Flexible wings controversy 2010

[speedsense]

Yes for sure but there must be a seperate controll of the actuator.
You could do whatever you want with it when FIA doesn't controll it.

Yes, there is a separate control of the actuataor, via the driver. The driver can select a wing angle between 0-6. To do that the actuator turns the wing through a rod device running inside one of either the main plane or the secondaries. (The rules are unclear how this is done, or I'm missing this spec in my reading). The adjustable plane is regulated in size, but I also cannot find whether that element has to be outboard or inboard. In the Red bull pictures the inner secondary appears to be the adjustable one.
If the actuator rod, had a tab on it that inserted itself into a slot on the inner most end plate, it would prevent flexing while even the additional weight was present. One adjustment by the driver and you have flexing wings as the prevention tab is removed. This would give the actuator rod two jobs, adjusting the wing and support during flex testing, while stationary.
Reselection of the known position for non flex adjustment, by the driver when headed back to parc ferme.
Once the teams know the tech inspection routine and how it's done, all that's left over,that isn't checked, is the "play ground" area.
I doubt that the weight checking routine for flex involves checking wing angle allowance at the same time and are probably two separate checks. Red Bull and Ferrari are meeting both and are deemed legal.
In regards to the carbon construction and flex surface building, pretty much most of the teams understand how to do this, especially Mclaren, yet they seemed perplexed at how it's being done. Whitmarsh cites three areas that are possible,one of which he points out is the actuator system.
IMHO..

[flynfrog]

Yes for sure but there must be a seperate controll of the actuator.
You could do whatever you want with it when FIA doesn't controll it.

Yes, there is a separate control of the actuataor, via the driver. The driver can select a wing angle between 0-6. To do that the actuator turns the wing through a rod device running inside one of either the main plane or the secondaries. (The rules are unclear how this is done, or I'm missing this spec in my reading). The adjustable plane is regulated in size, but I also cannot find whether that element has to be outboard or inboard. In the Red bull pictures the inner secondary appears to be the adjustable one.
If the actuator rod, had a tab on it that inserted itself into a slot on the inner most end plate, it would prevent flexing while even the additional weight was present. One adjustment by the driver and you have flexing wings as the prevention tab is removed. This would give the actuator rod two jobs, adjusting the wing and support during flex testing, while stationary.
Reselection of the known position for non flex adjustment, by the driver when headed back to parc ferme.
Once the teams know the tech inspection routine and how it's done, all that's left over,that isn't checked, is the "play ground" area.
I doubt that the weight checking routine for flex involves checking wing angle allowance at the same time and are probably two separate checks. Red Bull and Ferrari are meeting both and are deemed legal.
In regards to the carbon construction and flex surface building, pretty much most of the teams understand how to do this, especially Mclaren, yet they seemed perplexed at how it's being done. Whitmarsh cites three areas that are possible,one of which he points out is the actuator system.
IMHO..

what if the actuating rods were shaped like kart stiffener bars.

[Gecko]

If I wanted to have an element that would yield very little up to a certain point, but then yield more in a very nonlinear fashion when a larger force is applies, I would probably want to use the phenomenon of buckling. A carefully designed element, when properly placed into the structure, might support the forces up to a certain point, and then suddenly yield, and again return to its normal position when the force is reduced.

[Just_a_fan]

Now Newey has found a way to get a "legal" flexible wing; Ferrari has copied it (with some success), but McL and Mercedes can't figure it out, so they want a "clarification." I assume their real goal is to get the wings banned.

It's no different to the teams who asked for 'clarification' of the f-duct earlier in the season. Fairly sure Ferrari and Red Bull were part of that request.

Of course the idea is to get things banned; if your competitors have something and it'll take you 3 or 4 races to fully implement it then you might find the titles have gone by before you're up to speed.

That's part of the game in F1. Not a part I like, but it's still the reality of it.

[fausto cedros]

Anti rollbar mechanism in the wing, A long strip of material that is strong when facing up the way and can be turned flat to allow flex. Thats my theory, probably wrong though

nice and simple.

[xpensive]

The actuator is allowed to move the flaps 6 degrees, why even if such an "Anti Roll Bar" was technically possible,
it wouldn't change the wing's stiffness very much.

[tok-tokkie]

My thought is that the 6 degree flap variation increases the aerodynamic load on the wing when running above some predetermined speed so that the load causes the wing to buckle. The aerodynamic load then is in excess of the 50kg test load that the FIA applies. The wing passes the FIA test but the actual load is greater - sufficient to make the wing deflect more because of non linear stiffness built into it.

[Lurk]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR07o6yI ... r_embedded[/youtube]
Don't know if it was already post.

Seems that the end of the wing has a curved movement. They can't do that with the "special floor" McLaren and Mercedes are talking about.

[mep]

If I wanted to have an element that would yield very little up to a certain point, but then yield more in a very nonlinear fashion when a larger force is applies, I would probably want to use the phenomenon of buckling. A carefully designed element, when properly placed into the structure, might support the forces up to a certain point, and then suddenly yield, and again return to its normal position when the force is reduced.

Yep that’s exactly the thing I would do, too.
Once buckled you need much less force to bend it further. Maybe it even has some kind of hysteresis. So the buckled wing can also use the area around the 500N mark more than allowed by the test. The wing will just snap back when it gets totaly unloaded (entering pits).


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh:
Every millimetre is about one point of downforce at the front, although it also improves the rear. So 25-30mm of vertical lowering of the endplates is one second [per lap], so it is fairly substantial."

Hmpfff…
This arrogant McLaren guy talks about points of donwforce again. Can’t somebody teach them that forces are measured in Newton, Newton Newton. I even accept kilograms but definitely not points. No wonder they can’t build a flexible wing. They treat the fans like little kids. I hope they will lose the championship by 100 points.

[Just_a_fan]

Hmpfff…
This arrogant McLaren guy talks about points of donwforce again. Can’t somebody teach them that forces are measured in Newton, Newton Newton. I even accept kilograms but definitely not points. No wonder they can’t build a flexible wing. They treat the fans like little kids. I hope they will lose the championship by 100 points.

All teams talk about downforce in points. There's nothing wrong with using a dimensionless 'unit'. It's done in a number of fields.

You have to remember that downforce varies with speed so saying "the wing gives 500N more downforce" is meaningless unless you also quote the speed at which that measurement is taken. Using 'points' avoids that.

[marcush.]

if it was buckling then it was very smooth ..as the wing does not snap into its two extremes but certainly is moving with rising and lowering speeds....

so I tend to believe it was more a clever arrangement of fibres .or the wing being very weak in bending ,the bending forces are managed solely by a internal strut with
working against a stiff spring. The downforce works the spring ..until a defined stop .with the springrate or even a preload on the spring you could tailor the starting point of the bending the(adjustable spring stop would make sure you will not drag the endplates when exceeding speed limits making it possible to optise endplate high for different rideheights or rakes ..

[Just_a_fan]

A spring system in the wing would be clearly illegal; it would be a system obviously designed to circumvent the rules controlling rigidity of bodywork and would be found by the FIA very quickly.

Any flexibility in the wing must be an inherent property of the construction of the wing itself i.e. the design and laying up of the carbon fibre.

[marcush.]

who said it was not integral with the construction? springs can and are made of carbonfibre...this can be done without a doubt....
you just cannot see from the outside if the spars are fixed rigidly to the stringers everywhere ,you could even build in local weakness into spar /stringer connections to allow for enough bending ... the lttle access plate on the top of the wing is making me really curious..

[Darknight]

Is it not possible to make the wing hollow inside, and have like an "F-duct" type system where you can force wind into the front wing to make it bend?

In the RedBull post i had mentioned that during the onboard shots during the Hockenheim GP the Redbull driver (could not tell which) was switching 2 F-Ducts! One on the left and one on the right. I could not find a video of it after the race, but i was 100% sure that he was switching with his right hand.

[747heavy]

@ Bill

Thanks, that´s what I tought, just wanted to double check.
So, the centre section is not really a problem, teams can still
do pretty much whatever they want, in terms of fibre lay up/construction in
there wings