Illegally flexing rear wings

[bhall]

Oh, I agree that it's dodgy as hell. But I also think that, especially today with the state of technology being what it is, the only way to gain a real advantage is through a thorough exploitation of the rules.

The front wing may not follow the spirit of the rules, but it follows them nonetheless.

I'm not sure how it would be unsafe though. I know that carbon can crack after repeated stress incidents, such as bending, but I don't think a single race would do it. And there's nothing stopping Ferrari from changing the nose every race.

[Sawtooth-spike]

yeah i am with you on the pushing the limit side of things. I just feel its is unsafe due to the fact that its no 100% fixed to the car, its almost floating for lack of a better term. 10/10 for Inovation though

[bhall]

But it is 100% attached to the car; just on one side instead of two.

Look at the Renault front wing. It's upper wing is squarely attached to the outside of the main wing (just like the Ferrari), while the inside portion, while it doesn't extend all the way to the nose, is only held up by the tiniest piece of carbon.



Perhaps instead of complaining, Pat Symonds should just take that little piece of carbon out so he can have a flexy Ferrari wing, too. Hehe.

[DarkSnape]

F.I.A.= Ferrari International Aider

in the first pic the distance between nose con and that part it`s little because the monopost don`t have enought speed u see following a curve and in the second the distance it`s more sesizable because the monopost have a high speed ( straight lenght)


FIA Rules

ARTICLE 3: BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.


Seems pretty clear that the rules have been borken

[Ciro Pabón]

Exactly, DarkSnape. After reading the previous posts, I was going to point to the "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car" part.

I have read that eight teams are complaining (ironically, two of them are in the complain). It seems illegal for a rule "aficionado".

BTW, Peroa, what a picture! It seems like a sculpture in metal "a la" Calder.

[DaveKillens]

I have to agree with DarkSnape too. The rules leave little latitude in interpretation, and yes, there is movement. I wonder if Ferrari was happy with the placement of that camera, whether they opposed the placement of the camera, and if the FIA specified the placement, and whether that official is still working for the FIA.

[bhall]

They all flex.

[Raptor]

That BMW wing is moving more than any other wing on any other car. Even more than the Ferrari!

[blackpebel]

oh man look at that wing,,,,, ok so thats how they get all there speed eh?????

[Ciwai]

The mclaren and bmw wings may be flexible but its a miniscule order of rule breaking in comparison to ferrari's wing mounting.

When wings gained prominence in the late sixties, they were mounted directly on the suspension, with pivots and whatnot and after some notable failures, the rules were promulgated to restrict that type of movable mounting. I think there was a similar restriction when ground effects had limitations on sliding skirts.

The ferrari type of sliding and rotating pivot falls within that type of movable aerodynamic device and were it to be allowed would open up a whole cool, somewhat unexplored region of experimentation for the teams. As technical gearheads, we should really be a bit dismayed that its not allowed. As followers of the sport, we should be aghast that such a blatant degree of cheating has merely been given not just a slap on the wrist, but the innunendo that other teams were as blatant in their violation.

[Sawtooth-spike]

thats very true, if the front wing moves from dodgy to totaly legal, then we could enter an ages of cars thats change shape at high speed, if only by a well millimeters, but as well all know millimeters make a differance at 200 MPH.

[DaveKillens]

When wings gained prominence in the late sixties, they were mounted directly on the suspension, with pivots and whatnot and after some notable failures, the rules were promulgated to restrict that type of movable mounting. I think there was a similar restriction when ground effects had limitations on sliding skirts.

When the advantages of wings was explored after 1967, many novel ideas were quickly tried. One great theoretical concept is to directly attach the wings to the suspension uprights, thus taking the load off the sprung mass. And of course, moveable aero devices have been tried too. The Chapparall Can-Am racer had a huge moveable rear wing, selectable by a driver's pedal. And the Mercedes GP Lemans of years gone by had a huge airbrake behind the driver. If you combine attaching the wings directly to the suspension uprights, and have them moveable, either by computer or driver preference, the theoretical advantages are huge. it would definitely lead to a much quicker racing car.
If we start to ingore and turn a blind eye to this basic concept, then engineers will make parts and wings that flex and contort, to give performance advantages. Yes, it could lead to a faster car, but it also leads us down the path of increasing risk, and less safety. This is a basic philosophy, and I personally believe it should be rigidly enforced.
But as they found out in the 60's, that wings and their attachments can be fragile, especially since a wing directly connected to the suspension uprights would be subject to every bump and ripple on the road surface. Mechanical failure is very possible, and that leads to the safety issue. So the FIA decided (and I personally agree) that in the interests of safety, wings have to be attached firmly to the body structure. And on that philosophy I agree. Wings and all downforce generating parts of the car must be attached to the body in a very firm manner, so that movement is almost totally eliminated. In the real world parts do vibrate and flex under load. But they should not be designed, or allowed to have flex built in.

[Apex]

I wonder if this situation may not lead to the FIA allowing these ridigidly mounted but flexible wings.

To me its the same thing in a sense as the traction control systems being allowed by the FIA. The FIA could not prove that some teams were using traction contol, so they allowed it so that everyone would be essentially on the same page. These teams were thinking that if the FIA cant prove it then lets do it! Even if they get by using it for two races, they have had and advantage.

So this year the flex is more evident than before, if it were not for renaults introduction of those 'endplate wings' and ferraris version thereof we probably would not have guessed that the front wings were flexing so much. How long have the teams been doing this without anyone getting a hint of it?

What I find interesting is that this forum (me included) is more focused on the front wing, while it is actually more the rear wing that is of greater importance from a top speed point of view.

[DaveKillens]

That's because we as a TV audience could clearly see it in the Ferrari nose.
I'm sure if we had a close camera view of the BMW rear wing, that too would be a topic.

[Apex]

All i'm saying is that if it were not for those white wing elements I doubt that we would have noticed anything.