Red Bull flexi front wing - judge for yourself
Discussion
E30M3SE said:
But as with the DDD and F Duct the wings have passed FiA scruttinering, so all is good.
Only so far as the previous results stand.Ferrari's flexible floor passed scrutineering, and their bendy rear wing. So did Renault's mass damper, and any other number of things that have been banned in the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cars comply with the rules, only that they haven't been able to show they don't. If it becomes clear later on via other means that there is some trickery involved then obviously changes can be demanded for future races.
tank slapper said:
E30M3SE said:
But as with the DDD and F Duct the wings have passed FiA scruttinering, so all is good.
Only so far as the previous results stand.Ferrari's flexible floor passed scrutineering, and their bendy rear wing. So did Renault's mass damper, and any other number of things that have been banned in the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cars comply with the rules, only that they haven't been able to show they don't. If it becomes clear later on via other means that there is some trickery involved then obviously changes can be demanded for future races.
kazste said:
...But surely if the front wing is flexing then it is less effective for downforce? ...
I'd have thought so too.But I think aero on these cars is significantly more complex than just downward force these days. Perhaps the wing deflecting alters the airflow characteristics around the front wheels, which then gives different effects elsewhere on the car?
Adrian Newey will know
Very clever regardless.PS Would also piss my pants if it has next to nothing to do with the performance on the car, was just a manufacturing "fault" but is serving to deflect (ho ho) attention of the other teams from other, more trick bits of the car
Murph7355 said:
[PS Would also piss my pants if it has next to nothing to do with the performance on the car, was just a manufacturing "fault" but is serving to deflect (ho ho) attention of the other teams from other, more trick bits of the car
surely you cant be suggesting that Red Bull are just 'winging it'? 
Brrrrrmmmm, tisssh, thank you very much, im here all week, try the veal
sorry i'll get my coat..
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.
Why would it be less effective? If it is designed to take into account the flex and take advantage of the very nice principles of ground effect (where the vortices that are formed at the ends of aerofoils get interrupted by the ground meaning you get more lift (or downforce if you prefer) and reduced drag) come into being. Edited by kazste on Friday 30th July 10:16
Aerodynamics is a very complex science and Newey seems to be able get the whole thing to work properly and work right to the edge (and perhaps beyond) the rules.
Whalespin said:
I've just seen this picture which was posted in a different forum, taken during testing earlier in the year. Looks like its got something to do with measuring wing flex.
They're training ropes for Vettel.Rumours they're going back on for Hungary are so far unsubstantiated
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.
Two points to note on this:-Edited by kazste on Friday 30th July 10:16
1/ Any aerodynamic load applied to the wing will be transmitted through to the wheels regardless of the degree of deflection, providing the wing doesn't actually break under that load i.e. your presumption is incorrect.
2/ Any deflection that moves the wing physically closer to the ground will tend to increase the downforce it generates. F1 Teams have been playing around with this effect for years with varying degrees of success. They call it "aero-elasticity"
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.
If you imagine the wing having a load of lead weights (equivalent to the downforce )sitting on it and bending it downwards, the load itself doesn't disappear: it still has to react at the wheels eventually no matter how much flex is apparent. Edited by kazste on Friday 30th July 10:16
I'd say those ropes are designed to limit the flex of the bendy wing to a predetermined position. Run the car at a few of the positions and then use the best as the height you then design your "flex" to run at.
Very trick, kinda within the rules too. I think the deciding bit will be if they are dropping below the reference plane or not.
Very trick, kinda within the rules too. I think the deciding bit will be if they are dropping below the reference plane or not.
This is one of the things I actually enjoy about F1. The engineers and designers are at the pinnacle of automotive engineering and are able to constantly find ways to stay within the rules whilst still passing scruiteneering (sp?).
Just in the the last 2 seasons we've had Brawns double diffuser, McLarens F Duct, and Red Bulls Blown Diffuser, and Flexi Wing. All brilliant stuff.
Just in the the last 2 seasons we've had Brawns double diffuser, McLarens F Duct, and Red Bulls Blown Diffuser, and Flexi Wing. All brilliant stuff.
My 3 year old son's theory (Honest) is pretty simple. If the wing is tested only on one side at a time then you can easily make each side independently rigid, but allow flex in unison by interlocking the two sides.
Dimension A could be adjusted to limit the droop as A comes under compression.
Not bad for a 3 year old.
Dimension A could be adjusted to limit the droop as A comes under compression.
Not bad for a 3 year old.
This sort of thing has always existed in all forms of motorsport. The rule makers decide what they want the cars to be like, so make a set of rules to dictate that.
The engineers want to make the car faster, so find ways to get "round" the rules - they are not cheating as they abide by the rule, but they are testing the moral / spirit of the rules in some ways. I learned this when I was 10, racing Cadet karts - the second you go from club racing to the national series, all morals go out the window!
My example: the exhaust port of a Comer S60, the standard engine of the time. The rules were (roughly):
You can "blueprint" the engine (ensure that tolerances are all as you wish, which would be the maximum size!)
However, port shape must be as standard.
This will be tested post race with a circular guage - if the guage passes through the exhaust port, the port is illegal.
So natuarlly, people wanting their kids to win bought engines that were modified to be totally illegal morally (the port shae was visibly "non standard" from 10 feet away), but passed the test. If you used these engines at a club meeting, you;d be ostracised by your competitors as a cheater, bad sport, etc etc. however, come nationals (super 1) weekends, "everyone was doing it", so it was alright. I have provided a CAD drawing of roughly what I mean below:
So the whole thing with the flexi front wing? F1 is "more" than Super 1 Karting by a factor of approximately a grillion. There is no moral expectation to obey any spirit of the rules, noone has done that for about a decade. Therefore every engineer will try to make the fastest car that passes the defined rules (e.g double diffuser, McLaren's "3rd wing", flexi wings etc etc). All the teams also know that every other engineer is doing xactly the same thing.
My conclusion is that the Red Bull wing / Ferrari's version are not dubious in any way - they pass "the test", and are therefore legal and very clever ways round the rule.
The engineers want to make the car faster, so find ways to get "round" the rules - they are not cheating as they abide by the rule, but they are testing the moral / spirit of the rules in some ways. I learned this when I was 10, racing Cadet karts - the second you go from club racing to the national series, all morals go out the window!
My example: the exhaust port of a Comer S60, the standard engine of the time. The rules were (roughly):
You can "blueprint" the engine (ensure that tolerances are all as you wish, which would be the maximum size!)
However, port shape must be as standard.
This will be tested post race with a circular guage - if the guage passes through the exhaust port, the port is illegal.
So natuarlly, people wanting their kids to win bought engines that were modified to be totally illegal morally (the port shae was visibly "non standard" from 10 feet away), but passed the test. If you used these engines at a club meeting, you;d be ostracised by your competitors as a cheater, bad sport, etc etc. however, come nationals (super 1) weekends, "everyone was doing it", so it was alright. I have provided a CAD drawing of roughly what I mean below:
So the whole thing with the flexi front wing? F1 is "more" than Super 1 Karting by a factor of approximately a grillion. There is no moral expectation to obey any spirit of the rules, noone has done that for about a decade. Therefore every engineer will try to make the fastest car that passes the defined rules (e.g double diffuser, McLaren's "3rd wing", flexi wings etc etc). All the teams also know that every other engineer is doing xactly the same thing.
My conclusion is that the Red Bull wing / Ferrari's version are not dubious in any way - they pass "the test", and are therefore legal and very clever ways round the rule.
stevesingo said:
My 3 year old son's theory (Honest) is pretty simple. If the wing is tested only on one side at a time then you can easily make each side independently rigid, but allow flex in unison by interlocking the two sides.
Dimension A could be adjusted to limit the droop as A comes under compression.
Not bad for a 3 year old.
That doesn't make any sense. How does applying load to one side result in more rigidity? Given enough load, the gap would partially or completely close however the wing was loaded.Dimension A could be adjusted to limit the droop as A comes under compression.
Not bad for a 3 year old.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff