a very nice advantage from being able to lower the nose as will as the wing tips themselves. This has to be more than just a wing that bends downwards at the tips, certainly as far as Red Bull are concerned. The only problem is being able to prove that this is happening, and how.

The rake of the car.
The rear is high the front is low.
The nose does not move relative to the rest of the car.

The day i read about the flexi wings i posted about flexing noses as another possibility and now everyone is jumping on this train.

Yea definitely. Its funny to watch this forum. One guy mentions something and the rest starts to believe it takes it as fact even when there is no prove for it. It is almost impossible to fight against it.

For me a dropping nose is nonsense.
You don't see any gap between the nose and the tube.
The nose is the crash structure of the car when you let it drop it will not work anymore.

[Just_a_fan]

If Pirelli isn't careful the cars might be very difficult to drive next year

I think they should be difficult to drive! They should be physical and twitchy. That'll sort the wheat from the chaff...

[Just_a_fan]

The flexible wings are a cheat because they are against the rules

The rule is that the wing deflection must not exceed X mm under load Y applied at location Z. The RB complies with the rules.

No, that is a test of compliance and not the rule. The rule talks about the thing being rigid. A subtle but rather important difference.

The fact that the FIA are changing the test shows that they are concerned that the rule is not being respected.

[DaveW]

No, that is a test of compliance and not the rule. The rule talks about the thing being rigid. A subtle but rather important difference.

The fact that the FIA are changing the test shows that they are concerned that the rule is not being respected.

Apologies, but I was unable to find that rule in the regulations. It would be open to ridicule, anyway, since it would effectively ban down force....

The revised test is not a change in requirement, I think, just a check to ensure that the structures deform linearly.

[myurr]

The flexible wings are a cheat because they are against the rules

The rule is that the wing deflection must not exceed X mm under load Y applied at location Z. The RB complies with the rules.

No the rule is that all body parts must remain static in relation to each other. The test for compliance is that the wing deflection must not exceed X mm etc... with the FIA retaining the right to change the test at any time to enforce compliance with the non-flexible aero parts.

Thus the RB complies with the test but not the letter of the rules, hence the test is being modified. It is cheating to use flexible body parts.

Edit: Sorry just noticed others have already replied

[segedunum]

The rake of the car.
The rear is high the front is low.

This is nothing to do with rake. To achieve what they're doing purely through rake they'd have to have the back end of the car up to a ridiculous height. The nose is definitely lower, they have to pass scrutineering, ergo the nose must be dropping together with the wing.

You don't see any gap between the nose and the tube.
The nose is the crash structure of the car when you let it drop it will not work anymore.

What?

[myurr]

Apologies, but I was unable to find that rule in the regulations. It would be open to ridicule, anyway, since it would effectively ban down force....

The revised test is not a change in requirement, I think, just a check to ensure that the structures deform linearly.

I'll attempt a useful post now. The rules are as follows (thanks to WhiteBlue for looking them up in a previous post):

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.

3.15 says that body parts must be rigidly secured and immobile in relation to each other, ie. they must not be hinged or flex.

3.17 lays out the test procedures to ensure compliance. 3.17.8 points out that this test is to ensure the requirements of 3.15 are respected and that the test may be modified if teams find a way to break that rule whilst remaining in compliance with the test.

[wesley123]

Wow those rules are stupid, with an FIA test it is allowed to flex, but on track it is not? How stupid is that. Anyway it passes the test thus it is legal

[DaveW]

...
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Thank you. The clarification above is the one that effectively bans down-force..., & road inputs..., & acceleration..., & braking...

[segedunum]

Wow those rules are stupid, with an FIA test it is allowed to flex, but on track it is not? How stupid is that. Anyway it passes the test thus it is legal

Of course those rules are stupid. Most of them stem from the time of the Lotus 88 when they were shoe-horned in. There's even a regulation in there somewhere initiated by Ferrari, if it's still there, that says that the car must have a suspension so terrified were they that Lotus were going to build a Formula 1 kart.

There is no such thing as the spirit of the regulations. If there was then race results would retrospectively change. The Red Bull passed the tests and their results stand.

[segedunum]

The day i read about the flexi wings i posted about flexing noses as another possibility and now everyone is jumping on this train.

Nope. McLaren first raised the idea that there was something more than rake going on with Red Bull's nose and wing section. The only questions have been what and how, and they're not easy to answer.

[wesley123]

i believe such thing is certainly plausible, as when they first ran the wing Vettels nosecone fasteners failed, so imo it is very likely that the nose has to do something with it.

[wrcsti]

Then again who said it has to be the nosecone flexing? Maybe the wing holding thingies have also been designed to flex with force. That force being drag flexing them backwards.

[forty-two]

too close for comfort??????

Great pictures Jumbo.

I'd love to know how they have managed to achieve the wingtip on the INSIDE of the corner being lower than the one on the outside. The picture might be misleading, but it definitely appears to show that behaviour in this image. If true, that could probably explain how they manage to go flat out through corners which no other car on the grid can.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

too close for comfort??????

Can there be anything legal about this Wing? Fantastic shot where you can actually see the arcing of the wing.