Illegally flexing rear wings

[DaveKillens]

Why don't we leave this in the hands of the FIA and see if any reaction is coming. If there is a clarification or rule change, or suddenly Ferrari show up on the track with the rear wing modified so that the flexing does not allow closure.. then we shall see.
Rules are open to interpretation, and all teams attempt to maximize the car's performance by careful interpretation of the rules. And all fans have personal bias, and we all see things differently.
Although the Ferrari rear wing does flex in a certain manner under varying aero loads, it is presently within the letter of the rules. There is no rule saying this is not allowed. There are rules saying that this certain part of the wing can only flex so much in this direction, and so on and so on. On my own personal opinion, technically it is not outside the rules as they are presently written. But also, on my own opinion, any aero devices, especially wings, should be immobile, inflexible bits of hardware rigidly attached to the car. No part should be able to flex in any significant direction under any normal load usually experienced during a race.
But hey, if Ferrari have found a "loophole" and are using it to get more performance, it is their perogative to do so until told otherwise by the FIA.

[joseff]

If you make the wings too rigid, they'll crack. CFRP is very brittle.

On the other hand, I'm wondering if any team actually incorporate flexing in the rear wing mount? It's less noticeable from on-board cameras, and achieves more or less the same drag-reducing effects as flexible elements. And in scrutineering, they can argue "Oh, that's to absorb vibrations to prevent structural failure"

[Ciro Pabón]

I do not know if all of you have a copy of 2006 regulations. They are entertaining to read...

Let's compare the rules (http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/ ... ATIONS.pdf) and the comments we made.

If you make the wings too rigid, they'll crack. CFRP is very brittle.

3.4.3 In order to avoid the spread of debris on the track following an accident, the outer skins of the front wing, endplates and any turning vanes in the vicinity of the front wheels (and any similarly vulnerable bodywork parts in this area), must be made predominantly from materials which are included for the specific purpose of containing debris. The FIA must be provided with details of the way in which all such parts are constructed.

It is suggested that the Maranello based team's wing can 'flex' at high speed, and that while it may pass the specific FIA tests, it is designed to flex only in areas that are not tested by the stewards.

3.17.7 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.

auto motor und sport reports that the besides the wing there is also complaint about the carbonrings on the outer side of the rims. Now listen to this: the stewards declared this rings as part of the braking system!

1.19 Brake caliper :
All parts of the braking system outside the survival cell, other than brake discs, brake pads, caliper pistons, brake hoses and fittings, which are stressed when subjected to the braking pressure. Bolts or studs which are used for attachment are not considered to be part of the braking system.

According to 'Auto Motor Und Sport' in Germany, the Renault's 2006 rear wing is designed so that - at high speed - the trailing edge moves out of the line of wind flow. A central theme of the 'flex' case against Ferrari, meanwhile, is that - unlike every other team - the main element of the '248' car's rear wing is not reinforced by vertical 'supports', which in theory could allow the wing to bend at high speed.

3.17.5 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 800mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 250mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in an rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.17.6 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 600mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically. The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

I agree with DaveKillens. Rules are made to be studied and you have the duty of make them work in your favor. And if we have the privilege of enjoying all their efforts, why not do it with a little humor? Instead of fight each other we can make fun of each other. Let's get ready to rumble...

Finally, if you were organizing a rock concert and the Rolling Stones were playing and you refuse to bend a little the rules in their favor... what are you? a rock fan? or a smart ass? Well, it is the same with Ferrari. And (before Manchild reads this) I am not a Ferrari fan. I may not agree with the stewards, but I understand them. I have been one in Colombia (in Formula Renault races... )

[Scuderia_Russ]

"Rules are for the interpretation of wise men, and the obedience of fools"
-Colin Chapman-

[DaveKillens]

Ferrari have agreed to scrap their 'flexy' rear wing ahead of the Australian Grand Prix following a quiet word from the FIA.

OK, it's all over.
Anybody got any pics of sexy pit babes?

[Ciro Pabón]

"Rules are for the interpretation of wise men, and the obedience of fools"
-Colin Chapman-

"For my friends, anything. For my enemies, the law."

-Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay's dictator for life-

Talking about wisdom...

[joseff]

Excuse me for beating a dead horse here, but apparently there's no set rule for vertical deflection of the upper element of the rear wing?

By this interpretation, I'd suppose that Renault's "hinge" is okay by the book then? because the whole upper section goes *down*, and because the "hinge" is at the top, there won't be much meaningful horizontal deflection.

[manchild]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/2236

Nine of the eleven F1 teams have told the FIA this morning that they intend to make a protest against Ferrari's rear wing after the Malaysian GP. Ferrari announced that they will use a new rear wing in Australia. The other teams won't protest if the FIA can garantuee that the new rear wing will be in accordance with the regulations.

[Sodder]

Protest? Will this years GP in Melbourne be like last years Indy? What other ways do they protest? Hope note for you guys, cause I'm not gonna lie. The USGP was my first live grand prix and I was a little dissapointed. It would have been great if both of the Ferrari's had taken each other out. A Jordan, Minardi podium would have been awesome.

[ginsu]

I can confidently say that Schumie's front winglet thing is made to flex. You can clearly see from the camera on the car in Sepang that the wing is mounted on a thin diameter rod that is attached to the nose cone. When a heavy aero load was placed upon the wing the rod would get pulled out of the nose cone, meaning they probably had a spring holding tension on the rod, or the rod is really that flexible. Either way, it's a clear violation of the rules.

[RH1300S]

First, if this has been asked before - sorry I missed it..

I'm not going to debate the legal or not side.

We have seen what happens when the wing has load applied to it. The inside end of the upper element parts from the nose by quite a distance.

It seems to me that in doing this we can clearly see that the outer edges of the wing must droop down somewhat at high speed. Also, by freeing up the inner mounting it is not out of the question that the inner part of the top element could twist.

Question for the aero guys here:

Does the droop under load reduce drag by moving the outer part of the wing closer to the road? - I would have thought the opposite....

Also, what if the upper element does not twist - is there any adavantage to be gained in the boundary around the nose itself by creating this gap?

I also have another spin (wild guess idea ) on why this may have been done. What if the outboard flexing (that many teams have) confers some advantage, but when Ferrari added that upper element this would have stiffened up the wing considerably. Maybe they designed that joint so that they could continue to enjoy that existing advantage????

[manchild]

Protest? Will this years GP in Melbourne be like last years Indy....

Don't worry, no one was protesting in Indy 2005.

Protest on technical regularity of car is part of officially allowed procedure in all FIA racing series and it occurs when a team suspects that some other team has illegal car (illegal dimensions, materials, ratios, fuel etc). After official protest FIA undertakes analysis of car in question.

That is why Ferrari is changing their wings – to avoid sanctions that would follow if their car was analyzed and found illegal.

[DaveKillens]

Generally, the closer to the ground you can run a wing, the more downforce and less drag results. In fact, that is why in the last few years we have seen regulations making the front wing higher and higher to the ground plane. That rule was put into place to lessen downforce, and hopefully, slow the car sdown. But as we've all heard every so often from the technicians.. "we have been able to recover performance lost from the previous regulations"...

[RacingManiac]

until they introduced a rule that says exactly how much a wing structure can deflect under how much load, the room to exploit this is still there.....nothing will ever stay perfectly rigid unless you make something so stupidly stiff and heavy....

[DaveKillens]

I'm very sure that whatever flex the front wing does have, is within the specifiied limits of the rules. It's just that with that nose camera, all the fans are able to view the upper "moustache" (or whater it is called) moving relative ot the nose structure. Since there appears to be a dowel or something connecting that winglet and nose, it does not move up or down, and thus still directs downforce to the body. But Ferrari are using it, and in an innovative manner. My personal theory is that when the front wing does flex downwards (within legal limits), the wing itself may roll slightly, in that one side is closer to the ground than the other side. There may be assymetric downforce generated by this method, under cornering.
I would like to see cameras on each side of the nose, to see if one side separates from the body, while the other side remains in contact, and vice versa.