Wesley, I'm not saying those vids couldn't be from flexiwings, or even that they aren't. I'm only pointing out that we have had wing failures exactly like that for as long as we have had wings. Going right back to the '60's, lack of stiffness has always been a primary cause of failure, but that can't have meant that they were all intentionally flexible.
true, but the way these things broke was actually my 'prove' of the wing flexing.
In raikkonens vid i posted you only see the two wings detaching, he end plates stay completely intact, I would say that a manufacturing failure would cause much different damage
Wes, when wings first showed up in racing they broke often. One of the biggest causes was flexing, which obviously can lead to fatigue failures. Those wings were not designed intentionally to flex, but all wings flex. The matereal, and weight, necessary to totally eliminate flex would be prohibitive.
The goal for most of the history of wings has been to get the maximum stiffness for the minimum matereal. It's only recently that people have been fooling around intentional flex to find some gain. The X-29 was designed in part to explore this, so you can say that NASA has been fooling around with the concept for a few decades now, but that's NASA.
The only thing your vid proves is a failure. That failure could easily have been caused by flexing, but could also be caused by other factors. If we assume the cause was flexing, that could mean the flexing was intentional, but does not mean the flexing had to be intentional.
The fact that B follows A does not in and of itself mean that A caused B. You still have to prove that part separately.
