Flexible wings controversy 2010

[forty-two]

I just have to disagree with the flexing evidence. I mean afterall, the splitter gets an huge inpact hitting the ground, so or it would just be shredded apart or flex like that.

EDIT: NVM the above said, you can see the whole tea tray flexing. This what it actually does at high speeds, then the tea tray comes up allowing an lower front ride height. No fia test can fix this as the bib stay is fixed at some point thus wont bend in that condition, it can only bend up it seems.

I'm pretty sure that the FIA flex tests performed on the bib are carried out in an upwards direction (happy to be proven wrong if I am), one hydraulic piston is placed under the centre front of the bib and forced upwards at a given force, then the piston is moved to the side of the bib and the same is repeated (i.e. also in a straight up movement).

If however the RB bib is moving longitudinally (i.e. rather than "bending", the whole plank or section of it is sliding toward the back of the car) when a real-world load is applied (i.e. one moving both upwards and backwards, like the road surface would when the car is running at speed), the bib stay could be as rigid as you like, providing it had a hinge at the top and bottom allowing it to move forwards and backwards as necessary, while appearing stiff when a direct upwards force was applied for the FIA test.

[wesley123]

I know that springs have been used before with flexi floors, but how can they make sure it doesnt flex that much under load tests? Maybe they have some sort of 'lock' switch for it?

[747heavy]

for the springs it is easy,
you just preload them to the max. test force.
This will make the component(including the spring) stiff
until you reach the preload, then for any additional load
the spring starts to compress.

some of you remeber that there was talk about hinges in the
floor/plank fixment before.

[forty-two]

Some of you remeber that there was talk about hinges in the
floor/plank fixment before.

I know I've suggested this before, but the idea is crystallising a little now.

I wonder if they might have some sort of sliding arrangement whereby the plank is able to slide forwards/backwards, perhaps even the front section of the plank overlaps the rear section. The bib stay could then be perfectly rigid, and unable to move when a force is applied in an upwards only direction.

I think I might need to do a sketch to illustrate what I'm thinking!

[747heavy]

I was more thinking about this statement:

"The [FIA] requirements for Monza really will end what has been a misnomer: the bodywork is intended to be attached rigidly with no degrees of freedom and when you look at bib stays that hinge, buckle, slide and have dampers, it seems a bit bizarre to me."

and

It is the bib stays: the setup includes a segmented plank, stay dampers, and sliding splitter attachments that allow the nose to droop

I think I have an idea about what you have in mind, but a sketch/drawinng comes in allways handy, and says more then a 1000 words.

[forty-two]

I was more thinking about this statement:

"The [FIA] requirements for Monza really will end what has been a misnomer: the bodywork is intended to be attached rigidly with no degrees of freedom and when you look at bib stays that hinge, buckle, slide and have dampers, it seems a bit bizarre to me."

and

It is the bib stays: the setup includes a segmented plank, stay dampers, and sliding splitter attachments that allow the nose to droop

I think I have an idea about what you have in mind, but a sketch/drawinng comes in allways handy, and says more then a 1000 words.

I had actually forgotten the exact wording of that statement from Martin Whitmarsh. Specifically the comments about hinge and slide! That would add weight to my idea (if indeed MW is correct!).

I will try to put a drawing together...

[747heavy]

just a small recoup of the state of the affairs and the history:

The FIA already tests floor flexing to a limit of 5mm by loading the underside to 200kg, a test introduced at the 2007 Spanish Grand Prix following the controversy over an alleged moveable floor run on the Ferrari. Now an additional test of the same load and criteria will be applied to the side of the floor and also individual plank sections will not be allowed to be less than 100cm in length.

another/additional opinion on the matter, and some comments from Ferrari, can be found here:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/formula-1 ... clampdown/

[forty-two]

More on what I was thinking about the RB6.

I reckon it could have a sliding plank, with an articulated bib stay, such that the plank can be forced backwards without deflecting upwards, allowing them to pass the revised tests.

I have taken this to the n'th degree, and I dont expect the articulation in the bib stay to actually be visible, but it could easily be concealed within the tub.



The images above, were I'm afraid sketched by me quite badly, but I think you guys will get what I was aiming for.

The angle of rake on the RB6 is not shown in these images, but it might be that the rake alone is enough to return the plank to it's normal resting place (i.e. all the way forward) under gravity alone when not running at speed, but if not this could quite easily be achieved by a small spring to either push the plank forward, or to pull the stay upwards.

Thinking WAY outside the box here, but the driver's seat could even be mounted in such a way that the driver leaning forward could reset the plank to it's normal position, or indeed upward movement on the front wishbones could retract the plank!

The other thing with this idea is that when viewed from directly in front of the plank (notice that RB alone have mounted their rear facing camera as close to centreline as possible), the articulation and movement on the bib stay would be invisible because it would be end-on.

A close up image of the articulation:



I vaguely remember that Red Bull changed their splitter prior to the revised floor flex test (as many others did too) but they opted to beef up their splitter, but their bib-stay appeared to get thinner rather than thicker. Not sure if anyone can confirm this though?

[siskue2005]

cool thinking outside the box here "forty-two" =D>

[djos]

42, you need to look at a sideways shot of the vertical strut, it's very clearly bonded to the T-Tray and despite being very thin is a good 3-4" deep making the sliding movement you are proposing nigh on impossible!

[marcush.]

the articulation of the bipstay could as well be NOT keeping the splitter parallel to the reference plane! so with backwards movement the splitter leading edge would be pulled up! This would explain why the force to push it up could be big in static condition (you would need just an overcentre articulation ) but it would articulate
quite easy when the leading edge of the splitter starts scraping (anyone heard the RB scraping a lot?) the tarmac pushing the plank rearwards.
Definetely an explanation here.

[michl420]

A above average scraping could also explain the top speed gap.

[forty-two]

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that I think that this is the actual mechanism employed on the RB6, merely that something LIKE this would explain both the ability to pass the revised floor flex tests while also allowing the floor to move up and out of the way when the car hunkers down.

I have deliberately exaggerated both the movement of the mechanism and the plank itself to illustrate what might be happening.

I personally reckon that the egg-shaped thing to which the bib stay attaches is the key. There's plenty of room in that thing to house a damper and a sliding mechanism to facilitate the sliding movement I have suggested.

I have been told that this "egg" thing is actually a ride height sensor, but I don't think that RB would run a ride height sensor during a race un-necessarily. Additionally, if it's only a ride height sensor, why does the bib stay attach to it and not to the tub itself behind the egg?

Please excuse the crappy diagram, but I don't see why it connects like:
|
ooo
__|_

[forty-two]

the articulation of the bipstay could as well be NOT keeping the splitter parallel to the reference plane! so with backwards movement the splitter leading edge would be pulled up! This would explain why the force to push it up could be big in static condition (you would need just an overcentre articulation ) but it would articulate
quite easy when the leading edge of the splitter starts scraping (anyone heard the RB scraping a lot?) the tarmac pushing the plank rearwards.
Definetely an explanation here.

Yes, I pondered that idea too, in fact, that is specifically why in my diagram I included the right angle bracket part of the articulation. but that would likely require that the plank itself was able to bend upwards but not twist when the off-centre force is applied in the new test.

I'm sure that's not beyond the wit of the engineers at RB, but it would be an extra hurdle.

[forty-two]

42, you need to look at a sideways shot of the vertical strut, it's very clearly bonded to the T-Tray and despite being very thin is a good 3-4" deep making the sliding movement you are proposing nigh on impossible!

Thanks for your comment djos, do you have a good side-on image of the strut under discussion? I have looked around but couldn't find one which shows it with any clarity.

The closest I can find is an old image prior to the new test, back in June 2010


And isn't "nigh on impossible" code for "Newey's work"?