Red Bull RB8 Renault

[aral]

FIA tested only FW bending down, bending test up I will. Is Red Bull not use this hole in the rules?

Not sure if they test upwards flex as well. However, any flex upwards would indicate lift under the front wing! Hardly what any team would want.

[beelsebob]

FIA tested only FW bending down, bending test up I will. Is Red Bull not use this hole in the rules?

Not sure if they test upwards flex as well. However, any flex upwards would indicate lift under the front wing! Hardly what any team would want.

Or that the wing is generating downforce, but that it has an instantaneous impact force on it much greater than that downforce production, e.g. when riding curbs, which is what's being discussed.

[Redragon]

FIA tested only FW bending down, bending test up I will. Is Red Bull not use this hole in the rules?

Not sure if they test upwards flex as well. However, any flex upwards would indicate lift under the front wing! Hardly what any team would want.

Or that the wing is generating downforce, but that it has an instantaneous impact force on it much greater than that downforce production, e.g. when riding curbs, which is what's being discussed.

Now we are reaching to some interesting point here. Not a engenier or designer but for what I interpretate from the pictures and videos the wing flex from the top nose and pylons. The nose/pylons tilt backwards, meaning that the movement effect on the wing is backwards and moving up on the backside.
So to make it clear the wing move close to the front tyres and the backside of the wing is slightly up that the front when tilted.

[elFranZ]

Or that the wing is generating downforce, but that it has an instantaneous impact force on it much greater than that downforce production, e.g. when riding curbs, which is what's being discussed.

so, you're suggesting some kind of non-linearity, am I wrong?

[aral]

FIA tested only FW bending down, bending test up I will. Is Red Bull not use this hole in the rules?

Not sure if they test upwards flex as well. However, any flex upwards would indicate lift under the front wing! Hardly what any team would want.

Or that the wing is generating downforce, but that it has an instantaneous impact force on it much greater than that downforce production, e.g. when riding curbs, which is what's being discussed.

It has nothing to do with the kerbs. The wing has to be horizontal and any flex would have to be downwards and return to horizontal. Flexing above the horizontal would just be downright dangerous. Watch the cars cornering, the skid blocks are often carrying considerable weight, but no upwards flex has ever been apparent.
But i do agree that wing flexes in a fore and aft plane. This is because the mounting point is at the very front of the wing, and the mass of the winglets and main body of the wing, is all hanging from the front. Therefore, unless there was a stay from the back of the winglets, there will always be mass deflection when riding over kerbs.

[FoxHound]

the wing test is carried out with the car resting on supports, and then the load is imposed on the wing. As the wing is rigidly attached to the nose cone, any give in the nose cone would be instantly noticable. In other words, the nose is also being subjected to the same testing loads as the wing.

The problem I have here, is that in an ideal world you would be correct. However the FIA test does not replicate what happens out on track.
The loads they impose on the wing, will not be the same loads, or even the same area as the loads you would get in real time.

[Caito]

The fact the the nose tip is "rubber like" doesn't mean the whole nose cone is of that material.

Probably already thought about.. but isn't it easier to make the FW tough so that it passes all tests and then make the chassis supports bend?

[vall]

The fact the the nose tip is "rubber like" doesn't mean the whole nose cone is of that material.

Probably already thought about.. but isn't it easier to make the FW tough so that it passes all tests and then make the chassis supports bend?

it may be easy, but it is against the rules as it will be intentionally made moving part for aero benefits!

[Jackles-UK]

The fact the the nose tip is "rubber like" doesn't mean the whole nose cone is of that material.

Probably already thought about.. but isn't it easier to make the FW tough so that it passes all tests and then make the chassis supports bend?

it may be easy, but it is against the rules as it will be intentionally made moving part for aero benefits!

But, as has been posted earlier, without a test for nose flex illegality (something I was unaware of if i'm honest) how can they just outright ban it? This will be one of those "spirit of the rules" jobbies where they'll either have to invent a specific test for it or issue a technical directive categorically stating that such things are "outside the spirit of the rules". Driving at 50mph half a mile before a 30mph speed camera is illegal but as long as you go through the lens at 30mph then the jobs a good'un.

[vall]

But, as has been posted earlier, without a test for nose flex illegality (something I was unaware of if i'm honest) how can they just outright ban it? This will be one of those "spirit of the rules" jobbies where they'll either have to invent a specific test for it or issue a technical directive categorically stating that such things are "outside the spirit of the rules". Driving at 50mph half a mile before a 30mph speed camera is illegal but as long as you go through the lens at 30mph then the jobs a good'un.

well, in the regulations it is written that FIA has the right to alter the current and invent new tests to enforce the rules. So, this is the only thing they need to do and clear any doubts, which are going around for quite some time now.

[McMrocks]

Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x 150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.

So in the pic it looks like the load is applied to the top element. Is it applied vertically to it or is it applied in downward direction ? Because the top element is not parallel to the ground.

[RB7ate9]

The load is applied normal to the main plane (i.e. onto the face of the top element or top of the endplate) and not in a "down" as in "gravitational down". I think the picture is of them loading the wing into a test stand, unless I'm mistaken.

[Intego]

I just had a thought and maybe I am wrong, because it's based on the definition what is called the "reference plane" for the FW tests. As normally the reference plane is the lowest part of the car besides the plank, does the FIA use this reference plane, the ground, or the middle section of the front wing?
If the latter then the nose composite would bend down when the load is applied and would cover the flex of the wing exteriors, wouldn't it?

Feel free to prove me wrong. :-"

[aral]

I just had a thought and maybe I am wrong, because it's based on the definition what is called the "reference plane" for the FW tests. As normally the reference plane is the lowest part of the car besides the plank, does the FIA use this reference plane, the ground, or the middle section of the front wing?
If the latter then the nose composite would bend down when the load is applied and would cover the flex of the wing exteriors, wouldn't it?

Feel free to prove me wrong. :-"

The nose cone is a part of the crash structure and is rigid. The equipment used to measure flex, is set on the rigid structure. Flexing is therefore measured in relation to a known rigid structure.
This ensures that the pylons are not providing ability to flex the wing.

[aleks_ader]

Austin, Thursday