Flexible wings controversy 2010

[forty-two]

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.

We don't know for sure that was the FIRST time they had run the flexi-nose/wing (delete as appropriate). As detailed earlier in this thread, they appeared to be tinkering with a bendy SOMETHING right back in preseason testing, so for all anyone knows, they have simply been making the wings progressively more bendy as the season progresses?

I did wonder at the time however if the Silverstone incident marked something significantly different going on with the anchor points etc. For example, if Vettel's chassis had been modified to accept "stretchy" bolts, but Webber's had not, that MIGHT be a reason why they felt the need to take Webber's new wing off and fit it to Vettel's car???

[forty-two]

Having read most of the recent posts, reviewing the various photos and looking at scarbs recent blog on this topic... I am now thinking that there could well be more to the issue than just flexible wiings and rake setup.

Could the raised section either side of the monocoque above the suspension mounting points contain a mechanism to dip the nose cone?

Red Bull easily have the most prominent raised sections on the monocoque, they introduced this in 2009 to change the cross-section of the monocoque - aiding air flow under the front section of the car. This year they have the largest raised sections. I could not find a photo of the nose cone mounting points, but I think I rememeber seeing the mounting points being right where the raised sections on the monocoque are?

Interesting theory Ergenomic, and although nobody on here will believe me, it's something which occurred to me driving home from work last night (thank you traffic jam!). Those bulges are way more than any other team's implementation, and might very well have a role to play in this.

Those who have said that the nose cannot be bending because it contains a crash structure etc. are in my opinion wrong. As a suggestion, the crash structure could very well exist entirely within the outer shell of the nosecone, meaning that the outer shell (and wing pylons) could in theory bend any which way.

Does anyone have any pictures of the RB6 with it's nose removed, or even better any close up pictures of when Vettel's nose failed at Silverstone? It would be interesting to see if the nose-cone has much in the way of an overlap with the tub. Such an overlap could very well disguise movement of the casing of the nosecone relative to the tub.

[747heavy]

for another/additional point of view some may want to have a read here:

http://hunnylander.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ects-view/

another interesting comment on the subject from former F1 designer Gary Andersson (from autosport.com):
>>>
There's also an exponential effect when considering the Red Bull front wing. The Red Bull probably generates more downforce at low-to-medium speed than anyone else, which then flexes the wing down. This increases the ground effect and creates more downforce, which further flexes the wing. The wing will do all of its bending up to, say, 200km/h, at which time because of the aerodynamic characteristics you will start getting airflow separation.

Because this separation is well controlled, the wing then stays at this level.
<<<

[747heavy]

Our friend strad posted a great video in the "Fasteners used in F1" section of this BB. Thank you Strad !!!

You can see Vettels RB6 driving with the failed nose cone and some shot´s from a RB6 without the nose cone.

[djos]

Well Newey isnt concerned about passing the FIA's upgraded Test:

http://www.formula1blog.com/2010/08/11/ ... wing-test/

The FIA regulation states they will change the testing parameters and I thought it intriguing that Newey suggested McLaren had complained that the 10mm flex allowance was needed instead of the 5mm originally stated by the FIA. It appears that McLAren now feel that the Red Bull’s front wing is flexing beyond the 10mm they had asked for and received from the FIA.

[mariano.torre.gomez]

Having read most of the recent posts, reviewing the various photos and looking at scarbs recent blog on this topic... I am now thinking that there could well be more to the issue than just flexible wiings and rake setup.

Could the raised section either side of the monocoque above the suspension mounting points contain a mechanism to dip the nose cone?

Red Bull easily have the most prominent raised sections on the monocoque, they introduced this in 2009 to change the cross-section of the monocoque - aiding air flow under the front section of the car. This year they have the largest raised sections. I could not find a photo of the nose cone mounting points, but I think I rememeber seeing the mounting points being right where the raised sections on the monocoque are?

Interesting theory Ergenomic, and although nobody on here will believe me, it's something which occurred to me driving home from work last night (thank you traffic jam!). Those bulges are way more than any other team's implementation, and might very well have a role to play in this.

Those who have said that the nose cannot be bending because it contains a crash structure etc. are in my opinion wrong. As a suggestion, the crash structure could very well exist entirely within the outer shell of the nosecone, meaning that the outer shell (and wing pylons) could in theory bend any which way.

Does anyone have any pictures of the RB6 with it's nose removed, or even better any close up pictures of when Vettel's nose failed at Silverstone? It would be interesting to see if the nose-cone has much in the way of an overlap with the tub. Such an overlap could very well disguise movement of the casing of the nosecone relative to the tub.

I Wrote some weeks ago that I firmily believe that flex nose has much to do with the whole issue
I believe that during Silverstone Practice the problem with Vettel´s wing it has something to do with the way they fixed the nose too.
nose center looks about 3/5 cm below the famous 75 mmm as per regulations
wing looks flexible too!!!!
and eventualy they got a mechanism in the suspension to compensate fuel loads
end plates and vortex managment eventualy contibutes too
2 more weeks and we will see the end of this story!!!!

[forty-two]

Just found this in the "investigating Exhaust Aided Diffusors" thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8562

Manual front wing flap might help, or even a flexi front wing that increases AofA at lower speeds. Regulations might stop that though.
I think it more likely to do with the suspension and dive under braking increasing floor DF and moving the center forward.
Lengthening wheelbase when the suspension closes up powering out of corners has an effect to.
But I could be way wrong.

Autogyro, did you know something back in May about RBs bendy wings?

[mx_tifoso]

Spam post and everything in response to it was deleted. Please don't respond to spam even if it appears to be on topic.

[Pup]

Not suggesting that RB are doing this, but one way of making a flexible wing that would pass pretty much any static test would be to use one of the upper wing elements as additional support when the car is stationary. That is, build something like a tab into the uppermost element that would engage the lower one, preventing the wing from flexing. Design it so that at speed, the element is pushed back just enough for the tab to disengage, allowing flex, then reengage when the car slows. I suppose you could be really sneaky and build the connection into the moveable flap, essentially having a wing that would flex on command.

Or, using a hidden pin rather than anything exposed...

Taking a look at the connection above, imagine a small pin with one end rigidly embedded within the wing element and free to slide in and out of the center section. Now imagine that within the center section, the free end of the pin is held by a clasp connected to a small solenoid. The solenoid is actuated using the same circuit as the moveable flap; i.e, when the flap is lowered, the clasp is pulled back and the pin is free to slide. So now we have a wing very similar to the one on the Ferrari which created such a fuss a few years back, only now the ability of the wing to flex can be turned on and off by the driver without any special circuits or controls. Clever, in that the geometry means that there would have to be very little movement of the pin to allow the wing to drop; cleverer still that the paint scheme would make it difficult to detect; and cleverest of all that it's not visible from the onboards thanks to their unusually positioned camera mounts.

Complex, yes; but no more so than what anyone else is suggesting. On the other hand, the drawback is that, though difficult to spot, it's more easily caught than some esoteric carbon layup technique; and if caught, quite obvious that it's a cheat. Worth a thought, though.

And I suppose you could apply the same to the nosecone mounts, with the mounting pins themselves being the solenoid shafts. Keep it all on the same circuit. Getting a bit out there, though.

[Just_a_fan]

My take on it is that the wing flexes naturally at the point you indicate by virtue of the construction. Look at how the thickness changes and how little material there is there compared to wings from non-flex teams.

Second, I think the RB6 runs a relatively soft third spring at the front which allows the nose to droop as aero load is applied by the wing. The floor extension below the nose is then fitted with a pre-loaded spring that allows it to pass the test but which 'breaks' when the nose hits the floor. This prevents excess plank wear in the highest speed sections whilst allowing the front of the car to be that much lower. It's not a new idea of course.

These are things that are easy to implement and easy to hide.

Mechanical latches and drooping nose boxes sound great but they're overly complicated and prone to failure - one thing RB can't afford is for its system to fail and display its inards to the world. They'd be bang-to-rights if that happened.

[michl420]

Look at the bottom panel of Mark Webbers car when he was crashed in Valencia. How it is wear out, it looks like splitted in a main and a front section. This allowed a less ride hight on the front.

[Pup]

I agree. The wear pattern on Webber's FIA plank tells me that they are raising the splitter somehow. Which is why I think the theories about the whole nose droping are false. I think they're just running a very soft front suspension that gives them a steeper rake at speed, allowed by the moving splitter. I suspect we'll find that they're just doing the same things Ferrari and others were doing a few years back, only a bit sneakier this go.

[strad]

For example, if Vettel's chassis had been modified to accept "stretchy" bolts

Go look at the video I posted in the Fastener thread and look at them examining the failed fasteners and you will see that it wasn't stretchy fasteners. The idea is silly by the way.

theories about the whole nose droping are false.

Yes they are Pup..as is the story that Funny Cars noses droop at speed on purpose.
Damn...I had a chance to talk to Bucky Austin at lunch the other day and I forgot to mention it. Woulda been a good laugh.

[747heavy]

maybe some of you find this useful.
So you can have an idea at which point the FIA is testing the stiffness/flex of the FW, in relation to the overall dimensions of the FW.
(x= 800mm in front of front axle line y= 795mm from the car center line)



http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy33 ... nsions.jpg

[kalinka]

Thanks for the nice picture, that helps a lot. From this (though I didn't have time to actually measure things ), the FIA test weight is must be applied to section "B" on picture below, if I understand it correctly. So the trick must be ( at least great part of it ) in section "C", because that section at high speed is whitstanding big front and downward pressure, because of it's AoA. Since they are connected (B and C), it's possible to "C" has great flexing/bending effect on section "B", as it was mentioned in this article.

http://hunnylander.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ects-view/ *



*Thanks to 747heavy for posting this link.