Flexible wings controversy 2010

[SiLo]

When the FIA do the tests, do they apply the loads at the same time? Or do they do one side at a time? Surely they would see something if they did one side at a time.

[SiLo]

Hi all, I'm new here, hope this is a friendly forum

I was watching a program on Formula One a while ago, and a designer said that Formula One cars were like jet engines, but they are pointing down onto the track to create downforce instead of upwards to create lift.

On hearing the rumours of a secretive Ferrari front-wing config, I brainstormed an idea for a wing based on the theory that if you lift a wing on an airplane [or a jet...], the plane will turn in the opposite direction.

My theory is therefore that if the front wings were fitted with hydraulic lifting devices to make them lift upwards, this may mean that formula one cars could go into corners at much greater speed - as they would be using the current force of the engine rather than slowing down and building up again.

I have scanned over the FIA Rules for relevant sections, and here are the areas which I thought a team may be able to use as a loophole for such wings.

3.14 Overhangs:
No part of the car shall be more than 500mm behind the centre line of the rear wheels or more than 1200mm in front of the centre line of the front wheels.
No part of the bodywork more than 200mm from the centre line of the car may be more than 900mm in front of the front wheel centre line.
All overhang measurements will be taken parallel to the reference plane.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance (with the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 in the pit lane only) :
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Therefore, 3.15.3 [Rigidity] clears this device for use. If a hydraulic actuator is used to control the wing movements, then it could be argued that, while in the event of a system failure the wings would be open to malfunction, this would only be the same amount of failing as another piece of bodywork falling off.

Also, in reply to 3.15.4, the front wing's movements are immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car - in simple terms this means that will the part wobble, and obviously, it won't.

Just found this in a thread for 2004. The idea he is talking about is yaw. I think the yaw has more to do with it that people may think.

[strad]

xpensive

[xpensive]

Thanks strad, I guess you are referring to my comments on that preposterous measurement?

Well, it goes for that hysterical coordinates-table for the FW-midsection profile as well, which when published by the FIA, must have caused massive attacks of cramps in the abdominals among the F1 engineers up and down the pitlane.

Come to think about it, who is in charge og FOTA's Technical arm, let's see...ah, Mercedes "Dr." Ross Brawn...?

[marcush.]

ah comeon exp..ross is not responsible for global warming ,is he?

[Cavemansam]

Hi guys this is my first time so sorry if this has been said already.
While flexi wings are most likely going to be 'discouraged' but I hope that
they are encouraged in plane design because that sort of wing whilst
oviously flexible the wing would be very strong but hyper monovable
as well which is damn useful when you are in a air superiorarte plane.

[strad]

Also I think you may be right about the "worm"

[xpensive]

Also I think you may be right about the "worm"

I'm glad. I am absolutely certain this is the xplanation, or at least one of them.

[avatar]

Just a quick curve-ball to add to the conspiracy pot:

What about using harmonic resonance to permit higher a degree of flex?

By constructing wings/floors that resonate with one/more of the various (and powerful) frequencies of vibration passing through the chassis, components could be made to "go floppy", or in some constructions stiffen at certain mixes of frequency & amplitude....

I think this area was mooted as a potential tool you could use to control rideheight, but making wings floppy would seem much easier to activate through resonance.

Clearly this wouldn't be evident in a stationary load test!

I'm not sure if anyone's exploited it, but the teams must be aware of the affect on bodywork - think of the waving/floppy wing mirrors we used to see at high speed (I don't think that was purely aero effect) & poss. MCL's rippling engine cover (this could be purely aero/F-Duct turbulence/pressure change related)

W

[strad]

By constructing wings/floors that resonate with one/more of the various (and powerful) frequencies of vibration passing through the chassis, components could be made to "go floppy", or in some constructions stiffen at certain mixes of frequency & amplitude....

Any frequencys that would do that would also cause failure.

[avatar]

By constructing wings/floors that resonate with one/more of the various (and powerful) frequencies of vibration passing through the chassis, components could be made to "go floppy", or in some constructions stiffen at certain mixes of frequency & amplitude....

Any frequencys that would do that would also cause failure.

Bit unnecessarily condescending/dismissive there Strad.
Think it through:

Any frequencies that could do that could, not would also cause failure. Doesn't mean you can't build with that in mind.

By the same token you may as well say:
Any construction which lets the wing droop so far that it makes contact with the road could also cause failure.

If part of the structure is tuned to a given frequency, and part of it isn't, you can reduce the excess strength built in to the tuned part, leaving the other part to take the aero load & event adding materials to dampen the effect past a certain point of flex. Overall flexibility is increased, but the breaking point is still a long way off.

[strad]

[avatar]

yeah. nice argument.

[strad]

What do you expect? Some ideas are laughable...many people on this forum love to make things much more complicated than they really are. In My poor Little Opinion
Which I'm entitled to and has as much weight as anyone here..
.

[747heavy]

Vettels RB6 with failed front wing cone in Silverstone



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2dCclIT9q8/T ... ictory.jpg