Flexible wings controversy 2010

[feynman]

What's happening here

Well I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think the current best guess is shown in this diagram from scarbs:



With the front of the car submarining, and the floor bending up and out of the way, that would tie-in with the previous observation of the angle of the endplates (lower at front, higher at rear).
The wing itself remains fixed, but at speed, and aero load, the whole car becomes angled downwards, and the front-wing finds itself much lower.
Standing still, in FIA scrutineering, front and back of car are level, and the wing is high enough to pass the static test.

[ringo]

This is a possibility of course, the floor is always scraping in the turns, you can hear it.
One thing though the wing seems a little frisky from side to side, it will rotate and buck laterally, this is why i think the wing supports are also suspect. We can see this when Vettel follows Button.
It's a whole intricate system of trickery that Newey has pent up in this design.

here's a theory on the wing struts:


This is a mechanical model, but it could be in another manifestation, carbon layup or what have you.
There is a cam follower in the root of the supports. When drag force on the wings pull the supports back, the cam rotates and lowers the centre section of the wing.
They obviously can't fit all this into the slender strut, but it's possible the struts are moving down by some means.
Maybe the side to side motion was there when Vettel was behind button because the drag was reduced on one side subsequently raising that side of the wing.
The 2 sides may not be tied together, so we get that lateral oscillations.
This is all speculation of course.

[hollus]

I was looking for pictures of the wing support as you posted that...

The wing supports in the Red bull drop vertically from the nose and then as they go lower, they tilt forward. Edit: OK, I simply painted my car facing right, Ringo did it pointing left.
Something like this:

=========>
......|
......|
.......\
...___\_

If those supporting pylons are bendable, simply the drag of the wing at speed will push them backwards, bending them "more straight", and making the wing move backwards (towards the front wheels), downwards (closer to the ground) and tilt (presumably increasing downforce and creating an apparent rack), much like a pendulum.
Plus, in the load test, where the load is purely downwards, they allow virtually no movement, as the supporting pylons won't stretch.
Does it make sense?

[strad]

I understand...but I don't think that's it.

[ahmedvortex]

I understand...but I don't think that's it.

the two front wing side acts like fixed supports with the steel wire fixed on them , the main wing position gives a hard pack with not so much movement , the second wing position make it lose and very flexible .

[marcush.]

the FIA rule enforcing or process is totally wrong.My view is the team should be obliged to prove their car is within the regulation at all time.
picture evidence shows at the very least a strong suspicion the front wing is moving ,wich contravenees at least one hard rule in the book.
So why discuss?
RedBull has to provide evidence to Fia that this is not the case...to say we pass the scrutineering test so its ok is just the other way of saying we have found a ways to work around the test but of course we have flexible bodywork ...prove it to us and change the test ...

[djos]

I bet if it was <your favorite team> making the most of the testing procedures with clever engineering many of you would not be unhappy about the situation. [-X

[marcush.]

don´t get me wrong on this ..technically I think the ideas and execution are brilliant but it still is not legal in a spirit of the rules sense.

[djos]

don´t get me wrong on this ..technically I think the ideas and execution are brilliant but it still is not legal in a spirit of the rules sense.

But that is what makes F1 so much fun!

[marcush.]

+1
Maybe I´m just frustrated that others prefer to moan instead of coming up with solutions as clever ...

[Halgovern]

I suggested someting like this a while ago.
I'll just repost it

what if the two pillars connecting the front wing to the nose cone isn't actually connected to the nose cone? What if they go through two slits into the nosecone and are connected to some sort of spring mechanism inside the nosecone, allowing the front wing to deflect downwards at any rate they want it to?

I am not talking about the entire nose,just the detachable nose cone. The mechanism would be independent of the rest of the car.

Also, the mechanism could be set up so that the amount of extension is zero (only the outer sections of the wing deflect, the central section is rigid) until 200N and then the whole wing starts to lower itself , thus complying with FIA rules. And the most elegant thing would be that the whole thing is neatly packaged inside the front section of the nosecone, so no one would see a thing if they had to change nose cones or the nosecone broke.

Think about it, the nosecone of the redbull is pretty massive anyway. Enough volume for a spring me thinks.

Two hollow pillars with cables running through it would also do the same thing I think. Anyway, its just a theory, entirely thought up while sitting on a chair

[ringo]

Yep it's likely. Mine is basically what you are saying, only that drag force rotates that cam coupled with the down-force.
Though i must admit, it's actually movable aerodynamics.
But hey, it's redbull's job to cheat and the FIA's job to catch them.

[Richard]

The rules say the bodywork must be stiff. A separate rule defines one way of testing said stiffness. Just as the law says "you shall not speed" and another law says how the police are allowed to check your speed.

Taking your road speeding analogy, the FIA version of the rules would say "you shall not go too fast". The only FIA definition of "too fast" would be 30mph on an urban residential street. There is no definition of "too fast" on an open road or even a motorway, so how could anyone be accused of speeding on a motorway when there is no defined speed limit?

The problem is that the FIA test is not realistic. RB are only obliged to comply with the test, and they have passed all test to date.

[SiLo]

I just can't explain what I am seeing.
What's happening here, the wing spans are bending more than they are supposed to, or is it the centre section being lower than it is supposed to?

The wing spans are bending, but i think they're bending within regulation.
The centre span looks weird and the end plate foot plate seems to be doing some bending itself.

Me too, it just looks odd. However, you can clearly see the orange marks on the road where a large bump is and the blocks have been rubbing on it, so it may not be as low as we think.

[casper]

If Red Bull wants to win at all costs despite this obvious evidence, let them. The championship will be a hollow victory, with a lot of people put off. Do you then think their business will not suffer? Fair play after all matters to most people and if they see RB as michiavellian in F1. then that reputation will stick everytime RB is mentioned in the press, or discussed in public.