Flexible wings 2011

[malcolm]

100% agreed. I find it weird that they are taking this stance.

However, with the rear wing flex, they were seeing many failures, so there was greater impetus to ban them (also, since it's a rear wing, when it fails you might not notice right away, like Firman's shunt at Suzuka into Spoon Curve). With this wing, there has been one failure in practice (Vettel @ Silverstone), and it's easy for the driver to lift/brake when they see it fail, so it's less dangerous.

Still, they have rules in place so they can at least attempt to enforce the spirit... and I know some scrutineers will say "I don't like this, but I'll let you run this race with it... just don't show up next weekend with this wing". Maybe Charlie doesn't play that way.

[CyleB]

^ thats what im talking about^

[bot6]

Yeah, it's easier to make a rigid chassis and a flexible outer nose-cone; however, that doesn't explain why the nose itself passes all of the tests when it's off the car, yet flexes on the car on track.

I think the central part of the wing is supported during the test, so it doesn't take nose flex or pillar flex into account at all.

As far as failures go, there was Vettel's skewering of a McLaren last year, and Webber's flight... Both of which the drivers caught lucky breaks on.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The thing that I don't understand is why FIA is only sticking to the tests. When Ferrari (was it them?) was using flexible rear wings, FIA just used the racing pictures to tell them to make it more rigid.

I didnt know the FIA actually used pictures to warn Ferrari to change.

It makes an even bigger joke of the current situation, with Whiting adamant its legal. If a team present the FIA with pictoral evidence of the nose/wing flexing would there be anything done now that Whiting has come out to say it?

[Richard]

I think indeed the principle of the bending wing is just that: a reinforcement aligned with the testing point, used as a pivot (or "neutral axis" for those who like structural engineering) in the bending of the wing with the offset aero center of pressure making the wing twist and bend at the same time.

"Shear centre" not "neutral axis"

It is possible to construct a section with a shear centre outside the actual section. So when you apply a load to the section it results in torsion, and that's what we see on the RB.

You can do this as a little experiment at home. Find any object with a C or L shape section (ie electric trunking). Hold oit so it forms a C not a U. Apply a load on the middle and it twists. Apply a load to the wall and it bends in a straight line.

The key is to design the shear centre to be directly under the test load, but eccentric for the combined vector of centre of pressure & drag on the wing.

[Richard]

I didnt know the FIA actually used pictures to warn Ferrari to change.

It makes an even bigger joke of the current situation, with Whiting adamant its legal. If a team present the FIA with pictorial evidence of the nose/wing flexing would there be anything done now that Whiting has come out to say it?

FIA say to Ferarri, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". Ferrari say "eek it'll fail" and swiftly pop in a stiff wing.

FIA say to Red Bull, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". RB say "sure, go ahead" and the wing passes.

Seems very consistent to me. Spot the difference: RB comply with the test, Ferrari chickened out.

[myurr]

I didnt know the FIA actually used pictures to warn Ferrari to change.

It makes an even bigger joke of the current situation, with Whiting adamant its legal. If a team present the FIA with pictorial evidence of the nose/wing flexing would there be anything done now that Whiting has come out to say it?

FIA say to Ferarri, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". Ferrari say "eek it'll fail" and swiftly pop in a stiff wing.

FIA say to Red Bull, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". RB say "sure, go ahead" and the wing passes.

Seems very consistent to me. Spot the difference: RB comply with the test, Ferrari chickened out.

Except you made all that up...

The FIA also used video evidence to tell McLaren to stiffen their bridge wing a couple of years ago, and used video evidence to adjudge whether they had complied.

In Red Bulls case they seem unable or unwilling to use photo or video evidence. How about mandating all cars carry a camera in a location where they can see the front wing and how much it bends and then just adjudge from that? That would be consistent. Or setting up an official camera at the end of one of the straights to record each car as it hits Vmax and see what the wing is doing?

[FW17]

FIA say to Ferarri, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". Ferrari say "eek it'll fail" and swiftly pop in a stiff wing.

FIA say to Red Bull, "we see your wing is bending so we are going to apply a deflection test". RB say "sure, go ahead" and the wing passes.

Seems very consistent to me. Spot the difference: RB comply with the test, Ferrari chickened out.

Not every body work panel on the car is subject to an load test, hence images were used by the FIA to advice team to modify the questionable part.

In case of RB front wing FIA cannot use the same argument as there is a specific load test which teams have to pass.

Surprised this hasn't been posted, tweet via scarbs: http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2011/04/ho ... -wing.html

Wonder if the RBR have made their diffuser flexible too using the quoted method. A floor running closer to the ground will have a huge potential. But taking a picture of this dark area while the car is on a high speed stretch is going to be very difficult.

[horse]

A floor running closer to the ground will have a huge potential.

No, increased diffuser angle provides more potential. You're describing reducing the diffuser angle which will have have a negative effect on its efficiency.

[myurr]

In case of RB front wing FIA cannot use the same argument as there is a specific load test which teams have to pass.

I believe this statement to be wrong. There are multiple rules covering the flexing of the bodywork, the front wing test is only one of those that happens to apply and compliance with that rule doesn't guarantee compliance with the others. In all cases the FIA are free to use video and pictures, in fact the rule which describes the load test explicitly says it can be changed at any time to ensure compliance with the other rules. If you really think it necessary then the FIA could add a video or photo clause to that test.

[FW17]

A floor running closer to the ground will have a huge potential.

No, increased diffuser angle provides more potential. You're describing reducing the diffuser angle which will have have a negative effect on its efficiency.

Flexing would result the ends of the diffuser to run closer to the road surface, effectively make it act like an Eighties wing-cars skirt, allowing for a larger volume of air at a higher velocity thro the diffuser.

[Just_a_fan]

I think indeed the principle of the bending wing is just that: a reinforcement aligned with the testing point, used as a pivot (or "neutral axis" for those who like structural engineering) in the bending of the wing with the offset aero center of pressure making the wing twist and bend at the same time.

"Shear centre" not "neutral axis"

It is possible to construct a section with a shear centre outside the actual section. So when you apply a load to the section it results in torsion, and that's what we see on the RB.

You can do this as a little experiment at home. Find any object with a C or L shape section (ie electric trunking). Hold oit so it forms a C not a U. Apply a load on the middle and it twists. Apply a load to the wall and it bends in a straight line.

The key is to design the shear centre to be directly under the test load, but eccentric for the combined vector of centre of pressure & drag on the wing.

And of course the designer is aided by the fact that the team provides the adapter for the test. So they can design the wing and adapter to pass the test (i.e. load applied as case X so no deflection) but then when subjected to aero loads (load case Y) they get the desired deflection.

The test (from FIA.com):

Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x 150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.

I'd be interested to see where exactly the load is applied to the RB7's front wing and what the adapter looks like. That might give us some further clue as to how they've designed the wing to do what it does...

[shelly]

A floor running closer to the ground will have a huge potential.

No, increased diffuser angle provides more potential. You're describing reducing the diffuser angle which will have have a negative effect on its efficiency.

Flexing would result the ends of the diffuser to run closer to the road surface, effectively make it act like an Eighties wing-cars skirt, allowing for a larger volume of air at a higher velocity thro the diffuser.

Floor flexing has been exploited in the past to lower the part of floor in front of the rear wheels; that's why specific load tests on that part have been put in place by the fia.
As I wrote before, I think that it is reasonable to assume that once rbr has the mastery to build controlled flexi parts, they will search the limit on every area subject to flexi rules.
Maybe this is the real step forward of rb7 compared to rb6.

[FW17]

In case of RB front wing FIA cannot use the same argument as there is a specific load test which teams have to pass.

I believe this statement to be wrong. There are multiple rules covering the flexing of the bodywork, the front wing test is only one of those that happens to apply and compliance with that rule doesn't guarantee compliance with the others. In all cases the FIA are free to use video and pictures, in fact the rule which describes the load test explicitly says it can be changed at any time to ensure compliance with the other rules. If you really think it necessary then the FIA could add a video or photo clause to that test.

FIA has changed the front wing testing procedure twice thus far, Spa 2010 and for 2011 season. In both cases if the team passes the rules and tests. If video cannot be used as an argument and if it is being used it can be a secondary evidence, a test will still be required by FIA to prove the particular part has countervailed the rule.

The closest example for this can be 2003 Michelin issue, with them using more contact patch than allowed. There were no test for this condition by FIA at that time and some photo evidence. FIA could not disqualify Michelin runners at the Hungarian GP, however issued a statement that a new test (unknown type) will be done on tyres after the stint for the following Italian GP. If Michelin had taken the chance for Italian GP (rather than redesign) and FIA had no appropriate test the results once again would have stood as photo evidence once again would have meant little.

[myurr]

@WilliamsF1 - I'm not asking for Red Bull to be disqualified or excluded, I'm asking for the FIA to do their job. If they can't create static tests that stop Red Bull breaking the rules then they should use photo and video evidence as they have done many times in the past.