Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
This is why I don't think it is anything sinister.bhallg2k wrote:He didn't twist it on purpose. It's just so flimsy that it twisted when he lifted the right camera pod at the same time as the left-rear of the nose cone itself.
That's not an altogether irrational idea. However, that pitstop video combined with this, from the other car...rayden wrote:This is why I don't think it is anything sinister.
The mechanics actions indicate the way the nose behaved was not expected.
i think the nose was broken on the DRS signage after the RIC incident, and it is just the outer yellow sticker holding it all together that gives it this rubbery appearance.
rear jack mounted, which made the front go downAnthonyG wrote: What makes the car come to the ground in this image? (it's not the camera zooming in cause the shadow gets bigger)
completely agreerayden wrote:true, although do we have any similar footage of other teams for comparisons sake?
I am not sure that amount of movement is too unusual - especially when recorded at 1000 fps.
Crash test is only for the tube, therefor engineers will be able to make another part less rigid/flexiblemclaren777 wrote:There's definitely something going on.
dave34m wrote:Great post, I imagine the FIA has a very close look at the nose cone area with all the crash testing etc, would they be comfortable with something that has that ability to flex?hollus wrote:I think I have a plausible physical model for it all. In blue I have added a plausible shape for the crash structure inside the wing. It contacts the top skin until point 1 in orange, it lets loose of the skin from there on and in the lower part.
Point 1 in orange is the also the first pivot point for the wing pillars and the main wing assembly thanks to a somewhat flexible (bendable but not stretchable) skin. At relatively low speed the whole thing, including the hollow wing tip, bends downwards and backwards like a pendulum around point 1 due mostly to drag near the end plates pushing them backwards. This increases the angle of attack of the wing allowing it to generate more downforce. This effect accounts for the rotation between the end plates in the figure.
Pivot point 2 in purple (will be somewhat lower) is the flimsy point where the wing pillars meet the main plane. It allows the wing to rotate back into planar (horizontal end plates) at very high speed, driven by downforce generated mostly near the rear part of the end plates. This alleviates the excessive drag of the tilted wing at very high speed.
Other two effects bring the end plates close to the ground for better ground effect: 3) Overall car rake and 4) A cantilever effect of the whole wing assembly as seen from the front (think of Olympic weight lifting). It is effect 4 that brings the end plates in red effectively lower than the end plates in green, and also why more of the wing pillars can be seen in the red version (together with a slightly different camera angle).
An arrangement where points 1 and 2 are exactly on top of each other and the crash structure departs from the outer skin at point 1, together with an adapter that sets the 100Kg of FIA's rams in line with point 2 ensures that FIA's wing flexibility test measures effect 4 and only effect 4, as all the weight is effectively hanging from point 1 and thus from the rigid crash structure. FIA's ram does not activate any of the tilting effects and of course ignores overall car rake.
I guess a more exact version would put point 2 lower and more forward, and point 1 correspondingly more forward so that they stay on top of each other, but these hypothetical pivot points illustrate the point more clearly.
Also look at the left hand side endplate, you can see it in bottom pic and cannot see it in top pic, which also suggests the different angle of the photosiskue2005 wrote:
also this pic is flawed
both photos are taken from completely different angles, see how in the seecond pic you can see more of the left front tyre and the one on the top
the second pic is taken from more a top angle
hence cannot say the nose is flexing or not from the pic
from the video is does look like the mechanic's left hand is pushing it downward while the right is lifting it.bhallg2k wrote:He didn't twist it on purpose. It's just so flimsy that it twisted when he lifted the right camera pod at the same time as the left-rear of the nose cone itself.
