Red Bull flexible wing

[anonymous-user]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 07 November 2020 at 05:18

[-Z-]

Just goes to show how important having a Newey in your team is.

[PhillipM]

Well, not really, as Ferrari's wing has been similar for many races, many times I've noticed it almost hitting the ground it was so close.

Edited by PhillipM on Wednesday 28th July 13:43

[American iv]

there is an interesting question raised on the JA comments - when was the flexing wing introduced, or at least the latest refinement of it? Could it have at Silverstone as that would nicely explain Newey's desire to run it, added to Webber's annoyance that he didn't have it and why people are only just starting to really notice it?

Oh, and check out http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=5adeb80b40...

[anonymous-user]

It might also be the reason Vettel's one came off his car, flexing too much and caught the ground.

[DeadMeat_UK]

Supposedly you can see it flexing in this vid.

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

Also difficult to tell if what you are measuring it against in the picture is also moving.
Trying to find clips of other cars this weekend to check how different it looks.

Make your own minds up...

http://ht.ly/2hFhS

[mchammer89]

MSTRBKR said:

It might also be the reason Vettel's one came off his car, flexing too much and caught the ground.

Looks like the bolts just sheered on his.

[Snoggledog]

Taking the ducting around the brake area as reference it looks as though the wing moves down a bit in that video.

[Podie]

-Z- said:

Just goes to show how important having a Newey in your team is.

Newey is one man. Whilst he is undoubtedly a great designer, you should see the size of the office of designers at RB... it's vast. Easily 100 designers in that office.

[llewop]

DeadMeat_UK said:

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

I think I found somewhere a reference to it that said it was 'less than 1 cm vertical when loaded with the test weight' or something like that

[anonymous-user]

DeadMeat_UK said:

Supposedly you can see it flexing in this vid.

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

Also difficult to tell if what you are measuring it against in the picture is also moving.
Trying to find clips of other cars this weekend to check how different it looks.

Make your own minds up...

http://ht.ly/2hFhS

I can't see it lowering but I definitely see it raising back up when the brakes are applied. Obviously this is because deceleration is faster than acceleration though.

It certainly seems to be flexing but they've hung weights off it and it complies. They've obviously got some trick surfaces on there that create a lot of downforce in order to flex it.

Edited by MSTRBKR on Wednesday 28th July 15:11

[E30M3SE]

llewop said:

DeadMeat_UK said:

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

I think I found somewhere a reference to it that said it was 'less than 1 cm vertical when loaded with the test weight' or something like that

500Nm applied vetically 795mm either side of the centre line, wing is allowed to 'flex' no more than 10mm.

[Sam.F]

MSTRBKR said:

It might also be the reason Vettel's one came off his car, flexing too much and caught the ground.

He'd had a trip off the road at Becketts (I was sat there watching!) during the same session that the wing broke, can't remember if it was the same lap though.

[tank slapper]

This gif was linked in the comments on the James Allen piece:



Edit:

It seems to me that the FIA testing philosophy is wrong. If they intend to have no movable aerodynamics, except the adjustable flaps on the front wing then they need to design a test that shows that. Specifying a deflection of x under load y doesn't do that, it only means that the car conforms to that narrow definition. That it passes the test doesn't mean that the car conforms to the rules.

Ferrari did similar with their flexible floor - it was designed to break the rules but still pass the test used.

The only way to get an accurate measure of what is happening would be to put the car in a wind tunnel and observe the behaviour under its proper working load, not with an arbitrary test that may not match what actually happens. The difficulty there is that it would be pretty expensive and not very convenient to test.

Edited by tank slapper on Wednesday 28th July 15:42

[llewop]

E30M3SE said:

llewop said:

DeadMeat_UK said:

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

I think I found somewhere a reference to it that said it was 'less than 1 cm vertical when loaded with the test weight' or something like that

500Nm applied vetically 795mm either side of the centre line, wing is allowed to 'flex' no more than 10mm.

that was it: and contrary to the post above yours: the 'trick' may be that the test weight is applied vertically from above (including using a fitting that the team supply if it is a funny shape), not 'hung off it' - it presumably isn't beyond the wit of F1 designers to have variable stiffness within components along diffferent axes?

[IainT]

MSTRBKR said:

It might also be the reason Vettel's one came off his car, flexing too much and caught the ground.

Was just thinking this reading the JA piece. If it were related then it does raise safety concerns.

Clever design though.

[E30M3SE]

llewop said:

E30M3SE said:

llewop said:

DeadMeat_UK said:

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

I think I found somewhere a reference to it that said it was 'less than 1 cm vertical when loaded with the test weight' or something like that

500Nm applied vetically 795mm either side of the centre line, wing is allowed to 'flex' no more than 10mm.

that was it: and contrary to the post above yours: the 'trick' may be that the test weight is applied vertically from above (including using a fitting that the team supply if it is a funny shape), not 'hung off it' - it presumably isn't beyond the wit of F1 designers to have variable stiffness within components along diffferent axes?

Max width is 1800mm, so if the 500N is applied at 795mm that only leave 105mm which is allowed, in theory, to 'flex' more than the 10mm.

3.17.1 said:

Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied to it 800mm forward of the front 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.

[The Wookie]

llewop said:

E30M3SE said:

llewop said:

DeadMeat_UK said:

I'm not sure if the rule is "no flex" or "an amount of flex"

I think I found somewhere a reference to it that said it was 'less than 1 cm vertical when loaded with the test weight' or something like that

500Nm applied vetically 795mm either side of the centre line, wing is allowed to 'flex' no more than 10mm.

that was it: and contrary to the post above yours: the 'trick' may be that the test weight is applied vertically from above (including using a fitting that the team supply if it is a funny shape), not 'hung off it' - it presumably isn't beyond the wit of F1 designers to have variable stiffness within components along diffferent axes?

It also isn't beyond the wit of any sensible designer to make sure that all of the downforce is produced right at the extremities of the wing to maximise the moment.

[DangerousMike]

piezo electric material in front wing which alters stiffness depending on whether current is applied or not.

[stevesingo]

500N is only 51kg! Hardly representative of the true loads at high speeds. Probably a little as 1/4.

Steve