Flexible wings 2011

[Richard]

Then tell me, the wing isnt flexing and Red Bull arent finding a clever way to circumvent the test.............

Yes they are, we all agree with that bit, its an interesting technical challenge for the other teams.

[xpensive]

On topic now:

As this has been discussed before, the rules are written for isotropic materials, such as aluminum or standrard cross-ply fibers, but when you start to get a grip of what un-isotropic materials can do for you, the jeanie is out of the bottle.

For MrE's old spannerman, this must be a mouthful to take in, why people like Newey can make him look rather stupid.
"Really, so a drag induced load can make the wing point downwards just like that, had no idea?"

Ban the front-wing altogether, this will solve a whole heap of problems right there.

[Ferraripilot]

On topic now:

As this has been discussed before, the rules are written for isotropic materials, such as aluminum or standrard cross-ply fibers, but when you start to get a grip of what un-isotropic materials can do for you, the jeanie is out of the bottle.

For MrE's old spannerman, this must be a mouthful to take in, why people like Newey can make him look rather stupid.
"Really, so a drag induced load can make the wing point downwards just like that, had no idea?"

Ban the front-wing altogether, this will solve a whole heap of problems right there.

Whitmarsh has always seemed hell-bent on enforcement of rules and borderline maniacal with interpretation. What was the time figure gained per mm the front wing was towards the ground Whitmarsh advised of? Seeing how he is one who is so mindful of things, it's off and as someone else stated, very ostrich-like to not publicly admit there is something awry.

And everyone thought tires would be the most interesting part of 2011. No, it's still the obligatory bendy front wing.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The rules are in place to prevent flexing of aerodynamic parts.

What we see happening is a car designed to beat the test, but still not conform to regulation in that it still a flexing(more than the permissable when in race trim)bit of kit.

Which leads me to why should all the teams copy it when its not permissable?

[segedunum]

Circumvent what test, exactly? THE test is static. It passes. Nothing is circumvented. Certain ... don't seem to be able to understand that there are no on-track, dynamic measurements taken, and for good reason. All of the lovely animated GIFs we've seen show the whole car moving in one form or another. No attempt to get a static reference ever works.

Photo and video evidence cannot be measured and quantified,... Suggesting that on a technical forum and thread ... isn't even funny.

The right is reserved to change those static tests to attempt to recreate forces involved when the car is moving, but the fact is that there is a great deal of movement within the car that will not happen when it is stationary. What Charlie Whiting and the FIA can't feasibly do is keep changing static tests forever. The static load tests and regulations are there to catch flexible bodywork that is unsafe. Since RB's bodywork can withstand the required load and has the required strength then Brabham's spanner man, as xpensive affectionately calls him, can't see an issue. I don't see what else he can do.

I know some of you are desperately upset that your team didn't think of it, whoever that is, and it's going to take them forever to catch up, but arguing that black is white won't change the way cars are tested. Your interpretation of the regulations is neither here nor there. I see one or two people are also upset about some form of spinning mass damper that RB may or may not have, which shows you where they're coming from.

Now, can we get back to the discussion of what Red Bull might actually be doing please?

[marcush.]

I can see no difference in the situation we had last year when FIA decided to implement more severe static testing to enforce the rules about rigid bodywork.
So when they saw the need to do so last year then they have to this year as well as undoubtedly RedBulls machninery does show even more flexing than we ever saw before the tests were introduced in 2010.If it was an issue last year it still is.

If someone was prepared to quantify the potential gains when bending the rules to the extend RedBull does we could decide if it was worth discussing or just shrug it off and say :who cares?
If it were just a cheap excuse for Mercedes and others to say :look,they run bendy wings and because of that they are winning ..well it is exactly what they are claiming ,right?
to me clearly it is a big fail of Ross Brawn who sat on the fence last year waiting for the tests to be more demanding and falling asleep afterwards instead of building up /hiring expertise and be prepared for 2011.that´s already two years they are behind on this technology...Mclaren only started tracktesting with the struts this winter... so they realised they need to understand more of it but
as I said before :we have no idea what else is flexing by design on the RB7 in unexpected ways...there was a thread here on F1t asking how many years it would take the opponents to catch RB ....and I was laughing when I read it was 2 or more years... man I cannot believe just how right you were...

[segedunum]

Do you have an exact figure as to how much the front wing is flexing when out on track JET? If not, then you have nothing. Enforcement of regulations depend on measurable figures. It's not permissable? Really? My, Red Bull must be really surprised about all those disqualifications they have been acquiring..........

JET, there are times when I do feel for you. It must really suck to have the kind of logic you appear to have.

[Ferraripilot]

Circumvent what test, exactly? THE test is static. It passes. Nothing is circumvented. Certain idiots don't seem to be able to understand that there are no on-track, dynamic measurements taken, and for good reason. All of the lovely animated GIFs we've seen show the whole car moving in one form or another. No attempt to get a static reference ever works.

Photo and video evidence cannot be measured and quantified, so shut up please. Suggesting that on a technical forum and thread is so daft it isn't even funny.

The right is reserved to change those static tests to attempt to recreate forces involved when the car is moving, but the fact is that there is a great deal of movement within the car that will not happen when it is stationary. What Charlie Whiting and the FIA can't feasibly do is keep changing static tests forever. The static load tests and regulations are there to catch flexible bodywork that is unsafe. Since RB's bodywork can withstand the required load and has the required strength then Brabham's spanner man, as xpensive affectionately calls him, can't see an issue. I don't see what else he can do.

I know some of you are desperately upset that your team didn't think of it, whoever that is, and it's going to take them forever to catch up, but arguing that black is white won't change the way cars are tested. Your interpretation of the regulations is neither here nor there. I see one or two people are also upset about some form of spinning mass damper that RB may or may not have, which shows you where they're coming from.

Now, can we get back to the discussion of what Red Bull might actually be doing please?

Catching bendy bits has nothing to do with safety, it has to do cheating. Read the regulation and you will notice safety is not mentioned, but what is mentioned is that the testing can be changed at any time (3.17.8 is there due to cheating, and was put in by Whiting) as they know teams are clever when it comes to circumventing rules (3.15). What is also mentioned is that no flexing or bendy bits are allowed. It's clear and dry and the evidence is incontrovertible to the point that Lewis in a car some seconds behind Vettel could see it clearly from his poor vantage point.

A simple static test to the outboard area of the wing is in fact all which would be required to correct the issue. The current test is at 800mm which is before or directly at the area where the fibre weave pattern changes which makes checking for flex at the outer area of the wing impossible. The wings are 1400mm, so check it with a team-supplied adapter somewhere around there or just inboard of the endplates. Easy

This technology has been around the aerospace field for years so they're not doing anything new in terms of technology.

[marcush.]

Circumvent what test, exactly? THE test is static. It passes. Nothing is circumvented. Certain idiots don't seem to be able to understand that there are no on-track, dynamic measurements taken, and for good reason. All of the lovely animated GIFs we've seen show the whole car moving in one form or another. No attempt to get a static reference ever works.

Photo and video evidence cannot be measured and quantified, so shut up please. Suggesting that on a technical forum and thread is so daft it isn't even funny.

The right is reserved to change those static tests to attempt to recreate forces involved when the car is moving, but the fact is that there is a great deal of movement within the car that will not happen when it is stationary. What Charlie Whiting and the FIA can't feasibly do is keep changing static tests forever. The static load tests and regulations are there to catch flexible bodywork that is unsafe. Since RB's bodywork can withstand the required load and has the required strength then Brabham's spanner man, as xpensive affectionately calls him, can't see an issue. I don't see what else he can do.

I know some of you are desperately upset that your team didn't think of it, whoever that is, and it's going to take them forever to catch up, but arguing that black is white won't change the way cars are tested. Your interpretation of the regulations is neither here nor there. I see one or two people are also upset about some form of spinning mass damper that RB may or may not have, which shows you where they're coming from.

Now, can we get back to the discussion of what Red Bull might actually be doing please?

Seg ,no I´m not going to shut up .It is possible to measure on the fly and not just because the FIA does not have the balls to enforce a set of tests suitable to detect cars not being legal under all conditions we have to live with it.We have long left the times when a set of rulers and a weighbridge was the best you could find in terms of measuring equipment. Teams like redBull run highly sophisticated metrology equipment in their tunnel testing and oops it is possible to measure on the fly if you really want to...
taken from :Leitz-Metrology systems website:mind you,this is not in use since last year...
These systems are
in use at the Red Bull Racing wind tunnel at Bedford. During the
aerodynamic tests, the Laser Tracker continuously analyses how the
model vehicle deforms in the wind. In addition, Red Bull Technology
uses DEA coordinate measuring machines and a third-party CMM

that has been modified with a Hexagon Metrology retrofit package.

Charly has to gear up ,simple as that.

[Ferraripilot]

Do you have an exact figure as to how much the front wing is flexing when out on track JET? If not, then you have nothing. Enforcement of regulations depend on measurable figures. It's not permissable? Really? My, Red Bull must be really surprised about all those disqualifications they have been acquiring..........

JET, there are times when I do feel for you. It must really suck to have the kind of logic you appear to have.

Ok now we're sounding a bit off. Photographic and video evidence are used in front of judge and jury all day long and present themselves just fine in terms of evidence so long as the evidence is consistent, which in this car it most certainly is. Regulations have been enforced due to what was yielded on video footage prior so why not now.

This is not a question of evidence, but rather this is a question of changing the testing procedure which I am sure they are loathing.

[xpensive]

However, when you start to understand un-isotropic materials, ther's no telling where it might end. When the Swedish Griffin-fighter was designed, which is some 30 years ago, they took a serious look at having un-isotropic wings from carbon-fibre, having wings that bent down with speed, meaning that you could do a dive knowing that your wings are in position when you begin the climb. But that was in the technology's infancy why they declined the concept.

This was at my old university and I was actually involved as a student, why I for once have first hand info here, but anyway, you either accept this technology or we go back to Alu for Formula One?

Hell. I can design a cantilever beam that points up with downwards load, as long as I can apply some torque to it.

[Richard]

Now, can we get back to the discussion of what Red Bull might actually be doing please?

=D>

go back to Alu for Formula One?

The effect can be created with isotopic materials too if you give them the right asymmetric profile. Damn physics!

[Ferraripilot]

However, when you start to understand un-isotropic materials, ther's no telling where it might end. When the Swedish Griffin-fighter was designed, which is some 30 years ago, they took a serious look at having un-isotropic wings from carbon-fibre, having wings that bent down with speed, meaning that you could do a dive knowing that your wings are in position when you begin the climb. But that was in the technology's infancy why they declined the concept.

This was at my old university and I was actually involved as a student, why I for once have first hand info here, but anyway, you either accept this technology or we go back to Alu for Formula One?

Hell. I can design a cantilever beam that points up with downwards load, as long as I can apply some torque to it.

There's never been a question of accepting the technology as I am sure all teams would enjoy employing wings such as this if they were legal. Therein lies the rub, legal. The component must not flex beyond the set parameter which all teams respect, with respect to one clever team who gave the finger to the rule due to a poorly thought-out test.

[Richard]

Therein lies the rub, legal. The component must not flex beyond the set parameter which all teams respect

Please humour us by quoting the parameter that is used to define acceptable, and then tell us where RB fail that parameter.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Red Bull fans must know how Brawn fans felt when they had the DDD.

In my book they are more guilty of going against the spirit of the rules than anything I have seen in my time.
A bending aero device it is STILL, and people are more interested in how they do it rather than the actuall legality of it

And Richard, ferraripilot is only saying what most are thinking. Humour you? Is it funny?

Seg, you need to calm down boy.