Flexible wings 2011

[Hangaku]

Last year's car is last year's car. This is not now.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Last year's car is last year's car. This is not now.

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

[fausto cedros]

What really drives me nuts is that they're looking at that since last mid season and still they don' boast theirs...come on guys, a little push further.

I don't know where people get this idea that a flexy front wing instantly means gains.

Imagination coming from my background of aerodynamic engineer and little experience in racing. Just an educated guess by the way, since i've gone aviation and wind engineering some years ago:The only f1 team that called me was the one i hate most, and didn't pay enough to raise a family.

[Hangaku]

Last year's car is last year's car. This is not now.

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

Got some figures you can quote, with a source? I haven't heard McLaren claim that a flexible front wing will provide gains for the MP4-26.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but all the flexiwing talk was based on last year's car, which wanted air in totally different places. As I said, I'm quite happy to be proven wrong.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Last year's car is last year's car. This is not now.

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

Got some figures you can quote, with a source? I haven't heard McLaren claim that a flexible front wing will provide gains for the MP4-26.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but all the flexiwing talk was based on last year's car, which wanted air in totally different places. As I said, I'm quite happy to be proven wrong.

Not saying I know the figures, but there are definately gains to be had, Jenson was quote in an interview saying the 'bubble nose' definately improved the car, I think he went fastest that day?

You were making out a flexi wing would be useless to McLaren...

[Hangaku]

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

Not saying I know the figures, but there are definately gains to be had, Jenson was quote in an interview saying the 'bubble nose' definately improved the car, I think he went fastest that day?

You were making out a flexi wing would be useless to McLaren...

Of course, this isn't to say that it won't work either, but don't just assume that it's the missing link.

Sure about that? I was saying that it's not the only factor, and people don't need to concentrate on it so much.

As for the bubble - I believe it was measuring equipment under the nose bubble, not a bunch of motors that was flexing the wing. I'm not sure how measuring equipment attached would make the car perform better?

[murtoidf1]

Last year's car is last year's car. This is not now.

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

Got some figures you can quote, with a source? I haven't heard McLaren claim that a flexible front wing will provide gains for the MP4-26.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but all the flexiwing talk was based on last year's car, which wanted air in totally different places. As I said, I'm quite happy to be proven wrong.

Right, an aerodynamicist will tell you the distance the wing is to the ground increases its efficiency. Thats all it does. Simply makes it more efficient.

As you rightly say, each wing is optimized for each car. it conditions and directs the air at certain parts of the parts of the bodywork as the designers intended. Having a more efficient wing simply means it does this more effectively. IT doesnt change anything else.

[Shrieker]

http://twitpic.com/4df5oz
http://twitpic.com/4dfbx3

Form Darren Heath's twitter, same place, same speed.

Lots of work to do, because IMHO this is key, not the blowing of the rearend.

This *IS* cheating. I don't want to sound like a cry baby (yet i might), but the rules are clear on this; doesn't matter how they manage to make the front wing come so close to the ground, the rule says NO FLEX, and passing from the FIA deflection test does not guarantee a legal car. The FIA must, must update their deflection tests for the front wing and add some other tests for the front end of the car. If you can not successfully enforce a rule, might as well scrap it altogether so everyone knows where to stand.

(move to RB-7 Renault thread if appropriate)

[murtoidf1]

http://twitpic.com/4df5oz
http://twitpic.com/4dfbx3

Form Darren Heath's twitter, same place, same speed.

Lots of work to do, because IMHO this is key, not the blowing of the rearend.

This *IS* cheating. I don't want to sound like a cry baby (yet i might), but the rules are clear on this; doesn't matter how they manage to make the front wing come so close to the ground, the rule says NO FLEX, and passing from the FIA deflection test does not guarantee a legal car. The FIA must, must update their deflection tests for the front wing and add some other tests for the front end of the car. If you can not successfully enforce a rule, might as well scrap it altogether so everyone knows where to stand.



(move to RB-7 Renault thread if appropriate)

This argument goes in circles.

Legality isn't put down to opinion. It's judged by certain tests that must be passed. Those tests have been, so its legal.

IT does however, demonstrate the that the tests are inadequate.

[i70q7m7ghw]

They ran the bubble nose to simulate a flexing wing, they know how much they could gain based on the results that produced.

Not saying I know the figures, but there are definately gains to be had, Jenson was quote in an interview saying the 'bubble nose' definately improved the car, I think he went fastest that day?

You were making out a flexi wing would be useless to McLaren...

Of course, this isn't to say that it won't work either, but don't just assume that it's the missing link.

Sure about that? I was saying that it's not the only factor, and people don't need to concentrate on it so much.

As for the bubble - I believe it was measuring equipment under the nose bubble, not a bunch of motors that was flexing the wing. I'm not sure how measuring equipment attached would make the car perform better?

Got a source regarding the bubbble being only measuring equipment?

[f1gang]

the main is flexi of front wing

[FemiA]

http://twitpic.com/4df5oz
http://twitpic.com/4dfbx3

Form Darren Heath's twitter, same place, same speed.

Lots of work to do, because IMHO this is key, not the blowing of the rearend.

Great shout on the pics. I agree with the big difference in the front wing tech on the RB7 vs MP4-26. McLaren have clearly made a big leap with the rear of the car this w/e, if they want to make another one for the next race, it would make sense to concentrate on another area of the car. Look at both Hamilton's Q3 quick laps, he locked up his front right in both runs. Can they take the same approach as RB (given that they've been making very stiff front-ended cars these last couple of years and appear to have stuck to that form with the current offering)?

Jenson Button said in one of his recent interviews that they can now move forward by loading the FW with DF as they have got the back sorted or something to that effect. Their FW does flex but nowhere near RB's though.

I was wondering too why they again went for a stiff setup. My understanding of one of the reasons why they went for the pull-rod design is to move away from that.

[Hangaku]

Got a source regarding the bubbble being only measuring equipment?

http://www.f1livenews.com/formula-1/for ... ation.html

http://www.formula1onlive.com/2011/03/m ... ne-is.html

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2539 ... component/

[bot6]

Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) 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.
(...)

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.

The Red Bull wing is illegal. and the FIA either have decided to turn a blind eye or will eventually design a new test to stop this joke.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Got a source regarding the bubbble being only measuring equipment?

http://www.f1livenews.com/formula-1/for ... ation.html

http://www.formula1onlive.com/2011/03/m ... ne-is.html

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2539 ... component/

Doesn't really confirm anything, measuring equipment could mean it flexes the wing and they measure the result.