Flexible wings 2011

[raymondu999]

Sorry if this has been mentioned (cba to read through 38 pages of argument to check, in all honesty), but exactly how possible is it that Red Bull use heat affected materials and the principle of aerodynamic heating to achieve the resulting wing bending that they do? I don't claim to have vast material knowledge, so am wondering if such a material can even be realistic in F1, not to mention the fact that the speeds they reach (relative to air and spacecraft) aren't necessarily high enough to even generate enough heat...

So softening by heating? Wasn't this one of the speculations regarding their suspension, around China last year?

[Ferraripilot]

Because what is going on right now is declared legal, what would stop anyone from designing a seperate element to the wing beyond the flex testing area which flexes from the endplates inboard. The second element could have a leading edge just below the main plain and only be attached to the endplate and bend downwards. Per 3.17.1, so long as it does not affect the testing area it's legal.

[ianwit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... ines.html?

[Ferraripilot]

Good and honest article for the questions being asked, but I would love to see his face if someone asked him what would happen if the test perameters were altered to reflect precisely where the flexing is meant to occur.


quotes from the above from Horner:
''We run quite a high rake angle in our car. So inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

''It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in the car is higher, but it is simple mathematics.''

Asked if he was frustrated by the ongoing review of the systems on his cars, Horner said: ''We take it is a compliment to be honest with you.

''I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane, and it complies with the regulations, which is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one, and it complies fully with that.

''McLaren have developed a car that is effectively a different philosophy to ours. So the benefit we see from the front wing is different to the one they would see, and that is the basis behind it fundamentally.''

[horse]

I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane and it complies with the regulations, and that is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one - and it complies fully with that.

It's interesting to me that Horner thinks the McLaren drivers are the voice of the McLaren team. I have not heard Martin Whitmarsh or Jonathan Neale complain about the RB wing. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Regarding his explanation, one can only assume he has been reading F1technical.net.

[ianwit]

I think you're right Horse, methinks he is getting a touch paranoid

[Ferraripilot]

It's interesting to me that Horner thinks the McLaren drivers are the voice of the McLaren team. I have not heard Martin Whitmarsh or Jonathan Neale complain about the RB wing. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Regarding his explanation, one can only assume he has been reading F1technical.net.

Great point. RB probably got the idea from one of you yahoos on F1technical. It's the only reasonable explanation for their dominance

His response implies Mclaren has pointed out a different style of testing procedure which he knows good and well they wouldn't pass. I say imply the 'Mclaren' test as it actually might test something adequately.

[Richard]

Come on guys - you don't know how the question was phrased. Maybe the interviewer mentioned McLaren as a comparison? Possibly because that McLaren and RB in one article about flexible wings would generate the most attention?

[malcolm]

Some questions:

1.Why RB has cascade winglets/flaps at the point where the FW is flexing?
2.Where is the point with maximum drag or pressure on the FW?
3.Could they put ballast/weight underneath or above the FW?
4.Where is the best place to put it?
5.Could this ballast/weight (alone or in addition to the cascade winglets/flaps) increase the effect of flexing the FW?
6.Could they put ballast/weight after the FIA tested the FW?

Thanx in advance!

1. For more downforce... it's not there to impede the test. Red Bull has to make an adapter to ensure the force is applied in the right spot.
2. You can't really break it down like that... although just past the leading edge of the wing on the underside has the lowest pressure/highest air-speed.
3. Ballast that far from the centre of the car would be counter-productive, as the further weight is from the centre of rotation, the harder it is to get the car to rotate (inertia... conservation of angular momentum).
4. Down low, near the middle of the car (that's why the splitter is the most popular spot).
5. Not really, as it is just the increase of force due to the air that causes flex; it's just the addition of that 500N of force that does the flexing, otherwise the added weight would flex the wing itself.
6. I doubt it; the wing needs to be tested as-is, as far as I know.

but exactly how possible is it that Red Bull use heat affected materials and the principle of aerodynamic heating to achieve the resulting wing bending that they do?

"Aerodynamic heating is a concern for supersonic and hypersonic aircraft."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating

(When in doubt, google it)

[bot6]

In the FIA press conference earlier today, the drivers were asked about the RBR front wing bending and what they thought about it. The issue is clearly starting to gather momentum in the media. Their responses were:

Q: (Julien Febreau -L’Equipe) For all of you: what is your opinion about the Red Bull front wing and are you working on a system which can comply with the FIA controls and which can work close to the ground at high speed?
JB: Wow. I don’t know the full details of the issues. I know a few people that I have spoken to say it flexes more than what they expect is correct but I haven’t really spent much time looking at it so I don’t know.
NR: I have nothing interesting to say, unfortunately.
SB: Not much to say. I think we need to leave it down to the technical guys. Obviously, if it makes it faster everybody is going to try to reproduce it.
JT: No, nothing to say.
FM: No

Big boot to the side here.

They were clearly told not to talk about it by their respective teams. Leads me to think more and more that there was some kind of negotiation between the teams as to the wing situation and the bending test. And Red Bull might have tricked the other teams into accepting not to change the current test as they did not think not only the wing, but the whole front of the car would flex.

The rake argument is off the mark, as the angle of attack of the wing changes relative to the rest of the car, and the height of the whole wing relative to the rest of the car, changes with aero load.
That can't be explained by rake.

[she_spools_180]

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

Assuming Ciro's numbers are correct (i think they are) and linearity, they just didn't want the tip to dive to deep under tarmac. You know - someone have to pay for new asphalt after the race.

I don't understand though, if you allow it to deflect by less distance then it will stay further from the tarmac, right? There must be a reason for 20mm. If not, why not make it less to aid compliance with 3.15?

we agree that you can't completely remove flexing? yes?

ok, so you suggest 5mm to reduce flex, why not 1mm? why not .001? where would you draw the line, and what justification would you use for deciding on that number? each one is going to have deflection, but we don't know what FIA's justification for 20mm is.


on a side note:

Come on guys - you don't know how the question was phrased. Maybe the interviewer mentioned McLaren as a comparison? Possibly because that McLaren and RB in one article about flexible wings would generate the most attention?

I agree, that was quite a long bow to draw.

[bot6]

Guys, the issue here is not that the wing is flexing, it's that the whole front end is flexing. And the current test does not test for that.

If you look closely at the photograph, the angle of attack of the wing changes, and the whole wing - not just the endplates but the middle as well, albeit to a lesser extent - goes down towards the ground.

This can only be obtained by using bending pillars and nose, and the current test does not account for this.

Anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to have read in the F1.com bending wing test description last year that the central part of the wing is supported during the test. So basically they clamp down the central part of the wing, and load the outer bit. That puts no strain non the nose and pillars, which bend just as much as the profile itself.

So essentially the current test disregards at least half of the bending actually occurring.

[shelly]

Anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to have read in the F1.com bending wing test description last year that the central part of the wing is supported during the test.

I think the whole front assembly is tested, by fixing the nose cone to a dummy chassis. I think there is a picture of the ferrari fornt wing during testing back in this thread or in the f150 thread.

I do not think the fornt wing mainplane is supported.

[HampusA]

I watched FP1 and FP2 very closely now.

Couple of notes:

RBR has the most rake but cars like Ferrari and Mclaren has it aswell just not as extreme.

Team lotus FW flexes up to a certain speed then it stays there.
Mclaren, Ferrari and Williams have rock solid wings. Especially Williams, i could not detect any flexing whatsoever from their front wing.

RBR wing continues to flex until they hit the brakes. And my eye is not a ruler by any means but i know the wing does not flex only 2mm.

To me it looks like 3-4cm of flexing.

[marcush.]

Ross is possibly not as dumb as some people here believe he is..:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90537

I think most o the teams believed the new tests would end the flex ,but were surprised it hasn´t.
Now the teams have to gear up to pass the tests and flex -if that was a performance differentiator.It´s not like the one who has more is per definition the new WDC...