Flexible wings 2011

[bot6]

4) The other teams were apparently under the impression that the FIA would not turn a blind eye on this like last year

Balderdash! You have no way of knowing what "impression" the "other teams" were under, and don't pretend otherwise. In fact, you are making them out to be dimwits since the RB6 was cleared time and again even in light of more stringent testing that was carried out on it, so "the other teams" had every indication that the FIA will pass the RB7 of any wrong doing as long as said car passed the tests and measures in place.

In future, I suggest you keep your "less biased summary" of threads to yourself.

Well, someone seems to be a bit cranky this morning... If everyone who doesn't agree with your vision of things keeps his thoughts to him/herself, there's really no point in any kind of discussion is there? You don't want to be contradicted? Don't come to a discussion forum.

You're right in saying that I have no way of knowing for sure what impression this or that team has of the rules. That's why I used the word "apparently", which implies what follows is a supposition.
But it is a supposition supported by the fact that no other team developed such a device during the winter, even though it was already used by RBR last year. However, the wing (and especially nose and pillar) bending on the RB6 was not quite as severe as that on the RB7. Last year only the sides of the wing bent downwards a little. This year, on top of that, the whole wing goes down, and in a much larger amount. And the endplates scrub the ground.

[Lindz]

Last year only the sides of the wing bent downwards a little. This year, on top of that, the whole wing goes down, and in a much larger amount. And the endplates scrub the ground.

Easy, there... that certainly sounds like you're implying that the wing is in constant or regular contact with the ground due to it's flexing.

All that was reported was that Red Bull mechanics were making repairs to the bottom of the wing after Friday and Saturday practices. It could have been due to set-up testing different spring rates, going over curbs a bit too aggressively, or any other number of reasons.

I would be cautious (if this were court) trying to say that the wing flexes, therefore any damage was because it runs close enough to the ground during normal circumstances that it rubs and wears the endplates. Even if that IS the case, you'd certainly have to show much more substantial evidence than "If A and B, then C."

[bot6]

I'm not implying the wing is in regular contact with the ground due to it flexing. I'm saying so. Clearly.

Lindz, are you honestly suggesting that this front wing did not bend down consistently during the race, getting very close to the ground at high speed?

I don't know if you watched the same race I did, but that wing was bending down in a fairly consistent fashion and was getting very very close to the ground for prolonged amounts of time. It was clearly designed to do so.

The RB6 wing did not bend as far and as consistently as the RB7 wing. The endplates on the RB6 wing remained clear(er) from the ground, so them "bridging the gap to the ground" was in no way a definite thing.

My feeling is that after last season, where the FIA proved unable or unwilling to make a relevant test to prevent front wing flexing under 3.17, Red Bull decided to push the envelope even further. So they made a whole front structure still passing the tests under 3.17 but bending much further downwards. And they pushed it so far that now they break the no bridge with ground rule under 3.15. A completely different rule.

[horse]

Lindz, are you honestly suggesting that this front wing did not bend down consistently during the race, getting very close to the ground at high speed?

Very close and touching (i.e. bridging) are different things. The fact is the rule says that you can not build a part of the car which will consistently touch the ground. I mean, you're allowed so much wear on the plank, and we've heard cars bottoming out with the current regs. I think Red Bull have enough control, or at least can file the wing down enough so it is not in contact.

Practically, the FIA should fezz-up about the difficulties in implementing the rules regarding the reference plane and introduce skid blocks on the wing end plates.

[marekk]

As i have no slightly clue about advanced composite layering technologies, i will venture this solution:



Built-in eliptical carbon tube 800mm from front wheel center line, firmly attached to end plates.
will it work ?

[Lindz]

I'm not implying the wing is in regular contact with the ground due to it flexing. I'm saying so. Clearly.

Lindz, are you honestly suggesting that this front wing did not bend down consistently during the race, getting very close to the ground at high speed?

I don't know if you watched the same race I did, but that wing was bending down in a fairly consistent fashion and was getting very very close to the ground for prolonged amounts of time. It was clearly designed to do so.

The RB6 wing did not bend as far and as consistently as the RB7 wing. The endplates on the RB6 wing remained clear(er) from the ground, so them "bridging the gap to the ground" was in no way a definite thing.

My feeling is that after last season, where the FIA proved unable or unwilling to make a relevant test to prevent front wing flexing under 3.17, Red Bull decided to push the envelope even further. So they made a whole front structure still passing the tests under 3.17 but bending much further downwards. And they pushed it so far that now they break the no bridge with ground rule under 3.15. A completely different rule.

I agree with most of this except the 3.15 bit. It's impossible to predict if and when a part of your car will come in contact with any random piece of track (or another car, for instance). If it had a constant 'bridge with the ground', then I agree that it would breach 3.15. But if it periodically rubbed or touched the ground, those would be considered isolated incidents and thus not 'a bridge'.

Also, I think that the RB7's front end is much more dependent on the rake of the car than the RB6. The RB6 was designed with DDD, so to get the maximum from that the rear of the floor had to be much more level and closer to the ground. The rake of the RB7 allows the wing to basically touch the ground (in isolated incidents during extreme compression, mind you ) without breaking the reference plane.

The rake also adds the increased AoA of the leading edge of the front wing. It may be that the 'spring layup'(if that is to be the case) of the front wing is also initiated by frontal load. And perhaps with certain frontal loads, the durometer of the resin in certain areas of the nosecone are such that a certain amount of flex can be coaxed out. The wing is tested with vertical load in the FIA tests so this could be a little bit of flex that "isn't there".

Either way, I think it's tiny (legal) gains in many areas that are making this wing work. And on top of that, there are many areas that are contributing to the RB7's performance, it's not as if you can peg it on one certain thing.

[Tamburello]

4) The other teams were apparently under the impression that the FIA would not turn a blind eye on this like last year

Balderdash! You have no way of knowing what "impression" the "other teams" were under, and don't pretend otherwise. In fact, you are making them out to be dimwits since the RB6 was cleared time and again even in light of more stringent testing that was carried out on it, so "the other teams" had every indication that the FIA will pass the RB7 of any wrong doing as long as said car passed the tests and measures in place.

In future, I suggest you keep your "less biased summary" of threads to yourself.

Well, someone seems to be a bit cranky this morning... If everyone who doesn't agree with your vision of things keeps his thoughts to him/herself, there's really no point in any kind of discussion is there? You don't want to be contradicted? Don't come to a discussion forum.

I have no problem with disagreement with my views. What I do have a problem with is people claiming to give a "less biased summary" who do the exact opposite. Get it?

You're right in saying that I have no way of knowing for sure what impression this or that team has of the rules. That's why I used the word "apparently", which implies what follows is a supposition.

No. "Apparently" suggests that you there are apparent reasons like some second hand source that you haven't verified to give you cause to believe in the assertion. You used the wrong term here. You should have said that you were simply speculating that the other teams expected a crack down based on, I don't know, your own ideals or some such thing...

But it is a supposition supported by the fact that no other team developed such a device during the winter, even though it was already used by RBR last year.

This reminds of a logic joke. A guy was struggling with logic and deductive reasoning asked a friend who was an said to be an expert in the subject, for some help. The friend said, "this subject is fairly straightforward. I will demonstrate by asking a series of questions and drawing certain conclusions which naturally follow from your answers. Let's start. Do you have matches on you?"

-"Yes."

"Aha! Since you have matches, it is highly likely that you smoke, right?"

-"Yes, that's right."

"Since you smoke, I would suppose that you occasionally have a drink as well?"

-"Correct"

"Since you smoke, I'd say that you also like to go out sometimes and meet women?"

-"Absolutely!"

The friend then said, "you see, that's all there is to it. I asked a question and drew a conclusion based and derived from the answer you gave me.

So the man, armed with his newly acquired knowledge set out to test himself. The next he met one of his fellow students and told him about his encounter with the logic expert and how he was confident of being on top of the subject now and would demonstrate by asking this colleague a question and bla blah blah. The friend said that he's happy to oblige.

"Do you have matches on you?"

-"No."

"Oh, then you must be gay!"

[bot6]

Let's look at this differently. A device brings sizable advantage. All the teams know about it as it was quite heavily publicized last year.

If it was so clear such a device would be allowed this year (even though the FIA issued a statement saying they would further change the test in order to prevent front wings bending), how come all teams haven't developed a similar system?
It's not a problem of know how. Ferrari for example had a bending wing last year so they know how this works.

So do you have another explanation?

On top of that, the main problem with the RBR wing is not that the wing profile itself bends. It's that the whole front structure of the car bends down in order to place the front wing endplates in contact or very very close to the ground on a consistent basis. And that is illegal, under any circumstances, as stated by article 3.15.

It's got nothing to do with bending bodywork test regulation 3.17. I couldn't care less if the wing is bending or not bending as long as it passes 3.17. It could be playing dominoes for all I care.

My problem is that for whatever reason, the front part of that car is designed to place the wing very very very close to the ground, breaching the part of rule 3.15 that states any attempt to bridge the gap to the ground is banned under any circumstances. That rule has nothing to do with flexing bodywork. It is actually the rule that outlawed skirts. Completely different issue.

The fact that the breach in 3.15 is brought along by a flexing nose, flexing pillars and a flexing wing is irrelevant. It's just the way to do it, it's not the crime itself.

If you kill someone with a gun, the offense you commit is murder. It doesn't matter if you used a gun. Using a gun is legal in certain circumstances. Murder is not. No matter if you use a gun, a knife or a lollipop.

Just like attempts to bridge the gap with the ground is illegal, no matter if you use fixed bodywork, flexible bodywork, hinges or bits of rubber band.

[hardingfv32]

1) None of the F1 officials or team technical personnel feel that 3.15 is being violate in this situation. That is how the rule is currently interpreted, like it or not. Bridging is not the same as saying no contact.

2) It seems the 2011 RB front wing is tilting toward the front of the wing. The end plates are not sealing that well with the rear half of the end plate still well off the ground. Is this the case that some sealing improvement is better than nothing or is there a benefit from the rake varying with speed/down-force?

Brian

[Ferraripilot]

Let's look at this differently. A device brings sizable advantage. All the teams know about it as it was quite heavily publicized last year.

If it was so clear such a device would be allowed this year (even though the FIA issued a statement saying they would further change the test in order to prevent front wings bending), how come all teams haven't developed a similar system?
It's not a problem of know how. Ferrari for example had a bending wing last year so they know how this works.

So do you have another explanation?

On top of that, the main problem with the RBR wing is not that the wing profile itself bends. It's that the whole front structure of the car bends down in order to place the front wing endplates in contact or very very close to the ground on a consistent basis. And that is illegal, under any circumstances, as stated by article 3.15.

It's got nothing to do with bending bodywork test regulation 3.17. I couldn't care less if the wing is bending or not bending as long as it passes 3.17. It could be playing dominoes for all I care.

My problem is that for whatever reason, the front part of that car is designed to place the wing very very very close to the ground, breaching the part of rule 3.15 that states any attempt to bridge the gap to the ground is banned under any circumstances. That rule has nothing to do with flexing bodywork. It is actually the rule that outlawed skirts. Completely different issue.

The fact that the breach in 3.15 is brought along by a flexing nose, flexing pillars and a flexing wing is irrelevant. It's just the way to do it, it's not the crime itself.

If you kill someone with a gun, the offense you commit is murder. It doesn't matter if you used a gun. Using a gun is legal in certain circumstances. Murder is not. No matter if you use a gun, a knife or a lollipop.

Just like attempts to bridge the gap with the ground is illegal, no matter if you use fixed bodywork, flexible bodywork, hinges or bits of rubber band.

Great perspective. Thanks.

Anyone take into consideration that perhaps the main plane of the wing is 100% the same in terms of flexibility compared to everyone else, but the second and third elements incorporate some sort of design which causes the first main element to flex along with the other two. Just a thought.

[ianwit]

But I do agree that the most plausible theory so far has been Tim Wright's.

And here is a well lined up onboard shot. The nose camera flex is minimal.

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=4

The black aerial in the centre of the nose is perfectly aligned in both pictures and the front horizon of the nose is well lined up too but what about the shorter grey one to the right (of the Black one) with the white blob on the end is moving up and down. What is it and where is it mounted?

[Lindz]

But I do agree that the most plausible theory so far has been Tim Wright's.

And here is a well lined up onboard shot. The nose camera flex is minimal.

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=4

The black aerial in the centre of the nose is perfectly aligned in both pictures and the front horizon of the nose is well lined up too but what about the shorter grey one to the right (of the Black one) with the white blob on the end is moving up and down. What is it and where is it mounted?

Look at this picture:

http://mail.f1-site.com/wallpapers/2011 ... 011-15.jpg

The 'shorter grey one with the white blob' is actually a taller radio antenna behind the rigid pitot tube that is flexing backwards due to the air resistance at full speed.

[mr_marmalade]

Hi, I've been lurking for a year or two but just had an idea for testing nose/front wing pitching. As far as I'ver read, the current FW flex test is for point loads on the actual wing, but I think the consensus is that these are inadequate for the current innovation that we're seeing. Photos of the nose of the RedBull & probably others suggest a rotation of the front wing may also be involved. I do apologise if anyone else has already suggested this, but my thought is to have a moment arm (inflexible green bar on my diagram) connected somehow along the underside of the front wing end plates, which projects forwards & then apply a load 'F' (I've no idea what value would be appropriate) at some distance from the front edge of the wing, e.g. 1m.

Firstly, for a measurable quantity, a maximum allowable vertical deflection of the end of the bar could be specified, e.g. 20mm, whilst the load is applied.

Secondly, whilst the load is repeatedly applied/removed, the sides of the nosecone should be checked for any lateral deflection, positive or negative in the region defined from the tip of the nose to in-line with the front axle (the yellow region on my diagram). Imagine a big vernier gauge for this measurement! No bodywork flex should be allowed, as I think the rules already state.

Thirdly, evaluation between the left & right sides of the wing being moment-loaded separately could be made (think of the Vettel/Button crash at Spa 2010), and therefore similarly ruled-for.

Fourthly, this moment-loading test could be combined with the existing vertical loading test maybe?



My thinking regarding the second measuring point stems from observing the area at the front of the RedBull nose, where the front wing pillars connect to it. There is a lot of curvature designed into the nose which in my mind may better allow for the rear of the two vertical pillars to twist upwards & consequently the bodywork in that area may have some measurable 'bulging' or 'narrowing'. I don't think this phenomena would easily be visible as a crease as suggested earlier by another poster, but maybe scrutineering could check for any imperceptible expansion/contraction in this area.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the FIA to mandate some basic bodywork points on the wing for attaching this sort of testing arm? I think the Renaults already have nice bits that this device could hang from at the front corners of their wings!

Another suggestion I've got, again sorry if this has already been mentioned, but anyway; relating to the FW flex test of 'running the car round the track and measuring the wing/track gap with attached measuring devices', which is always shot down due to a racetrack condtions/kerbs etc. being too variable for this to be accurate - how about limiting the measurement-taking to a region of the track that is not affected by bumps, e.g. over a 200m portion of the main straight at a constant relatively high speed where braking & cornering is not involved?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts, I'd better go to my bed now, zzz.

[ianwit]

Look at this picture:

http://mail.f1-site.com/wallpapers/2011 ... 011-15.jpg

The 'shorter grey one with the white blob' is actually a taller radio antenna behind the rigid pitot tube that is flexing backwards due to the air resistance at full speed.

Thanks very much, makes sense now

[shamikaze]

If FIA can't get the test and testing-rig properly adjusted, why not turn it around. I also find it "interesting" to say the least that the teams are to provide the FW-adaptor. Surely, this creates an openings for "explotation".

Set's of High-Speed camera's ( http://www.fastecimaging.com/hiSpec.html#HiSpec3 )on multiple sections of the circuit where we would see the largest deflections (ie highest speed sections). These High-speed camera's takes from 500fps up to 14000 frames/sec's. Surely that's fast-enough for FIA to perform the necessary analysis. Since these would be FIA goverend, FIA can assure that the camera's are placed perfectly level to track and data is reviewed post-qualifying or real-time. Flexing-FW -> -XX places on the grid. Data could also be made public or available to teams.

These camera-set's could easily be placed in a X-Y position (1 from side and 1 head-on-shot) on let's say 3 different places on the track (total of 6 camera's required). 1 Camera-set at the end of a high-speed straight before the brake-mark, 1 mid-turn in a high-speed turn and 1 in a to-be-determined place by the head-steward of that race. These would be the places where a FFW would bring greatest benefit so would make sense to check there. With good SW, FIA can even perform real-time image analysis and see who is bending (fw and rules) and who is not.

For the side-view camera's they could place white-boards with a matrix-pattern on the opposite side of the track. The boards and camara would obviously be placed level to the track to avoid any deviation or discussion. These "background-boards" would provide empirical evidence of flexing in real-life circumstances. Heck, this is so simple to build that if the FIA would want to, they can have this active and usable within 2 races.

For the head-on shot this would not be necessary since the FW deflection can be set as a minimal chord. IF chord is less then XX then FFW is bending beyond permittable tolerances and problem is sovled.

If FIA regulations state that minimal ground-clearance is X at all times, this can easily be calculated from high-speed imagery. I have co-operated on a project where we in real-times analyzed textiles where we check for colour errors and correct them with a error-margin of 0.2mm with either a compensating colour-component or removed the faulty threads or cut-out the complete section depending the deviation from allowed tolerances. Digital image analysis has come a long way in the past 5-6 yrs with the age of HD-camera's and higher recording-speeds being available at lower / reasonable prices.

The teams that would still want to have the FFW, they would need to slow down at these sections so probably less intersting then to comply.

I must admit, I'm not a RB fan, not even a thorough-bread F1-fan if you will. I am interested in F1 from a technical perspective. From there I have to take my hat off for RB's complete team (design and manufacturing) to invent, design and build this FFW. Exactly the same as I do appreciate other teams for similar items (McL for F-Duct and for their side-pod design and Renault for the FEE).

That's my contrbitution to this ...

GReetz,

S.