Flexible wings 2011

[Ferraripilot]

The rules does say that the aero parts must not flex under any circumstances.

Agreed...
Mr Charlie Whiting needs to look at the rule book again. I cannot believe his stance on this when it clearly states:

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15(Aerodynamic influnce) 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.

Its clear cut. The cars bloody wings are moving more than the permissable amount. So instead of saying there is no problem, devise a test to prove what we all can see! Its what the mans paid for after all....

Incredulous

This is precisely the situation 3.17.8 was created. The evidence against Red Bull is incontrovertible. Applying static load to the wing endplates or a wind tunnel test is the only way I can see this being corrected.

The current method of testing to the letter is as follows, which is specifically 3.17.1 (which is there to uphold 3.15)

3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction used a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x 150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.


795mm from the centre line of the car is rediculous. Load must be checked where deflection has the greatest chance of deflection, which is of course the ends. 3.15 is being made a mockery of with their asinine test. Mclaren is somewhat guilty of this as well now.

[segedunum]

Sorry if someone has already posted something like this, but I created this GIF and figured I'd share:

This shows it so dramatically.

Apologies for re-posting the picture, but that shows absolutely nothing.

We went through animated GIFs like that last year at a dime a dozen when I was convinced there was some nose movement myself, but we came up with nothing conclusive because it's impossible to eliminate all the factors involved with a moving car. There are differences in shadows at various locations where pictures are taken and you can also see lower suspension movement in the picture as well.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the wing flexes to an extent, but not to the extent that a lot of people are thinking and not to an extent where it will fail scrutineering. The lowering of the wing and apparent lowering of the nose, I believe, is a result of the amount of rake that they're able to run the car at and the fact that their front suspension seems to display more movement than any other car, certainly the McLaren. That's what makes it so complex. It's not just a case of McLaren or anyone else somehow inventing a 'bendy' wing.

[vall]

I feel that certain esteemed forum members are not going to accept that the only time that the regulations apply is during scrutineering before and after the race. Always has, always will do. Hard cheese if you don't like it, there is no point whining about it here because that won't change. What you think you can see is not measurable and only certain engineering types seem to be getting that fact.

I disagree with the above. The regulations, among other things, say:

Code: Select all

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.

I don't see how this could only be valid during scrutineering before and after the race. The FW bridges that gap, or at least there is good evidence to suspect so, to the ground under circumstance of the car running on track

[Ciro Pabón]

The wings cannot move more than 2 cm under a 1000 newton load. It seems to me they are moving more or less what regulations say.

Surely they have more than 1000 newtons load! More in the vicinity of 5000, I'd guess. So, they can easily move more than 10 cm at the tips. It is a cantilever, you know...

So, what's the problem?

Bad losers are losers.

[vall]

Apologies for re-posting the picture, but that shows absolutely nothing.

We went through animated GIFs like that last year at a dime a dozen when I was convinced there was some nose movement myself, but we came up with nothing conclusive because it's impossible to eliminate all the factors involved with a moving car. There are differences in shadows at various locations where pictures are taken and you can also see lower suspension movement in the picture as well.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the wing flexes to an extent, but not to the extent that a lot of people are thinking and not to an extent where it will fail scrutineering. The lowering of the wing and apparent lowering of the nose, I believe, is a result of the amount of rake that they're able to run the car at and the fact that their front suspension seems to display more movement than any other car, certainly the McLaren. That's what makes it so complex. It's not just a case of McLaren or anyone else somehow inventing a 'bendy' wing.

see the comparison between the Ferrari and RBR.......or some other pictures in this tread

[Richard]

Its clear cut. The cars bloody wings are moving more than the permissable amount.

The FIA have defined permissible amount, and the wings comply. End of story.

What is far more interesting why other teams haven’t managed to replicate that wing behaviour. That is incredulous.

they do not have the engineers with the brains to work the system to their advantage and thus bleating is the only option…

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... ng-beaten/

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Mclarens flex isnt anywhere near as prominent as the Red Bull's. In time, and no doubt left unchecked, Mclaren could be flexing their way to competitiveness.
If the FIA cant manage to put a car through a windtunnel, and measure with lasers or some visual based measurement device, that the wind is flexing, then they are no longer fit for purpose.
All testing should then be conducted by an organisation that is fit for purpose, but more importantly have the stomach to actually question what they see happening.

This just does not wash in my view:

"We have found nothing unusual. The car is in order.For the front wing, the test conditions were even harder now. Vettel's car was always in order."

People saying there is no case to answer, Obviously didnt see the Red Bull mechanics sweating over the grinding of the bottom of the wing...The only team with such issues. Within the 2cm flex range Ciro? I really think not.....

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Its clear cut. The cars bloody wings are moving more than the permissable amount.

End of story.

No Richard far from it.

Do you deny then that wings are flexing, beyond the permissable?

[Dragonfly]

Apologies for re-posting the picture, but that shows absolutely nothing.

The wings cannot move more than 2 cm under a 1000 newton load. It seems to me they are moving more or less what regulations say.

Surely they have more than 1000 newtons load! More in the vicinity of 5000, I'd guess. So, they can easily move more than 10 cm at the tips. It is a cantilever, you know...

So, what's the problem?

Bad losers are losers.

+1
I am surprised that in a pure technical forum, instead of acknowledging the engineering genius and discuss how they do it, the discussion is diverted to fanboy passions and local pub quarrel.

[Richard]

Agreed - There is far more interest to be found in in how that wing is made, and why other teams are unable to replicate the behaviour.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ Dragonfly

An absolute pointless post. Fanboys? I dont see any fanboys quarreling. I see rules being posted and opinions being voiced on what is a big issue.
Feel free to add anything technical next time.

I will bold the problem for you so that you can see clearly what my gripe is bro.

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15(Aerodynamic influence) 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.

A fancy wing it may be, but moving while the car is in motion it is too. So tell me, am I wrong or a "fanboy" for going by the letter of the law now?

[Richard]

am I wrong for going by the letter of the law now?

JET - The thing is that you are not following the letter of the law. The FIA and RB are following the letter of the law.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Richard I cant really see where they are following.


If a wing is suspected of flexing, The FIa have a right to introduce further tests.
After what we have seen, the FIa should introduce further tests IMO

[horse]

I am really starting to believe that this is a failure of the regulations rather than Red Bull. As everything is in relation to the reference plane then as long as the car has enough rake and the wing does not touch the ground then it is within the regulations, as far as I see it. As Ciro said, it passes the regulations on flexibility.

Plainly the reference plane is defined badly with no relation to the actual physical ground. However, I think Red Bull are in breach of the spirit of the rules with relation to the central section of the wing, which is not supposed to be down force generating, but surely on the Red Bull (given it's angle of attack) it is. I think if the nose/pillars are moving to emphasise this effect then it should be stopped.

P.S. If she's carrying so much rake then her centre of pressure is likely to be different from the other vehicles.

[vall]

I am really starting to believe that this is a failure of the regulations rather than Red Bull. As everything is in relation to the reference plane then as long as the car has enough rake and the wing does not touch the ground then it is within the regulations, as far as I see it. As Ciro said, it passes the regulations on flexibility.

Plainly the reference plane is defined badly with no relation to the actual physical ground. However, I think Red Bull are in breach of the spirit of the rules with relation to the central section of the wing, which is not supposed to be down force generating, but surely on the Red Bull (given it's angle of attack) it is. I think if the nose/pillars are moving to emphasise this effect then it should be stopped.

P.S. If she's carrying so much rake then her centre of pressure is likely to be different from the other vehicles.

read my post above. The regulations say (sorry for the repeat):

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.

So, no part of the car must close the gap to the ground (not with respect to the reference plane, the ground) but this is exactly what the flexy wing does - moves closer to the ground