Flexible wings 2011

[xpensive]

Again, what people don't seem to understand is that you need to add the horizontal load on the wing in the test.

This is what is flexing the wing and how RBR is making Whiting look like a fool.

[shelly]

xpensive, can you explainthe way you think drag force bens the front wing down? What order of magnitude do you expect drag to be compared to front wing downforce?

[xpensive]

This is a trick by the orientation of the fibers, under the right combination of loads you can make a cantilever beam doing the strangest things.

In the 80s, Saab in Sweden xperimented with fighter wings that would bend down rather than up, when subjected to the load combo during a loop.

[Richard]

Shelly - its been something we've been talking about on here for nearly a year now.

The RB wing is probably designed with a shear centre under the FIA vertical load test point. That would result in a nice compliant vertical deflection in the test.

However, go out on the race track and the aerodynamics will create horiz, vertical & torsional forces. These will be eccentric to the FIA test, hence different deflection.

It is possible to create structures that exhibit vertical deflection under horizontal loading due to the torsional properties of the structure under eccentric loading.

It doesn't really matter how big the horiz load is, you simply design the wing to deflect as you want under the aero loading, ie you adjust the stiffness to match the loads. We saw RB calibrating that process in winter testing last year, and McLaren this year.



.

That's why load tests will never be satisfactory, the teams will simply design a wing to comply with the test load, but different under the aero loading. The only way to test that is to put the wing into a wind tunnel, but that's impractical as the wings change for nearly every race, and the teams have several sets for each driver.

Hence my suggestion that they side step the whole issue with an FIA supplied spar inside the wing, just like there is an FIA ECU and an FIA plank to control ride height. The alternative is go in an endless merry-go-round of irrelevant tests.

[SiLo]

Personally, I think the wing should have a minimum height relative to the actual floor, not the reference plane. That way you can't get a massive advantage by running rake and other things, or flexing either.

I propose they ammend the rules to have the reference plane as the floor, and have tiny lasers across the wing that gives the FIA real time data or the height of the wing.

To me, this is easy to introduce (for next year) and fairly cheap probably compared to researching flexible wings.

[HampusA]

Again, what people don't seem to understand is that you need to add the horizontal load on the wing in the test.

This is what is flexing the wing and how RBR is making Whiting look like a fool.

Again, not if you do a test with sensors and get some real data on what really happens at top speed with the wing.

[Tozza Mazza]

Again, not if you do a test with sensors and get some real data on what really happens at top speed with the wing.

Finally someone that agrees with me. It's the only way to prevent the practice.

[Richard]

See the pics above for how the teams measure these things in real life.

So do we put on the magic sensors before or after we sprinkle the tracks with fairy dust?

[malcolm]

The simplest thing to do is have a homolgated spar running through the wing. Then the teams can add on their own aero appendages.

I'd also update the static deflections tests so they are carried out on the fully assembled car, thus checking there are no flexible bodywork connections

Thief!!

Even simpler, why not a mandated spar? Make sure the spar is super-rigid, and then the teams can use their own profile over it.

Of course, some thought would have to go into making sure the element didn't flex around the spar...

viewtopic.php?p=238079#p238079

[Pierce89]

Again, what people don't seem to understand is that you need to add the horizontal load on the wing in the test.

This is what is flexing the wing and how RBR is making Whiting look like a fool.

I love how you write that as an indisputable fact. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think any of us know for sure.

[shelly]

@richard: I agree with you on the key being cf layup tailored to meet regulation and deform under aero load. I asked to expensive why he thought drag was critical in this (aerodynamic torsion moment could be enough already).
While expensive underlines drag importance, I would highlight instead the possibility of twist-bend coupling of laminates.

[HampusA]

See the pics above for how the teams measure these things in real life.

So do we put on the magic sensors before or after we sprinkle the tracks with fairy dust?

.........................

Back to reality, Does these tests take into consideration on how much a nose flexes? or how much a FW pivots inwards compared to the general downforce pushing the wing down? Doubt it.

[marcush.]

@richard: I agree with you on the key being cf layup tailored to meet regulation and deform under aero load. I asked to expensive why he thought drag was critical in this (aerodynamic torsion moment could be enough already).
While expensive underlines drag importance, I would highlight instead the possibility of twist-bend coupling of laminates.

in the static load test the wing does comply -so the wing is legal when subject to only a vertical load in the specified area.

So what are the possible reasons for the extra bending it performs under real world conditions?

It could be the outer section of the wing is more bendy -eg a "hinge" point is centred in the area where the static load test force is applied.
or alternatively other forces on the wing result in the extra bending -which brings up the idea of the drag forcing the wing ends a bit back and allowing the wing to bend.

To me it´s very clear that a nearly point load applied t0 the wing has nothing to do what happens when the wing is subject to airflow ,so maybe the correct description would be not drag induced but airflow induced forces on the wing?I would love to see if a simple pull test on the endplate in x direction would result in the Wing bending more .

[wesley123]

See the pics above for how the teams measure these things in real life.

So do we put on the magic sensors before or after we sprinkle the tracks with fairy dust?

And again with the sneaky snake comments..

Can you make atleast one post without these comments?
Maybe try some constructive criticism instead because those comments doesn´t really help now do they? I´m sorry we had no idea you were the official F1 master who knows everything there is to know.. Give me a break.

He doesnt, what he iss aying is that such an idea is unclear. You, and a few others, make it sound like it is so easy to implement, which it obviously isnt, that is what richard meant i think.

Does FIA have this system you talk about? Have they even thought about using that system you are talking about?

No and no. How about talking to us like you would want to be talked to yourself?

How do you know?

Back to reality, Does these tests take into consideration on how much a nose flexes? or how much a FW pivots inwards compared to the general downforce pushing the wing down? Doubt it.

The nose it does, since the loads put on the Front wing gets carried through to the rest of the car, this energy has to go anywhere you know.

Apart from that, how does that sensor you recalled take the pivot of the wing into account?

I am for a system to ensure this, but a sensor is useless and way too high tech, plus to get realistic readings you need sensors all over the plce, ande these can get kicked off in case of damage.

That is why I am for a much simpler system which doesnt work different, LMP's have been using these for ages, you just add skid blocks in the footplates, by that way this can be regulated way easier, without the need of high tech gadgets all over the place.

[Tozza Mazza]

Yes but, then the skid block on the footplates would have to be at least 7.5cm thick, which is a lot. A distance measuring sensor, or a load test which replicates the downforce levels at top speed (around 315km/h) are what is required, as the current test is inadequate, as RBR are still able to flex there wing.