Flexible wings 2011

[horse]

^ Tut, tut, keep it civil, now.

As we're drifting off topic a bit, ...

[bot6]

...

But as Horse said, let's get back to the topic at hand...

[Lindz]

Can you guys please post a couple of the best pictures (highest quality possible would be nice) so i can do some layout on them and see what we can figure out (instead of trying to compare or judge pictures with minimal/no reference)?

It would be great to find a show where the front wing is appearing to break the reference plane. Front and side would be great, and a McLaren or Ferrari for comparison if that is also possible.

I'll do all the dirty work, you even get to pick the shots where it's breaking the rules!




I actually really like the discussion. I just come from the creative side of things (design) where you are expected and encouraged to work around 'rules'. So I guess from that is why I respect Newey (and the RBR design team) and the RB5, -6, -7 so much.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23082.html

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... l-flexing/

[Lindz]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23082.html

Should say: "Hamilton upset that McLaren didn't think of it first."

Was he upset in 2007? Or 2008 with the "torque transfer" paddles he had?

Sorry Lewis, you're constantly upset with any advantage you don't have, so your 'credibility' is fairly low.

[raymondu999]

Torque control. That was 2008. Don't forget they had the 2-pedal braking system and f-duct in the past, too

[Lindz]

Torque control. That was 2008. Don't forget they had the 2-pedal braking system and f-duct in the past, too

Yeah, but forcing everyone last year to copy the f-duct was ok because it was on his car first. Copying a DRINKS COMPANY should be illegal.

[shamikaze]

I have always failed to understand why the FIA would they keep on testing the FW (or any device/component) seperatly.

I would propose to just put the car on a bridge supported on the plank and project laser-lines across the car indicating the reference-plane and allowed dimensions. dimension-check done in a matter of minutes. Then pump the car up high enough on the plank. Attach loads on the difference points whereever testing is required and go. The result will show you when you load the item how it interracts with all other items during the test and also when it reaches/breaches the reference-plane or any other reference-level.

Also, it would allow FIA to test the point of defection where it breaches the rules (ie if 5 or 10mm is allowed, they should test at what force is required to breach that threshold). Currently, the testing-rules describe it as "no more deflection X at for Force Y. We know this is irrelative since we know that the force Y very likely is much smaller then then real Force Z acting during racing. The testing rules should simply state no deflection more then X and assume the reference-plane as level. This would be easy as the car would be tilted, just put the pland/reference-plane level and that's it and start from there.

FIA should perform all tests with loading the checked item untill the max. allowed deflection is reached (3D movement validation, not just lateral - uni-demnsional movement only as is the case at this moment). This would bring high value to the testing and measuring make the results actually all-the-more relative to each other and credible in any and all cases. A single 30ft container-unit would be more then sufficient to load the test-rig measurement equipment with laser-projectors and coputers to see if anything meets or breaches the measurements. With ropes and pulleys you can perfectly "trim the test-rig to be alligned with varyinh car-dimensions in any and all directions. Using tension-measures, you can very accurately report the load.

It would be relatively cheap to build a 3D scanner that scans the car, and automatically flags/reports any mesarument discrepencies. Probably cheaper to air-fright, send around then what they currently uses (bar's and weights).

[marcush.]

why not measure on the fly? withon board equipment? it´s easy.it´s reliable .It´s readily available and in use in this environment.We got FIA controlled functionality logging on the car anyways so it would and could be implemented as soon as Barcelona.And all this would stop .
I´m interested in how Neweys boys do this and to which parts of the car they apply their expertise in this field but in terms of Racing and Formula 1 the one thing is how can they safely enforce the rules -or drop the rule and verybody has to learn the basics and implementation of this technology which is aimed at increasing downforce...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Testing the front wing(or any other aero device)should be done in a wind tunnel.
If you took that Red Bull wing right now and tested it in a wind tunnel in "real world" circumstances, it would be deemed illegal.

The F-duct was never illegal. It wasnt a moving part of the car, that is ingenuity.
But if a wing flexes to the point of scraping on the ground, then I'm afraid questions need to be asked of the FIA and indeed Red Bull.

A team have taken a rule and literally bent it using some clever construction technique/carbon fibre/plastic. No one can dispute that the wings are bending, and as Red Bull complained most bitterly of the DDD and F-duct about "spirit of rules" why are they bemoning other teams wanting clarification on this?

Flexing wings are a game changer, whatever garbage Marko and co utter in the press.

[shelly]

I think that every team tries every day to gain an advantage challenging the rules.

So there is no room for them to complain except the case when clarification is seeked from fia with varying answers.

I agree that redbull winning hands down is not entertaining, but it is a well earned reward for their engineering (or wording) skills. What seems to strange to me is that other teams have not caught up yet, by squeezing their own brains or buying some new.

A bit off topic, we are seeing the same mechanism these days with exahust positioning: rbr have found the best realizable position out of the box, and all the other teams are now catching up, with the exception of mclaren and renault.

Mclaren took too wide a leap and for now has gone back to a rbr standard exhaust (finding good performance); renault is the only one keeping original, but we still do not know (and we'll never know) if their exhaust layout is better.

The problem with rbr flexi wing advantage is that is not visible as exhaust positioning, but well hidden inside wing carbon layup.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

If you look at Button and Vettels accident at Spa last year, you could see as soon as the car came out of Buttons slip stream, the left hand side of the wing bent when the right didnt, and then when he came back in the right bent and the left didnt, basically destabilising the car.

This caused Vettel to correct and spear into the side of Button. Now factor in the DRS system and how many more times that will occur this year, and you have serious concerns of this happening again.
If I was an oppsing team this would be my lead argument on the ban, safety grounds!

Look how that wing moves just before the accident! Bends left, bends right then boom!

Its a joke...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1lX3jP9SZg[/youtube]

[wrigs]

If you look at Button and Vettels accident at Spa last year, you could see as soon as the car came out of Buttons slip stream, the left hand side of the wing bent when the right didnt, and then when he came back in the right bent and the left didnt, basically destabilising the car.

This caused Vettel to correct and spear into the side of Button. Now factor in the DRS system and how many more times that will occur this year, and you have serious concerns of this happening again.
If I was an oppsing team this would be my lead argument on the ban, safety grounds!

Look how that wing moves just before the accident! Bends left, bends right then boom!

Its a joke...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1lX3jP9SZg[/youtube]

There is nowhere near enough data available for you or anyone else casually following Formula One to conclude that that incident was the result of a flexible front-wing. There's no doubt that the wing was moving quite a lot, but that doesn't mean you can conclude it was what lead to the accident.

If you look at the onboard footage here, you can see that Vettel actually comes off the throttle and starts braking while he's still behind Button. I imagine the car is very unstable at this point due to his actions on the pedals rather than the flexing of the front wing.

[myurr]

@JET I think it's safe to assume that the FIA won't do anything about the flexing front wings UNLESS one team starts to run away with the championship, and then they'll suddenly develop a desire to police their own rules to try and level the field.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, and things have definitely improved enormously since Mosely left, but I still consider the management of F1 to ultimately be corrupt.

[Dragonfly]

If the current state of wing flexing and nose bending is deemed by FIA to be illegal or at least against the intention of the rules, why not introduce wearable skid blocks, light enough and with known wear rate at the ends of the front wings? Like the wooden plank under the floor.
I think this will cut any attempt to make flexi wings.