Flexible wings 2011

[hardingfv32]

Let us disregard the actual wording of the rules since it is subject to interpretation. Lets assume the wings are flexing.

1) Do we have any evidence beyond photos proving that RB flexes more than others?

2) Can't it be argued the RB employs rake to get their front wing lower?

3) Most importantly, if it is flexing more than the other, then how is it done? Allow yourself to model any solution that would generally fit within all the other F1 construction rules. At this point completely disregard form factor or overall shape. A model than bends non-linear to a linear applied load.

Could it be if it is not possible then it is not being done?

Brian

[Ciro Pabón]

... Could it be if it is not possible then it is not being done?

Brian

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Of course it's being done.

As for the questions, 1. We have the words of Red Bull competitors, which are trying to do the same. 2. No idea. 3. I think there is a thread devoted to figure out how it's done.

What I know for sure is that the usual case where geometry leads you to non linearity is a thin member which has been stretched in the midplane. It's kind of the textbook example. This stretching gives you a non linear strain stress curve.

For inertial non linearity I know an easier way. In many books on structures there is chapter devoted to techniques for solving concentrated (or distributed, non linearly) masses. All of them tackle non-linearity.

So, in essence, you prestretch the center of the material or you use blobs of mass (or, perhaps, variable wing profile).

Actually, to be sincere, the hard part in structures is to find perfect linearity... it doesn't exist, specially when you consider that any material is stretched AND compressed. In that case, few materials behave linearly.

[xpensive]

Repeating myself into absurdity, I'm certain that Whiting needs to add the horizontal load from drag to get the true behaviour of the front wing. With clever fiber otientation it is possible to make a cantilever beam do the strangest of things.

[Ciro Pabón]

Repeating myself into absurdity...

In a 73 pages thread there is always a certain amount of echo. I'd say Red Bull will tell us some day... day... day... day... day

... With clever fiber otientation it is possible to make a cantilever beam do the strangest of things.

Well, that's some inspiration... A limerick, just for you and your many wives.

There was once a girl from Nantuckett
that had carbon fibers by the bucket
at least that I think
'cause while in a fling
she enjoys the strangest of things

[xpensive]

This one is for you Ciro;

There was an old man of Cali
who wished he had had his Campari.
So he sat on a chair
till he died of despair,
that hidden fan of Ferrari.

[marcush.]

drawup a line representing the 3300mm of wheelbase and the defined position of the specified wing section of the front wing and start raising the rearendpoint of the line representing the rear axle line around the front axle line and you can easily see the geometry ...You need to lift the rear an awful lot to start making an impact at the front overhang .Mind you ...the plank only starts at the rear of the front wing giving you a bit of scope to lower the front as well with increased rake but nothing will explain an endplate hitting the ground ....you need to ram the splitter deep into the ground to have that -if you stick to the regs in their spirit.If you ignore some things and use all tolerance it will improve a bit but still not explain everything.

I really like the idea of expensive for the fibre orientation doing the trick but i also believe there are possibilities with other aspects of the mechanical design that allow or contribute to the behaviour.

With the RRA in place a lot of people walk in and out of your facility anyways..so to me whiting should be entitled to demand a look at their windtunnel test results and as RB is measuring all their deflection on the fly during their tunneltesting and suppliers advertising with that ability ..the data is there .

[xpensive]

Just ban that ghastly front wing altogether, not only would it solve the flexing problem, but it would also force a further
reduction in rear wing size in order to balance the car, which will in turn reduce aerodynamic drag dramatically.

As a consequence, fuel consumption will go down automatically without the need for a four-pot engine.

The drop in downforce could easily compensated by an upscaled diffuser, perhaps even venturis, if needed at all?

But best of all, the cars would look great!

[hardingfv32]

Takes no thought or creativity to just say, ban flex wings.

I say you do not have a model/system than bends non-linear way to a linear applied load or "clever fiber orientation" application. You guys come up with a modicum of intelligence or knowledge and I will do the rest of the leg work.

I'm calling your bluff. RB's front wings do not bend in a non-linear way to a linear applied load.

So come up with some researchable information.

Brian

[J.Clark]

Firstly, I am new to posting on this site and I am not sure if this is the correct place to post my query.
When Vettel had his shunt in the Turkish practice session I noticed two wires hanging from his front-wing pylons ( the rest of the wing had become detached in his collision with a barrier ).
I know that there are no adjustments allowed to the wing, except during a pit stop, and that there are no cameras on that part of the wing - so I was wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable than me could suggest why these wires were there, and whay possible function they could perform?
Thank you.

[ianwit]

You don't have to go far back for that answer try page 71

[J.Clark]

Thank you ianwit for your reply to my query about the wires hanging from the damaged Red Bull wing.

[hardingfv32]

"There was often an argument that the cars see more load on the wings, on the track, than they do under our test. But we often double that load to make sure that the deflection remains the same up to the increased load. We test everyone like that. We test with the nose off the car, on the car."

In this quote from Whiting he seems to imply that he does informal tests at increased loads.

Brian

[xpensive]

"There was often an argument that the cars see more load on the wings, on the track, than they do under our test. But we often double that load to make sure that the deflection remains the same up to the increased load. We test everyone like that. We test with the nose off the car, on the car."

In this quote from Whiting he seems to imply that he does informal tests at increased loads.

Brian

That statement must have raised a few eyebrows in the pitlane, while it certainly reinforced my appreciation of Whiting's competence for the position. What on earth is he talking about, why would they apply loads outside the rules for testing?

[wesley123]

"There was often an argument that the cars see more load on the wings, on the track, than they do under our test. But we often double that load to make sure that the deflection remains the same up to the increased load. We test everyone like that. We test with the nose off the car, on the car."

In this quote from Whiting he seems to imply that he does informal tests at increased loads.

Brian

That statement must have raised a few eyebrows in the pitlane, while it certainly reinforced my appreciation of Whiting's competence for the position. What on earth is he talking about, why would they apply loads outside the rules for testing?

Funny thing is, if then with the higher load the wing flexes too much he cannot do anything since it is outside of the rules as well for what he is doing. He cannot give a DSQ or whatever for a 'illegal part' that is not written in the rulebook. Ah well what are the rules, if they want to give a penalty they will anyway

[marcush.]

"There was often an argument that the cars see more load on the wings, on the track, than they do under our test. But we often double that load to make sure that the deflection remains the same up to the increased load. We test everyone like that. We test with the nose off the car, on the car."

In this quote from Whiting he seems to imply that he does informal tests at increased loads.

Brian

That statement must have raised a few eyebrows in the pitlane, while it certainly reinforced my appreciation of Whiting's competence for the position. What on earth is he talking about, why would they apply loads outside the rules for testing?

Bloody idiot -if they have a wing failure on track the word will be FIKA tresting is putting excessive loads on our wings leading to reduced life...
what is he trying tzo achieve ? X is spot on the FIa is just incompetent in this matter.
Being Charly whiting i would impound the front wiongs of the cars of the next race position 1-6 and do test them thorrowly under scrutiny of the teams .Giving them a chance to demonstrate the legality.there are so many windtunnels around dormant it must be an easy task to set up a simple deflection test under aero loads.