Flexible wings controversy 2010

[Just_a_fan]

@marcush
A system using clever construction is as I suggested and uses the inherent properties of the construction. Others have been suggesting clever bars and springs which as I say would be clearly illegal.

[jason.parker.86]

Watching this onboard footage of the RedBull, I am 100% confident that this felxi-wing is something you can turn on and off, because ive watched lap after lap and very little movement... now hes hammering the laps in the wing is almost certainly alot more flexible.

[casper]

With the latest GP result -RB having a very large gap to the second best team, the FIA will surely ban the flexi-front wing now. The gap is too much for other teams to overcome by any aero-bodywork alteration. The reason why FIA changed the rules starting 2009 is to encourage more overtaking. But to save face, they will just talk to RB and Ferrari without making any announcement.

[ecapox]

So Ross Brawn went to Charlie and asked if Flexible wings are ok, so that they dont start developing something only to find out that they are banned. Depending on his response, Charlie may well be giving secrets away. I dont think Charlie should be in a position to answer a question like that. His only safe answer is "Develope whatever you like Ross. If it passes the FIA scrutineering, then it is legal". ANything else is divulging RedBull secrets.

[747heavy]

@ecapox

I think he was asking if the FIA would change there FW test regime in the foreseable future.
They did not want to develop a FW which passes the 500N test, just to see that the test then
uses 1000N (just as a example). Making there new and maybe the RBR wing illegal in the process.
That has nothing to do with Charlie telling any secrets.
And he is the correct person to ask, as far as the tests are concerned. IMHO

[fausto cedros]

A little off topic:this discussion is intriguing...wouldn't it be nice to have some more freedom in the formula to allow creative engineering???Maybe that's what the fans should ask for.

[747heavy]

I would be all for that Fausto - no doubt
But tight regulations force even more creativity at times. IMO

[fausto cedros]

Good point.

[ecapox]

@ecapox

I think he was asking if the FIA would change there FW test regime in the foreseable future.
They did not want to develop a FW which passes the 500N test, just to see that the test then
uses 1000N (just as a example). Making there new and maybe the RBR wing illegal in the process.
That has nothing to do with Charlie telling any secrets.
And he is the correct person to ask, as far as the tests are concerned. IMHO

I stand corrected.

Ross Brawn: "I think probably what we are asking is, before we all go off and have a massive development programme, is Charlie [Whiting, FIA race director] going to change the rules before we get there?"

[jason.parker.86]

FIA to introduce new tests from Belgium GP...

The FIA is to clamp down on so-called ‘flexible wings’ – or at least attempt to clear the air on their use – by introducing more stringent load tests by the next race in Belgium.

The teams are being informed tonight at the governing body is making use of a rule which allows it to change the load tests in the course of the season, should it be deemed necessary. In essence teams are being told ‘this is what the tests will be like at the next race, be prepared’…

http://adamcooperf1.com/2010/08/01/excl ... elgian-gp/

[piast9]

I am not sure if there is something special in this wing. Rules say that wing can't deflect more than 10mm under 500N load during the test.

How much is RB's wing deflecting at the top speed? 50mm? The wing that meets the rules bends that way under 2500N vertical force at one side of the wing. Downforce is created almost only at the end of the wing so roughly calculating that 2500N equals to the half of total downforce generated by the front wing. It gives 5000N of downforce which is something about the quarter of total downforce of F1 car AFAIK. Seems reasonable and completely within the rules.

If there is some clever engineering in this wing I wonder if they use the fact that the deflection test is performed using the vertical load while the wing generates both DF and drag so there is also horizontal force at the wing. Maybe some clever fabrication of the wing beam causes it bending downwards when pushed towards the back of the car.

[mx_tifoso]

"Our guys have broken their balls to design a car in the spirit of the regulations, and every time we are tested by the FIA, we pass.

"The car has always been passed by the FIA, so when people don't like (what they see on) the stopwatch, they have to justify their own positions in some other teams sometimes, and when there's pressure on people to perform and they're getting destroyed, that's how it is.

"We're more than happy with what we have on the car and we're sleeping well at night, the guys, when they have inspections from the FIA that we're doing enough."

[ringo]

I think i have this wing figured out. This is my theory:
It's not about actuators or flexible carbon matrix. It's related to how stress is applied to the wing.
The FIA tests are based on simple bending loading, but it's doesn't cover axial loading of the wing, much less induced axial loads, or induced buckling, on individual elements much less.

Redbull found a way to use the dynamic pressure on the wing element which is fundamentally stress, and converted it into compressive axial stress. So in a way the front wing is a kind of bi metallic strip, if you will, but doesn't work on temperature.

The actuators don't flex the wing, but they can influence how the flex indirectly just by trimming the element. The real culprit here is the wing element and it's support hinge.

How do i start... Ever try bending a phone book, and notice how the pages have to slide relative to each other so it makes it easier to bend?
Each page has to curve or change it's length in one direction relative to the nearby page to allow bending.

If the page elements are fixed, bending is more difficult.

In the case of the wing the elements are fixed at the ends. So in order to shorten the pages or elements, they have to be forced to bend internally.

A good example of how this is done is a bow and arrow, the bow is bent by tension in the string, causing axial loads at the ends to buckle the bow.

So the element has to be "plucked" up to cause these axial loads to cause buckling.

How do redbull "pluck" the element like a bow string? They use the drag force from the adjustable element to produce this moment and force to hog the second element.

This influences the ease for the downforce to bend the wing down. Notice that these elements may be carefully sized and tuned to produce the right amount of bending with the experienced drag force.
In effect redbull are uses drag force as an added load, turning it into a buckling load on the wing elements causing them to deform further.

That red hinge in the pic is the culprit behind this. Also the lower main wing elements which are split in 2. The skinnier one taking more stress when the fatter one buckles.

[ringo]

So this black hinge thing may be behind all this. This my theory, it could be wrong though, but it adds to the discussion. But it also shows the flexing could be purely mechanical.

[xpensive]

I think the mysterious thing is that even if the vertical load-centers are at each end of the FW, while the support is in the middle, you cannot really see it bend, can you? This is why I'm sure the vertical deflection is due to the horizontal drag, achieved by very clever lay-up of the fiber layers.