Flexible wings 2011

[Richard]

JET - I was serious. It's a simple question.

Yes, I'd expect this forum to concentrate on "how do they do that". The clue is in the forum's title.

[xpensive]

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

This is actually not true Richard, isotropc material are just that, isotropic, you can fool around a bit with profiles an such but nothing like this. When you see what can be done with your own eyes, promise you will wet your pants. I know I did at that university lab 30 years ago.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

No need for Humour then is there.

Look at the Video I posted an hour ago, it is clearly visible that the wing not only moves under load, but that it move more than the permissable 20mm.
I dont give a toss that it passes the FIA test. That just shows how silly the test is.
The FIA have clearly stipulated they will change the tests accordingly if they SUSPECT(Visibly/tip off/or otherwise)that a component or device is flexing more than the permissable.

We see it very clearly, especially in the last 3 corners that there is a mother load of flex going on.

So once again, in reality the wing is macking a mockery of the FIA test. Because it clearly flexes.

Its pretty clear cut, regardless of what my logic needs.

[Ferraripilot]

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.

The actual rule is 3.15 - no flex. 3.15 is defined by 3.17 and is more of a bylaw than regulation as it ties in to an actual regulation built to govern something. It states they know they wing is going to flex a little, so no flex beyond 20mm at 1000N applied at the 800mm mark on the wing with an adapter. They pass 3.17 which currently governs 3.15. However, it's not a debate that 3.15 is indeed broken. The test is flawed and I can't imagine the teeth gritting in having to define a new 3.17 which can actually uphold 3.15.

This is not rhetorical debate regarding language used in a rule as the language is simple.

My field is litigation, and there is no way I would hang my hat on this bylaw which is currently contradictory to the actual law.

[ianwit]

Autosport have just published a Q@A with Jonathan Neale and there is passing reference to RB's extra downforce but not a sniff of a question about how he thinks they do it or how he intends to match it.

[ecapox]

I think we are all in agreement that a wing sees more than 1000n of force.

Think of a tape measure. After you have it out a certain distance, it snaps, or fails, until the pressure exerted on the end is reduced. If Redbull applied this logic at say 1100n of force they'd be golden. They could even determine what part of the wing would "fail". Most likely right around the center FIA mandated "dead zone".

[Richard]

Asymmetric sections with homogeneous materials could create similar movement ie vertical & torsion under horiz loading. I agree that it would not be as dramatic as using fibres that create the effect of a puppet on a string, or tendons controlling fingers.

I suspect the other teams have spent the last 12 months doing what they can using the homogeneous methods, McL and Fer seems to have something happening. Meanwhile some research boffins will have been desperately trying to reliably create the puppet on a string effect. I wonder how long RB have been developing this? Perhaps they started material testing and analytical modelling 2 years ago, that’s a big headstart.

So whilst all the teams can see what is happening and conceptually understand it (we identified it last year), they still don’t have the fabrication or computational skills to replicate it.

[volarchico]

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.

That's a little harsh. Video and photo evidence can most definitely be measured and quantified. There is a whole field of fluid dynamic measurements taken by camera: PIV and digital speckle deformation are two that come immediately to mind. There is also the well-used "photo finish" in some racing. I also know that in high-speed munitions impact testing, cameras are used to calculate angles and velocity of the projectiles quite accurately.

I'm not saying it's easy, but to tell people to "shut up" when your statement isn't even true is a little over the top.

[Richard]

the permissable 20mm.

The rule is 20mm for 100kg on one side. How much force is there at full speed? 750kg perhaps? Even a conservative 500kg gives 100mm allowable deflection.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Good point Richard.

[Richard]

They pass 3.17 which currently governs 3.15.

Agreed. That is the "set parameter" and topic of this thread.

My field is litigation, and there is no way I would hang my hat on this bylaw which is currently contradictory to the actual law.

I suggest you look at this other thread ... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9795&view=unread#unread

[Richard]

Good point Richard.

So the question is why don't other teams have the skills to use that allowable 100m deflection?

[shelly]

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

This is actually not true Richard, isotropc material are just that, isotropic, you can fool around a bit with profiles an such but nothing like this. When you see what can be done with your own eyes, promise you will wet your pants. I know I did at that university lab 30 years ago.

I agree with xpensive - behaviour of composite beams/panels it is really impressive and sometimes counter intuitive: e.g. you could get torsion applying an axial load.
It is far more than what is achievable with isotropic materials, even with fancy beam sections; and it is something beyond what we are used to.

I think too, like richard and others, that we should stop discussing merit of the rules in thsi thread, and instead focus year on the technical side of controlled flexi wing design.

Only I fear that it is too difficult a task trying to elaborate on a techincal solution most teams seem not able to master at the moment; but I hope we could collect some ideas

[shamikaze]

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.

/off-topic
Yhave a severe lack of respect towards other people which is blatantly obvious from this and other posts you haev made. You expect to be treated with it, but fail to give it. Surely, this will not change your mind or behaviour but i thought it was time it be pointed out to you again.
/on-topic

What RB or whoever with FFW's is doing is easy: Breaking the applicable rules.

How they are achieving this rule-breaking is on of the items we are / have been discussing on here. The other items we discuss here (unless you are ass oblivious as you blame others to be - and NO that is not a typo ) is how to objectively test/measure/monitor it. All rules apply to everyone.

Thanks for calling everyone in the manufacturing, processing and digital-image world daft since it is not technical. Good luck in your limited world. It olny goes to show how narrow and limited your knowledge is. Read my earlier post on high-speed digital-camera's that would provide perfect objective and undisputable evidence if FW's are within allowed tolerances or outside during real-life circumstances. Not a made-up in-adequate test-bench that can't come close to real-life circumstances.

If the FW's are bending this obviously and nothing is done to report it, it can be considered as much as cutting a corner, bypassing a safety-car and also not receiving any penalty. These 2 examples have not been choosen by accident since each time thereafter, FIA clarified any mis-understanding and thereon started applying the rules much stricter.

FFW's: Great stuff, unfortunately it not only bends on itself, it also bends the FIA rules.

[horse]

Just to point out the crazy re-circulation of this argument, the point that Richard made to JET was also mentioned on page 24.

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.

I'll also take the opportunity to repose the question I put in the other thread -

Why does 3.17.1 specify 20mm? Why not, say, 5mm?