Flexible wings 2011

[HampusA]

For anyone that doubts RBR´s wing flexes less then 2mm check pictures of the car stationary and at top speed.

This rake BS is false, like Newey again claims Mclaren runs with little to no rake when we clearly see that Mclaren runs nearly as much. Not quite but not far off.

[Lindz]

.....

It's not 2mm, it's 20mm. And that's a static load test on a jig with 100kg applied to the endplates. Aerodynamic load CAN exceed that (it's about 400kg+, though located inboard quite a bit from the endplate). With rake the aero load will increase even more. As it gets closer to the ground, the 'ground effect' suction will lower it more.

And McLaren runs nowhere near as much rake.

.....

[TURU]

This rake BS is false, like Newey again claims Mclaren runs with little to no rake when we clearly see that Mclaren runs nearly as much. Not quite but not far off.

........


Speaking seriously, Lindz's explanation is most probable so far because it's relatively simple and logical. I think many people see what they want to see, because it's in human nature to look for conspiracy theories everywhere.
However, it's high time other teams and their fans stopped this ranting, for it's getting boring and frustrating.

[ringo]

Classical roll/pitch centre theory is not valid for vertical input loads (i.e. downforce). Only horizontal.

In fact, even for horizontal loads they don't work but thats another story.

.
It is valid for down-force and any force acting on the car for that matter.
If it isn't feel free to correct with some explanations, if i am not interpreting your post properly.

I'll try to explain with a diagram what i am thinking.

[Tim.Wright]

Classical roll theory predicts roll centres based purely on kinematic relationships and neglects all force elements (ie springs). This makes it a completely inadequate transfer function for predicting vertical compliance response (vertical displacement due to vertical force)

Consider this: If your rear springs are very soft (tending to zero stiffness) and the fronts are very hard (tending to rigid), then your "pitch centre" due to vertical load will be at the contact patch of front tyres, regardless of your suspension kinematics. This cannot be predicted by classical roll theory.

This theory is designed ONLY for lateral inputs, but even for this its not very accurate. Like any model though it can still be useful.

To investigate response to vertical forces, you really have no chance but to evaluate it from a force point of view.

Tim

[godlameroso]

Ok I think I get it now, it's not just the wing flexing, it's a whole conglomerate of effects adding themselves together, however subtle to ultimately lower the front wing. It's the aero load flexing the wing, the nose tip flexing pushing the wing lower, the rake of the car, the suspension geometry, the ground effect from the wing. One of those things alone probably would not make much difference, but added all together and a few other things that aren't visually obvious and there you have it.

[ringo]

Classical roll theory predicts roll centres based purely on kinematic relationships and neglects all force elements (ie springs). This makes it a completely inadequate transfer function for predicting vertical compliance response (vertical displacement due to vertical force)

Consider this: If your rear springs are very soft (tending to zero stiffness) and the fronts are very hard (tending to rigid), then your "pitch centre" due to vertical load will be at the contact patch of front tyres, regardless of your suspension kinematics. This cannot be predicted by classical roll theory.

This theory is designed ONLY for lateral inputs, but even for this its not very accurate. Like any model though it can still be useful.

To investigate response to vertical forces, you really have no chance but to evaluate it from a force point of view.

Tim

Yes i agree, this is why i said both geometry and forces, such as downforce.
I don't like to use rules of thumb like roll center etc. I rather use fundamentals because honestly i don't have the experience like some of you here with the field of racing.
I was refering to forces though and degree of freedom.

You example there is correct and i don't see a disagreement with my proposition that the car is rolling about the splitter at certain speed due to external forces and geometry; which can apply longitudinally.
Let me get a diagram up for a simple straight forward demonstration.

[Tim.Wright]

I didnt catch where you said geometry?

Anyway, you are right about going from a first principles approach for this problem. Unfortunately it means you need a lot more information about the suspension which you cant get hold of such as spring rates and heave/roll coupling.

Indeed no disagreement about the proposal of the car pitching at the splitter. Though I think this will be practically impossible to prove or disprove.

Tim

[cossie]

Well there you go. Both at the same point, pretty much doing the same speed and there is a huge difference in wing height.

Anyone still bleating that Mclaren have a flexi-wing also?

Looking the RB7 nose where the camara is monted just under the nose, in constrast the Williams and HRT, where the camera is fixed on the sides. The RB7's nose where the camera is mounted is thinner in the very front nose section, cpared with the other noses, like the other's. They however have passed the frontal impacr test. WHen you look at the downward deflection of the RB7's nose under loads, it's right where the camera is fixxed on the nose

[Formula None]

Found a good pit stop photo. Does the flap angle adjustment mechanism needs to be operated with an electric screwdriver (or is that common pit stop practice)? Could something more nefarious be going on? *steeples fingers* It's been suggested that maybe their flap adjuster serves some preload function for controlling transverse warp. Yes, its pretty clear that most is due to rake, but... This might be another way to get around testing, tweak the wing during the pit stop. Then again, it might just be a totally innocent & legal adjustment of the flaps.

[marcush.]

preload adjustment ?

[Richard]

... or possibly adjusting the wing angle.

[godlameroso]

As many have pointed out, you can't just focus on one part of the car and assume it's going to make all the difference. For example I see people dropping parts in their cars, and they go no faster. Most of the time they don't bother tuning, and if they do, they only make engine changes and leave the suspension and brakes alone. Cars are systems, and like systems in nature, affecting one aspect can not only affect everything else it can also have unforeseen consequences in other areas.

RB have a design philosophy that may have led them to stumble unexpectedly to their supperior aero design.

[hardingfv32]

1) In the center photo above, what type of device has a digital readout and control/adjustment knob? Could this be some kind of step motor that will turn the adjustment screw a set amount?

2) Changing the wing tension through wing adjuster is creative idea, but would seem a little risky. The wings could be examine after the race or at some other random time after a session.

Brian

[MathiasG]

Hi aero-people,

I'm Matthew, I've been keeping track of this forum for several years now and have found these pics & comments extremely interesting. Nice way to gain some extra insight into the F1 world.

I registered because I spotted this:


If I'm not mistaken, this is Hamilton overtaking Vettel in the China GP, but Vettel's DRS sees to be opened, which would be forbidden in that turn. Is this really the case or did they just run a low df setup?