Flexible wings 2011

[HampusA]

This is more then 2cm of flexing at the very edges.

[img]http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/0/9/up ... 25.gif[img]

Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Guess? Estimate? Hardly concrete evidence acquired by applying the scientific method...

Anyways, even if it is more than 20mm (it PROBABLY is, based on an ESTIMATION from the photos), where is there a rule that says 'during full speed and maximum aerodynamic load, the wing cannot flex more than 20mm'? The rule is that it cannot flex more than 20mm when 100kg per endplate is applied in a static controlled environment.

If you need explanation on HOW they are able to get the wing to LEGALLY flex more than other teams, you obviously haven't been reading this thread.

And you obviously haven´t read the rulebook, no matter how you twist and turn stuff. The wing is illegal. And since we all can see that the wing probably flexes way more the 20mm it should be obvious for FIA to really start making better tests.
Which they say that they can do if there´s a suspicion which we all know it is.


Stuff like this costs money to develop so either you tell the teams that they can build their own despite the regulations saying that wings cannot flex or you make better tests, it´s obvious RBR knows how to go around the tests.

If it were Ferrari or Mclaren who did this it would be banned shortly after even if it passed FIA´s test. Horner has been a very outspoken person in the past but since it´s the other way round now he sounds abit different.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ HampUSA

The rule states no more flex than 20mm when 100kgs is applied.

I was under the impression that this was the amount of downforce the wing would handle. It can take at least 5 times that pressure.
So 100kgs is nothing when 500kgs(at least) is being applied in highspeed areas of race tracks.

The rule should be tightened I agree. Make it a 200kg or even 300kg weight being applied on each side of the wing in keeping with the no flex ethos of the rule.
Because there is no doubt Red Bull are in conflict with the spirit of the rule if not the actual rule.

[pearsey13]

Sorry to ask this, I'm sure it says in one of the many pages of this topic; but what aerodynamical advantage does a flexible wing give to the car?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Sorry to ask this, I'm sure it says in one of the many pages of this topic; but what aerodynamical advantage does a flexible wing give to the car?

Running the wing lower to the ground at speed increases front downforce by quite a few points.
Running it lower produces a ground effect, and it also produces more downforce when in lower position.

Scarbs has a good write up on it here:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/3 ... ront-wing/

[pearsey13]

Sorry to ask this, I'm sure it says in one of the many pages of this topic; but what aerodynamical advantage does a flexible wing give to the car?

Running the wing lower to the ground at speed increases front downforce by quite a few points.
Running it lower produces a ground effect, and it also produces more downforce when in lower position.

Scarbs has a good write up on it here:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/3 ... ront-wing/

oh i see, thanks for the help greatly appreciated.

[Dragonfly]

We're talking about this is being too much ( Scarbs blog ):
Or this (Aus,2011) :

I'l try once again - the two cars are not exactly at the same spot of the track. Maybe even not shot at by the same camera and angle. Still images, which represent just a stage of the whole car movement are not representative. Especially when accurate measurements are required down to a millimeter.
Why don't you guys accept the fact that under current regulations and current test conditions RBR wing is legal. It's the others' fault that do not or can't build similar ones.
As someone already mentioned, the rule is to prevent attachments giving degree of freedom, like ball joints, hinges, etc. or power actuators. Flexing is a natural way a wing behaves. And the only thing they verify is that wings does not flex to extents, which would compromise safety.
As for the "spirit of the rules", it's like walking into a swamp and losing ground under your feet. The letter of the rulebook is the only solid ground.
It's a shame this thread is going round in circles.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Dragonfly,

Why do you think the rule was put in place? Not to prevent attachments and gadgets only, but also materials flexing.
What do you see happening in the photos?

Edit:
If flexing is "natural" as you put it, why is Red Bull the only team demonstrating these qualities?
Of course flex is natural to a point, but overflexing is not natural. Unless the team have sought for it to overflex and beat the letter of the law. Thereby going against the spirit of the law.

[lolzi]

Dragonfly,

Why do you think the rule was put in place? Not to prevent attachments and gadgets only, but also materials flexing.
What do you see happening in the photos?

Edit:
If flexing is "natural" as you put it, why is Red Bull the only team demonstrating these qualities?
Of course flex is natural to a point, but overflexing is not natural. Unless the team have sought for it to overflex and beat the letter of the law. Thereby going against the spirit of the law.

I have never heard the term overflexing before - how much does something have to flex to overflex?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Read what the legalities are.
I dont mean to be rude lolzi, but if you dont get the gist of my post, I cannot help you further.

[malcolm]

Scarbs: While this is against the “spirit of the rules” which prohibit flexible bodywork they meet the test as defined by the FIA for flexible bodywork, thus the Red Bull and the Ferrari front wings are free to race in the eyes of the FIA.

I think this sums it up best, from Scarbs back in 2010.

The rules were intended to allow for some degree of flex given that nothing is perfectly rigid; however, Red Bull have made their bodywork much less rigid than they could have, which is against the spirit of the rules (they could show up with a wing tomorrow that would hardly deflect at all under 500 kg of load, if they wanted to). Key thing is, is that they intentionally designed a wing that flexes a certain amount, rather than trying to make it as stiff as possible to meet the spirit of the rules.

Sure, the "spirit of the rules" is often ignored or intentionally circumvented, but that's why I believe the onus is on the FIA to realize that the wings are flexing far more than they need to and that there should be a more realistic test performed.

Also, ease up on the critique of the Darren Heath photos. It's obvious that the cars are pretty damn close to the same spot (look at the white lines). Since they were was taken by the same photographer (Darren Heath), and they're at roughly the same angle (+/- 2 deg), and at roughly the same aperature and shutter speed, I would hazard a guess that it's the same camera with the same lens. Also, you'd have to be blind not to see that the Red Bull wing is flexing more than the McLaren, even if you ignore the badly drawn red lines. Sure, you can't measure it down to the tenth of a mm, but you are delusional if you can't see that that wing is flexing more than should be allowed to the spirit of the rules.

[Lindz]

The McLaren flexes allllllllllmost as much. The difference of, say, a few degrees of rake, a few degrees of increased AoA, a few mms closer to the ground for more suction....

About why the weight is only 100kg: that's measured on the endplate. The 500kg+ of force is what load is on the main elements at full speed. The AoA of these elements makes much more force at speed than the endplate. That's why it's hard to enforce or test, every wing with it's different AoA will get different loads in different areas. The only constant is the location/size of the endplates.

[raymondu999]

The McLaren flexes allllllllllmost as much.

Actually it just looks like it's the natural shape of the McL wing - it kind of drops in a step change from the center to the wing planes

[Lindz]

The McLaren flexes allllllllllmost as much.

Actually it just looks like it's the natural shape of the McL wing - it kind of drops in a step change from the center to the wing planes

The Red Bull wing has a similar shape, dropping on the outer sections.

[avatar]

remind me why we have full width front wings again?

MCL pretty much have an inner and outer wing anyway!

Chop the ends off and it aint so easy to flex (shorter length = less leverage & tighter curvature required to hit the ground)

Shoud be less sensitive in wake for overtaking too, shouldn't it?

also, previous front flexis, were often driven by twisting elements (notably MCL & the red cars) rather than droopy ends. If those were effective in the past, why's noone engineered a wing encorporating some twisty bits. You'd think there'd be some room for develoment there.

[Dragonfly]

The other negative effect of the wide FW is that they very often cause tire punctures and are hard for the drivers to estimate the precise distance to the car in front.
IIRC they were recommended by a working group (together with the similarly ugly RW) to reduce the sensitivity of the cars when chasing another one at close distance and thus assist the ever missing overtaking. If I am not mistaken they were supposed to be on cars with wider track - 2 m and therefore be 10 cm short of the car width. Then for some reason FIA (or FOTA?) discarded the return to wider cars.
If there is an effect, I'd say it's not quite visible.