Flexible wings 2011

[ringo]

What i want to know is why it twists forward.

This can only happen if the the mounting point is behind the center of pressure for the wing airfoils.

Any detail shots of this wing out there?

[Lindz]

We're seeing the effect of a car not running rear springs. The rear suspension is much more supple than the fronts so the cars tend to roll on their rear axles, cocking the inside front wheel and the inside front wing span.

And then throw in a bit of flexy-wing and that's the full story!

This. From page 1.

Add in a lot more rake than every other car and done.

[horse]

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

Bridge the gap means touch, not approach. Most bridges are quite useless if they are a metre or two short.

What i want to know is why it twists forward.

This can only happen if the the mounting point is behind the center of pressure for the wing airfoils.

Twists forward?

[Richard]

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.

Horse - Thanks for the technical post. I'm sure a large part of the RB wing height is due to the rake. That infers the floor is more tolerant of varied rake than the others?

[flynfrog]

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

Every wing on every carn in the field will fail this definition. You can't build and infinitely stiff beam. This is why they mandate the force test.

[LegendaryM]

ok my flexi-wing. I had to find a way to make the wing flex without any fancy carbon fibre lay up techniques. What i've done is split the wing into 2 parts. the upper part undergoes the load test, while the bottom part flexes, as it doesnt have to undergo any tests.



The blue part is connected to the supports by the camera housing, and covers the area required by the regulations

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 using 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.

the highlighted area shows the 300mmx150mm area which undergoes the load test

[ecapox]

Interesting thought.

[Richard]

What i want to know is why it twists forward.

This can only happen if the the mounting point is behind the center of pressure for the wing airfoils.

Ringo - that is a classic torsional behaviour, The rotation appears to move forward but it is an optical illusion. The shear centre will move back and down under vertical and horiz load, but the rotation makes it appear that the section is leaning into the direction of the applied force.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

You can't build and finitely stiff beam. This is why they mandate the force test.

There is an allowance.

What we are seeing is beyond the allowance in race trim, albeit legal in parc ferme.
Alluding to Ringo's post, the front wing is twisting forwards making the leading edge of the wing appear lower.

The wing itself appears legal, by law. But it doesnt excuse the fact that something is flexing on the car. Wing mounts, nose, a combination of both in addition to a 2cm wing flex take your pick.

To invest the time and effort the way Red Bull have with this, to make parts of the body flex, leaves me wondering.

[horse]

the front wing is twisting forwards making the leading edge of the wing appear lower.

Twisting forward confused me. The wing is moving back like a pendulum fixed at the nose cone. As the leading edge of the wing is in front of the "rod" of the pendulum it moves towards the floor as the wing moves back. The wing must be moved by its drag. The force generated by the wing is not all "down", similar to the rear wing flap, and the induced drag is moving it back.

That infers the floor is more tolerant of varied rake than the others?

I think they might have a different philosophy to fixing the centre of pressure like we are now seeing with Renault and Torro Rosso. The rake of the car is likely to move the centre of pressure forward as the suction peak at the leading edge of the floor will be greater than if the floor were level to the ground. Similarly the front wing must move the centre of pressure forward too. You'd think there would be a point where there is too much front/middle downforce, especially with mandatory weight distribution, but not for them, it seems.

EDIT: Took out the bit about LegendaryMs wing. I think I'm wrong about 3.7.2 as the camera housing take the sections out the regulated area. Sorry.

[Dragonfly]

@ Dragonfly

An absolute pointless post. Fanboys?

JET
If you care to read again your post and some others' too, I'm sure you can't miss the fact that this is absolutely off topic, ergo even more pointless than mine.

I follow this forum with the expectation to learn something new, or discuss and ask technical questions.

The legal side is too complicated, too confusing and no one of us knows all the additional non-public clarifications and interpretations. But I am sick of word twisting and adjusting of their meaning to the liking of fan X, whose favorite team didn't quite manage to be smart and therefore plays the old game of accusing the other of cheating.
I've been working for 17 years with PhotoShop and the likes, and I can make you a bunch of animated GIF's, which will prove nothing at the end.

[flynfrog]

There is an allowance.


The wing itself appears legal, by law. But it doesnt excuse the fact that something is flexing on the car. Wing mounts, nose, a combination of both in addition to a 2cm wing flex take your pick.

All of those parts are flexing on every car on the grid that is my point. You are saying that redbull is legall but not because you dont like it. This is an F1 techincal fourm. Why dont we discuss the mechanics possilbe layups ect that allow for this. They are passing all tests its a legal wing IMO..I dont agree with the working of the rule. A movable areo device would be like the DRS system.

[motobaleno]

@ Dragonfly

the fact that this is absolutely off topic, ergo even more pointless than mine.

I follow this forum with the expectation to learn something new, or discuss and ask technical questions.

The legal side is too complicated, too confusing and no one of us knows all the additional non-public clarifications and interpretations. But I am sick of word twisting and adjusting of their meaning to the liking of fan X, whose favorite team didn't quite manage to be smart and therefore plays the old game of accusing the other of cheating.
I've been working for 17 years with PhotoShop and the likes, and I can make you a bunch of animated GIF's, which will prove nothing at the end.

THE WHOLE technical problem in F1 is to obtain the maximum performance HONORING the rules...so, as far as F1 is concerned, the technical side and the legal side cannot be separated from each other.
In this respect, I think that all this is perfectly on topic.

[segedunum]

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

And? So what? So when are you going to do to catch this? Are you going to run out on track with your 1000N measuring apparatus while the car is moving?

I repeat, unless someone comes up with a way to actually test and prove this then it's all hot air. PROVE IT.

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

And? Have done. It was also done to death last year as well. Nothing conclusive as to what exactly is happening, as I'd said.

[segedunum]

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

Prove that they're flexing beyond 2cm with your keenly trained eye then. Unless you can measure what you can see you're going nowhere. You can't switch the tables round so that you come from a default position of being right. Any kind of engineering just doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

A fancy wing it may be, but moving while the car is in motion it is too.

Unless you can measure that then you're going nowhere, and you can quote rules and regulations until you're blue in the face. It won't make the Red Bull front wing magically fail the tests and unless you can come up with something else then I fail to see where you're going with this or what you want people to do with it.

You do this quite a lot JET. You see therefore it is.