Red Bull flexi front wing - judge for yourself
Discussion
Jungles said:
Castrol Craig said:
webber been called into fia scrut bay at end of fp3, charlie whiting inspecting it.
Random cars are selected for inspection after every FP session, Qualifying, and Race. They had Vettel's car inspected last race.
F1 Designers will ALWAYS find new ways of improving their cars sometimes going beyond or around regulations , the key thing here is for the authorities to be very clear on their next action , either to declare them illegal for the next race onwards - well done , very clever but not acceptable in the spirit of the rules but not the actual letter of the law currently , OR yes it's allowed and every F1 team then has to spend millions on designing and producing their own version of the RB flexi wing. I know which I would prefer if I was running things.
RedexR said:
I know which I would prefer if I was running things.
They've set the precedent to interpret the technical regulations literally in the past two years with the DDD and F-Duct controversies. They'd better be consistent and accept the flexi-wing as legal too.But of course, consistency isn't really a forte of the FIA.
Jungles said:
RedexR said:
I know which I would prefer if I was running things.
They've set the precedent to interpret the technical regulations literally in the past two years with the DDD and F-Duct controversies. They'd better be consistent and accept the flexi-wing as legal too.But of course, consistency isn't really a forte of the FIA.
dr_gn said:
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.
Conversely, if both sides were tested at the same time, they would both independently have to be strong enough to deal with the load. Not currently the case.
Personally I find the load test straggering anyway. It's only 500N (that's approximately 50Kg weight, on Earth, pop pickers). The front wings generate far more than that in race conditions - perhaps more than 10x more. Also - the teams get to supply an adapter plate so that the load can be spread however they want - it would be possible to put all of the weight on the leading edge of the wing, for example. You could make the front of the wing stronger than the back and still pass the test.
Happily the FIA have the power to change the testing mechanism at any time. I hope they do soon.
C
CraigyMc said:
dr_gn said:
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.
Conversely, if both sides were tested at the same time, they would both independently have to be strong enough to deal with the load. Not currently the case.
Personally I find the load test straggering anyway. It's only 500N (that's approximately 50Kg weight, on Earth, pop pickers). The front wings generate far more than that in race conditions - perhaps more than 10x more. Also - the teams get to supply an adapter plate so that the load can be spread however they want - it would be possible to put all of the weight on the leading edge of the wing, for example. You could make the front of the wing stronger than the back and still pass the test.
Happily the FIA have the power to change the testing mechanism at any time. I hope they do soon.
C
dr_gn said:
Still don't understand the concept.
Imagine the interlock he drew is actually a hinge. That's the idea he was getting at.dr_gn said:
Anyhow, re. the magnitude of the weights for the test: presumably the FIA are looking for a deflection under load. The deflection will be assumed to be proportiopnal to increasing weight. It might be a smaller load than reality (for practical test reasons), but they can extrapolate it (and the deflections) to suit more realistic loads.
You can't extrapolate the downforce and flows downstream produced by a wing at that height just from the amount it bends.The closer these wings get to the floor, the more sealed up the ground-effect is and the downforce goes up exponentially. Who knows what it does to the downstream flows of air.
The test says the wing is allowed to bend up to 10mm with 500N of force applied to one side. In the really real world on track there could easily be 10000N spread equally between both sides, with the majority coming from the middele/back back rather than the front of the wing.
C
How Red Bull can even begin to say that the wing is not touching the floor or dropping below the 75mm minimum heigh of the reference plane I have no idea 
as Mr Heath's images clearly show.
However, as others have said this cannot be measured accurately from images of when the cars are moving and the static tests are not adequate to capture the issue. If you read the rules there are a host of them relating to rear wing deflection (3.17) but only a small section relating to anything forward of the front wheel centreline. 3.15 kind of covers all deflection of bodywork.
3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
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.
as Mr Heath's images clearly show.However, as others have said this cannot be measured accurately from images of when the cars are moving and the static tests are not adequate to capture the issue. If you read the rules there are a host of them relating to rear wing deflection (3.17) but only a small section relating to anything forward of the front wheel centreline. 3.15 kind of covers all deflection of bodywork.
3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
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.
dr_gn said:
CraigyMc said:
dr_gn said:
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.
Conversely, if both sides were tested at the same time, they would both independently have to be strong enough to deal with the load. Not currently the case.
Personally I find the load test straggering anyway. It's only 500N (that's approximately 50Kg weight, on Earth, pop pickers). The front wings generate far more than that in race conditions - perhaps more than 10x more. Also - the teams get to supply an adapter plate so that the load can be spread however they want - it would be possible to put all of the weight on the leading edge of the wing, for example. You could make the front of the wing stronger than the back and still pass the test.
Happily the FIA have the power to change the testing mechanism at any time. I hope they do soon.
C
CraigyMc said:
dr_gn said:
Still don't understand the concept.
Imagine the interlock he drew is actually a hinge. That's the idea he was getting at.C
CraigyMc said:
dr_gn said:
Anyhow, re. the magnitude of the weights for the test: presumably the FIA are looking for a deflection under load. The deflection will be assumed to be proportiopnal to increasing weight. It might be a smaller load than reality (for practical test reasons), but they can extrapolate it (and the deflections) to suit more realistic loads.
You can't extrapolate the downforce and flows downstream produced by a wing at that height just from the amount it bends.The closer these wings get to the floor, the more sealed up the ground-effect is and the downforce goes up exponentially. Who knows what it does to the downstream flows of air.
The test says the wing is allowed to bend up to 10mm with 500N of force applied to one side. In the really real world on track there could easily be 10000N spread equally between both sides, with the majority coming from the middele/back back rather than the front of the wing.
C
Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st July 17:13
I see this as slightly different from the F-duct and double diffusers - they require a change to the regulations to remove them.
This is more like the Ferrari flexible rear wings and the Michelin wide front tyres. The regulations state what is required and then how they test that the car conforms to the regs. In each of the other cases the FIA changed their testing mechanism part way through the season to catch the new innovations. I don't see why it should be different this time (except in the previous cases it was to the detriment of the team leading the world championship..)
Definitely a small difference, but possibly an important one.
This is more like the Ferrari flexible rear wings and the Michelin wide front tyres. The regulations state what is required and then how they test that the car conforms to the regs. In each of the other cases the FIA changed their testing mechanism part way through the season to catch the new innovations. I don't see why it should be different this time (except in the previous cases it was to the detriment of the team leading the world championship..)
Definitely a small difference, but possibly an important one.
RedexR said:
dr_gn said:
CraigyMc said:
dr_gn said:
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.
Conversely, if both sides were tested at the same time, they would both independently have to be strong enough to deal with the load. Not currently the case.
Personally I find the load test straggering anyway. It's only 500N (that's approximately 50Kg weight, on Earth, pop pickers). The front wings generate far more than that in race conditions - perhaps more than 10x more. Also - the teams get to supply an adapter plate so that the load can be spread however they want - it would be possible to put all of the weight on the leading edge of the wing, for example. You could make the front of the wing stronger than the back and still pass the test.
Happily the FIA have the power to change the testing mechanism at any time. I hope they do soon.
C
Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st July 17:21
it doesn't relate to the "wide tyres" - the FIA did change their rules in that case to measure tyre width when tyres were used rather than new.
In this case we have clear rules that state the bodywork must not move relative to the sprung part of the car, and the front wing must be 85mm above the reference plane. There is also a rule that says the car must conform to the regulations at all points throughout the weekend (i.e. when on track and moving as well as in scrutineering). Red bull are unquestionably breaking the rules. They pass the deflection test but that is one part of the regulations only!
In this case we have clear rules that state the bodywork must not move relative to the sprung part of the car, and the front wing must be 85mm above the reference plane. There is also a rule that says the car must conform to the regulations at all points throughout the weekend (i.e. when on track and moving as well as in scrutineering). Red bull are unquestionably breaking the rules. They pass the deflection test but that is one part of the regulations only!
dr_gn said:
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.
If the wing is split in two sections, LH/RH joined in the middle with such a device as illustrated, when the test is applied to one side (LH of car in this instance) the wing will want to pivot around the fulcrum (LH pylon) applying torque to that fulcrum. In doing so the LH portion is linked to the RH, therefore transferring some of the load to the fulcrum of the RH pylon wing interface (at a much lower leverage), thus, spreading some of the load to the RH pylon and deflecting less. When both sides of the wing are loaded equally, both sides deflect equally and no load is transferred to the opposite side.
When loaded equally, because there is no transfer of load from one side to the other, both side of the wing will droop, but only until the gap "A" becomes zero and "A" comes under compression.
Pat Pending
Steve
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff