Red Bull flexi front wing - judge for yourself

[stevesingo]

The problem with the test could be in the fact the team provides the test piece the load is applied through. Surely a control piece/attachment could be used by all teams, thus removing any team influence on the test procedure.

Do they test both sides at the same time?

Steve

[dr_gn]

stevesingo said:

The problem with the test could be in the fact the team provides the test piece the load is applied through. Surely a control piece/attachment could be used by all teams, thus removing any team influence on the test procedure.

Do they test both sides at the same time?

Steve

All the wings will be different in the region the load is applied, so each team has to provide an adapter that conforms to the geometry ot their wing. This is to prevent damage, or indeed to ensure the load point doesn't move during the test.

[stevesingo]

If all the teams were forced to use the same test piece, then in effect you have a kind of controlled wing, albeit on in respect to the test.

[dr_gn]

stevesingo said:

If all the teams were forced to use the same test piece, then in effect you have a kind of controlled wing, albeit on in respect to the test.

Then you might as well have a standard front wing, and then why not a standard rear wing, and standard gearboxes etc etc etc.

[zac510]

I'm sure if there was a standard test piece then they'd manipulate the design of the wing to influence the test, so you're fighting a losing battle

[Mr Whippy]

akaMG said:

^ that would come under movable bodywork,

i was under the imperssion that the red bull wings are deflecting in a linear manner, (10mm under 50kg of load, 20mm under 100kg of load), where the other teams have been trying to limit total deflecion to 10mm, it means by the time the wing gets full downforce (200-250KG) its deflecting 40-50mm and with suspention and tyre comprestion its easy to get the wing scraping the ground under brakeing and turning (or pitch and roll) its a clever interpritation of the rules / testing, i dont think the wing goes flopy after the test load because that would require a mechanical system and be illegal, and any spring system / constrution technique would only get stiffer or break and fail re-testing,

or maybe not who knows?

That seems to be how it is reading.

RBR simply took the deflection per unit load, while everyone else appears to have been using the 10mm as an absolute limit.

This is what makes F1 interesting to me. If we simply make all the cars the same then what is the point any more?

Why bother innovating within the rules, if you then do something really good and get penalised for it!


And there Bernie is attacking the slower teams, yet at the same time giving the fastest teams a hard time for being TOO good (probably)

Dave

[Wanta996Gotta]

E30M3SE said:

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.

So far, they are changing the tests for Belgium - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85817

[Mr Whippy]

Wanta996Gotta said:

So far, they are changing the tests for Belgium - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85817

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

Is this more that the other teams have simply being making their wings too rigid and losing a potential advantage?

Dave

[Wanta996Gotta]

Mr Whippy said:

Wanta996Gotta said:

So far, they are changing the tests for Belgium - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85817

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

Is this more that the other teams have simply being making their wings too rigid and losing a potential advantage?

Dave

Thats how i see it. Mercedes and Mclaren want to know what they can "now" get away with before they spend time and money focusing on it.

[PhillipM]

Mr Whippy said:

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

It was, which is why the other teams were jumping up and down a bit!

[Mr Whippy]

PhillipM said:

Mr Whippy said:

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

It was, which is why the other teams were jumping up and down a bit!

It was non-linear?

Oooo... hmmmm...

Isn't there an existing rule against that kind of thing....?

I guess there is always an element of non-linearity, but engineering it in specifically is something different...

Hard one to call. I guess adding a few deflection vs load references will force a behaviour towards being mainly linear.


I just think they should allow anything really. It gets boring when this kind of thing is where F1 results are decided, interpretation of rules, rather than genuinely interesting innovations like the Lotus floating body concept for example...

Dave

[HDM]

sjn2004 said:

E30M3SE said:

sjn2004 said:

As regards the FIA test, where is the 500N (50kg) load actually placed during the test? If the load is placed at the midpoint of the wing it will only be simulating a uniform loading. Now as there are many winglets, in reality, a greater proportion of downforce is created at the wingtip which due to being the furthest point from the wings point of fixation can result in more bending.

From page 1

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.

Edited by E30M3SE on Saturday 31st July 19:51

Maybe its a two part construction, stiffer up to the technical load point so it passes testing but weaker beyond that to allow flexing.

Edited by sjn2004 on Sunday 1st August 02:09

I think that there may be something in this, Steve Matchett pointed out on Speed TV (US motor sport channel) that he thought there may be two different carbon fibre layups, with a more flexi (less carbon weave?) towards the extremities of the wing.

[35secToNuvolari]

This is just another case of the rules being revised to get closer to what is intended. When the rules say one general thing and then seem to contradict that general rule with a specific performance measurement, the specific measurement should be read as either an exception to the general statement, or a further, more precise definition of what the general rule intends. Otherwise the rules break their own rules, and that is an impossible way to read the rules.

[paulrockliffe]

What's this rule about it being a linear response?

My understanding was that this was safety rule, perhaps the FIA should be testing the wings in a manner that determines their safety rather than how much they deflect?

[sjn2004]

PhillipM said:

Mr Whippy said:

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

It was, which is why the other teams were jumping up and down a bit!

Not sure why RBR are denying it. On Sunday from Webber's in car shot you could see his wing move downwards as he built up speed along the main straight. I guess this explains how the other week they were not dropping a gear for some of the high speed corners while everybody else was doing.

Why are the FIA messing about so much, why not take a wing and examine it more closely, from the inside as well. Who knows, maybe there are retractable spars inside that move inwards during the race to allow more flexibility?

[PhillipM]

Doesn't need to be anything that finicky, you can do it with the construction and shape of the wing easily enough.
The trick is to get it working as it moves and getting it to move when you want it.

[ridds]

sjn2004 said:

PhillipM said:

Mr Whippy said:

So they are making sure it's a linear change, so unless RBR were knowingly breaking the rules with a non-linear response to loading, it won't make any difference anyway.

It was, which is why the other teams were jumping up and down a bit!

Not sure why RBR are denying it. On Sunday from Webber's in car shot you could see his wing move downwards as he built up speed along the main straight. I guess this explains how the other week they were not dropping a gear for some of the high speed corners while everybody else was doing.

Why are the FIA messing about so much, why not take a wing and examine it more closely, from the inside as well. Who knows, maybe there are retractable spars inside that move inwards during the race to allow more flexibility?

But that's just it, if you re-watch the coverage at the weekend at no point does CH state that their wing does not flex. He purely re-iterates that the wing passes the relevant tests. The problem is the test is not stringent enough and does not highlight issues when the car is moving.

[The Moose]

(I haven't read the whole thread)

But I think the real issue is that the rule-makers are not as smart as the people designing the cars.

Hence the f-duct, flexi-wing etc etc.

Remember people like Newey are the best of the best of the best (sir!!). If the rule-makers were, well, they wouldn't be making the rules would they!!

Those who can, do. Those who can't make the rules??

Cheers

The Moose

[tank slapper]

The Moose said:

But I think the real issue is that the rule-makers are not as smart as the people designing the cars.

Exactly what happened with the double-diffuser, and that was with Ross Brawn pointing out the loophole before the regulations were finalised.

[The Moose]

tank slapper said:

The Moose said:

But I think the real issue is that the rule-makers are not as smart as the people designing the cars.

Exactly what happened with the double-diffuser, and that was with Ross Brawn pointing out the loophole before the regulations were finalised.

Indeed. I guess the real issue is that at the level F1 operates at, nothing can be done to stop this happening.

What I want to know is when red bull brought this new application of the technology in as I get the impression it's been a while!!

Also, why don't they stop botching and get on with making their own ones!!

Cheers

The Moose