Flexible wings 2011

[Rob01]

We are beating on a dead horse. The FIA have cleared the Red Bull front wing as legal. All the others will make flexy/bending wings and next year they will all be declared illegal. Usually how F1 works. Spend a bunch of money to emulate the devise/system to have it outlawed the following year.

[Richard]

JET - we all know that it is impossible for an object to be completely immobile and rigid. So due to that rather awkward fact there is an allowance of 20mm deflection under 1000kN load.

Put it this way, lets say the rules said all cars had to be painted green and then gave a test that defined green as an RGB of 50,50,30. It may not look green enough to you and I , but that would be the FIA definition of "green". It is a quantifiable test to help define a subjective rule. It is measurable and repeatable so that's the end of it.

[wesley123]

The race series is based on a contrived formula based on decades of accumulated quirks, anomalies and interpretations. Success is found by exploiting those quirks, anomalies and interpretations more effectively than other competitors. If the rules were perfect then we’d have a lot less innovation. There would have been no DDD, F-Duct or flexi wing. How dull.

All rule books have contradictions, and in this case the regulator has been very clear and very consistent in the interpretation of the contradiction. Hence the formula is very clearly defined, job done.

Im sorry that doesnt wash, Richard.
The double diffuser was legal. It was legal by the letter of law and fell within the parameters set by the FIA. It was clever in interpretation.
The F-duct similarly, was a device effectively using the driver as a device to close a hole that makes the wing stall. There was no rule for it to transgress.

What we have with Red Bull is bending bodywork which is a flagrant transgression of rule 3.15 as we have seen at length on this discussion.

must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car

must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)

To me, and to anyone with a modicum of sense and eyesight this would make the RB7 wing illegal as its a direct trangression of rules. Forget even the fabled spiritual trangression!

As I have said multiple times before, rule 3.17 coutneracts this. Effectively the rules state this; The wing can only flex when scrutineering and when standing still, when it is moving it has to be rigidly secured. We all know you cannot do that, apart from making a part rigidly secured, which is impossible too.

As i read the rules it means; Under a 1000N load it can flex for 20mm, outside that it can flex for unlimited ammounts. Apart from that, isnt it possible that you could use a whole nose, including front wing or w/e flexes use as a crashbox? I mean, is the nose crash structure body work or a safety device? afaik that isnt defined per rules, so you have a loophole there.

[Richard]

I mean, is the nose crash structure body work or a safety device? afaik that isnt defined per rules, so you have a loophole there.

That's an interesting idea. AFAIK the nose crash structure and bodywork are separate entities. The thing that is crash tested is a simplified nose shape that fits inside a bodywork cover. That allows them to play with the bodywork shape without changing the homologated crash structure.

So perhaps it is feasible to have a rigid inner crash structure and the wing supported by a flexible bodywork shell on the outside?

[marcush.]

JET - we all know that it is impossible for an object to be completely immobile and rigid.

This is really the point of interest.The rules state it has to be rigid and IMMOBILE.
Clearly the whole concept of the front wing ,Nose ,pillars,teatray area is certainly aiming at a certain reaction of these parts when subject to the test load and a different behaviour when subject to real world loads.This very clearly speaks volumes about Neweys attitude:The car is DESIGNED to circumvent the rule as it is policed.If the Fia would introduce a more suitable test proceedure or decide to measure on the fly -it would be red bull not complying .

The words immobile and rigid ahave been introduced especially for avoiding flexible bendy wings .To allow for having them not as brittle as glass to meet the rules ,the static load test was introduced .RedBull does indeed make a travestie out of this rule.That´s clever and i admire them for being able to do what they do but it is still not ok for the FIA to look on and state we have tested the wing and it complies to our tests...Come on that´s not engineering and it is not a scientific approach .We have tested it for this and that and it shows no evidence...maybe then you should start to think about your tests ...aqs we can even see with our eyes that it does something weird...this is when 5 amateurs try to police an army of pros who also carry bags full of cash...

[shamikaze]

As I have said multiple times before, rule 3.17 coutneracts this. Effectively the rules state this; The wing can only flex when scrutineering and when standing still, when it is moving it has to be rigidly secured. We all know you cannot do that, apart from making a part rigidly secured, which is impossible too.

As i read the rules it means; Under a 1000N load it can flex for 20mm, outside that it can flex for unlimited ammounts. Apart from that, isnt it possible that you could use a whole nose, including front wing or w/e flexes use as a crashbox? I mean, is the nose crash structure body work or a safety device? afaik that isnt defined per rules, so you have a loophole there.

Then why not force the teams to integrate a carbon road with a aero-profile that is to be mounted on the foremost part of the nose and on both extremities of the FW.

Think of it as a double-triangle (a triangle on each side of the FW) with the following:
1. Veritcal sides being represented by the FW-pilars (otherwise you leave a exploitation hole open).
2. The diagonal to pe represented by the to-be-introduced carbon rod.
3. The flat piece of the traingle the FW section itself.

You can perfectly specify any dimensions of this triangle (flat, diagonal, angles, ...) As long as the corner-angle between the vertical and the bottom part of the traingle is fixed to 90°, I'd think circumventing this one would be very very hard. But then again, never under-estimate the mind of a gifted enigneer

This would at least eliminate the lateral flexing of the FW, I would even doubt if the impact to the aero behind would be drastic, there will be an impact though, but not extreme.

If then there would still be any flexing, it would have to be longitudanal (changing AoA). Even that flexing would be counteracted by the rods/traingle-design, but it would not 100% eliminate it.

for increased security, you could even run a tether through the aero profile that runs all the way around so that in the event of a collision, parts don't fly off and become a everything-piercing spear.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

As i read the rules it means; Under a 1000N load it can flex for 20mm, outside that it can flex for unlimited ammounts.

I think this is where we are falling down Wesley.

Because the rule 3.17 is in place to enforce rule 3.15.

Circumventing rule 3.17 is in direct conflict with 3.15 whatever anyone says, cries or sings. And because it is there to enforce 3.15 it should be accepted that Red Bull are operating outside of what is deemed acceptable.

In a Court of Law, 3.15 will be the law, and 3.17 the implementation of the law.
That it kind of gets round 3.17 does not now mean that 3.15 is now also satisfied, if you follow me. So it is still, by law, outlawed.

[Richard]

Who's circumventing the test? All the cars pass the test, they all jump through the hoop as required.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Who's circumventing the test? All the cars pass the test, they all jump through the hoop as required.

Circumventing as in passing it, but then flexing in the real world as we have all seen, in conflict with 3.15.

If 3.17 did not exist then Red Bulls wing would be illegal beyond shadow of doubt. Sure nothing is totally rigid, but its taking the piss using that argument as a defence for what Red bull are doing.

[Richard]

So what do you think off the twin nose idea?

[hardingfv32]

So now the designer, engineer, tech officials and stewards must be concerned with how the wing "looks" when in use on the track. Can you please provide guidelines or dimensions for the correct "look"? Are many protests successful because something did not "look" correct?

Brian

[HampusA]

It´s funny first and foremost to see the RBR defence force in place here

But the other funny thing was in 08, remember those ugly wings where one plane went over the nosecone?

What happened with those now again? Could it be that they flexed to much and was then decided to either remove or make them stiffer?

It´s sure nice to see some sane, logical people in here that knows how to read a rulebook. To even mention DDD or F-duct is in itself quite laughable because there is no rule against them.

Brawn even warned everyone regarding DDD but nobody listened, i haven´t heard Newey say a word about making front wings (and rear wings) break the law but possible to cheat the tests.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

So now the designer, engineer, tech officials and stewards must be concerned with how the wing "looks" when in use on the track. Can you please provide guidelines or dimensions for the correct "look"? Are many protests successful because something did not "look" correct?

Brian

Sure thing Brian. If it flexes, which it evidently is, does that not contravene the non flexing rule?

If I shot and killed someone on camera, but there is no DNA evidence or no trace of the weapon, does this mean I'm innocent?
Of course it doesn't.

There is no debating, the wing flexes. There is rake, and a very clever exhaust overun, and there is a flexing wing. I'm all for the first 2, it is genius. But something that IMO breaks a very clear rule in 3.15 really should not be used.
And yes its deemed legal by the FIA, but other than Charlie whiting coming out a garage saying "the wing complies" I cannot understand how this line is maintained in light of all the video and picture evidence.

I would be 100% satisfied if the FIA came out with pictures/video of the wing flexing, with reasons as to WHY it is legal? Remember guys, 3.17 is a rule in place to enforce 3.15. If the FIA are under the impression that it is flexing more than it should they can ban it on photo evidence..... Ask Ferrari all about that!

[hardingfv32]

Fine, we will use photo evidence. Again, as a designer, engineer, tech officials or steward what is the tolerance that I apply to the photo evidence? What is the tolerance of a human viewing such evidence. What prevents bias on the part of the observer? What you are proposing is completely unworkable from a race management point of view.

Your quote is a perfect example: "If the FIA are under the impression that it is flexing more than it should they can ban it on photo evidence". How does one judge or measure "flexing more than it should"? How do I comply with a rule that involves such judgement? What are the political ramification to the sport allowing such rulings based on judgement?

Brian

[Formula None]

So what do you think off the twin nose idea?

It was talked about earlier in the thread. I gather its standard practice to have a separate CS and a nose "skin" that carries the front wing stays. Not sure what anyone still thinks of nose flex. I'm not as convinced anymore in light of the rake geometry discussion. Maybe it flexes, if so, working with the other factors discussed by scarbs & others:

1. Nose cone skin flex
2. Wing transverse flex
3. Rake
4. Rake changing at speed (soft front heave, rigid rear heave; or some heretofore undiscovered mechanism which affect car attitude at speed within rules)




[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXf2jx-fHZ0[/youtube]