Bendy wings

[Tin basher]

As a partime watcher of F1 do I detect the whiff of gamemanship over the suposed rigidity of the wings fitted to the cars. Obviously no wing can be perfectly stiff and unbending so the rules allow some flex. However if the flex was speed proportional, allowed to happen only in certain directions and that perhaps helped aerodynamics would that be cheating or one of the reasons Red Bull and Ferrari are a tad quicker. As was once explained to me in motorsport it's only cheating if you get caught and that rules exist soley for engineers to work round. What do you petrol heads think?

 

[grumpyoldb]

May I refer you to a link which I posted in the Hungarian GP preview thread. It makes interesting reading..................................

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85758

 

[propersplitbrainme]

The rules say the wings have to be rigid, within reason as you point out. But the Red Bull cars' front wing flexes a lot more than, say, the McLarens.
To me it looks like the wing dips down, use the brake duct protrusion as a reference in this vid....



Its has however passed scrutineering numerous times so it appears to be legal. There are however suspicions that Red Bull have done something very clever with the undertray of the car to cause the front wing to dip down at speed. Everyone seems baffled and Cristian Horner and Adrian Newey are, of course, saying nowt!
What the FIA do about it is anyones guess.

 

[Tin basher]

Grumps the article roughly mirrors my view on the matter. Today one second a lap was being gained by the front two teams and in his article he states

"Every millimetre is about one point of downforce at the front, although it also improves the rear. So 25-30mm of vertical lowering of the endplates is one second [per lap], so it is fairly substantial."

As I mentioned controlled bending could pay aerodynamic dividends. Cheating or clever thinking?

PSBM Young Mr Horner was very coy with his answers about wings when chatting to Eddie Jordan post race. Maybe it always passes scrutineering because to use an RAF phrase "unable to reproduce fault on the ground" in other words the clever bits don't manifest themselves when the car is stationary only at speed.

 

[grumpyoldb]

It's clever thinking because engineers will always interpret the rules to their own advantage. It's cheating because the wing is flexing to a greater degree than is allowed when on the track. It just doesn't flex as much when under test. Teams will always object when someone comes up with something they haven't got, just like red bull complained about the Brawn rear diffuser last year.
It will always happen, it's just proving it.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Perhaps it isn't the wing thats flexing at all, something else is which is resulting in the wing moving in a way that makes it look like its flexing. If the rules don't say that the 'something else' can't flex or have some sort of articulation built into it, then it isn't cheating. Its also very bloomin clever!

 

[grumpyoldb]

That's why some of the teams are suggesting that it's the actual floor which is flexing.

 

[grumpyoldb]

FIA to ramp up wing tests for SPA.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85817

The FIA has moved to try to bring an end to Formula 1's flexible front wing row by telling teams it will ramp up the deflection tests from the next race in Belgium, AUTOSPORT has learned.

In the wake of complaints from a number of teams about possible flexing of the front wings of the Red Bull Racing and Ferrari cars at high speed, even though nothing has been found to be wrong with the two machines, the FIA wrote to teams after the Hungarian Grand Prix on Sunday telling them it was going to attempt to clear up the matter.

AUTOSPORT understands that from the next event at Spa-Francorchamps, the FIA has activated Article 3.17.8 of F1's technical regulations, which allows it to increase load deflection tests at any point to prevent teams being able to run flexible wings.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

It's clever thinking because engineers will always interpret the rules to their own advantage.

Agreed - no probs.

It's cheating because the wing is flexing to a greater degree than is allowed when on the track. It just doesn't flex as much when under test.

It's not cheating if the FIA's tests to verify the rule only check a static, linear load. If the team's manage to be clever enough to design the wings to pass the only tests (currently) used, yet able to flex more under dynamic loading, how can that be cheating?? It's within the written rule....

It will always happen, it's just proving it.

Or changing the rule to find out what the clever so-and-sos have done...

as per your last post...

DT_Xtremez_30:

Ingenius little DT_Xtremez_06:DT_Xtremez_06:, aren't they?

 

[propersplitbrainme]

It's not cheating if the FIA's tests to verify the rule only check a static, linear load. If the team's manage to be clever enough to design the wings to pass the only tests (currently) used, yet able to flex more under dynamic loading, how can that be cheating?? It's within the written rule....

The regulations state that certain parts of the car must not move or deflect whilst the car is in motion. If they do then that car is infringing the rules.
The fact that the FIAs own tests cannot adequately check for such movement or deflection under static conditions is a shortcoming of their test; passing it does not infer legality.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

The regulations state that certain parts of the car must not move or deflect whilst the car is in motion. If they do then that car is infringing the rules.
The fact that the FIAs own tests cannot adequately check for such movement or deflection under static conditions is a shortcoming of their test; passing it does not infer legality.

Tell that to Christian Horner!
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

The regulations state that certain parts of the car must not move or deflect whilst the car is in motion. If they do then that car is infringing the rules.
...

Is that statement factually correct - and relevant to front wing structure?

If so, then you're absolutely right - but I can't find anything specific to support your comment. So, if you can point us in the right direction, that'd be really helpful.

If not,.....
​

Regulation 3.17 states:

"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."

All other sub-paragraphs of 3.17 referring to deflection of bodywork seem to relate to structure around the rear wing area.

Currently, this static test is the only means they have to check for deflection, although para 3.17.8 gives the FIA the opportunity to re-visit this:
"In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."


Article 3.15 refers to aerodynamic influence:

“With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane)[ed – the fuel flap], the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 [ed – driver-adjustable bodywork ] and the ducts described in Article 11.4 [ed – brake ducts], 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.”
​

Maybe that's where they'll catch them, but do you think Adrian Newey and (more importantly) Red Bull's legal beagles haven't been through this with a fine-toothed comb over the last few months? Newey's hardly a beginner at this game.

The fact that the FIAs own tests cannot adequately check for such movement or deflection under static conditions is a shortcoming of their test; passing it does not infer legality.

The bottom line though:

if it's the only test they have and a car passes their test, then it does infer 'legality' - at least until they change their tests and/or the rules to reflect their intent.
DT_Xtremez_42:
​

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Well I was merely paraphrasing what has been said in commentary and pre/post race interviews about moveable surfaces on the cars, I admit I hadn't actually gone and researched the regs myself. Not enough time for that here old boy, you should know that (ahem) DT_Xtremez_14:

But these are the clauses that they seem to be referring to:

-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

Maybe that's where they'll catch them, but do you think Adrian Newey and (more importantly) Red Bull's legal beagles haven't been through this with a fine-toothed comb over the last few months? Newey's hardly a beginner at this game.

Not beginners no, but chancers? Yep the whole lot of 'em DT_Xtremez_30: My guess is that they know the front wing is dodgy legally but are relying on the inadequacy of the FIAs static tests to prove as much.
To me the answer seems clear, stick the cars in a wind tunnel, set up a scale plate near any suspect parts and record any movement at race speeds.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

To me the answer seems clear, stick the cars in a wind tunnel, set up a scale plate near any suspect parts and record any movement at race speeds.

That would prove whether it is actually moving, relative to fixed structure, but wouldn't necessarily factor changing dynamics, e.g. braking, turning, etc - although I'm sure it could be investigated.

But even if that WERE to be factored in, Newey et al will argue over whether it's relative to the sprung part of the car or the unsprung part, and whether the rules intended to prevent their engineering innovation... ingenuity, etc.....

I think it was Douglas Bader that said "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"... Maybe Newey read "Reach for the Sky" when he was a kid!
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

To me the answer seems clear, stick the cars in a wind tunnel, set up a scale plate near any suspect parts and record any movement at race speeds.

Have you seen these pictures (linky)?
DT_Xtremez_42:

The Red Bull wing DOES look very low by comparison...
:0
(... and maybe the Ferrari one as well)

Oh well, it'll all come out in the wash!DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[grumpyoldb]

To me the answer seems clear, stick the cars in a wind tunnel, set up a scale plate near any suspect parts and record any movement at race speeds.

The only problem with that idea is that there are no wind tunnels anywhere near the race tracks, they aren't portable, and cost a fortune. The car would probably have to be impounded after a race then transported to the nearest facility. The team would then be delayed in getting the cars ready for the next race.

This is probably what RB are playing on.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

The only problem with that idea is that there are no wind tunnels anywhere near the race tracks, they aren't portable, and cost a fortune. The car would probably have to be impounded after a race then transported to the nearest facility. The team would then be delayed in getting the cars ready for the next race.

This is probably what RB are playing on.

<Shrug> So if the car is found to be in breach of the regs, RB pay the costs. If it is found to be compliant, the FIA cough up. As for the difficulties, well they aren't insurmountable are they?

That would prove whether it is actually moving, relative to fixed structure, but wouldn't necessarily factor changing dynamics, e.g. braking, turning, etc - although I'm sure it could be investigated.

None of that in bold is relevant, the regs just say it cannot move. Period.

I think it was Douglas Bader that said "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"...

Er yeah, and look what happened to him DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

That would prove whether it is actually moving, relative to fixed structure, but wouldn't necessarily factor changing dynamics, e.g. braking, turning, etc - although I'm sure it could be investigated.

None of that in bold is relevant, the regs just say it cannot move. Period.

Actually, the bold print IS relevant. The rules state that "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."
​

The wing is fixed (rigidly in most cases) to the nose/bodywork, which is then suspended (sprung). If the "sprung part of the car" moves, as a result of braking, cornering, fuel load, etc, then of course the wing will appear to move relative to the wheels... It just looks as though Red Bull's is a little more 'dynamic' than McLaren's.
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[grumpyoldb]

<Shrug> So if the car is found to be in breach of the regs, RB pay the costs. If it is found to be compliant, the FIA cough up. As for the difficulties, well they aren't insurmountable are they?

So in the case of this last week where we went from Hockenhiem to Turkey in 4 days how are they going to get say 2 x RB cars and 2 x Ferraris to a wind tunnel facility, test them and on to the next race in time for Thursday?
You'd need Thunderbird2 to transport them. DT_Xtremez_31:

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Actually, the bold print IS relevant. The rules state that "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."
​

The wing is fixed (rigidly in most cases) to the nose/bodywork, which is then suspended (sprung). If the "sprung part of the car" moves, as a result of braking, cornering, fuel load, etc, then of course the wing will appear to move relative to the wheels... It just looks as though Red Bull's is a little more 'dynamic' than McLaren's.
DT_Xtremez_30:

So we expect to see some movement of the wing relative to the sprung parts of the car yes?