Flexible wings 2011

[Formula None]

Multiple choice question.

McLaren, Ferrari, et al., are:

a. Morally superior.
b. Technically inferior.
c. With heads in posterior.

[myurr]

Did you guys know that the technical regulations are irrelevant if F1 cars could travel near the speed of light?

It would be impossible to measure the car since the ruler you would use would change length and the car itself would change length.

So...with this in mind, all the regulations concerning measurement are only relevant on the computer program and in the scrutineering area in given conditions.

Every where else there would be no way to measure the car especially while the car is in a race.

So ReBull is perfectly legal IMO.

You actually believe that arguing that cars would be impossible to measure when they go at the speed of light means that you can't measure them when they go 200mph? Seriously? You know it's no longer April 1st?

[Mchamilton]

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7

in the lower image where the wings are aligned in the centre.. the tips of both are almost indentical in height, yet in the large image which is aligned to the tyres.. the red bulls entire wing is what looks to be at least 20mm lower than the mclarens.
nose cone flexing down?

[aral]

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7

in the lower image where the wings are aligned in the centre.. the tips of both are almost indentical in height, yet in the large image which is aligned to the tyres.. the red bulls entire wing is what looks to be at least 20mm lower than the mclarens.
nose cone flexing down?

Possibly, but again, look at road markings. Cars are not in same position, and Red Bull is also taller. Is the Mclaren powered up lifting the nose, etc. Everybody knows that Newey is an innovator, and if the Red Bull has a flexing wing or nose, so what? Formula 1 is supposed to be about innovation within the rules, and in this case, McLaren seem to have missed the boat.

[Richard]

Seriously?

It was satire.

[bot6]

How does the law of physics not relate to the RB7? If the car rotates about a point (let's say the front axle) one side will go down (rear) and the other side will go up the same amount (front).

And if basic physics is not convincing, perhaps photo comparisons showing how much higher the rear wing is than the McLaren (due to the Red Bull's rake) could persuade you. The car most certainly is not 'leveling off' on the straight.

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7
(...)
I find it interesting the only person in the paddock who has outright said the car is doing something wrong/illegal is Lewis Hamilton. Not Martin Whitmarsh, Ross Brawn, Stefano Domenicali, Luca Di Montezemolo, Peter Sauber, Sam Michael, Frank Williams, Patrick Head, or any other technical or team personnel. No complaints, no protests, no inquiries. Just Lewis Hamilton, and the experts on the internet.

Laws of physics -> right on all points. But if at the same time the wing bends downwards enough to counteract the previously quoted motion, then both ends move downwards due to aero pressure...

Photo comparisons -> interesting that you take a frontal comparison to compare longitudinal trim...

I also find it quite interesting (and troubling) that only Hamilton is voicing his concerns over the bendy wing. Especially since McLaren are the closest team to replicating RBR's system. And considering it should be the job of team principals to take care of such matters.
Adding to that Charlie's comment that the wing is completely legal against all logical explanations... I've never been one for conspiracy theories but I'm really starting to wonder if there haven't been some firm FIA guidelines issued to the teams to shut the hell up.

[forty-two]

So, to bring this back to an engineering question...

Are we all in agreement that the Red Bull solution (let's disregard the legality question for a moment) works by:

1. Running the car with such an angle of rake that the "reference plane" projects into the tarmac rather than running coplanar with the road.
2. Having flexible main plane elements which are able to deflect to a degree all on their own.
3. Having a flexible pillar/wing connection which allows the main plane to flex a little with reference to the pillars.
4. Having a nosecone/pillar arrangement which allows the joint between the two to flex backwards a little.
5. Having a nosecone which is able to bend downwards under the load placed upon it by the pillar/wing attached to it. Presumably including a crash structure concealed within it's outer skin to which the pillars are not attached.
6. Having a nosecone anchor points which allow the nosecone to deflect downwards, presumably by employing some form of elastic or sprung attachment point. Also, presumably this connection implies some form of overlap in the nosecone/tub interface which prevents this being obvious to see. This I think is actually the sneakiest thing about this FW, since the wing is tested in isolation from the car (based upon a picture posted earlier in this thread of the Ferrari wings being tested) any play in the attachment points would no be included in any deflection measurements in the current FIA test.

Please feel free to argue over any of the above, but personally i feel that, as with many F1 concepts, it's all about adding little bits in many places and it's not like bolting on a "purple pole" to win.

As for why Charlie Whiting would state that nothing is wrong, as far as I see it this smacks of a bit of "let them eat cake" sort of comment. As if to say, "yeah, we know they're cheating, but we will not act and there's nothing you lot can do about it, so put that in your pipe and smoke it".

[Formula None]

#6 is interesting, 42. As you say, the test occurs with the nose detached from the car. So if it's the female sockets inside the car/safety cell that move, then the wings would not deflect during the test.

But what would moving sockets actuate? Attached maybe to a high tension cable within the wing structure? The cables have no travel when the nose's pegs are fixed to the test rig because the rig sockets are rigid. The car's sockets might be sprung and able to allow the cables to move.

This might be totally wrong, but consider the principle 42 brings up, and how to take advantage of it:

The test occurs with the wing dismounted from the car. Then, when the wing is reattached it suddenly starts exhibiting these weird bending properties...

Electrical connection made when wing is attached? Switch on a hydraulic line thrown? Moving sockets in the tub? What mechanism would you need to make the wing go limp once its plugged onto the chassis?

Sounding a bit Rube Goldberg though!

[bot6]

Oh dear, I think we're just giving everybody new ideas on how to cheat the bloody 3.17 rule... This thing will go down as the worse piece of regulation in F1 history I'm afraid...

[Tamburello]

4) The other teams were apparently under the impression that the FIA would not turn a blind eye on this like last year

Balderdash! You have no way of knowing what "impression" the "other teams" were under, and don't pretend otherwise. In fact, you are making them out to be dimwits since the RB6 was cleared time and again even in light of more stringent testing that was carried out on it, so "the other teams" had every indication that the FIA will pass the RB7 of any wrong doing as long as said car passed the tests and measures in place.

In future, I suggest you keep your "less biased summary" of threads to yourself.

[f1ssk]

Something from the race I noticed ..

I heard Brundle mention in Q2 that something on SV's front wing was broken, a vertical stay and the mechanics quickly shilded the car and got to work on it. And all of a sudden in Q3, SV was .8sec quicker. might be they didnt fix it.
This sounds too far feteched but did that damaged front wing improve the front wing flex on the car to increase front end downforce ?? important qn. , if so, would that wing pass the deflection tests ??
Till Q2 the gap was about 0.3sec between MW and SV.

Also, I remember MW checking sebs front wing in par ferme after Q3.

Just a wild guess.

[Lindz]

How does the law of physics not relate to the RB7? If the car rotates about a point (let's say the front axle) one side will go down (rear) and the other side will go up the same amount (front).

And if basic physics is not convincing, perhaps photo comparisons showing how much higher the rear wing is than the McLaren (due to the Red Bull's rake) could persuade you. The car most certainly is not 'leveling off' on the straight.

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7
(...)
I find it interesting the only person in the paddock who has outright said the car is doing something wrong/illegal is Lewis Hamilton. Not Martin Whitmarsh, Ross Brawn, Stefano Domenicali, Luca Di Montezemolo, Peter Sauber, Sam Michael, Frank Williams, Patrick Head, or any other technical or team personnel. No complaints, no protests, no inquiries. Just Lewis Hamilton, and the experts on the internet.

Laws of physics -> right on all points. But if at the same time the wing bends downwards enough to counteract the previously quoted motion, then both ends move downwards due to aero pressure...

Photo comparisons -> interesting that you take a frontal comparison to compare longitudinal trim...

I also find it quite interesting (and troubling) that only Hamilton is voicing his concerns over the bendy wing. Especially since McLaren are the closest team to replicating RBR's system. And considering it should be the job of team principals to take care of such matters.
Adding to that Charlie's comment that the wing is completely legal against all logical explanations... I've never been one for conspiracy theories but I'm really starting to wonder if there haven't been some firm FIA guidelines issued to the teams to shut the hell up.

Laws of physics -> moot since the RB7 isn't squatting on the straights. It may squat for rear grip coming out of corners, but that's the low speed damping. At high speed, the damping can be much stiffer so the rake is preserved (since I think this is a big part of the flexi-wing puzzle).

Photo comparison -> the RB7 isn't squatting on the straights. I thought it was pretty clear by looking at a front view of the cars and seeing that a few points that HAVE to be the same distance from the reference plane on all cars (rear wing and TV camera) are higher on the RB7. This clearly shows the reference plane is angled due to the car's rake.

If you would prefer a side comparison: http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=6

I also picked that front shot because that was what most people were referencing to the amount the front wing flexes. So at the same point on track, same speed, same photo in fact, it shows part of the wing being lower is from the increased rake.

I don't think the FIA would tell McL and Ferrari to shut up, nor would they shut up if they actually thought something was wrong. You are a big proponent that the DDD was a legal loophole, yet look at the hell Ferrari and McLaren raised over it. If they agreed that this wing was as illegal as you say it clearly is, don't you think much more people would make a stink about it?

As for Hamilton's credibility... let's just say the last person I'd listen to about a breach of technical regulations would be a racing driver who just got beat by his rival in said car.

[Formula None]

Regardless of rake and any nose cone bending (if any at all), there is still as we all know a pivot point between the central section and the wing. Whether this be by fiber orientation or hinge we still seem to be guessing.



Crop of the area in question:



So is it a mechanism in there, maybe triggered by or influence by mounting the nose on the car (& not the test rig). Or are there a couple of preloaded composite bellville leaf springs running through those two airfoils as Tim Wright suggested on page 16?

[raymondu999]

Slightly off topic, but I've never noticed the slot in the Front Wing of the RB7. Is that the Melb-spec?

[Lindz]

The overlays on this picture are stupid as hell. They have angled lines showing the approximate shape of the RBR wing, and a straight line that doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the McL wing... How are they comparative? I agree that the RBR wing flexes more, but a better comparison is this front view I posted before:

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=7

Look closely at the bottom image, where the wing are aligned. The leading edge on the McLaren is 'thicker', so the paintwork appears much higher than the Red Bull. You have to look at the bottom of the leading edge. The wings are not that different in the amount of flex. Red Bull's flexes more, but it's complete rubbish to say that the McLaren wing doesn't also 'break the rule'.


But I do agree that the most plausible theory so far has been Tim Wright's.

And here is a well lined up onboard shot. The nose camera flex is minimal.

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=4