Flexible wings controversy 2010

[horse]

I just wondered whether anyone considered the entire wing pivoting when an unbalanced load is applied? So, like, if the car is taking a right hander, the entire wing pivots to the left to apply extra down force to the loaded wheel. This would mean that the wing need not "flex" any more than regulation, but you could still place one half of the wing closer to the ground.

Could it be made to actively do this??? (See secs 4,5,6 in the video).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4[/youtube]

On second thoughts, it looks like it's happening here (one side up other down), but it appears to be a passive thing brought on by being in the wake of Button.

[marcush.]

the sideways movement on flex alone would rise the wing due to the two wing pillars...

of course the joints could well allow for a vertical movement when sideload was allowed something like a hinge...i could imagine ,,,but thats not what they are doing

[horse]

I was thinking about pivoting the entire nose cone. Just thought it added up with the torsion bar things I spotted coming from MWs chassis into the nose cone.

[forty-two]

I was thinking about pivoting the entire nose cone. Just thought it added up with the torsion bar things I spotted coming from MWs chassis into the nose cone.

That reminds me, does anyone have a picture of the "torsion bar things"? I'm keen to see what they look like.

[RH1300S]

I was thinking about pivoting the entire nose cone. Just thought it added up with the torsion bar things I spotted coming from MWs chassis into the nose cone.

I imagine those would simply be spigots to mount/locate the nose.

As for the flexing we can see on the Button crash video - I would guess that has nothing to do with the apparent wing droop seen in other images. To me that looks like an effect of am unbalanced & shifting load on one side of the wing due to being in Button's wake and that could easily put a sideways flex into the wing hangers - which could let the wing wave around like that. I doubt that that is evidence of anything sinister.

Some of the pics shown previously look far more suspicious - which is what McLaren have picked up on.

[RH1300S]

BTW - just a thought. With cameras all over the place on these cars, couldn't the FIA stipulate that certain cameras had to look at certain parts of the car. They could do a visual comparison on what is actually happening under race loads.

[horse]

Yeah, fair enough. Thought it might be an interesting idea, as you wouldn't have to pitch the nose cone a great deal to get a fair bit of deflection at the wing tips. It also wouldn't show up unless the wing was loaded asymmetrically. I probably wouldn't like it from an aero view for the top of the car, although the V nose may do some correction. I guess there would also be a discontinuity between the nose and the chassis as it pivoted, which would have to be dealt with.

With cameras all over the place on these cars, couldn't the FIA stipulate that certain cameras had to look at certain parts of the car. They could do a visual comparison on what is actually happening under race loads.

It's a good idea, but a visual "comparison" is not very scientific, as we have been finding out with all of the accusations flying about. Perhaps a pair of yaw sensors, with one on the chassis and one at the wing tips would give more conclusive evidence.

[wittgenfrog]

This is page 49, and let's face it we won't have consensus!

I think RBR, and maybe Ferrari, did find a way to introduce a little "give" into the front wings, whilst meeting the static displacement under load regs. Whether this is\was "illegal" is obviously a moot point, given that they passed the original test, even if taht appears to have allowed somewhat "dodgy" wing behaviour.

Spa supposedly wasn't a RBR circuit (though Webber did OK ), so we'll have to wait a while to see if meeting the new regs has reduced their performance on RBR-friendly tracks. The same goes for Ferrari....

[Richard]

We may not have concensus wheteher what they are doing is cheating, but we'd all love to know how they do it.

[meves]

Surely the twist the in uprights allows the wing to pivot around it, by compressing on one side and straightening on the other.

[wrcsti]

I dont get why you guys blame it on the front wing. Lets say the front wing did move and affect aero. Likely reducing front downforce. That would cause understeer not swapping ends.

[marcush.]

I dont get why you guys blame it on the front wing. Lets say the front wing did move and affect aero. Likely reducing front downforce. That would cause understeer not swapping ends.

+1if the car had front downforce loss he would not have avoided button when going out of the slipstream....but he seemed to have more front grip than anticipated...as the car darted first left than swapped ends t-boning button.at no time the front was not loosing grip ..in the slowmo you can see how the rearendstill gains momentum when seb starts to feed in opposite lock.
It was a silly mistake ...no finesse no feel for the car. It aint easy..but it is not meant to be easy.a lot of drivers ,also inexperienced ones did not put a foor wrong on this day .Vettel had a very high rate of mistakes,again.

[wrcsti]

I dont get why you guys blame it on the front wing. Lets say the front wing did move and affect aero. Likely reducing front downforce. That would cause understeer not swapping ends.

+1if the car had front downforce loss he would not have avoided button when going out of the slipstream....but he seemed to have more front grip than anticipated...as the car darted first left than swapped ends t-boning button.at no time the front was not loosing grip ..in the slowmo you can see how the rearendstill gains momentum when seb starts to feed in opposite lock.
It was a silly mistake ...no finesse no feel for the car. It aint easy..but it is not meant to be easy.a lot of drivers ,also inexperienced ones did not put a foor wrong on this day .Vettel had a very high rate of mistakes,again.

I dont know about the finese talk. I do know it was wet and he was on slicks with a car that has more weight towards the back and agressive brake bias.

[747heavy]

some other thoughts on the matter......
nothing which was not said here before.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/09/a ... it-button/

[747heavy]

for what it´s worth:



part of the reason, why the car would not react to the steering input (opposite lock)
is the fact, that he also braked and the front tyre just locks up before he hit Button.
In the videos of the accident, you can see the flat spot on the front right tyre, from the lock up.