Red Bull flexi front wing - judge for yourself

[heebeegeetee]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/photo-exclus...

What with the shenanigans at both Red Bull and Ferrari, it's nice to see McL keeping a clean sheet for once...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 30th July 07:50

[snorkel sucker]

interesting!

But....

The wing has passed all the deflection tests and has been declared legal by the FIA scrutineers

'nuff said!

[Murph7355]

Adrian Newey is a class act (assuming all that is factually correct. Which would make some sense).

I guess this is what happens when the rule makers aren't savvy enough and come up with daft tests that aren't relevant to race conditions.

One thing though that someone mentioned on another thread...I wonder how strong these flexi wings are when in contact with other cars. When Vettel touched Hamilton's wing with his rear tyre, we all know what happened. I wonder if, with a flexi wing, the result would have been the opposite?

[anonymous-user]

Interesting to see the figure of 500 Newtons, and arrive at one's own conclussions, so much reporting these days is actually editorials that give us the opinion of the writer not the facts.
I would think you could not build a wing that doesn't flex, with no flex it would break up, the point is it passes the test, if the FIA can't write their rules properly that their problem, so no mis deed by Red Bull.

[llewop]

snorkel sucker said:

interesting!

But....

The wing has passed all the deflection tests and has been declared legal by the FIA scrutineers

'nuff said!

great...the same argument that Ferrari used a couple of years back when designing their floor to pass the test then flex in race conditions, once the test was upgraded to match race criteria, they had to change the floor.

If the test is not replicating actual race conditions it isn't a very exacting test. The FIA have within the rules the flexibility to introduce extra tests.

[Murph7355]

Berw said:

...
I would think you could not build a wing that doesn't flex, with no flex it would break up, the point is it passes the test, if the FIA can't write their rules properly that their problem, so no mis deed by Red Bull.

It's allowed to flex. By 10mm.

The "debate" is that people believe the RBR wing to be flexing by more than double that under race conditions.

Edited to add...IMO the rule book should be totally torn up and started with again in terms of car design. I think this over and above anything else would increase the excitement of the sport. Perhaps just have a small set of criteria around engine (e.g. capacity).

Edited by Murph7355 on Friday 30th July 09:37

[Fire99]

Mr Bendy in a Bendy car! A whole lot of bending going on.

Very clever 'bending' of the rules, or should I say using the rules to their advantage.

It's legal so the other teams are gonna have to up their game.

[kazste]

I'll be the first to admit I'm not at all technical. But surely if the front wing is flexing then it is less effective for downforce? Granted on the high speed stuff not going to be a problem but at low speed surely a percentage of the air rushing over the front wing is lowering the wing as opposed to adding downforce to the front wing.

Edited by kazste on Friday 30th July 10:16

[snorkel sucker]

llewop said:

snorkel sucker said:

interesting!

But....

The wing has passed all the deflection tests and has been declared legal by the FIA scrutineers

'nuff said!

great...the same argument that Ferrari used a couple of years back when designing their floor to pass the test then flex in race conditions, once the test was upgraded to match race criteria, they had to change the floor.

If the test is not replicating actual race conditions it isn't a very exacting test. The FIA have within the rules the flexibility to introduce extra tests.

I am all for using initiative to take advantage of the rules; this is part of the reason Newey is so highly regarded

[The Black Flash]

Murph7355 said:

Edited to add...IMO the rule book should be totally torn up and started with again in terms of car design. I think this over and above anything else would increase the excitement of the sport. Perhaps just have a small set of criteria around engine (e.g. capacity).

Edited by Murph7355 on Friday 30th July 09:37

Amen. Too many faffy little rules. And as soon as someone does anything to gain an advantage, people start moaning and the rules get changed.
Full marks to the engineers on this one.

[llewop]

snorkel sucker said:

I am all for using initiative to take advantage of the rules; this is part of the reason Newey is so highly regarded

don't disagree: the double diffusers, F-duck and blown diffusers etc are all due to clever reading of the rule book. But this seems to me to be closer to looking at how to defeat a test and gain an advantage.

[Mr Whippy]

llewop said:

snorkel sucker said:

I am all for using initiative to take advantage of the rules; this is part of the reason Newey is so highly regarded

don't disagree: the double diffusers, F-duck and blown diffusers etc are all due to clever reading of the rule book. But this seems to me to be closer to looking at how to defeat a test and gain an advantage.

Finding holes in rules seems to be the only place left to find advantages. It's good stuff though no doubt, but it looks a lot like the constant chasing of tax avoidance/tax law changes that goes on.

For either to be effective they need simplifying, otherwise it's more a battle of finding loopholes to find advantage, rather than all about making better cars outright!


I'm surprised the other teams haven't already made bendy wings if the rules state 10mm @ 500Nm, what is to stop them then moving a great deal more once that load is exceeded (if it's advantageous)?

Dave

[Jungles]

Murph7355 said:

Berw said:

...
I would think you could not build a wing that doesn't flex, with no flex it would break up, the point is it passes the test, if the FIA can't write their rules properly that their problem, so no mis deed by Red Bull.

It's allowed to flex. By 10mm.

The "debate" is that people believe the RBR wing to be flexing by more than double that under race conditions.

You've only told half the story by omitting the parameters of that rule.

The wing is allowed to flex by 10mm with 500N load applied to it. Obviously if the load is greater, it will flex more. The wing seems to flex more than 10mm under race conditions, but that doesn't automatically make the wing illegal -- in fact it is still legal as long as the deflection is less than 10mm with a 500N load.

The rule:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N 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 and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

This is the same type of controversy as those which surrounded the DDD and F-Duct: engineers keeping to the letter of the rules while sneaking around the spirit of it. The FIA seem quite fine with that approach so far.

Edited by Jungles on Friday 30th July 13:09

[Mr Whippy]

Jungles said:

engineers keeping to the letter of the rules while sneaking around the spirit of it

Is the spirit of the rule an absolute one though?

It doesn't 'sound' like they have absolutely limited deflection, just a defined a deflection magnitude against loading... if absolute deflection was important they would have stated an absolute deflection irrespective of a load.

It just seems like others have blindly missed out on it and Red Bull's team have used it. Good on them!

Dave

[IforB]

There's no such thing as the "spirit" of the rules. It's either legal or it isn't. If RedBull/Ferrari have found a way to legally have a bendy wing, then good on them. Either the others need to copy it or the FIA need to ban it.

If they are being naughty and just haven't been caught, then that's a different matter entirely, but I suspect they've just found a way around it.

[IainT]

Mr Whippy said:

Jungles said:

engineers keeping to the letter of the rules while sneaking around the spirit of it

Is the spirit of the rule an absolute one though?

It doesn't 'sound' like they have absolutely limited deflection, just a defined a deflection magnitude against loading... if absolute deflection was important they would have stated an absolute deflection irrespective of a load.

It just seems like others have blindly missed out on it and Red Bull's team have used it. Good on them!

Dave

If it's safe to assume the spirit of the rule is safety-based (flexible aero parts being potentially unsafe) and the RB wing both flexes and is safe then the spirit is not broken.

Very clever design if proven to be true.

Horner's comments earlier in the season about the blown diffuser 'not being the whole reason' for the RB advantage was delivered with a smugness that said he knew the other teams would work this out eventually.

[eliot]

Full size photo:
http://www.darrenheath.com/sites/default/files/ima...

http://www.darrenheath.com/season/2010/germany-201...

Edited by eliot on Friday 30th July 15:26

[tank slapper]

Jungles said:

You've only told half the story by omitting the parameters of that rule.

The wing is allowed to flex by 10mm with 500N load applied to it. Obviously if the load is greater, it will flex more. The wing seems to flex more than 10mm under race conditions, but that doesn't automatically make the wing illegal -- in fact it is still legal as long as the deflection is less than 10mm with a 500N load.

The rule:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N 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 and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

This is the same type of controversy as those which surrounded the DDD and F-Duct: engineers keeping to the letter of the rules while sneaking around the spirit of it. The FIA seem quite fine with that approach so far.

You can't take that rule in isolation though.

Rule 3.15 Aerodynamic influence said:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.

It is quite clear that the intention is that wings should not move about.

This type of thing falls into the same sort of category as using 'brake cooling water' as disposable ballast, complexly sprung floor sections etc. ie, shenanigans.

It might be clever, but it is clearly intended to circumvent the rules.

[Pobolycwm]

kazste said:

I'll be the first to admit I'm not at all technical. But surely if the front wing is flexing then it is less effective for downforce? Granted on the high speed stuff not going to be a problem but at low speed surely a percentage of the air rushing over the front wing is lowering the wing as opposed to adding downforce to the front wing.

Edited by kazste on Friday 30th July 10:16

doesn`t matter if the wing is deflecting under load, the downforce / load will be the same as if the wing wasn`t deflecting ( ignoring any aerodynamic changes due to the deflection )

Put a 1kg weight in the middle of a plastic ruler, ruler deflects , downward load 1kg
put a 1kg weight in the middle of a piece of wood, wood doesn`t deflect, downward load 1kg

[E30M3SE]

tank slapper said:

Jungles said:

You've only told half the story by omitting the parameters of that rule.

The wing is allowed to flex by 10mm with 500N load applied to it. Obviously if the load is greater, it will flex more. The wing seems to flex more than 10mm under race conditions, but that doesn't automatically make the wing illegal -- in fact it is still legal as long as the deflection is less than 10mm with a 500N load.

The rule:
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N 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 and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

This is the same type of controversy as those which surrounded the DDD and F-Duct: engineers keeping to the letter of the rules while sneaking around the spirit of it. The FIA seem quite fine with that approach so far.

You can't take that rule in isolation though.

Rule 3.15 Aerodynamic influence said:

With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.

It is quite clear that the intention is that wings should not move about.

This type of thing falls into the same sort of category as using 'brake cooling water' as disposable ballast, complexly sprung floor sections etc. ie, shenanigans.

It might be clever, but it is clearly intended to circumvent the rules.

But as with the DDD and F Duct the wings have passed FiA scruttinering, so all is good.