Front wing question.

[Giblet]

I understand the middle section of the front wing must be neutral, and use the mandated profile and dimensions of the FIA.

Is there anything that prevents a bridge from the sides being put in front, so it doesn't connect to that central part, effectively making that part of the wing give downforce and circumventing the rules?

I am thinking along the lines of a shroud at the front, bottom leading edge, to slow the air on the underside, creating downforce.

[horse]

3.7.3: Forward of a point lying 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and less than 250mm from the car centre line and less than 125mm above the reference plane, only one single section may be contained within any longitudinal vertical cross section parallel to the car centre line. Furthermore, with the exception of local changes of section where the bodywork defined in Article 3.7.2 attaches to this section, the profile, incidence and position of this section must conform to Drawing 7.

I think that might scupper your plan.

EDIT: I'm not sure that the standard section doesn't create some downforce either. Even if it had zero angle of attack, ground effect would likely generate some from it by accelerating the flow under the section.

[Giblet]

Indeed it does. I bet there are many of these "Eureka!... oh wait." moments on teams these days.

[horse]

Indeed it does. I bet there are many of these "Eureka!... oh wait." moments on teams these days.

Yeah, I wondered if you could get away with hanging vertical sections off the bottom of it (for no apparent reason), but again, the rules state that the prescribed section can only deform to allow the connections from the (maximum) two uprights. The only flexibility I see here is to have one upright maybe or possibly some 'V' configuration ensuring that the root does not exceed the maximum horizontal cross sectional area.

This also depends on how you interpret:

may only contain two closed symmetrical sections

[pgj]

I am sorry if this is a duplicate post or has already been covered. This thread seemed to be the most appropriate.

I have been reading another forum where there are all sorts of conspiracy theories for RBR's speed advantage. There are overlay photographs that purport to show RBR's front wing flapping like an Albatross! It did spark off a more serious discussion about front wing deflection though. The original post was based on the premise that the front wing could only deflect by 10mm. It was concluded that although under scrutineering the front wing could only deflect by 10mm when a (500N?) load is applied, there is no limit to how far it can deflect if the car generates downforce that exceeds the scrutineering weight.

Is this correct? If so has RBR found a loophole or is this common-practice across more teams?

[NaZzO]

There are overlay photographs that purport to show RBR's front wing deflection

care to post a link to those photographs ?

[pgj]

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=128351



This is from a post by TimT

[Just_a_fan]

Some deflection is always going to happen as you can't make such a long thin-sectioned cantilever stiff enough to prevent it. There's video about of other cars exhibiting the same effect too.

Providing it doesn't cause a structural failure I don't see a problem.

I doubt the Red Bull is designed with it in mind or that it gets that much of an advantage from it either - getting downforce from the front wing is easy and drag-cheap; getting a balancing downforce further back on the car is the tricky and drag-expensive bit and where the Red Bull design is actually being clever.

[marcush.]

it looks like the rh wing is deflecting more than lh side ..or is this only because the endplate is visible ? what you can see is the cascade wing pulled outwards due to the wing deflecting..
what can be see is the litlle bump travel comparing the straight ahead vs cornering outside front wheel and the masssive droop the inside wheel is showing in the cornering shot.Now it would be interesting to have a third shot with the car a t standstill and two cornering shots (one at the start and one in the last laps..

[autogyro]

I still believe this is more a result of body roll/nose pitch and not wing deflection and the camera angle is preventing us seeing this conclusion.
It is a direct result of Adrians more compliant suspension system that maintains ride height over a wide fuel load range but also allows for more suspension movement in pitch and roll.

[marcush.]

I still believe this is more a result of body roll/nose pitch and not wing deflection and the camera angle is preventing us seeing this conclusion.
It is a direct result of Adrians more compliant suspension system that maintains ride height over a wide fuel load range but also allows for more suspension movement in pitch and roll.

assuming the camera position is identical and not moving ,i have put the curser on the relevant points to try and see wich parts move between the two pics .and you can clearly see it is suspension and wing movements..but of course i could easily blame my eyes after too many TIG welding hours..

[pgj]

I am sure your eyesight is spot on. Oooh, did I really say that! lol!

[marcush.]

I am sure your eyesight is spot on. Oooh, did I really say that! lol!

[pgj]

=D>

[pgj]

Getting back to my original question. Is there a limit to the amount of vertical deflection/movement that a front wing can make?