Red Bull gives you ... flexing wings?

[malafunkshun]

It really does flex. It so clear when you look at the "GIVES YOU WINGS" words on the rear wing. See how the variations in the size as the car runs down the straight?

[ginsu]

I agree, it is definitely moving. Also, if you notice, the support struts are attached to the leading edge of the wing, this allows the rear of the wing to flex backwards, rotating it about the leading edge. obviously this will reduce the AoA of the wing and significantly lower the drag.

[mistareno]

Geez guys, what do you expect the wing to do? It's a remote mounted high down force carbon fibre wing FFS.

They are going to have some flex, no matter how well they build it. It has to, premature fatigue failure would take hold if nothing had any give. A Skyscraper flexes in the wind to prevent structural failure and it's made out of concrete and steel.

Before you jump to conclusions, take some screen grabs of the photo posted early on in this thread.

If you over lay them (removing the wheels/suspension and using the lap counter/speed symbol as the hard points), you will see there is very little 'flex' from the wing at all.

I'm actually quite suprised how little they flex.

[Mikey_s]

msistareno,

it's not the wing flexing, it is a rotation around the leading edge. That is the issue everyone is getting excited about.

They are going to have some flex, no matter how well they build it. It has to, premature fatigue failure would take hold if nothing had any give. A Skyscraper flexes in the wind to prevent structural failure and it's made out of concrete and steel.

The degree of strain (flex, if you like) will be dependent upon the stiffness modulus of the various parts and the stress (force applied). The issue under discussion here is the clearly controlled (and desireable) means of strain under stress. Fatigue is a complex and, for the purposes of this discussion, redundant issue which is not necessarily related to the amount of strain. Provided the strain does not exceed the linear (elastic) range of the material fatigue should not be an issue - at least over the duration of a race.

The movement of the wing is clearly not 'normal' deflection and is clearly designed to reduce drag at high speed. It evidently complies with the (current) rules and I think the contributors to this thread are simply discussing interpretation of the rules... but is is clearly moveing in a desireable fashion.

[modbaraban]

I've just read that the flex-wing won't be used during this weekend

[checkered]

Modbaraban,

please post the links to the information, too. That'll carry the conversation on, or bring it to a conclusion.

[modbaraban]

Sorry. That wasn't in English. I tried to find an English version of this headline on several sites but failed so far. Maybe it'll be published in some hours. I'll post as soon as I find it.

so far you can believe my words - that's all I can offer.

EDIT: I found it http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/ ... 5052.shtml

[mistareno]

I don't think any car on the grid would be using the same rear wing at Monaco.

Very different charachteristics are required of the car.

Mikey_s - As I said earlier. Use photoshop (or similar) to overlay an image from on the main straight with a low speed image (using the lap graphic as a film reference point) This removes the illusion of extroneuos movement created by the suspension movement and you will find that there is actually very minimal movement of the rear wing. Certainly no more than would be expected of any remotely mounted wing at high speed.

BTW - Just because you use words such as 'clearly' (3 times in a paragraph) doesn't make it so. I'd be very suprised if there is any action ever taken about the wing and what is *clearly* a normal amount of flex on a stressed component.

EDIT - Wrong user name replied to - see below

[m3_lover]

They are using a new rear wing for Monte Carlo, the wing they used at the Spanish GP was about a gain of .25 sec of 6 KPH per lap. They might use the wing again in a future race since they had on formal complaint and it passed inspection.

But after reading this.. I do not know anymore

The specialist publication Auto Motor und Sport claims that, after viewing the footage from David Coulthard's rearward-facing camera in Spain, the FIA's Charlie Whiting is concerned that the wing of the RB3 is indeed flexing illegally.

A new static test, requiring the development of bespoke equipment, is being devised for the upcoming Canadian grand prix, and for the time being Whiting has apparently ordered that both Coulthard and teammate Mark Webber's cars be again fitted with the rearward-facing onboard cameras in Monaco this weekend.

[modbaraban]

modbaraban - As I said earlier. Use photoshop (or similar) to overlay an image from on the main straight with a low speed image (using the lap graphic as a film reference point) This removes the illusion of extroneuos movement created by the suspension movement and you will find that there is actually very minimal movement of the rear wing. Certainly no more than would be expected of any remotely mounted wing at high speed.

BTW - Just because you use words such as 'clearly' (3 times in a paragraph) doesn't make it so. I'd be very suprised if there is any action ever taken about the wing and what is *clearly* a normal amount of flex on a stressed component.

lol that wasn't me I re-read my BOTH posts and failed to find this word (clearly) at all

[mistareno]

modbaraban - As I said earlier. Use photoshop (or similar) to overlay an image from on the main straight with a low speed image (using the lap graphic as a film reference point) This removes the illusion of extroneuos movement created by the suspension movement and you will find that there is actually very minimal movement of the rear wing. Certainly no more than would be expected of any remotely mounted wing at high speed.

BTW - Just because you use words such as 'clearly' (3 times in a paragraph) doesn't make it so. I'd be very suprised if there is any action ever taken about the wing and what is *clearly* a normal amount of flex on a stressed component.

lol that wasn't me I re-read my BOTH posts and failed to find this word (clearly) at all

oops, that should've been 'Mikey_s' ...

That'll teach me for not hitting the quote button. Sorry - thanks for the link BTW

[allan]

Mikey_s - As I said earlier. Use photoshop (or similar) to overlay an image from on the main straight with a low speed image (using the lap graphic as a film reference point) This removes the illusion of extroneuos movement created by the suspension movement and you will find that there is actually very minimal movement of the rear wing. Certainly no more than would be expected of any remotely mounted wing at high speed.

U dont have to do all that work.. it is obvious man... the wing is barely flexing... im not saying it is not, but the flexing amount is similar to any other car i guess... does anyone have any similar onboard videos guys?

[mahesh248]

now the FIA is into it lets wait and listen to what the have to say ...

[FW 21]

First of all guys, looking at the wing against the suspension is not possible as there are no wishbones in shot. dont look at the wheels either.

All you need to do is look at the engine cover wings (the long grey ones near the gearbox) Behind those you can see the rear lower wing.

Look at the trailing edge of the rear lower wing against the engine cover wings, it is clearly dropping and rising.

As the rear lower wing is mounted further behind the other elements, when this flexes downwards it then pulls the rear edge of the upper elements down also.

As the wing is clearly fixed to the central pylons, this gives the wing its pivot effect on the leading edge.

Also, if you are still in doubt, look at the reflection of the rear wing on the engine cover, up down up down up down........

[mini696]

In every forum, in every thread about 'flexi' aero, someone always has to state "Everything flexes, is the laws of nature". We are fully aware of this, we are not debating this. We are debating the amount of flex and the fairness of teams.