Flexible wings 2011

[shelly]

Agree. I think it is all down to aeroelastic tailoring, thanks to a more advanced fluid structure interaction study

[marekk]

I agree with Diesel - no cheating at RBR.

One more idea regarding those wires: in F1, if rules say you are allowed to bend 20 mm under test load, you want to bend 19,9mm - no more and no less.

I have no idea how much flexibility of carbon structures depends on temperature, but the rules don't describe precise measurement environment (which sucks, it's against basic metrologic laws), so you have to design your wing to not flex to much at 13 degree (Turkey) and possibly +40 degree (Malaysia), so you have to sacrify some performance just to be sure you pass the FIA test.
Making your wings a little to bendy at the start and dialing just needed amount of stiffness with structural wires makes sense IMO.

[HampusA]

Listen, we know the wing flex more then allowed so theorys will come in bunches until we really know what´s up. So stop the attitude, you don´t know --- either.

The best hypothesis to date is that Red Bull Racing has invested a lot of effort in developing a combined FEA/CFD system that allows them to design a clever carbon lay up for the front wing. This allows the wing to pass the simple vertical load test but to deflect when subjected to the more complicated aero loads.

No need to come up with heating elements or some of the other schemes proposed hereabouts.

Sorry if that puts a hole in your boat...

I don´t have a boat. I´m just pitching ideas on what i see. I couldn´t care less if someone shot down any of my theorys, infact i would be glad to have them shot down.

Like i said before, we know the wing flexes more then allowed, you don´t need anything other then a picture stationary and at top speed.

I´m just trying to find out what it could be. What your saying is a theory just like the heating one, probably alot more plausible but still, i think it´s unfair to get that kind of attitude for just throwing out a comment regarding something NONE of us know anything about.

All we have is theorys until evidence pops up or Newey just let´s it all out.

What we do know is that it does flex more then allowed. I´m fine with that, i just find it interesting to read about what it can be. Newey is a smart guy so it could be anything and probably something we haven´t even thought about yet.

[aral]

[quote="HampusA
What we do know is that it does flex more then allowed. .[/quote]
The wing does NOT flex more than what is allowed. The rules state the amount of flex allowed, and the FIA test to make sure that it complies. It has passed all tests.
It may flex more than what you think is acceptable or normal, but it does not flex more than what is allowed.

[marcush.]

You would have to apply an enourmous force to reduce bending with a wire running throu the span of the wing methinks..

[HampusA]

[quote="HampusA
What we do know is that it does flex more then allowed. .

The wing does NOT flex more than what is allowed. The rules state the amount of flex allowed, and the FIA test to make sure that it complies. It has passed all tests.
It may flex more than what you think is acceptable or normal, but it does not flex more than what is allowed.[/quote]

You should take a good look at the rules m8.

First of all, it flexes WAY more then 20mm.
Second of all it flexes, which is illegal according to the rules.

Try your ignorant stuff on somebody else.. The wing is illegal even though it passes all the shitty tests FIA put up.

[Rob01]

It's not illegal if it passes the FIA mandated test. Some will have to get over the genius that Newey has applied. FIA doubled the test for deflection in the Red Bull wing and it passed with flying colors. FIA also this year changed floor and other test to try and catch the Newey machine. It passed. The only thing to do now is quit crying and develop the technology Newey has applied. It may not work according to the spirit of the rule but it sure passes all the necessary test.

[HampusA]

It's not illegal if it passes the FIA mandated test. Some will have to get over the genius that Newey has applied. FIA doubled the test for deflection in the Red Bull wing and it passed with flying colors. FIA also this year changed floor and other test to try and catch the Newey machine. It passed. The only thing to do now is quit crying and develop the technology Newey has applied. It may not work according to the spirit of the rule but it sure passes all the necessary test.

Again, read the rules, it is illegal even though it passes the tests. Other teams wings are also illegal for sure.

[Richard]

it passes all the shitty tests FIA put up.

Hence it is legal - doh!

ps the 20mm is allowed deflection for the test load. The aero load is greater, hence deflection is greater.

[gerishnikov]

I find it funny how annoyed/desperate people get when they dont understand something

[AbbaleRacing77]

Red bull's wing is legal... Im sure its been tested by the FIA a million times after receiving hundreds of accusations from competitors. Somehow redbull has figured out a way to build its wings so that there flex rates are incrementally higher as load increases... Its the incremental flex rate that is boggling everyone, but there is no test or rule against being smart.

[andrew]

Listen, we know the wing flex more then allowed so theorys will come in bunches until we really know what´s up. So stop the attitude, you don´t know --- either.

Does it flex more than it allowed? Have you conducted stringent load testing? The FIA and Red Bull have an it passes. This makes it, oh what is the word....LEGAL!!!

Don't worry, I'm sure once Ferrari and McLaren's front wings are flapping about in the breeze all this talk of Red Bull's front wing made of single ply toilet paper will stop, in part due to the wing alone not giving the entire advantage.

This Red Bull wobbly wing thing and conspiracy theories are really beyond being funny now.

[Rob01]

HampusA...your being silly. It passes the deflection test. The rake of the car in addition to the fine aero package bring the car closer to the ground. The WING passes the test. Even a test that was doubled. You are for sure wrong on Red Bulls wings and the others being illegal.

[beelsebob]

The rule for the front wing ONLY involves the amount of deflection DURING the TEST. The Red Bull and ALL the others pass THIS test. As far as you seeing the wing touch/scrap the ground we ALL see it too. This doesn't make the wing ILLEGAL. The wing itself is getting closer to the ground so you ASSUME that the wing itself is responsible for the action when in fact it's the whole car aero/rake etc. working in conjunction with a TOTALLY LEGAL wing. You are just pointing at ONE piece of the puzzle as to how it gets down near the ground.

Incorrect.

The rule applies at all times

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

• must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
• 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.

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.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.

There is no exception for "only during the test", in fact there is a qualification under all circumstances. There is absolutely no question – a front wing that is designed to touch the ground (as the RBR's has been observed doing) even if done so through rake angle, is banned.

It is not a question of "is it flexing", it is not a question of "is it done by rake angle", it is not a question of "does it happen in the tests". It is a simple question of "does it bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground" – the answer is yes.

That said... The FIA apparently see this differently, I'm pretty surprised, because this rule was actually introduced to prevent exactly this sort of aero device – devices that use ground effect to gain downforce.

Bob

[HampusA]

Thank you Bob,