Flexible wings 2011

[HampusA]

But for now I think that at least 50% of the visual effect of running close to the ground is due to other reasons and the concept of the car as a package.

Watch the clip i provided and give me a nice thorough explanation as to why the wing is touching the ground at top speed but raises itself substantially from the ground during braking. You would think that if it were the rake only it would be the other way round.

[CHT]

Not sure if this been posted before.
Got this from Autosport forum

[amouzouris]

Not sure if this been posted before.
Got this from Autosport forum

What the F*** is the nose flexing as well??

[ecapox]

Two different pictures, taken at two different times, from two different angles. The nose doesnt flex.

[malcolm]

"Flex" is it allowed or not? I assume the hard liners will say no flex at all. Fine, so may I assume an absolute flex number of .0000 mm? Or will you allow me a tolerance of some kind since there are no instruments that accurate available for use at the track. This is in the case of static test with the car not moving. For a moving car what am I to use? Differently not the human eye, so lets say a laser system. Guess what, nothing even close to .0000 mm in a laser system for the track.

You guys are talking the talk, but not providing the administrator of the rule with any tools to use.

You want someone to make a judgement, which the FIA has done, but you are not happy with it. Must we search for a judge that "views" things to your satisfaction? What is the measure of your satisfaction, .0000 mm?

Stop hiding behind the letter of the law and make some practical decisions.

Brian

You are stating that as if Red Bull cannot design a wing to be any stiffer than what they currently have.

The fact is that they intentionally designed the wing to flex, using a poorly defined test (3.17) as a loop-hole to intentionally break another rule (3.15). I don't think anyone can honestly deny that.

I think you will find that many of us have suggested alternative testing methods, from varying the application of force during the test, to replicating forces that would be applied at 300 km/h, to stipulating less deflection, to testing the wing and nose-cone in a wind-tunnel in free stream and testing deflection with lasers. Lastly, a very simple (and rather smart) idea is to take the plank idea from the chassis and apply the same theory to the bottom of the endplates, stipulating a maximum level of acceptable wear over a race (exceed that and you get a DNF).

From those, if I was Mr. Whiting, I would determine what a wing produces in downforce at 300 km/h on average through the field (easy to do by simply running a few tests in MIRA's, Mercedes/Brawn's or Toyota's wind-tunnel with a few noses. I would use those numbers to select a force to be applied on a few points on the wing: endplate (10% from the front, 50% and 90%), main element of wing section (at 10% chord, max thickness and 2/3 chord of the main element) and centre of the wing (to test nose flex).

So, of course some degree of flex should be allowed, but it should be substantially less than what is currently stipulated by the FIA. Much stronger wings than the Red Bull are possible. If they weren't, this would have reared it's ugly head LONG before 2010... I don't recall a 1985 flexible wing controversy, and by 2000 they were over 360 km/h at Hockenheim! Surely a lower-tech wing from 2000 would deflect quite a bit at 360 km/h if the current Red Bull wing was as stiff as what is currently possible.

[hardingfv32]

"Either they remove the rule or they start upping their tests with more load and loads in many different areas of the wing."

Or... they change nothing, continue to do what all the teams and officials are presently agreeable to, and completely disregard your view. Do you find that so hard to accept? Such a travesty of the your opinion of the rules!

Brian

[malcolm]

The wing is intentionally designed to flex more than what is possible in terms of stiffness. Agreed?

If you say yes, then they are breaking a rule (3.15). Nowhere in that rule does it say that it is subject to the test in 3.17.

No opinions here... just stating facts. Just because the FIA has said it's ok doesn't mean all the teams are cool with it too. Remember the controversy that erupted last year over this, and how teams thought it would be resolved this year where flexible wings would be outlawed. Everyone isn't happy with it, best shown by teams that said "we don't like that we have to make a flexible wing because now we have to spend a load of money just to make the wing flex".

Also, drop the sarcasm. This is a technical forum, not a fanboy forum where you degrade those who disagree with you.

[hardingfv32]

malcolm,

So now we are allowing some flex. Does this mean we are now not reading 3.15 with a more flexible interpretation. Well, some progress.

That leaves use with the issue of the amount of flex to be allowed. Just about any amount of flex can be set with the rules and an appropriate static test designed to check that number. But, what is so wrong with the level that the teams and officials have in place now and agreed to? Are we aware of any team asking for flex levels or testing. All of the participants are happy, why not you?

Could it be that your favorite team is not as proficient with wing design as other teams? What is the point of changing anything?

You agreed to allow flexing per your statements and the officials have decided on the levels based on their static test designs. What is the issue?

Brian

[tikavi]

It seems that photographer was sitting when taking first photo, and standing when taking second one. In second photo you can see left wheel, in first you can't.

[hollus]

@CHT:

Those pictures of the contours were made by me, and originally posted in the Flexible wings 2011 thread here at F1T (page 4) Please, keep any further discussion about it there! It has been kind of interesting to see them spreading around the internet (without all the caveats included in the original post, of course). Nothing like a conspiracy theory to spread a rumor.

Funny enough, I didn't make them as a proof that RBR is doing anything illegal. If you ask me, I am not sure if they are illegal or not. I just wanted to see where it was flexing, and for that it kind of provided a nice answer. If they are cheating with this, I want to know how. If they are not, and they are flexing legally, I still want to know how! And that explains part of it. You have to add rake, suspension travel, cantilever effects, and what not that we might not have noticed yet.

[mep]

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.

In my opinion do some people here misread this part of the rules because they try to apply it to flexibility even when there is nothing written about flexibility at all. There is just written that a part has to be rigidly secured or lets say attached to the rest of the body. It does not mean the part itself is not allowed to bend just that the mounting does not allow for any degree of freedom. It is clear that this rule is supposed to cover things like sliding skirts because they had a degree of freedom along z-axis. The complete front wing including the nose of the RedBull is fore sure rigidly attached to the tube therefore passes this rule easily. The rule covers just the mounting spot nothing else.


There never can be something like “the spirit of the rules”. That is something you can not put into real figures therefore you can’t call something illegal by saying it’s against the spirit when you can’t even define this spirit. You can just ban something when there is an exact defined written down rule. Also you can only make a regulation/law about something when you can control/test its compliance. If you can’t you can forget your rule/law.

If you do not want to allow a part to flex then you have to exactly define a load and an allowed deflection under this load. This is done in paragraph 3.17 bodywork flexibility. When the RB passes these tests then it is legal to race.

[hardingfv32]

"The wing is intentionally designed to flex more than what is possible in terms of stiffness. Agreed?"

I am an engineer, please assign some value to the word "stiffness" or "possible". As a car designer I love words like "stiffness", they are so grey. You are try to apply the word as a black and white absolute value and it is not working.

From what we hear in the press, there is no one complaining about the rule currently. There is no point, the FIA has set the standards and it is time for the teams to figure the issue out for them selves. Is F1 going to outlaw every innovative design just because it costs money to design?

Again, sarcasm is a grey subject. I can learn and adjust to your sensibilities.

Brian

[CHT]

Two different pictures, taken at two different times, from two different angles. The nose doesnt flex.

I dont think the nose is flexing, but if you look at the TOTAL livery against the background, it is pretty clear that the front wing is flexing forward rather than side ways.

And to gain the maximum down force through corners with the flexed wing, do you guys think it is possible that the wing is constructed in a way that there is a structure within the carbon fibre that is holding or maintaining the flex angle through the corners even without that high speed aero down force.

And I wont be surprise that when FIA conduct the wing flex testing, they are focusing on the wing flexing side ways instead of flexing forward

[malcolm]

That leaves use with the issue of the amount of flex to be allowed. Just about any amount of flex can be set with the rules and an appropriate static test designed to check that number. But, what is so wrong with the level that the teams and officials have in place now and agreed to? Are we aware of any team asking for flex levels or testing. All of the participants are happy, why not you?

What makes you think all the teams are happy? I think it was Stefano Domenicalli that made a statement how he was unhappy that due to the current interpretation of the rules, Ferrari now had to spend considerable time and money developing a flexible wing.

Could it be that your favorite team is not as proficient with wing design as other teams?

Personally, I don't really have a favourite team... and if I did have a preference, it would actually be Red Bull, so there goes your fanboy assumption. Nice try.

You agreed to allow flexing per your statements and the officials have decided on the levels based on their static test designs. What is the issue?

The levels are not realistic, and now this is forcing many teams to spend considerable time and money developing flexible composites that have no real application or use outside of Formula One front wings. Flexible diffusers? Not allowed. Flexible rear wings? Not allowed (Ferrari found that out a few years ago).

The issues are, to be clear: money and time wasted on a useless technology that will not improve the sport and that contravenes 3.15.

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.

...

The rule covers just the mounting spot nothing else.

Wrong, and I bolded the part that I am referring to. You'd have to be delusional (or blind) to think that the wing is not moving considerably relative to the sprung part of the car (i.e. the chassis).

"The wing is intentionally designed to flex more than what is possible in terms of stiffness. Agreed?"

I am an engineer, please assign some value to the word "stiffness" or "possible". As a car designer I love words like "stiffness", they are so grey. You are try to apply the word as a black and white absolute value and it is not working.

I am also an engineer, so I'd be more than happy to assign a value to those terms.

For the purposes of this discussion, stiffness refers to resistance of deflection due to aerodynamic load, or in more direct engineering terms, the relationship between stress and strain in the front wing of a Formula One racing vehicle.

In laymans terms, the relationship between downforce and how much the wing deflects from its static position.

As for "possible", lets take a conservative approach and go with "what has been accomplished in the past". Therefore, if Coulthard could do 361 km/h at Hockenheim in 2000, and the wing wasn't looking like a frown, I would say that it is POSSIBLE for a current wing to flex significantly less than the current Red Bull wing.

For someone complaining about definitions, you certainly seem to be a lover of playing with semantics.

From what we hear in the press, there is no one complaining about the rule currently.

Please assign some value to the words "we", "hear", "press", "complaining" and "currently". I ask that as I recently read a quote by Domenicalli that certainly showed is displeasure with the current interpretation.

There is no point, the FIA has set the standards and it is time for the teams to figure the issue out for them selves. Is F1 going to outlaw every innovative design just because it costs money to design?

Hmm... what about the current V8's? Limits in metallurgy? They even incorporated a strategy that they would outlaw irrelevant technologies the year after it was initially designed to prevent unnecessary costs (or since it was not mentioned in the last few days in the press, does this comment by the FIA not count?).

Again, sarcasm is a grey subject. I can learn and adjust to your sensibilities.

Just as I am adapting to yours, Brian.

[HampusA]

Two different pictures, taken at two different times, from two different angles. The nose doesnt flex.

Horizontal angles is the same even if you were to take the picture in 90 degrees tilted.

Two horizontal edges can never change if they are alligned with two other horizontal edges from another picture of the same car at approx the same angle.

They are always parallel unless of course, something is flexing..