Virgin Racing VR-01 Cosworth

[Richard]

Wind Tunnel testing could've prevented that problem..

Yes because most team tests full scale with real aero parts instead of models....

Sarcasm?

Yes, the wind tunnel is only 60% scale. Also wind tunnels don't have the inertia & vibration of a wing being thrown over kerbs and around corners.

[xpensive]

Just like in most cases of engineering, it's about margins and how far you wish to trust your calculations.

I don't think you use the windtunnel as means of load-testing.

[horse]

I don't think you use the windtunnel as means of load-testing.

DF is a load, right? However, I have not a clue about materials or whether an F1 team uses the same manufacturing process for their wind tunnel models as their final cars?

In all seriousness, it's the QA (quality assurance) process which has failed here, which is probably caused from being a new team and not having those measures properly in place yet. Whether that raises safety concerns the FIA and FOTA should decide.

This still could be a failure of CFD, though, as I assume the parts manufacturers where given some tolerance for the loads on the wing and it may have exceeded those loads in real life. Experimental work would have confirmed those load predictions. However, we don't know if it was this failure in the QA process that caused the problem or not - it may have simply been an undetected manufacturing fault.

[christopher.mahlon]

Downforce is a load, but so's the ordinary jostling of driving a racecar around a track, which the wind tunnel won't have been able to model. Nor the CFD, I imagine.

[epitaf]

The team are more than capable of making a roadworthy car. The CFD had probably estimated the load on the front wing reasonably accurately and when constructed large enough margins to cater for bumps etc would have been included. Not to mention all sorts of things like this (wing flexing) would be scrutinised.

I'm guessing this is due to a mechanic in a new team dealing with a new car and doing the equivalent of forgetting to screw something up tight enough.

[godlameroso]

New car, it's a dog, it might be fast in a straight line but don't expect it to even be close to the front runners let alone the midfield. I have the impression that these new cars should have their own sub class. Something like what ALMS is doing, F1-challenge class.

[xpensive]

I don't think you use the windtunnel as means of load-testing.

DF is a load, right? However, I have not a clue about materials or whether an F1 team uses the same manufacturing process for their wind tunnel models as their final cars?

The CFD, as well as windtunnel, will give you a idea about the aerodynamic forces involved, but then you need to make a stress-analysis, typically FEA of sorts, in order to size the structure accordingly. This where you decide how far you wish to trust your calculations and consequently margin for error.

I imagine this margin being a little less for an F1 front wing than for a ski-rack on your BMW, let's say.

[Pedro]

"Aren't we missing something, Nick?"
"Well, we should be OK due to our CFD calcs anyway"

[horse]

I imagine this margin being a little less for an F1 front wing than for a ski-rack on your BMW, let's say.

Shows what you know! I drive a Clio, not a BMW.

It's just the first time I had considered the cost saving measures from the perspective of quality assurance. Regarding the use of wind tunnels, two estimates of down force on the front wing will be better than one, providing less likelihood of a failure due to miscalculation.

The question we should be asking is will we see an F1 that goes back to half the cars not finishing the races because the teams can no longer afford the QA they have been using recently? In addition, (beyond crash tests) are there any provisions being made in the rules so that a certain level of QA must be carried out? Or are we to see more Massa-esk flying springs in the future?

[CMSMJ1]

I'm guessing this is due to a mechanic in a new team dealing with a new car and doing the equivalent of forgetting to screw something up tight enough.

This is not a new team, but a large version of Manor Motorsports - these guys know how to engineer cars, win championships etc.

I doubt that they have had an issue as simple as forgetting to screw the wings on.

If you recall Sauber had a double rear wing failure several years ago - 1998? at Brazil, also BAR had wings fall off in 1999... It happens..nothing new.

[xpensive]

I imagine this margin being a little less for an F1 front wing than for a ski-rack on your BMW, let's say.

Shows what you know! I drive a Clio, not a BMW.

It's just the first time I had considered the cost saving measures from the perspective of quality assurance. Regarding the use of wind tunnels, two estimates of down force on the front wing will be better than one, providing less likelihood of a failure due to miscalculation.

The question we should be asking is will we see an F1 that goes back to half the cars not finishing the races because the teams can no longer afford the QA they have been using recently? In addition, (beyond crash tests) are there any provisions being made in the rules so that a certain level of QA must be carried out? Or are we to see more Massa-esk flying springs in the future?

I don't think it's necessarily lacking QA per se, but --- in will always be --- out, to correctly estimate the complete irl loadcase is a delicate thing when trying to optimize any design, let alone something like an F1 car front wing. Notice how those things seem to fall off pretty easily from a nudge, wouldn't last many laps around Bristol in a Nascar race I guess.

[horse]

..wouldn't last many laps around Bristol in a Nascar race I guess

If N.P. Jnr is anything to go by, I don't think F1 drivers are any more reliable in NASCAR.

Sure the front wing is a point we have to work on now because that was not expected, but I don't have any doubts. There shouldn't be any stuff but we don't know. It should be okay."

Still, Timo sounds confident [Insert sarcasm mark]

EDIT: Sorry, xpensive, what is an irl loadcase? <- OH! IN REAL LIFE! (WTF, LOL, etc., etc.)

[xpensive]

The loads you can appreciate from a CFD analysis or windtunnel run are pretty static, or so I imagine anyway, but going around the track, the entire car will be subjected to all sort of dynamic loads from accelleration, braking, cornering, bumps and what not, just look at the front's behaviour in slowmo going though a chicane.

There might even be fatigue issues, not sure about this though, which is really creepy stuff.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Pardon me for going back on topic
I just watched the video of the front wing disintegrating in testing
Did anyone check to see if it was Styrofoam with a carbon-fiber veneer
painted on it ?

[zgred]

Going backt to the topic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3n4ga35 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Interestingly wing was broken in the half (0:14) and than it went off (0:20). So not exactly mounting failure.