Flex in non-flexible wings

[Bagwan]

How do the Bulls grind off the front wing endplates and still pass the 100kg static load tests ?

Or , perhaps more appropriately , how is it that nobody else can copy this trait ?

Charlie is saying they're ok .
Horner is sounding all bored with the questioning .

And , everyone else is left wondering how Newey is flexing the rules , enough to grind the endplates so much .


It seems kinda weird that nobody else has worked a way to do this , as the downforce at speed must be far more weight than 100kg .
Surely , these brains should be able to configure things such that they would not flex until they were above the required weight applied , and only then to a certain amount .


So , what's really going on here ?
If they aren't flexing the front down , the only other way is to lift the rear end , and that doesn't seem likely .

But , Horner seems a bit too happy with talking about the mysterious front end .
And Vettel said earlier he liked the rear .

Are folks looking at the wrong end of the car ?

[ioan]

Most probably a combination of:

1. front wing CF layering allowing the wing to flex more after the 100 kgs load is passed
2. the front wing is under much more than 100kgs of load when at full speed on the track, also the aero load is distributed on the whole surface of the wing unlike the FIA punctual static tests which means the wing will behave differently then under static testing
3. suspension setup
4. Excellent aero means that they can run much more front wing then the rest without unbalancing the car, which in turn means that they will do great on medium and high speed twisty tracks

Conclusion is that the rest of the grid need a lot more than KERS to beat them to the flag.

[Robinho]

i was going to say something not quite so clever and technical as Ioan, so i'll say i agree - to me it would seem if the static load is on the end of the wings that doesn't replicate the uniform pressure across the wing imposed by the downforce. i'd imagine that there is something very clever in the construction that menas when the load is distributed it flexes, but when subjected to a load at the ends it remains stiff. plausible?

[Sonic]

I'm enjoying it immensely. No one's got a clue - after 18 months or so - how the Bull's are doing it!

[ioan]

i was going to say something not quite so clever and technical as Ioan, so i'll say i agree - to me it would seem if the static load is on the end of the wings that doesn't replicate the uniform pressure across the wing imposed by the downforce. i'd imagine that there is something very clever in the construction that menas when the load is distributed it flexes, but when subjected to a load at the ends it remains stiff. plausible?

Just a small correction, it can not remain stiff when subjected to a different load, it will only behave differently, like flexing less or along a different plane/axis.

It is not the endplates of the wing that are flexing more compared to the center of the wing then on other cars, it is the whole wing that is tilting forward and getting closer to the ground.
Very clever solution by Newey, and most probably difficult for other teams to implement without a large change in design philosophy, cause I do not believe for a second that Ferrari and McLaren could not build a wing that behaves similarly, it's just that their cars would not be any faster with it cause it would most probably unbalance their cars (front to rear downforce).

[AndyL]

i was going to say something not quite so clever and technical as Ioan, so i'll say i agree - to me it would seem if the static load is on the end of the wings that doesn't replicate the uniform pressure across the wing imposed by the downforce. i'd imagine that there is something very clever in the construction that menas when the load is distributed it flexes, but when subjected to a load at the ends it remains stiff. plausible?

I would say yes, plausible. Whether it's practical or not I couldn't say, but I can imagine how it might work mechanically. Aero load applied near the centre might alter the shape of the wing, squeezing it from a curved cross section to a flatter one. That would then be less stiff, allowing the aero load at the ends to bend the wing down.

I imagine every bit of incorrect speculation about what Red Bull are doing inflates Newey's ego just a little bit... his head must be the size of a hot air balloon by now.

[Mark]

It is not the endplates of the wing that are flexing more compared to the center of the wing then on other cars, it is the whole wing that is tilting forward and getting closer to the ground.
Very clever solution by Newey, and most probably difficult for other teams to implement without a large change in design philosophy, cause I do not believe for a second that Ferrari and McLaren could not build a wing that behaves similarly, it's just that their cars would not be any faster with it cause it would most probably unbalance their cars (front to rear downforce).

It's just that sort of thing which makes Newey cars difficult to beat. Sure he comes up with trick designs, but then the rest of the car is designed around them too, so you can't just copy it without re-designing everything else too. Teams will get there eventually, just as they learned to beat Williams and learned to beat McLaren, but it'll be some time and probably after Newey has gone!

[RJL25]

Just a theory, ironically enough I was actually thinking about this today at work (shut up, works boring) and I'm wondering, the static load test pulls the wing end plates straight downwards right? What if the wing doesn't flex straight downwards? Maybe they flex on an angle, down AND backwards? So they only flex when it has windspeed of 150km/h plus pushing the wings backwards as well as downwards with the downforce do they flex, rather then just straight down as in the static load test???

[RJL25]

It's just that sort of thing which makes Newey cars difficult to beat. Sure he comes up with trick designs, but then the rest of the car is designed around them too, so you can't just copy it without re-designing everything else too. Teams will get there eventually, just as they learned to beat Williams and learned to beat McLaren, but it'll be some time and probably after Newey has gone!

Newey can outsmart himself, he has done it before at Mclaren, designing cars that are just too out there to actually work, but RBR have enough good OTHER people around to keep Newey's feet on the ground.

I guess in a strange kind of way, its not just about letting Adrian do his thing, but its also about holding him back a bit as well

[Bagwan]

Most probably a combination of:

1. front wing CF layering allowing the wing to flex more after the 100 kgs load is passed
2. the front wing is under much more than 100kgs of load when at full speed on the track, also the aero load is distributed on the whole surface of the wing unlike the FIA punctual static tests which means the wing will behave differently then under static testing
3. suspension setup
4. Excellent aero means that they can run much more front wing then the rest without unbalancing the car, which in turn means that they will do great on medium and high speed twisty tracks

Conclusion is that the rest of the grid need a lot more than KERS to beat them to the flag.

1 - Too simple .
All the rest would have thought of that . They make all the parts of the car to ride just above or below the required spec .
And , as you say , the whole wing appears to be flexing .

2 -That's a fact or two , but not a word about how they achieve the flexing .

3 -I guess it's possible , that the suspension might be involved , but that would have to also be an area worked hard by all the teams , so to be so far ahead seems implausable .

4 -The "excellent aero" seems to be the advantage they gain by getting the wing closer to the ground , so they can channel more of the incoming air to the right places .
I think , though , that part of that advantage is that they can actually run slightly less , not more front wing , as they seem to be flexing down , increasing the angle of attack .
This might explain why they haven't needed the KERS at the start , because they have a slipperier car at lower speeds off the line .
Once the car is at a speed that's equal to the speeds and downforce created in those medium and high speed twisties , the nose is somehow able to squat down and create more efficient downforce .

This , coupled with better weight distribution , due to optimizing the weight of the missing KERS , had them miles ahead , figuratively .

[ioan]

This , coupled with better weight distribution , due to optimizing the weight of the missing KERS , had them miles ahead , figuratively .

Forget about about weight distribution improvement, it is fixed by the technical rules for this season.

[christophulus]

Some interesting pics here, but still no explanation!

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fspontoncristiano.wordpress.com%2F20 11%2F03%2F30%2Fali-flessibili-stagione-2011%2F (Italian -English translation)

[Bagwan]

Forget about about weight distribution improvement, it is fixed by the technical rules for this season.

Well , if there is a space for KERS , and you replaced this weight with a flat plate that weighed the same , it would mean that weight has much less height , offering a much lower CoG .
That would be better weight distribution , would it not ?

[SGWilko]

Well , if there is a space for KERS , and you replaced this weight with a flat plate that weighed the same , it would mean that weight has much less height , offering a much lower CoG .
That would be better weight distribution , would it not ?

On the vertical it would, yes, but not on the horizontal. What the stipulation re front/rear weight rule attempts to achieve is to negate the benefit of not running KERS.

Anyroad, I would hazard a guess that the Red Bull will chew its tyres with KERS in regular use......

[AndyL]

On the vertical it would, yes, but not on the horizontal. What the stipulation re front/rear weight rule attempts to achieve is to negate the benefit of not running KERS.

I thought it was more to do with the tyres - to give Pirelli a fixed spec to design to, and prevent some teams lucking into weight distribution that particularly suited tyres while others got it wrong.

[Mia 01]

Just as Lewis splitter, RB dont need the use of the front wingor KERS in the race or even at the start, They will vin anyhow.

Ofcourse, MacLaren will protest as usual, why are they faster then us whitout a frontwing!!

[Bagwan]

On the vertical it would, yes, but not on the horizontal. What the stipulation re front/rear weight rule attempts to achieve is to negate the benefit of not running KERS.

Anyroad, I would hazard a guess that the Red Bull will chew its tyres with KERS in regular use......

I know it's not on the horizontal .
That would be why I stated that it would have a lower CoG . Pay attention , Wilco .

You may be right about those tires , but I think the roll , due to the higher CoG when they do run KERS , will have greater effect .
That nose section is bending down equally across the wing , and the endplates are dragging .
Drag just the outside and you have , firstly , friction outside , where you don't want drag , as it tends to keep you going straight .
Then , you have the inside lifting , and the loss in comparison with the outside downforce .

The suspension will need to be harder to deal with the roll .

And that's harder on tires .

[Zico]

Im in the middle of studying for my Aeronautical Engineering HNC, part of which covers aerodynamics and wing morphing using various means..
For talking sake.... would a morphing nose cone or wing containing either a veritex (Tm) composite layer also containing a heating element for softening or piezo electric ceramic layer (PZT) activated by an electric pulse to shape change still be technically within the rules considering it would not be actively adjusted.. merely softened?

The advantages are obvious.. on the straight at high speed the drag of a simple flexable nose would be eliminated yet when softening or morping, directly or indirectly (brake activation?) activated the means of providing the extra downforce you'd have the best of both worlds. (May also explain the Red bulls start line only Kers?)

Its probably something far, far simpler than that but thats probably an area Id explore if I was Mike Gascoyne.. but then thats probably why Im not!.. :D

Opinions on the possibilities and bending (pardon the terrible pun) of the technical regs ?

[ioan]

Im in the middle of studying for my Aeronautical Engineering HNC, part of which covers aerodynamics and wing morphing using various means..
For talking sake.... would a morphing nose cone or wing containing either a veritex (Tm) composite layer also containing a heating element for softening or piezo electric ceramic layer (PZT) activated by an electric pulse to shape change still be technically within the rules considering it would not be actively adjusted.. merely softened?

The advantages are obvious.. on the straight at high speed the drag of a simple flexable nose would be eliminated yet when softening or morping, directly or indirectly (brake activation?) activated the means of providing the extra downforce you'd have the best of both worlds. (May also explain the Red bulls start line only Kers?)

Its probably something far, far simpler than that but thats probably an area Id explore if I was Mike Gascoyne.. but then thats probably why Im not!.. :D

Opinions on the possibilities and bending (pardon the terrible pun) of the technical regs ?

Interesting ideas.

Not sure about the heating element idea as that would mean quite a few heating - cooling cycles per lap and I do not know if it would be practical.

The PZT would need to be adjusted in real time otherwise the car's aero performance would be compromised, and real time adjustment is forbidden.

[ioan]

Well , if there is a space for KERS , and you replaced this weight with a flat plate that weighed the same , it would mean that weight has much less height , offering a much lower CoG .
That would be better weight distribution , would it not ?

Well it all depends on the weight and placement of KERS. And unless Kers is placed very high, which it isn't, I think we can not talk about ' a much lower COG'.

[CNR]

this all comes down to truth in advertising

[truefan72]

Some interesting pics here, but still no explanation!

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fspontoncristiano.wordpress.com%2F20 11%2F03%2F30%2Fali-flessibili-stagione-2011%2F (Italian -English translation)

great article
so if it is clear that the wing flexes and it is against the rules, then why isn't the FIA saying/doing something
Just because it passed your stupid test doesn't mean they test isn't flawed or the team did not find away to cheat around it.

I find it strange that the FIA DQ's sauber for some ridiculous and nonessential wing issue, but yet do nothing about the clearly and demonstrably advantageous illegal flexi wing from RBR. The whole world can see that the wing contravenes the rules,but the fIA obviously have an RBR blind spot. :down:

[ioan]

great article

Yeah, impressive pile of rubbish in that article.
They are comparing RBR cars from different years and make a point with it?!
Also comparing stills of RBR and MCLaren front wing without us having the slightest idea if both cars were under acceleration or maybe one of them was already braking.

An article that cherry picks images to suit their bias is not worth being called great.

Or maybe suddenly some armchair experts know better than 10 F1 teams.

[Bobby_Hamlin]

Yeah, impressive pile of rubbish in that article.
They are comparing RBR cars from different years and make a point with it?!
Also comparing stills of RBR and MCLaren front wing without us having the slightest idea if both cars were under acceleration or maybe one of them was already braking.

An article that cherry picks images to suit their bias is not worth being called great.

Or maybe suddenly some armchair experts know better than 10 F1 teams.

Apart from denigrating that blog post what exactly is your point? That actually the Red Bull wing isn't running lower and that article is merely doctoring images simply to lie? Whether or not their images are entirely scientifically comparable I don't know - I'm not overly concerned whether they are or not - the front wing clearly remains an issue, as mentioned by Lewis Hamilton after the Australian Grand Prix for example:

"I don't know if you've seen [Red Bull's] front wing but it's like trailing on the ground. That is massive downforce. Ours is much higher off the ground. That alone is like 20 points of downforce, like half a second, so as soon as we close that loophole or find out how to do that we will close that performance gap."

[ioan]

Apart from denigrating that blog post what exactly is your point? That actually the Red Bull wing isn't running lower and that article is merely doctoring images simply to lie? Whether or not their images are entirely scientifically comparable I don't know - I'm not overly concerned whether they are or not - the front wing clearly remains an issue, as mentioned by Lewis Hamilton after the Australian Grand Prix for example:

"I don't know if you've seen [Red Bull's] front wing but it's like trailing on the ground. That is massive downforce. Ours is much higher off the ground. That alone is like 20 points of downforce, like half a second, so as soon as we close that loophole or find out how to do that we will close that performance gap."

I think I made myself clear in my post as to why the blog is not reliable.

And as you can see Hamilton is not saying that RB are cheating, just pointing out that they can produce so much more downforce.

[Bobby_Hamlin]

Where does the blog post say Red Bull are 'cheating'? Admittedly it's translated via Google but "The Red Bull appears to have found a way to pass the test without problems" seems to tie in with Hamilton's mention of a "loophole". The blog's message appears to be that Ferrari need to up their game.

[gloomyDAY]

I think Ioan is onto something. When the wing is loaded at a higher speed, then we see a flex in the front wing.

http://grid.f1arab.com/wp_ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/f1arab1.gif

[Bagwan]

Great animation , Mr. Day .

We see some flex from the entire nose , so the entire wing is bending down to some degree .
And , we see huge flex at the endplates .

Hard to tell whether it's just a factor of the drop , but it does look like there's a certain amount of deformation backwards as well .

Interesting to see the suspension flex , seeming to primarily be dealing with the growth of the tires at speed .

Lewis rarely seems to have original thoughts , so these gripes are from the team , and more than likely , all the others as well .
Everyone but Newey took the additional weight added to the front wings at face value . That is , that they were not to flex .

This is one of those times where , if it's your team , you say it's clever innovation , and if it's not , you call it cheating .

Since Charlie said it's fine , expect a whole lot more flex in non-flexable wings across the grid .

Because now it's legal , however you achieve it .

[Bagwan]

Here's another thought :
Now that they've effectively given the green light to scrap a bunch of wings and design new ones that flex , it makes me wonder what goes into the making of this decision .

They say it's ok , so wings must be re-designed to keep up . There's no other way . You must .

If they say it's no good , though , how would they have done it ?
Could they merely have added even more weight to the front end ? That , likely would have resulted in the re-design of a number of wings anyway . And , possibly more disqualifications at the next races , if there wasn't time(or money) allowed to do the work .

Could a "plank" , like used for the floor , measured after the race for thickness be the answer to stop the flexing ?

I don't know the answer , but it seems like there should be a way the regulate this aero aspect of the car without just the wholesale burn of money that a new set of wings for the whole grid means .

[Kevincal]

red bull is giving fia and/or Bernie the most money under table so they can break rules? ;) Ferrari used to give most money this way. just a thought, its possible. ;)

[Malbec]

Very clever solution by Newey, and most probably difficult for other teams to implement without a large change in design philosophy, cause I do not believe for a second that Ferrari and McLaren could not build a wing that behaves similarly, it's just that their cars would not be any faster with it cause it would most probably unbalance their cars (front to rear downforce).

I don't agree with that, though I do agree with your analysis of what RBR are doing.

If Ferrari or McLaren could do what RBR do they'd be doing it and adapt the rest of the car accordingly. I think the other teams simply don't have the expertise at the moment to lay the carbon fibre in a way that would not flex at all up to a certain load then flex predictably at greater loads. Thats not to say they won't catch up of course and I bet members of the RBR carbon fibre department are getting regular job offers right now.

[ioan]

Everyone but Newey took the additional weight added to the front wings at face value . That is , that they were not to flex .

Since Charlie said it's fine , expect a whole lot more flex in non-flexable wings across the grid .

Because now it's legal , however you achieve it .

I have never understood this need for fallacious statements. :rolleyes:

Flexible bodywork has always been legal within the prescribed limits.

And just for the sake of making things clear, while some are trying hard to muddy everything, here is what the FIA F1 technical regulations specify:

[quote="2011 FORMULA ONE TECHNICAL REGULATIONS"]
3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N 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 to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x
150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the
adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and
relative to the reference plane.
3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm
forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size. Teams must supply the
latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied
simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 925mm above the reference plane and 20mm
forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate.
3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 500N load is applied simultaneously to each
side of it 200mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 325mm from the car centre line and 970mm above the
reference plane. The deflection will be measured at the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point
345mm behind the rear wheel centre line.
The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm which conform
to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost horizontal surface 970mm above the
reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter
when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three
different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be
applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm
diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line. Stays or
structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be
present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows
non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of
allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection
above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have, or is suspected of having, any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.
3.17.6 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm
horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 950mm above the reference
plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 190mm either side of it. The loads will be
applied in a rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant
team.
3.17.7 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 730mm
above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically.
The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads
will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ]

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 2-2010.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/15A68242E9992FCEC12577F8004A826A/$FILE/1-2011%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2010-12-2010.pdf)

And the reason for these regulation is that there is no 100% rigid material to be used.

[ioan]

I don't agree with that, though I do agree with your analysis of what RBR are doing.

If Ferrari or McLaren could do what RBR do they'd be doing it and adapt the rest of the car accordingly. I think the other teams simply don't have the expertise at the moment to lay the carbon fibre in a way that would not flex at all up to a certain load then flex predictably at greater loads. Thats not to say they won't catch up of course and I bet members of the RBR carbon fibre department are getting regular job offers right now.

If that is true than I am really surprised as I personally know people who know how to do it.

[SGWilko]

Well it all depends on the weight and placement of KERS. And unless Kers is placed very high, which it isn't, I think we can not talk about ' a much lower COG'.

Yeah!!! Bigwon needs to pay attention. :p

[Bagwan]

Yeah!!! Bigwon needs to pay attention. :p

OK , you first .

I don't know the dimension of the plate of metal needed to replace the weight of the KERS system , but it would undoubtedly be much shorter than the KERS unit itself , and thus , have a much lower centre of gravity , whether my friend Ioan would like to admit it or not .

That should and would be significant .

Teams chose whether or not to use KERS .
Some chose not to design it into the car at all .

Red Bull didn't use thiers in Melbourne .
If not CoG , what did they gain by not running it ?




And , call me bagwan , or I'll not bother with you at all , thanks .

[Malbec]

If not CoG , what did they gain by not running it ?

It wasn't reliable so they weren't confident of getting anything out of using it.

That said, KERS requires considerable cooling so the cars would have been more aerodynamic without the radiation devices needed. Also they'd have lost the disturbance to the braking balance the regenerative braking systems would have caused improving driveability.

[Bagwan]

I have never understood this need for fallacious statements. :rolleyes:

Flexible bodywork has always been legal within the prescribed limits.

And just for the sake of making things clear, while some are trying hard to muddy everything, here is what the FIA F1 technical regulations specify:



http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 2-2010.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/15A68242E9992FCEC12577F8004A826A/$FILE/1-2011%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2010-12-2010.pdf)

And the reason for these regulation is that there is no 100% rigid material to be used.

Don't quote the rules at me .

You know that I know that no material is strictly rigid , and that there is always some degree of flex .
That would be why I suggested that they might have used more weight .

Hammy suggested that they would copy the trait if they found it legal .
Clearly , this suggests that all the others were thinking the Bulls were pushing the limits farther than thier own teams were .

They , clearly , don't think so now .


Taking my comment as literally as you did , when you know me as well as you do , was a bit cheap , don't you think ?

Just who is trying to "muddy everything" here ?

[Bagwan]

It wasn't reliable so they weren't confident of getting anything out of using it.

That said, KERS requires considerable cooling so the cars would have been more aerodynamic without the radiation devices needed. Also they'd have lost the disturbance to the braking balance the regenerative braking systems would have caused improving driveability.

Fair enough , Dylan , but would you not agree that there would be some gain in lowering of the CoG in the process ?
Those radiation devices would also need replacement with the appropriate equal weight , in the same area , to comply with the proportional front to back weighting of the car , and undoubtedly , would also be placed as low as possible , likely lower than the original parts involved .
Again , a lowering of the CoG , no ?

[ShiftingGears]

I find it strange that the FIA DQ's sauber for some ridiculous and nonessential wing issue, but yet do nothing about the clearly and demonstrably advantageous illegal flexi wing from RBR. The whole world can see that the wing contravenes the rules,but the fIA obviously have an RBR blind spot. :down:

This is just ridiculous, Sauber clearly broke the rules, otherwise they would've appealed it. With the front wing, the legality of a teams wing is defined by whether or not they pass the load test. Lets not forget that the FIA increased the loading in the tests last year more than once because of the RBR's wing flex. So lets give up with this whole favouring of a team nonsense. RBR have done nothing wrong.

[ioan]

Hammy suggested that they would copy the trait if they found it legal .

Hammy suggested they are trying to copy it but they are not yet successful.



Taking my comment as literally as you did , when you know me as well as you do , was a bit cheap , don't you think ?


:eek:
I took your comment literally for what you posted as I hate interpreting others words. Next time please make yourself clear so everyone knows what your intent is.

[ioan]

This is just ridiculous, Sauber clearly broke the rules, otherwise they would've appealed it. With the front wing, the legality of a teams wing is defined by whether or not they pass the load test. Lets not forget that the FIA increased the loading in the tests last year more than once because of the RBR's wing flex. So lets give up with this whole favouring of a team nonsense. RBR have done nothing wrong.

:up:

[Zico]

Interesting ideas.

Not sure about the heating element idea as that would mean quite a few heating - cooling cycles per lap and I do not know if it would be practical.

The PZT would need to be adjusted in real time otherwise the car's aero performance would be compromised, and real time adjustment is forbidden.

Fair points, because morphing still a developing concept with so many different materials, ways and variations of achieving either active or passive morphing, we really have no idea.
Unless they can use passively a pre-existing form of energy from the car be it heat or pressure (ie hydraulics) then anything else would be considered 'active' .
A passive adaptive structure is most likely what we are dealing with but I also struggle to see how other teams would find it hard to achieve similar when you consider that it should be a fairly basic thing to be able to achieve without too much difficulty, heck. even wind turbine blades are designed to passively unwind by twisting under aero pressure (gusts)

A Fluid Matrix construction could also be another possibility, it consists of several braided tubes within a flexable matrix, when pressure is applied hydraulicly through the hoses the structure stiffens. A simple valve or 2 within the hydraulic braking system could allow the driver to bypass the braking system, press the brake pedal on the straights to instead stiffen the nose and reduce drag. There is an example here.. http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/undergrad/thesis-catalog/files/86.pdf

Here are some other examples of the possibilities within all the morphing patents here.. http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110042524

And a range of smart materials here.. http://www.crgrp.com/technology.shtml

Worth a read Imo. :)

[ioan]

Fair points, because morphing still a developing concept with so many different materials, ways and variations of achieving either active or passive morphing, we really have no idea.
Unless they can use passively a pre-existing form of energy from the car be it heat or pressure (ie hydraulics) then anything else would be considered 'active' .
A passive adaptive structure is most likely what we are dealing with but I also struggle to see how other teams would find it hard to achieve similar when you consider that it should be a fairly basic thing to be able to achieve without too much difficulty, heck. even wind turbine blades are designed to passively unwind by twisting under aero pressure (gusts)

A Fluid Matrix construction could also be another possibility, it consists of several braided tubes within a flexable matrix, when pressure is applied hydraulicly through the hoses the structure stiffens. A simple valve or 2 within the hydraulic braking system could allow the driver to bypass the braking system, press the brake pedal on the straights to instead stiffen the nose and reduce drag. There is an example here.. http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/undergrad/thesis-catalog/files/86.pdf

Here are some other examples of the possibilities within all the morphing patents here.. http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110042524

And a range of smart materials here.. http://www.crgrp.com/technology.shtml

Worth a read Imo. :)

Great ideas and great read. Thanks!

[SGWilko]

And , call me bagwan , or I'll not bother with you at all , thanks .

Touche with my forum name too, eh? Quid Pro Quo and all that....

[Zico]

Great ideas and great read. Thanks!

Thanks, I didn't believe it would be such an interesting subject to study but I'm enjoying it imensely.

However Red Bull are achieving what they are.. as long as its not directly breaking technical regulations, Im all for it. The technical directors/engineers in the rest of the teams dont seem to have a clue whats going on yet and have a lot of catching up to do.

[Bagwan]

There seem to be a whole lot more ways to do this bending of the wings than I imagined .
Thanks from me , also , Zico .

I'm not so sure your two way valve idea would pass scrutineering , though , but I like the outside of the box thinking .

What ever it is , it would have to have little effect on the balance , so couldn't be too heavy , or thick .
And , it would need to be adjustable , to some degree , to deal with the dropping fuel load over the race .

I think it's likely it's about the lay up of the carbon in that nose cone .
It's got to withstand a crash test , but that must be achieveable in a number of configurations . Allowing a specific amount of flex above a certain amount of force applied is probably pretty easy for these guys .
Mind you , if your aim the whole time up to now was that you were striving for as little flex as possible in that nose , then you've got a pretty steep , and expensive learning curve ahead .
And , for the nose itself , you might have to wait for next year , as it's a part of the crash structure , and , without special dispensation , like a fundamental flaw not previously seen , I don't think you can change it .

If some or all of the trick lies in the nose , then they are well behind the eight-ball .

If it's just the wings , then it seems to me to be some trick lay-up .

[Robinho]

rather than the ends flexing down, could the underside of the nose be flexing up in the middle with air pressure underneath, having the same effect, but not being measureable by a weight loading on the wing?

might be stupid, but just a thought

[ioan]

rather than the ends flexing down, could the underside of the nose be flexing up in the middle with air pressure underneath, having the same effect, but not being measureable by a weight loading on the wing?

That would engender lift which is not what they want, especially such a big load.

[Robinho]

true, it would rather contradict the intended outcome wouldn't it?

[Sleeper]

^Plus, the rules stipulate that the centre of the wing must have an aero neutral profile, so they shouldnt be generating much lift or downforce anyway.

Its been reported for some time now that RBR have spent several years developing advanced carbon layering techniques at the factory and its only in the last year that we've seen the benefits. Also, the suggestion is that it could take some time for the other teams to catch up because of the increased potential for wing failures.

[SGWilko]

^Plus, the rules stipulate that the centre of the wing must have an aero neutral profile, so they shouldnt be generating much lift or downforce anyway.

Its been reported for some time now that RBR have spent several years developing advanced carbon layering techniques at the factory and its only in the last year that we've seen the benefits. Also, the suggestion is that it could take some time for the other teams to catch up because of the increased potential for wing failures.

Hmmmm - Frank and Patrick spent many years developing and perfecting their active ride only for it to be banned a couple of years later.

I hope the same happens here if they are really serious about cost cutting.

[Sleeper]

^We've got KERS back, does it look like they're serious about cost cutting?

[Alfa Fan]

The whole cost cutting thing is completely misguided. The only effect "cost-cutting" measures have is reducing the gap between the rich and poor teams. All teams spend whatever money they can get hold of! It just goes on more and more indirect expenses, like extra windtunnels, expanded CFD capacity, etc, etc. To compete at the front is no cheaper than it ever was.

[Bagwan]

^Plus, the rules stipulate that the centre of the wing must have an aero neutral profile, so they shouldnt be generating much lift or downforce anyway.

Its been reported for some time now that RBR have spent several years developing advanced carbon layering techniques at the factory and its only in the last year that we've seen the benefits. Also, the suggestion is that it could take some time for the other teams to catch up because of the increased potential for wing failures.

Part of the flex seems to be coming in that nose cone , so that "neutral profile" in the centre becomes a downforce generating profile , doesn't it ?

This is such clever thinking and should be applicable to many different areas in real life , that I am no longer completely insensed about the cost the development will represent to all the teams .
This is the kind of that really makes F1 relevent .

If this is what they are doing , then Newey really is a genius .
Consider that he was able to adapt the wing to a higher weight load last year .
That would mean he either had it designed to take additional weight to begin with , or he was able to adapt the lay-up to cope with it .

Either way , they really are light years ahead .

This is a turning point .

And , there's a big front wing auction coming soon .

[Dave B]

I hope the same happens here if they are really serious about cost cutting.
The point that I repeatedly make is that teams have raised a budget: they'll spend it. If not on the front wing or carbon technology, then somewhere else. What they will not do is say to their sponsors, "thanks but we've got plenty of money so here's a discount".

[Bagwan]

Here's how Horner explains it :
"McLaren have developed a car that has a very low rear ride height, and therefore a low front wing for them doesn't work. We run quite a high rake angle in our car, so inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.
It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in our car is higher. It is simple mathematics."

Geez , why didn't I think of that ?
Phttt .

Yeah , Christian , that's why McLaren ran that experimental strutless tea tray last race , to get more rake on the floor .

It's all so simple .
So , it's time to brew some tea , as , all we have to do to get that speed they have , is raise the back end of the car .
Silly man , really let that old feline out of that sack there now , didn't he , eh , what ?

Pass the crumpets , would you ?

[Zico]

Yes Christian, You had four men intentionaly obstructing the view while Vettel had a new wing fitted for Q3, after allegedly damaging it in Q2. Suddenly to be almost 1 second faster... it was all a red herring, just gamesmanship, but now you've decided to give the other teams a hint to make the season more interesting and let the cat out the bag, how gracious of you!

:)

[ioan]

Message to McLaren: Get smart or get lost!

[Sleeper]

Part of the flex seems to be coming in that nose cone , so that "neutral profile" in the centre becomes a downforce generating profile , doesn't it ?


Not really since the surface area top and bottom will remain the same,as will the curvature of the wing. However, it will interact with the ground differently and its possible that it could be generating a small amount of downforce from that.

[Zico]

Not really since the surface area top and bottom will remain the same,as will the curvature of the wing. However, it will interact with the ground differently and its possible that it could be generating a small amount of downforce from that.

Yes, the lower the wing is to the ground the greater the wings efficiency, based on Bernoulli's principle, also the main principle of ground effect.

[Bagwan]

Not really since the surface area top and bottom will remain the same,as will the curvature of the wing. However, it will interact with the ground differently and its possible that it could be generating a small amount of downforce from that.

Ah , but the flex in the nose seems to be canting the wing down , causing the extra flex in the wing at the ends , due to the extra angle and resultant pressure , so indeed the curvature would , presumably , be changing .

The real magic here , seems to be the fact that at both extremes and everywhere in between , the car is stable , and creating a good bit more downforce than the others when they need it .

The question is , are they prompting the change , or do the aeros just work like that at various speeds ?

[AndyL]

Not really since the surface area top and bottom will remain the same,as will the curvature of the wing. However, it will interact with the ground differently and its possible that it could be generating a small amount of downforce from that.

You don't need different top and bottom surfaces to generate lift (or downforce). A symmetrical cross-section wing will do so depending on the angle of attack. Aerobatic planes have symmetrical profile wings, and can generate equal amounts of lift both right way up and upside down by adjusting their angle of attack.


The question is , are they prompting the change , or do the aeros just work like that at various speeds ?

I think almost certainly it's purely controlled by the aerodynamic forces. If there were some actuating mechanism then they'd risk someone spotting the connection during nosecone changes.

[Zico]

There is a similar thread running over at 10 tenths.. A forumer stated Re- Autosport mag "there was an interesting full-page article about this 2-3 issues back. Apparently RB put a big pile of cash into researching the construction of more-flexible composites 3 years ago, with last years car being the first beneficiary of the technology"

Anyone on here subscribe to the mag?

I tried to find it but instead came up with a link to ATL a specialist in flexable composites used for various technologies from UAV's to fuel cells, interesting entry in the news section...

"Congratulations to Red Bull Racing!

Thursday, 16th Decemberr 2010

ATL would like to extend its congratulations to Red Bull Racing claiming the 2010 F1 constructors championship and to Sebastian Vettel for becoming 2010 F1 World Champion"

Not wanting to read to much into it but could they be flexable composite development customers other than just simply customers of an FIA aproved fuel cell?.

Re- Horners comments about the rake angle.. defo telling part truth imo... if he had mentioned the words flexable nose and dynamic rake angle.. it would be bang on the money.

[Mia 01]

Seb will always be on top, sorry.

[Zico]

Seb will always be on top, sorry.

Yes, he is quicker than his team mate but what does that have to do with this thread?

[Mia 01]

Yes, he is quicker than his team mate but what does that have to do with this thread?

Maclaren is very close or perhaps for now faster than the Bulls with their flex wing. It´s the driver that makes the differece, Seb is better than Lewsi and Button.

[ioan]

Ross Brawn's take on this:



"It is an interesting point at the moment," he said. "You have to pass an FIA test and, if you pass an FIA test, then that is a measure. That is the only measure there is.

"Their wing probably gets tested more than anyone else's. I think there are two developments that will come - either the tests change or more people will move in that direction because it brings greater efficiency. That is where it is.

"They pass the test and those are the tests that decree whether the car is legal or not. But we see quite honestly there is another car out there that is not using that approach that is quite competitive as well, so it is not the only solution."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90581

[Mia 01]

copy the Byulls and hold our thumbs!!

[wedge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/12996753.stm


"Shall I explain in very basic words how it works?" he asked.

"McLaren have developed a car that has a very low rear-ride height, and therefore a low front wing for them doesn't work.

"We run quite a high rake angle in our car. So inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

"It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in the car is higher, but it is simple mathematics."

"I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane, and it complies with the regulations, which is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one, and it complies fully with that.