Flexible wings 2011

[Rino]

The McLaren flexes allllllllllmost as much.

Almost...

[Coefficient]

...

Nah, they're only just under way in this picture so haven't built up sufficient speed to show the full amount of flex the Red Bull can achieve with its front wing. The Red Bull wing was almost touching the track through the high speed turns of 5, 6, 7 and 8. Mclaren aren't quite there yet but they're getting there.

[marekk]

The McLaren flexes allllllllllmost as much.

Almost...

Nice shot to compare Webber with Heidfeld and Massa - the same speed, -5cm of FW height at least.

[animax]

This front wing "ground effect" doesn't make any sense, because it's only the outer part of the wing which is bending. If you look at the last year incident at SPA,you can see,that as soon as right part of the car is out of a sleep stream, the right side of the front wing bends drastically, while the left side remains in "normal" position.So there is no "ground effect" and it indicates to the lack of a airflow pressure over the left part of the wing. Besides,all they need is a strong air flow under the center part of a car for diffuser and as little as possible in the front tires area.That's why, only the outer part of front wing is bending.Not because they are trying to achieve massive ground effect,but because they are trying to reduce the turbulent air behind the front tires,so that the rear of the car becomes more calm and stable.For the ground effect job,there's a thin floor splitter,who divides the airflow under and over the floor, diffuser or should I say outer blown diffuser,but not the front wing.I think that Front wing at RBR is more like a plow.

SPA crash (stop at 0:04):
http://skrci.me/WBwJ5
RBR FW:
http://skrci.me/fqCuJ

[godlameroso]

Interesting that you propose that more downforce can be created with the rest of the car, and that the FW serves only to condition air more than create downforce. Then again maybe the FW does generate quite a bit of downforce on it's own, but does it while channeling air away from the tires. Perhaps the flexing causes the wing to act like an air foil, then at a certain vehicle speed, something else. Maybe it's that something else that gives them that extra edge.

Also something I noticed, although most teams use high noses, the RB7's nose is the only one that has convex shape meaning that it forms a beak not unlike this




Brawn tried this last year but it didn't work for him because he got the shape wrong, the airflow accelerated out of the curve on the underside of the nose and just spilled out, the RB7 has fences on the nose to prevent this and use the faster air to create a pressure differential across the top of the nose and underside.

Not just that but also the air that exits under the nose goes directly to the side pod ducting, which exits out of that big ol' hole back there.

It seems the RB7 is a Tri plane in the back, and feathered wings in the front, at least in the state I'm in.

[malcolm]

This front wing "ground effect" doesn't make any sense, because it's only the outer part of the wing which is bending. If you look at the last year incident at SPA,you can see,that as soon as right part of the car is out of a sleep stream, the right side of the front wing bends drastically, while the left side remains in "normal" position.So there is no "ground effect" and it indicates to the lack of a airflow pressure over the left part of the wing. Besides,all they need is a strong air flow under the center part of a car for diffuser and as little as possible in the front tires area.That's why, only the outer part of front wing is bending.Not because they are trying to achieve massive ground effect,but because they are trying to reduce the turbulent air behind the front tires,so that the rear of the car becomes more calm and stable.For the ground effect job,there's a thin floor splitter,who divides the airflow under and over the floor, diffuser or should I say outer blown diffuser,but not the front wing.I think that Front wing at RBR is more like a plow.

SPA crash (stop at 0:04):
http://skrci.me/WBwJ5
RBR FW:
http://skrci.me/fqCuJ

1) The wing is in ground effect. What we are talking about is that when the wing flexes, that ground effect increases. Even if the wing is angled, part of that profile is getting closer to the ground, thus increasing ground effect. If the front wing was like a plow, then they wouldn't have multiple elements or even wings; they would have a sports-car nose like the 70's Tyrrells.



2) Your Spa example doesn't make any sense. When the right side of the car is in clean air, the right side of the wing goes down and the left side goes up. That switches when the left side is in clean air. Conclusion? There is definitely ground effect at play (otherwise the wing wouldn't have moved at all) and it shows how flexible the wing supports are to allow that much movement.

3) There is no "ground effect job". I think you may be confused by the terminology used for the "Ground effects cars" of the late 70s and early 80s; however, in this thread we are using the term in the aerodynamic sense, where the ground affects the performance of a wing. Therefore, the front splitter does not assume any sort of job, but all the aerodynamic systems work together to create as much downforce as possible while minimizing the drag penalty.

4) With the wider front wings, they are being used to help the air around the tire; however, that is not their sole use, and that second image you posted is simply flat-out wrong. It would be silly to try to use that small winglet that is on the inside of the wheel to try to push air around the outside of the tire. Similarly, it would be silly to try to use the entire third element to try to push air around the outside of the tire that would otherwise avoid the tire altogether by passing between the tire and the chassis. First, it would create a ton of drag, and second, it would not serve any purpose whatsoever. I would contend that the lateral air movement over the inner part of the third element of the wing would be virtually zero (same with that little winglet).

My English teacher once told the class "just because a book is published doesn't mean it isn't crap". Same goes for that image... just because someone photoshopped comments on an image and it's hosted on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

[Lindz]

And just because some of you doubt what Malcolm and I have been on about... F1Technical's favorite resident blogger/insider has created a little video for visualization:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmSgUwt ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]


Still don't think the rake has much to do with the front wing?



Edit: proper youtube link. Oops!

[andrew]

^ Here's your video embedded.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2OcW_H ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

What to do is, click the youtube option about the text box and insert the link to the video you want to show, thus:

[youtube]VIDEO LINK[/youtube]

Hope this helps!

[malcolm]

I think he meant to post Scarbs' animation... though The Onion is still hilarious.

[she_spools_180]

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.

Key word highlighted above. No concrete proof, exactly, only suspicion, upon which the FIA has acted once or twice, by changing the flexing wing test.

Some people seem to be astonished that photos cannot be used as evidence, when in criminal proceedings they clearly can. I pose a significant difference:

Photos in a court of law are used usually to prove that something happened or didn't, it's binary, either 'he was there' or 'he wasn't there"

In some other cases, quantifiable measurements are presented in photos, however, these usually appear with a tape measure/ruler next to them, IN THE PHOTO, (shoe print etc) at a specific perspective.

I am no lawyer, so please correct me if I am wrong, but you see where I'm heading with this.

I have to say, Lindz has so far posted the most plausible explanation.

It covers all bases, and shows how the RB7 COULD be legal.

Kalinka says:

I don't know HOW they're breaking it ( and I never said that I know ), but it's clear that they're braking it.

how is it clear? it is clear that they appear to be breaking the rules, but it is not clear that they actually are. as has been covered, there is no bridging occurring, the RP is not being broken blah blah blah

It is possible that they are breaking the rules, but it has not been proven yet, also it is possible that the car conforms due to all that has been listed by Lindz, but the theory posted by him, has not been proven either. Neither is proven and 100% confirmed, or ruled out, however I have formed my opinion about which I think is more likely, which is influenced by: the FIA, the outcry of other teams (or lack thereof), and the continuous passing of tests by RB, among other things.

Sorry if I am stirring poo again, but I am a man with an opinion, and I struggle to keep it to myself... sorry

[kalinka]

@she_spools_180 : No problem, as I said, FIA is responsible for this situation. They should either stick to their rules, or scrap that rule, and allow flexing. There is no other way to be fair for all teams. Their way now, it's the third and most problematic way : there's a rule, we can't measure it correctly, so let it be as is...I can't accept this as a F1 fan. Simply as that.

As for "clearly breaking the rule" >
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Yes, I'm aware that there is a 20mm rule. Yes, maybe it's not more than that, but it's just your opinion. The fact is neither me or you doesn't have facts to prove our opinions. For me, it's clearly more than 20mm . So what ?

I think you're wrong that picture can't be a prove :

1. There was examples before when FIA didn't even measure anything, they just call it illegal using video (!!!) and not even still picture reference, because it was obvious that something was moving which they didn't want. ( Rear wing flex, front wing flex too ). And that was way before HD video what's avaliable now for FIA.

2. You just need a decent high res photo, and you don't need anything else. For god's sake we live in 2011, and there are plenty of pro cameras around F1 track already, and I think FIA can afford one pro photographer for such things, don't you think ?
You can measure flexing by measuring some visible part of the car in stationary position ( let's say FW pillar height, or FW endplate height, and you can measure the amount of flex related to that dimension, which is always the same. Let's say FW endplate is 200 pixels high on the pic, and the endplate is 200mm high, and flexes down 20pixels, than it's 20mm of flexing. That's it. Of course there's a margin of error, but it's not comparable to measured quantities.

But if FIA intend to stick to it's own rules, than they doesn't need anythihg else than a photo, and say : it's moving more than we want, please change it.

[marcush.]

For some reason
the FIA does not want to act this time -the one thing that is sure :the reason for them not taking action is not to be found in the regulations nor in the impossibility to prove what is happenning .When it´s time to play that card ...no question it will happen.For whatever reason it seems ok to tell Mercedes ,Ferrari Mclaren to invest into flexible bodywork.

[kalinka]

+1 for marcush.

They could act if they want, there is everything avaliable what they would need : technically and regulation-wise too.

[scotty86]

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)

That's absolutely zero help cause i had the sense to make some of my own research anyway (i looked further than Wiki too!), but thanks for trying to be patronising - made me laugh in a somewhat ironic way.

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

That's basically what i'm getting at, yes. I didn't know it had already been a point of contention within the paddock. Can you shed any more light on that?

[she_spools_180]

@she_spools_180 : No problem, as I said, FIA is responsible for this situation. They should either stick to their rules, or scrap that rule, and allow flexing. There is no other way to be fair for all teams. Their way now, it's the third and most problematic way : there's a rule, we can't measure it correctly, so let it be as is...I can't accept this as a F1 fan. Simply as that.

As for "clearly breaking the rule" >
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Yes, I'm aware that there is a 20mm rule. Yes, maybe it's not more than that, but it's just your opinion. The fact is neither me or you doesn't have facts to prove our opinions. For me, it's clearly more than 20mm . So what ?

I think you're wrong that picture can't be a prove :

1. There was examples before when FIA didn't even measure anything, they just call it illegal using video (!!!) and not even still picture reference, because it was obvious that something was moving which they didn't want. ( Rear wing flex, front wing flex too ). And that was way before HD video what's avaliable now for FIA.

2. You just need a decent high res photo, and you don't need anything else. For god's sake we live in 2011, and there are plenty of pro cameras around F1 track already, and I think FIA can afford one pro photographer for such things, don't you think ?
You can measure flexing by measuring some visible part of the car in stationary position ( let's say FW pillar height, or FW endplate height, and you can measure the amount of flex related to that dimension, which is always the same. Let's say FW endplate is 200 pixels high on the pic, and the endplate is 200mm high, and flexes down 20pixels, than it's 20mm of flexing. That's it. Of course there's a margin of error, but it's not comparable to measured quantities.

But if FIA intend to stick to it's own rules, than they doesn't need anythihg else than a photo, and say : it's moving more than we want, please change it.

Re: rules listed under clearly breaking the rule. Of course, we have already established that the wing cannot be 100% rigid, in response to this, the FIA has come up with a static maximum deflection, at a specified weigh. This basically says, your wing can flex, but no more that *this* at *this* specified load. Which leads me to my next point

Re: 20mm rule, I agree with you, I also believe that the wing might be flexing more than 20mm, but (IIRC) the 20mm specified is for the static test, where 100kg is hung from the end? I think it has been established that during racing the load on the wing can be much larger (5 times?). I think it is unreasonable to expect that the deflection would still be 20mm at racing speeds, if it is 20mm on the static load test. (not sure if I have my figures right in that paragraph?)


Re: photographs as evidence. Perhaps if a camera was set up correctly to take photos automatically, with a carefully calculated perspective, by the FIA, to measure front wings, then I concede that it COULD be used. But none of the current photos taken by pro photographers would be sufficient to take a measurement I think. On the other hand, I think that the FIA could come up with a more reliable and perhaps cheaper test, but, perhaps they don't feel a need to.