Flexible wings controversy 2010

[marcush.]

the design of this cries almost for fourty twos idea ...why else to have that draggy
top mount cover for the bipstay?
The scissor like lower mount is as well only claiming to be stiff (having two pins securing the stay to the splitter ... we all know that you just need one of the two pins being located into a slot or loosefit hole and you get your longitudinal degree of freedom = hinge..
Caught.

[Just_a_fan]

The top mount for the bib stay probably contains a pre load spring set to 'fail' at the test load + X%.

The FIA could easily deal with this issue by requiring a spec bib stay. Require it to be of something suitably strong with a stiff section and with simple T fittings top and bottom which surface mount to the tray and tub.

No way the teams can make the thing flex then. Any tampering with the spec part in order to make it flex (or for any other reason) to be punished by loss of points for any race the adulterated part was used in.

The spec front wing could be extended out to the endplates in a similar manner. Allow a given aero profile for the outer section main plane and allow free design of the flaps. This would prevent floppy front wings (because part of the spec would be a suitably stiff insert running from endplate to endplate and which could be checked by the stewards). Any tampering with the spec part of the front wing is instant loss of points.

[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!

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"?

These are the best I could find (looks like Im wrong about the depth) - they show the Strut fixed to what looks like a carbon moulding:

(use "view image" for High Res)

[kalinka]

Looking back at gridwalker's video insert from singapore "kerb riding", when you can see the vertical strut.
Now, if that strut is rigidly fixed on both ends, than when a floor flexes up under load, that strut must bend left or right to accomodate the vertical load, because it can't change it's length. I look at the video, zooming it as much as I can, but I can't see the bending, so it's for me just another proove that the strut indeed must have a spring at it's upper end. I think it's enough movement on that video that we could see the bending if it's the case, but I doubt.
Opinions on this? Am I seeing things wrong?

[forty-two]

Looking back at gridwalker's video insert from singapore "kerb riding", when you can see the vertical strut.
Now, if that strut is rigidly fixed on both ends, than when a floor flexes up under load, that strut must bend left or right to accomodate the vertical load, because it can't change it's length. I look at the video, zooming it as much as I can, but I can't see the bending, so it's for me just another proove that the strut indeed must have a spring at it's upper end. I think it's enough movement on that video that we could see the bending if it's the case, but I doubt.
Opinions on this? Am I seeing things wrong?

The trouble is, the egg shaped thing is obscuring the top end of the strut, so if it's sliding in and out, or indeed back and forth, you won't be able to tell from this camera angle.

I think it's interesting that in all of RB's publicity shots, the bib is concealed. The same is not true of most other team's similar shots.

It's also interesting that Red Bull alone have that egg-shaped pod mounted just forward of the bib-stay.

[747heavy]

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?

Well, it does attach to the tub, and not to the "egg"



nice drawing, and concept
keep in mind the plank does not need to be meade out of one piece, and in fact
it is not. Which makes your idea, even easier to implement.

[forty-two]

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?

Well, it does attach to the tub, and not to the "egg"



nice drawing, and concept
keep in mind the plank does not need to be meade out of one piece, and in fact
it is not. Which makes your idea, even easier to implement.

Thanks for your praise 747! I literally thought about it in terms of how I could pass the tests if using only bits out of a Meccano set (as you can probably see from the crude picture!).

Agreed the photo you posted clearly shows the bib stay being attached to the tub and not the "Egg". But the photo is of the RB6 prior to the change banning outboard mirrors, so the revised floor (following the increased load tests) might in fact attach at a different point now.

Red Bull seem to have been very good at controlling the angles at which images of their cars can be taken from! The vanes fitted to the underside of the nosecone also help to hide whatever is going on there too.

Perhaps Darren Heath will surprise us at this next race?

[kalinka]

The trouble is, the egg shaped thing is obscuring the top end of the strut, so if it's sliding in and out, or indeed back and forth, you won't be able to tell from this camera angle.

I think it's interesting that in all of RB's publicity shots, the bib is concealed. The same is not true of most other team's similar shots.

It's also interesting that Red Bull alone have that egg-shaped pod mounted just forward of the bib-stay.

Yes, but my point was : because we didn't see any sign of strut-bending under extreme load ( kerb riding ), it's an indirect sign that indeed, the strut must take this load in some other way : sliding in-out / back-forth. Because it's no other way : either it bends under load, or it's attached to something, and it's just TRANSFERS the load. If didn't see it's bending, then it's another prove of your idea ( which is a great idea ).

EDIT : if the strut is truly rigidly attached, then it would probably bend right in the middle (beter to say : you can observe the bend easy there ), and that point is not obscured by the egg-shaped thing. So if I'm right, we should see bending of the strut on other cars under similar conditions, if it can't move nowhere.

[forty-two]

I was in the process of pondering whether or not the strut is necessary at all on the RB6 and they went and removed it altogether!

IF they're using a sliding mechanism such as I have suggested, the plank and splitter can be stiff enough to withstand the vertical test load without the need for a bib-stay.

Sure enough, I saw a clip from FP2 this morning and they're running without a bib-stay.

[djos]

They prolly just got around to making their T-Tray using the same non-linear carbon lay-up process that they use on the front wing and as a result dont need the stay/strut any more.!

[forty-two]

They prolly just got around to making their T-Tray using the same non-linear carbon lay-up process that they use on the front wing and as a result dont need the stay/strut any more.!

Well, you're probably right. If they can do it for the FW, I'm sure it's not beyond their wit to do the same thing for the bib. But I argue that they could equally achieve the same result, if not better performing using a sliding mechanism and absolutely rigid pieces.

In addition to my supposition, a sliding arrangement might explain the unusual wear pattern seen on the plank of Webber's car when he flipped it.

Some of the stills I've seen from FP1 and FP2 here in Korea show the RB6 running WITH a bib stay, but I'm fairly sure that in at least one shot of Vettel's car, it was running without one. Perhaps they're doing back-to-back tests with and without it?

[djos]

Im not convinced about the sliding idea as your pic earlier showed 2 pins fixing the stay to the t-tray which would make sliding harder that it it where only fixed by 1 pin.

[kalinka]

They prolly just got around to making their T-Tray using the same non-linear carbon lay-up process that they use on the front wing and as a result dont need the stay/strut any more.!

+1

[forty-two]

Im not convinced about the sliding idea as your pic earlier showed 2 pins fixing the stay to the t-tray which would make sliding harder that it it where only fixed by 1 pin.

Two comments to this idea:

1. The picture shown was quite old, and was taken before the increased floor flex tests were introduced. After that, the stay they used was much much thinner.

2. The presence of two pins apparently fixing the stay to the bib doesn't mean that they actually had two pins there, it could have been two blobs of paint, or just the pin heads superglued to the mount. Alternatively, if they are both real pins, we don't know that the pins went through a hole in the stay, one of them could equally have gone through a slot in the end of the stay to allow movement.

Either way, this could be a moot point as it seems that they're now testing running without a stay at all. That'd make the sliding arrangement easier!

[marcush.]

as I have explained a few posts back to see 2 pins does not assure this is a stiff cónnection,it was not even the case if the two pins were a perfect fit.A bolt is a hinge first law of mechanical engineering almost.
You just need to increase the bore tolerance on the stay itself (for ease of mounting... ..to create a crude hinge for the little angular movement needed .