Flexible wings 2011

[HampusA]

Maybe a tiny bit but not much i think. I´ll see if i can find anything good tomorrow from the sessions.

My theory is that it does level out some as the speed get higher.

Here´s why, although i´m not newey and i don´t know aerodynamics at all really.

But anyway, at low speeds, the rake is pretty big, which keeps the front wing close to the ground.

But when the speed rise, the car levels out to make full use of the diffuser in the highspeed stuff and as we know the front wing flex as the speed rises meaning the front wing is closer to the ground aswell even during highspeeds.

It´s just a theory so i would be glad if someone shot it down so i can start thinking in other ways.

But just want to say that i don´t think that is what makes the car good, the whole car is perfection but i think that is what keeps them having the edge towards Ferrari and Mclaren.

[HampusA]

I made a pic to show what i mean, still only a theory though.

[marekk]

Nice pics, HampusA.

Not perfect alignement of the cars, but anyway best we have to date.
Added some reference lines to R31, RB7 and McLaren:



Substantialy more rake on RB7 then on both McLaren and Renault. Could be about +5cm on the rear.
McLaren new king of FW pivot. No visible FW pivoting on RB7 and R31 - endplates almost perfectly paralel to the floor.

[HampusA]

Reason why there is no pivoting is because it seems they have a wing that flexes instead.

I watched the onboard clips and could not see any noticable difference in flex from Mclarens car.

Infact, the only wing i saw flex way more then allowed was RBR´s.


We are not talking mm anymore, that´s cm´s

[HampusA]

I did my own comparison but only taking the floor into consideration.

I drew a white thin line with pen tool just clicking one dot at each end of the floor. Copyid this line directly over to Ferrari & Mclaren pic.

Did not do anything to it except pulling it down to the floor.

EDIT: noticed i forgot a part needed to make it more accurate.

EDIT2: lined all cars up from wheelnut to wheelnut.

Yellow lines are Red Bulls rake and wheel alignment.


It´s a tiny bit more then the Mclaren.

[Lindz]

Do you guys also think that mankind going to the moon was just a shoot done on a set in Hollywood? I mean after all, that would be a lot easier than building rockets and lunar modules and actually getting people up there.

Red Bull are obviously cheating right? There is no way that Adrian Newey would simply design a good car!

[Owen.C93]

Red Bull are obviously cheating right? There is no way that Adrian Newey would simply design a good car!

We're not just saying random things are illegal because the car is fast. We saw the flex in trackside shots and onboard, the wing is doing things that the rules specifically try to to eradicate.

[Lindz]

Red Bull are obviously cheating right? There is no way that Adrian Newey would simply design a good car!

We're not just saying random things are illegal because the car is fast. We saw the flex in trackside shots and onboard, the wing is doing things that the rules specifically try to to eradicate.

...And there are about 5 threads already all discussing the 'legality' of the wing. Must it continue everywhere? The car clearly has more rake than the others. It was deigned in such a way. Let's take 2 wings that flex the same amount (don't give me any BS, nothing is 100% rigid, and the FIA set what they deem to be acceptable levels of flex). If you run the same wing close to the ground, it will produce more suction and it will flex more than if you ran it higher and it's 'ground effect' was less.

So, already the design and set up of the car make for the wing to flex more, even if there is no conspiracy about flexible mounts, nose, bodywork, etc.

[Afterburner]

@Lindz

Do you really believe RB designed that wing by coincidence or on purpous? Will it need more pictures and videos to answer that? The answer it's obvious and Ferrari also confirmed it today with Aldo Costa saying they will go the same route has RB. They haven't tried that route sooner because they were expecting the new FIA tests stop that flexy wings but it seems the wing flex for real so they'll follow that route themselves.

[Lindz]

HampusA, I'm not trying to be an arse, but your lines are not exactly accurate. On the Red Bull picture, you can see that at the tea tray, the line thickness is overlapping the edge of the floor where at the rear it is fully under it. This would make it seem like less rake.

[Lindz]

Also, about the rake during high speed... I was saying (many pages ago) how they are keeping the rake at high speed. This is part of their 'trick' and it's much more important to the performance than a 'flexi wing'.

With the rake the RB7 produces downforce from the drop in pressure along the whole length of floor. The CoP is thus further forward than relying on DF from the diffuser. The diffuser's job is simply to allow air flow from under the car to drop in pressure and return to the speed of the ambient air flowing around the body. It still does that, so it still helps to produce downforce on the floor. It doesn't need to be 1mm from the ground.

By isolating roll and heave control in the rear suspension, the car is able to stay compliant for corners (roll) but not squat under load (heave). This maintains rake at all times. The heave spring and damper are going to be much stiffer, and the roll dampers might not have springs at all (Red Bull were one of the teams to start doing this back in '09). The roll 'spring rate' is handled by the roll bar and of course the 1 rocker pushing on the stiff heave spring.


People looking at specific parts of cars without taking into account the entire car's design are not seeing the whole picture. Every piece is designed to work together. The rake is more important and I think that came well before any blown diffuser or front wing design.

[Lindz]

They are keeping the rake at high speed. This is part of their 'trick' and it's much more important to the performance than a 'flexi wing'.

With the rake the RB7 produces downforce from the drop in pressure along the whole length of floor. The CoP is thus further forward than relying on DF from the diffuser. The diffuser's job is simply to allow air flow from under the car to drop in pressure and return to the speed of the ambient air flowing around the body. It still does that, so it still helps to produce downforce on the floor. It doesn't need to be 1mm from the ground.

By isolating roll and heave control in the rear suspension, the car is able to stay compliant for corners (roll) but not squat under load (heave). This maintains rake at all times. The heave spring and damper are going to be much stiffer, and the roll dampers might not have springs at all (Red Bull were one of the teams to start doing this back in '09). The roll 'spring rate' is handled by the roll bar and of course the 1 rocker pushing on the stiff heave spring.


People looking at specific parts of cars without taking into account the entire car's design are not seeing the whole picture. Every piece is designed to work together. The rake is more important and I think that came well before any blown diffuser or front wing design.

[ringo]

It's a couple things, rake, a little flex (less than we think), location of section A-A relative to front wheel centre line, lateral roll center, and then the downforce.
This car was designed to dip the wing to the ground on many factors.

These are the rules and redbull comply:

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than
250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the
reference plane.

No such rule as wing height to ground limits. Only relative to reference plane.
If the plane is 6 cm under ground at the front wings , when under high downforce, then that's how it is.

If you want the wings to come within 3 cm of the ground, the car needs only about 2.05 degrees of rake. This without any flexible splitter.
What's important is the centre of ration, which is determined by the suspension mechanicals and down force balance. If the car rotates about the splitter leading edge, 2 degrees of rake is enough to bring that wing into ground effect heaven.

[beelsebob]

3.7.1 All bodywork situated forward of a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line, and more than
250mm from the car centre line, must be no less than 75mm and no more than 275mm above the
reference plane.

No such rule as wing height to ground limits. Only relative to reference plane.
If the plane is 6 cm under ground at the front wings , when under high downforce, then that's how it is.

Why oh why does everyone who argues "red bull doesn't break any rules" always conveniently ignore

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.

Hell, Horner even admitted that they have such a device (raising the rear of the car to get the front wing nice and close to the ground).

[Lindz]

You're clutching at straws.

The wing isnt a device whose function is to bridge the gap to the ground. And certainly setting the car's suspension height any way you want is not illegal, nor is a setting a device. Ride height is not governed by anything other than the wear on the plank.