'Radical' front wings.

[Distomak]

Hi all, I'm new here, hope this is a friendly forum

I have a theory on what the proposed, yet secret, radical wings may be which Ferrari are rumoured to be hiding until the events begin at Melbourne, and I thought I'd see if anyone know the legality of this in terms of the FIA Rules, and also if it would be as effective as I have thought.

-------

I was watching a program on Formula One a while ago, and a designer said that Formula One cars were like jet engines, but they are pointing down onto the track to create downforce instead of upwards to create lift.

On hearing the rumours of a secretive Ferrari front-wing config, I brainstormed an idea for a wing based on the theory that if you lift a wing on an airplane [or a jet...], the plane will turn in the opposite direction.

My theory is therefore that if the front wings were fitted with hydraulic lifting devices to make them lift upwards, this may mean that formula one cars could go into corners at much greater speed - as they would be using the current force of the engine rather than slowing down and building up again.

I have scanned over the FIA Rules for relevant sections, and here are the areas which I thought a team may be able to use as a loophole for such wings.

3.14 Overhangs:
No part of the car shall be more than 500mm behind the centre line of the rear wheels or more than 1200mm in front of the centre line of the front wheels.
No part of the bodywork more than 200mm from the centre line of the car may be more than 900mm in front of the front wheel centre line.
All overhang measurements will be taken parallel to the reference plane.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance (with the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 in the pit lane only) :
- 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.

Therefore, 3.15.3 [Rigidity] clears this device for use. If a hydraulic actuator is used to control the wing movements, then it could be argued that, while in the event of a system failure the wings would be open to malfunction, this would only be the same amount of failing as another piece of bodywork falling off.

Also, in reply to 3.15.4, the front wing's movements are immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car - in simple terms this means that will the part wobble, and obviously, it won't.

--------

Just posted this here as reading the other forum posts, it seems that there are a lot of very high level technical minds on here, so I was hoping for some thoughts

Thanks and 2 days to go!
Mark.

[akbar21881]

if you lift the front wing, it will reduce the downforce and hence the car would go into the corner understeering all over the place.can you explain your theory clearer as I didn't really what you were talking about.

[Distomak]

Basically the theory is that if one half of a two-part [Jordan like - two almost separate wings on the front attached to the nose] front wing was lifted, the car would turn.

If the wings were then setup to rise and fall in reverse [because when you lift the left wing on a plane you bank right] to the wheels being turned turning, this could aid turning into corners.

For example, on entering a right turn, the left wing would lift to a 45 degree banking, and the car would be forced right by it's own power. I think that if setup correctly, this would not cause understeer, as you are increasing the amount the car can steer - creating more of a buffer between oversteer and understeer.

I'll pencil out a diagram tommorow and see if that helps to make it clearer.

[seymour]

You're reading the rules wrong. Immobile means immobile. Moveable aerodynamic wings or flaps by hydraulic actuation or other means is not allowed.

When wings were first introduced in the late 60's, their angle of attack was driver controlled, but they were promptly banned.

[SpeedTech]

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

= NO MOVEMENT!!!

[Guest]

'any degree of freedom'

Meaning that, there is no play in the wings - you can't grab hold of them and shake them. This is what I mean though - while you can say that I am reading the rules wrong, if I were the boss of an F1 team, I could challenge the wording of this. This is different to the 'saggy' wings of the 90's, as it's a locked movement - there is no freedom in the wings - it is preset movement.

[Distomak]

sorry, that last post was by me.

[akbar21881]

Is it true that some wings bend at high speed? Hence reducing the angle of attack and increase top speed.

From what I understood, FIA enforce the fixed wing regulation by applying force at the endplates of front wing and rear wing by certain amount of force and wings endplates shouldn't bend or they'll declared illegal.

But what if it is the wing element that bend, not the endplate? Can anyone explain?

[Guest]

I'm 99% sure that it's a loophole. There is a 500N force applied by the FIA in testing, but as you say, this is applied to the endplate, meaning that the main part of the wings can bend as much as they like, as long as this is not cause by 500N of force on the endplate.

The rules, as with most term and condition type things, have some questionable word meanings and loopholes in.

[Guest]

Sorry Distomak there is no chance of a pivoting wing being legal.

For starters a 'degree of freedom' refers to pivoting around a point or axis thus the wing would have to deform and would have to move - hydraulics being a big no-no!

The rules state that the load is applied at the wing endplates, even if the endplates were magically not attached to the wings the wings are attached to the sprung part of car and consequently cannot move or deform. They (the FIA) also specify a test on the rear wing to prevent this twisting parallel to the axis of the wheels - which would alter the angle of attack of the wing at high speeds correspodingly reducing the drag... Still at least Ferrari had a go at Suzuka in '97 before the FIA cottoned on.....

[Distomak]

Very well, but if not that, then what on earth is this radical wing? Surely not just pr.

[Guest]

Hi I thought it was just hype over the engine cover mounted wing..

not too radical considering half the grid have already tried it....

But the Ferrari looks damm quick though, so does the BAR for any of their supporters out there...

[akbar21881]

There's nothing really radical about new Ferrari.The airbox mounted wing was long used by many other teams in Monaco since 2001. The front wing also can't really be classified as radical as only the leading edge that is a little bit different from everyone else.

Maybe the radical word can only be used to the pace of the car, radically quick by 1 second for friday practise!!Come on Schumi...get the 7th title and then retire!!

[Distomak]

Bah, Come on scum-maker, do us all a favour and join Mindardi