Flexible wings [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Robinho

25th July 2010, 20:49

The wings have passed scrutineering without problems:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85563

Move on, nothing to see here :p

the report i read indicated that they cleverly get around scrutineering which doesn't lookk for flex in the central section of the wing, only around the endplates. Look for a) a clarification in the rules or b) a new test in scrutineering in a race or 2

Dave B

28th July 2010, 11:53

AndyL

28th July 2010, 12:15

Borderline legal at best I would say. The rules say something along the lines of: wings must be rigidly mounted and have no degree of freedom. They then go on to detail the various tests that will be used to check for flexibility. According to James Allen's piece, the test uses a 500N force while loads on track might be up to 2000N. And as has been previously mentioned, perhaps the test load is not being applied in the right place. So Red Bull could have a part that has a degree of freedom - and should therefore be illegal - while still passing the scrutineering tests.

I think it's a bit like breaking the speed limit when no-one else is around - it's still against the rules even if there's no mechanism in place to catch you.

Dave B

28th July 2010, 12:17

We've seen this before with Renault's damper, Ferrari's floor, McLaren's starter hole and so on. Teams find a loophole, the FIA clarify the rules and close said loophole. As it stands right now Red Bull will pass scrutineering, and I expect them to do so without problems in Hungary. However I also expect the test to be more stringent after the summer break.

AndyL

28th July 2010, 12:36

Retro Formula 1

28th July 2010, 13:12

The rules will either be clarified or the others will need to adapt their noses to do the same. I can't believe this has taken so long though as we all knew at the start of the season that RBR were able to run very low in qualifying with near empty tanks.

markabilly

28th July 2010, 13:28

I think the FIA should take a more, erm, shall we say "rigid" stance over flexible bodywork. I don't like the current situation, where apparently you can make your bodywork as flexible as you like, as long as you can cleverly arrange for it to pass the specific scrutineering tests.

The rules should simply say that bodywork must never flex by more than a certain (very small) tolerance when in use on track - forget trying to specify precisely what it should do in the scrutineering bay. If the FIA suspect a piece of bodywork is flexing in use, they should be able to use any test they like to assess whether that's the case. And if it is, the team should be docked points for the past races where they used that bodywork, even if it passed scrutineering at the time.

And why need this testing??? The rules say rigid, and they do this test to check....but they have the photoss showing otherwise---that should be enough.

More cheating----opps, I forgot, how stupid!!!! It ain't cheating, if you do not get caught :rolleyes:

But it does explain the big advantage that red bull possesses that has been putting it on the front row, over and over again, and why webber got so mad about who gets the latest wing...and one way that Ferrari caught up with them

so much for cost cutting

ShiftingGears

28th July 2010, 13:32

And why need this testing??? The rules say rigid, and they do this test to check....but they have the photoss showing otherwise---that should be enough.

More cheating----opps, I forgot, how stupid!!!! It ain't cheating, if you do not get caught :rolleyes:

But it does explain the big advantage that red bull possesses that has been putting it on the front row, over and over again, and why webber got so mad about who gets the latest wing...and one way that Ferrari caught up with them

so much for cost cutting

The thing is, every material flexes/distorts to some degree when a load is applied to it. How specific do you want to analyse it?

Dave B

28th July 2010, 13:50

Retro Formula 1

28th July 2010, 14:01

The static load tests are designed to replicate the forces a component will experience out on track. It seems that for the front wing the loads test may be inadequate, which can simply be fixed by attaching a heavier load.

Don't think it will.

The test is on the end plate whereas the flex appears to be on the main nose structure. You have all the downforce from both sides of the wing on here so it appears to flex under this increased load.

In effect, you don't want the end plates flexing as their job is to flex the nose itself.

Rusty Spanner

28th July 2010, 14:06

The static load tests are designed to replicate the forces a component will experience out on track. It seems that for the front wing the loads test may be inadequate, which can simply be fixed by attaching a heavier load.

Which is exactly why regulation 3.17.8 states

3.17.8 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.

And for reference

3.15 any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.

So if the wings are bending then they are in breach of 3.15 The scrutineers need to take a much closer look at these wings at the next race and sort this out one way or the other.

Dave B

28th July 2010, 14:09

So if the wings are bending then they are in breach of 3.15 .
Yes and no, if you'll excuse me reverting to Sir Humphrey language :p

Everything flexes to a greater or lesser degree, if it didn't it would snap. F1 being full of clever people you have to specify in the rules how much tolerance you allow. The load test is designed to define this, but clearly in this case it's inadequate.

e2mtt

28th July 2010, 14:11

Why does it matter? Why not ALLOW flexible parts? Why can't everybody run flexible wings if they develop them? Why shouldn't the teams get to innovate?

Retro Formula 1

28th July 2010, 14:14

Which is exactly why regulation 3.17.8 states

3.17.8 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.

And for reference

3.15 any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- 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.

So if the wings are bending then they are in breach of 3.15 The scrutineers need to take a much closer look at these wings at the next race and sort this out one way or the other.

Totally agree.

If the front wing has been manufactured to flex it is a blatent breach of not just the spirit of the rules but the rules themselves.

No degree of freedon and remain immobile in relation to the car is pretty clear to most people. (I say most because there will be idiots on here that will argue otherwise :rolleyes: )

Big Ben

28th July 2010, 14:15

Both Ferrari and RedBull are in question. Great, give them a nice 2 race ban.

Ban them for being in question? You put FIA in a better light than they deserve with such statements.

Dave B

28th July 2010, 14:22

No degree of freedon and remain immobile in relation to the car is pretty clear to most people. (I say most because there will be idiots on here that will argue otherwise :rolleyes: )
I argue otherwise not because I'm an idiot (though feel free to differ) but because I understand basic engineering principles.

Put the massive forces generated by an F1 car running over kerbs and bumps at 200kph through a carbon fibre component and <Smedley> it.... will... flex </smedley>.

To stiffen a component such that it had literally zero give in it would be prohibitively expensive and impractical. Next time you're on a plane, take a look out at the wings: they flex.

The key to the rules is to limit this to a degree which doesn't give any aerodynamic advantage. Ferrari found a loophole with their floor, now Red Bull have found a similar loophole with their wing. All that's required is a simple change of the tolerances allowed and everybody's happy.

Retro Formula 1

28th July 2010, 14:34

AndyL

28th July 2010, 14:35

Why does it matter? Why not ALLOW flexible parts? Why can't everybody run flexible wings if they develop them? Why shouldn't the teams get to innovate?

I have to admit that is a very pertinent question. Generally in the past, I think flexible/movable aerodynamics have been banned on safety grounds. A flexible part might be more likely to break, and a moving part might be liable to fail or otherwise move in such a way as to cause a catastrophic loss of downforce (certainly the argument with skirts). Maybe modern materials and design methods make that argument obsolete; I don't think so though, since designers will always look to push the limits of what's possible in search of performance.

Dave B

28th July 2010, 14:41

Sorry Dave, I understand completely what you say about stress loading and resonance but trying to justify a wing that is designed to run lower under stress with the barely perceived movement you allude to is stretching it a bit. I know how much you love the "spirit" of the law but isn't this the type of case it applies to quite well?
I don't believe that the spirit of the law exists, only the letter! Red Bull appear to have found a way of ensuring that their component passes scrutineering but then flexes under real-life loading.

Sneaky, devious, unsporting, unfair, underhand, cynical... maybe. But as the letter of the rules stands today: legal.

And before any accusations of bias, I said the same about Ferrari's bendy floor.

Retro Formula 1

28th July 2010, 14:45

I don't believe that the spirit of the law exists, only the letter! Red Bull appear to have found a way of ensuring that their component passes scrutineering but then flexes under real-life loading.

Sneaky, devious, unsporting, unfair, underhand, cynical... maybe. But as the letter of the rules stands today: legal.

And before any accusations of bias, I said the same about Ferrari's bendy floor.

The bendy floor was actually different in that it clearly moved under load and was dampered.

I think this is something that the FIA need to clarify as the wing clearly is designed to move under loading in direct contrast to the regulations.

And as for there being the Law and that is all that matters, isn't the "spirit" of the Law part of the Law as it's written in ;)

AndyL

28th July 2010, 14:54

Sneaky, devious, unsporting, unfair, underhand, cynical... maybe. But as the letter of the rules stands today: legal..

Going on the rules Rusty Spanner quoted, surely the part does not remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car? And is therefore unequivocally illegal under rule 3.15, regardless of whether it passes tests listed elsewhere in the rules?

It looks like perhaps the rules do already say more or less what I was suggesting they should.

Rusty Spanner

28th July 2010, 15:06

The key to the rules is to limit this to a degree which doesn't give any aerodynamic advantage. Ferrari found a loophole with their floor, now Red Bull have found a similar loophole with their wing. All that's required is a simple change of the tolerances allowed and everybody's happy.

The acceptable tolerances are defined as part of the testing process in the regulations - in this case 10mm - so the FIA can change these whenever they feel the need so yes it is recognised that total rigidity is not practical.

Dave B

28th July 2010, 15:08

Exactly, either decrease the tolerance or increase the mass used to test it. It's hardly rocket salad :p

mstillhere

29th July 2010, 00:44

Both Ferrari and RedBull are in question. Great, give them a nice 2 race ban.

Just for being in question? I don't know what happened to you. You used to be basing your arguments on objectivity and facts and now without even knowing all the facts you are going all the way out suggesting 2 race ban?? Based on what? A web site article and a couple of pictures in the hands of McLaren? What's wrong with waiting for objective data? So far the FIA has said that there is nothing wrong with the wings after testing them right after the race in Germany. If I am not wrong Red Bull was accused earlier on by McLaren for cheating and back then the FIA scrutinized the Red Bulll cars finding nothing wrong with them. Can it be that the accuser is desperate and is taking cheap shots at Red Bull and Ferrari? They could be right, but so far they have nothing.

It looks like the holy war started against Ferrari right after their first 1-2.
I guess that's what panic does to people.

Valve Bounce

29th July 2010, 01:26

Both Ferrari and RedBull are in question. Great, give them a nice 2 race ban.

Agreed! Next suggestion please!

SGWilko

29th July 2010, 09:43

James Allen's (excellent) website has some photos courtesy of Darren Heath which are very interesting:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/photo-exclusive-red-bull-flexi-front-wing-judge-for-yourself/

Seems that Red Bull have found and exploited a weakness in the current way the flex is measured in scrutineering. Sneaky, but legal. I expect the load test to be modified in the near future to close this loophole.

One thing that bothers me about the first Red Bull image, is that it appears the car is braking, as it has its arse up in the air a bit, and as a consequence you can expect the front to be low. (indeed, the car is passing a brake marker in the image)

However, to counter this, on some of the on-boards over the German GP weekend, you could clearly see the wing drooping toward the endplate under load.

It's a tough call to determine if this is cause or effect.

Retro Formula 1

29th July 2010, 11:17

Just for being in question? I don't know what happened to you. You used to be basing your arguments on objectivity and facts and now without even knowing all the facts you are going all the way out suggesting 2 race ban?? Based on what? A web site article and a couple of pictures in the hands of McLaren? What's wrong with waiting for objective data? So far the FIA has said that there is nothing wrong with the wings after testing them right after the race in Germany. If I am not wrong Red Bull was accused earlier on by McLaren for cheating and back then the FIA scrutinized the Red Bulll cars finding nothing wrong with them. Can it be that the accuser is desperate and is taking cheap shots at Red Bull and Ferrari? They could be right, but so far they have nothing.

It looks like the holy war started against Ferrari right after their first 1-2.
I guess that's what panic does to people.

Totally agree with this. There is something strange happening at Red Bull and Ferrari to their wings but the FIA have said it's within the rules. If evidence comes to light that they are cheating then they should be penalised but the FIA have looked closely at this and said it's OK.

I suspect that a change to the testing may be introduced otherwise the other teams will adopt the same design. It's the way it always has been in F1 and hopefully, the way it always will be.

Calling for bans without any evidence is indicitive of some of the less balanced members who may have been Man United supporters a few years ago but have converted to Chelsea recently :)

Dave B

30th July 2010, 10:00

:eek: Now I'm watching FP1 from Hungary it's scary just how much the front wing on those Red Bulls flexes, almost touching the ground in places. I'd never really paid too much attention before.

donKey jote

30th July 2010, 10:12

slowmo over the bumps now...
the wings on the mac are way higher up, the ferrari ones somewhat in between :p

donKey jote

30th July 2010, 10:14

but I bet it's not the wings that flex... it's the Flexibolts (c) holding them on :p

Retro Formula 1

30th July 2010, 10:22

:eek: Now I'm watching FP1 from Hungary it's scary just how much the front wing on those Red Bulls flexes, almost touching the ground in places. I'd never really paid too much attention before.

I thought they were using an arrangement that used the down-force from both ends to flex the middle down but I was wrong.

It looks pretty clear that whereas McLaren have the deflection all along the front wing, RBR (and Ferrari to a lesser extent) load it all on the end of the wing creating flex that draws the wing to the ground.

This is a flexible wing and the the FIA need to change the tests or confirm that flexible wings are now allowed.

markabilly

31st July 2010, 14:21

given what was being shown on Speed TV Hd , it is now super clear that the leading contender for flexxie title of the year is red bull, with Ferrari a distant second.

Indeed the wings are dragging down so low, SPEED HD showed they are cleaning off the skids damage from the end platewhich actually has skid boards!!!!!

No one else is close. The rule says no flexible aero, yet the wings are clearly flexing, regardless of the tests of scrutinneers

Dave B

31st July 2010, 14:24

Hence Martin Whitmarsh's comment "best of the fixed wing teams" :p

I maintain it's legal as the only way the FIA have of testing them is in the static load test. Red Bull (and Ferrari to an extent) have been devious and perhaps unsporting, but the car passes scrutineering so until the rules are clarified or changed, it's legal.

Bagwan

31st July 2010, 15:09

By now , all the teams have looked at trying to integrate the flex into thier front wings , too .
It's the nature of the beast .

But , even though they are all , no doubt , working on it , all the "fixed wingers" , also , no doubt , have looked to find out if it's cheaper to lobby to have the FIA increase weight in the static load tests .

It may not be the only way the FIA can change this test , though .
Since the front wing is not a homolgated part , they may be able to specify that the same load is hung at a point farther out on the wing .

It seems to me that the wing must be built stiff , but that the bulls and the reds are having that stiffness built only out to a specific point where it is measured .
Couple that with the theory that the front wing adjustment actuators may be able to work independently and opposite , and you've got a recipe for spending money .

The FIA may also be able to work to clarify the rule about the wing actuators themselves , so that may be the way to stop the flexible runaway .

Interestingly , it took over half of the season for the rest to figure it out .

Also interesting , is the Ferrari didn't complain about the bulls , as others are complaining now , but rather , got down to business , figured it out , and produced some of the same speed as the bulls .
They must have been pretty sure they were the only ones who had it sussed .

Wasted Talent

31st July 2010, 20:48

Also interesting , is the Ferrari didn't complain about the bulls , as others are complaining now , but rather , got down to business , figured it out , and produced some of the same speed as the bulls .
They must have been pretty sure they were the only ones who had it sussed .

Ferrari have the biggest budget so always happy for technology to push the cost of things up as it means others are less able to compete.

My take is that RB and Ferrari wings do flex but not enough under the current tests. McLaren and Mercedes are simply wanting it made clear that if they are and will remain legal then they will have to do mthe same - but at massive cost to all the other teams

WT

ojciec dyrektor

31st July 2010, 21:33

The conclusion is that WDC wins not the best team but the team that finds the best loophole in the rules. Sad...

Daniel

31st July 2010, 22:06

The conclusion is that WDC wins not the best team but the team that finds the best loophole in the rules. Sad...
You've not been into motorsport for long have you?

ioan

31st July 2010, 22:18

The conclusion is that WDC wins not the best team but the team that finds the best loophole in the rules. Sad...

That pretty much means that the most intelligent team wins. Looks fair to me.

Bagwan

31st July 2010, 22:22

Ferrari have the biggest budget so always happy for technology to push the cost of things up as it means others are less able to compete.

My take is that RB and Ferrari wings do flex but not enough under the current tests. McLaren and Mercedes are simply wanting it made clear that if they are and will remain legal then they will have to do mthe same - but at massive cost to all the other teams

WT

It was a big risk , though , with testing limitted as it is .

Adapt too much to the new wing , and you are behind if the old wing has to be clipped back on .

Ferrari has a lot less time into it , but presumably the bulls have had it working the whole year .
Clever of the bull to use a an exhaust coloured sticker to obfuscate the situation , and make folks watch that diffuser so closely .

Judging by how much closer the reds are now , the effect of the wing is enormous , and therefore , if the front wing rules are changed in any way as to force the bulls to go to a stiffer configuration , they will lose out hugely .

That second advantage they enjoy right now will vapourize instantly . The front wing affects all the aeros on the car .

Triumph

1st August 2010, 00:00

I wouldn't be complaining if it was Lewis or Jenson gaining an advantage from all this, so I won't complain about Mark or Sebastian.

Hopefully McLaren will be able to catch up sooner rather than later.

Roamy

1st August 2010, 04:05

Man I bet the cheAter is working on a real good one. Probably stick your arm in the vent hole and the wing turns down 25 degrees for cornering. :p :

CNR

1st August 2010, 04:40

as we seen last year on most cars that were runing the sharkfin how much flexing there was
the only way to stop this would be with a set thickness for the front wing

ioan

1st August 2010, 09:39

as we seen last year on most cars that were runing the sharkfin how much flexing there was
the only way to stop this would be with a set thickness for the front wing

Thickness will not stop a purposefully built composite part from flexing if it was designed and built to flex.

Mia 01

1st August 2010, 10:57

They are legal. Next case against RBR please.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=380377

Dave B

1st August 2010, 11:02

As expected. Now there's a nice long break for the other teams to try to play catchup.

Wasted Talent

1st August 2010, 11:27

They are legal. Next case against RBR please.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=380377

Rethinking this, I think that the FIA are wrong - the rules state that the endplates must be 85mm above the ground, the fact that they pass the 50kg test shows that the test isn't tough enough as the photo evidence is clear that under speed induced load the endplates are much lower than the rules allow.

Unless they change the test teams just need wings that are rigid at 50kg and bend at 51kg........

WT

ioan

1st August 2010, 11:44

Rethinking this, I think that the FIA are wrong - the rules state that the endplates must be 85mm above the ground, the fact that they pass the 50kg test shows that the test isn't tough enough as the photo evidence is clear that under speed induced load the endplates are much lower than the rules allow.

Unless they change the test teams just need wings that are rigid at 50kg and bend at 51kg........

WT

And what should be the test weight? 100kg? 200kgs? 500kgs? 1000kgs?
Or alternatively what should be the allowed deformation at 50kgs? 1mm? 2mm? 5mm? 10mm? 100mm?!

FYI layered composite parts can be constructed in such a way that they allow for highly non-linear deformations, which means that if someone has enough knowledge it can comply with the FIA tests and still have a part that flexes when bolted to the car. This means that the others will have to get smarter now that they know that the design is legal.

Retro Formula 1

1st August 2010, 12:38

50kg is not a lot of weight when the aerodynamics on the car can produce more than a tonne of downforce.

The FIA need to determine if they want to allow flexible wings or change the tests to stop Ferrari and RBR getting away with it.

As it stands, RBR and Newey have developed a superb race car that is the class of the field. It may be bending the rules as much as it's wings but it complies to the way the regulations are tested.

I just hope that McLaren can catch up before the next race.

truefan72

1st August 2010, 14:48

time to investigate

christophulus

1st August 2010, 14:52

It may be bending the rules as much as it's wings but it complies to the way the regulations are tested.

And that's how F1 works. You've got to admire the designers, they really earn their money in the top teams.

Retro Formula 1

1st August 2010, 16:44

And that's how F1 works. You've got to admire the designers, they really earn their money in the top teams.

Quite agree.

As a designer, your job is to get round the regulations as much as possible. Newey has done a great job and I'm sure McLaren are jealous :)

I would imagine he is terribly frustrated with the inability of Red Bull to get the maximum out of the superb car he has given them.

perhaps Ron will stump up the £10m he wanted and get him back home.

Dave B

1st August 2010, 17:45

Adam Cooper reports that the FIA are to introduce a stricter load test for Belgium:

The teams are being informed tonight at the governing body is making use of a rule which allows it to change the tests in the course of the season, should it be deemed necessary.

The FIA is to use Article 3.17.8 of the F1 Technical Regulations, which reads as follows:

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.

Full story: http://adamcooperf1.com/2010/08/01/exclusive-fia-set-to-clamp-down-on-flexible-wings-by-belgian-gp/

ioan

1st August 2010, 18:02

Nice.
Now everyone will have to come up with new front wings in 3 weeks time, even if they have to respect the imposed break. Good luck to the smaller teams.

mstillhere

1st August 2010, 19:05

They are legal. Next case against RBR please.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=380377

That would really give McLaren a big headacke. Based on Whitmarsh statement he has no idea, so far, how to copy that.

CNR

3rd August 2010, 08:02

CNR

3rd August 2010, 08:40

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/photo-exclusive-red-bull-flexi-front-wing-judge-for-yourself/comment-page-3/#comment-108363

This is a JA on F1 exclusive in collaboration with F1 photographer Darren Heath – it is the photograph of the controversial Red Bull front wing, which was seen by a couple of teams over the weekend. Rival engineers believe that the wing is flexing more than the rules allow and giving Red Bull a downforce advantage.

are wrong
this is wrong
take the redbull picture
load it it to a paint program
past the McLaren wing for comparison the one under the redbull over the top make it transparent so you can see the red bull underneath now rotate the McLaren and resize to size of redbull car image to match red bull and have a look

http://i26.tinypic.com/15dog8.jpg

PitMarshal

3rd August 2010, 08:43

This is just DDD mk3.

In one sense clearly front wings that are deliberately designed to flex are against the spirit of the rules. (as has been mentioned, you have to have some flex or the ends will eventually just snap off under enough load)

On the other hand, given that in the past I'ver been vocal about F1 turning into a spec series, it's nice to see that the engineers are still managing to find enough grey areas in the rules to keep things interesting.

In any case, the Red Bull engineers need to find as much advantage as they can to counteract the constant failure of the nut holding the steering wheel...

ShiftingGears

3rd August 2010, 09:02

This is just DDD mk3.

I don't think it is quite the same - with the diffusers, the legality was defined by playing semantics with the regulations, whereas with these fancy wings the legality is defined by the tests that the FIA apply, regardless of what happens on the track.

Wasted Talent

3rd August 2010, 09:17

AndyL

3rd August 2010, 12:29

I don't think it is quite the same - with the diffusers, the legality was defined by playing semantics with the regulations, whereas with these fancy wings the legality is defined by the tests that the FIA apply, regardless of what happens on the track.

The legality is also defined by rule 3.15, which says the wings "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." If it doesn't, then it's illegal.
Since it passes the tests in rule 3.17, no-one can currently prove that it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If you commit a crime but the police can't find any evidence against you, you still broke the law, even if you got away with it. I see these wings as, if anything, more of a "cheat" than the double diffusers.

ShiftingGears

3rd August 2010, 12:46

The legality is also defined by rule 3.15, which says the wings "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." If it doesn't, then it's illegal.

The FIA tests define if the wing is mobile or not.

So under the FIA regulations, the Red Bull wing is considered immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

PitMarshal

3rd August 2010, 12:50

The FIA tests define if the wing is mobile or not.

So under the FIA regulations, the Red Bull wing is considered immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

But the test to establish this is only carried out with the car stationary. So it's almost a case of the scrutineering test being inadequate. Not sure how they could resolve it though.

ShiftingGears

3rd August 2010, 13:00

But the test to establish this is only carried out with the car stationary. So it's almost a case of the scrutineering test being inadequate. Not sure how they could resolve it though.

Well the FIA have the power to increase the weight applied to all teams wings during the testing whenever they want, so presumably they will for Spa if the teams make enough noise. But maybe the extra weight could cause flexing in rival teams wings, and not any extra flexing in RBR's wing, depending on how much the wing components are stressed due to the design. So that may be a factor in whether some teams protest or not.

I guess we will see.

Rusty Spanner

3rd August 2010, 13:29

So the FIA has increased the load used to test wing flexibility. Essentially I see this as them saying "well done, very clever, but thats enough". Truth is there are almost certainly enough clauses in the rules that if they wanted to the FIA could make a strong enough case to disqualify Red Bull. It's all in the way you interpret the rules together as a group rather than individually. (one of Max's fav old tricks) However the FIA doesn't want disqualify Red Bull because they'd undermine themselves and their own race stewards. If you accept this is a grey area declaring cars you previously said where legal are illegal doesn't look good.

In the end this has played out pretty much exactly how its supposed to work.
FIA writes rules
Teams read rules really carefully
Team find loop hole
Team exploits loop hole
FIA clarifies.

The only thing I'm left wondering - and we'll never know - is would the FIA have done anything about it if it wasn't brought to their attention by the other teams? In other words if left to their own devices how capable is the FIA of enforcing its own technical rules.

AndyL

3rd August 2010, 15:00

The FIA tests define if the wing is mobile or not.

So under the FIA regulations, the Red Bull wing is considered immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

I think 3.17.8 makes it clear that 3.15 means that the parts are not supposed to move while the car is in motion, in addition to having to comply with the listed static tests. The bit where it says "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected..." says to me that complying with 3.17.1 - 3.17.7 (the static tests) does not automatically mean you comply with 3.15.

mstillhere

3rd August 2010, 18:25

if you load it into video editing software you can see that
the Ferrari front wing move a lot lot lot more then the redbull front wing

http://i25.tinypic.com/34erw5f.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/686l41.jpg

Are these pictures taken while the two cars are in identical conditions? Let's not forget that Ferrari like RB passed the FIA tests.

mstillhere

3rd August 2010, 18:28

The FIA tests define if the wing is mobile or not.

So under the FIA regulations, the Red Bull wing is considered immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

And so is Ferrrari's for the same reason.

Marbles

3rd August 2010, 19:21

I'm just impressed by this wing and how it's done. It's legality is for FIA to decide. Is the static test of the flex of the wing similar to that of flexing a Popsicle stick. Is it the wing itself tested for flexing? To a non-technically minded person such as myself, it appears as if the entire front or nose of the car flexes downward. It's quite impressive.

ioan

3rd August 2010, 22:12

ioan

3rd August 2010, 22:15

I think 3.17.8 makes it clear that 3.15 means that the parts are not supposed to move while the car is in motion, in addition to having to comply with the listed static tests. The bit where it says "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected..." says to me that complying with 3.17.1 - 3.17.7 (the static tests) does not automatically mean you comply with 3.15.

Whatever.
Just for the record it is practically impossible to make a part that will have zero deflection under load, this is why the FIA had to devise the static loads otherwise their rule that says no flexing is allowed is plain stupid.

ioan

3rd August 2010, 22:22

The rules state that the front wing must be a certain distance from the ground under a recommended testing load. There is an allowance of 10mm in movement under this load and if aerodynamic device moves beyond this limit, it is classed as a moveable aerodynamic device which is illegal in the sporting regulations. It is known that both the front wings on the Ferrari and RB6 move to a certain degree, and the teams want to clarify whether this is legal. Mclaren seem to be bearing the brunt of the criticism on the forums but the complaint was lodged by Ross Brawn and Mercedes. Both Whitmarsh and Brawn have backed the concept for the regs next year but want clarity under the present ruling for this season.

If the wings do not flex more than 10mm then the teams are in the clear and the device will have been legal all along. The published photo's suggest the wings flex as much as 40mm, so it is down to Ferrari and Red Bull to prove otherwise. If they fail the test, they will have to revert back to the previous design and I would not expect a fine or point docking to occur. The diference between this and the F-duct is the fact that it clearly states the criteria for front wings in the sporting code, and the F-duct was an innovative device which was previously used in the 70's and not regulated in the modern ruling. Fair play to Ferrari and Red Bull for developing this method and 'spirit of the rules' should not even come into it. Legality is another story.. :)

The wings do not flex more than 10mm when tested with the 50 kgs weight. To expect the wings to flex 10 mm when subjected to much higher loads is totally insane.
Bot McLaren and Mercedes are doing this circus hoping that either

a. the testing load will be increased and Ferrari and RBR will be required to change their design

or

b. the FIA formally keeps the rules as they are so that they can start designing their own flexible wings without fearing that these will be outlawed in a couple of weeks.

Sure the former solution would be the easiest one however they need to know one way or the other.

Retro Formula 1

4th August 2010, 10:13

The wings do not flex more than 10mm when tested with the 50 kgs weight. To expect the wings to flex 10 mm when subjected to much higher loads is totally insane.
Bot McLaren and Mercedes are doing this circus hoping that either

a. the testing load will be increased and Ferrari and RBR will be required to change their design

or

b. the FIA formally keeps the rules as they are so that they can start designing their own flexible wings without fearing that these will be outlawed in a couple of weeks.

Sure the former solution would be the easiest one however they need to know one way or the other.

That's it in a nutshell really.

As for the legality, they comply with the testing if not the regulations. As AndyL says, they commit the crime but do it in a way that cannot be detected with current evidence gathering methods. It's innovative and all teams aim to do it.

ShiftingGears

4th August 2010, 10:24

I think 3.17.8 makes it clear that 3.15 means that the parts are not supposed to move while the car is in motion, in addition to having to comply with the listed static tests. The bit where it says "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected..." says to me that complying with 3.17.1 - 3.17.7 (the static tests) does not automatically mean you comply with 3.15.

To me that regulation is there only to validate why the FIA is entitled to increase the weights applied in the tests at their disgression.

wedge

4th August 2010, 14:52

There's going to be stricter tests at Spa coupled by the Summer break - factory shutdown which probably means a lot head scratching and most probably something to beef up front wings for Spa.

Mark

4th August 2010, 14:56

Certainly it would be impossible for the FIA to enforce while the cars are moving as it's almost impossible to measure, so they have to use the static tests.

Apparently Martin Whitmarsh will be allowed to jump up and down on Vettels front wing before the Belgian GP to make sure it complies with regs.

Retro Formula 1

4th August 2010, 15:20

Mark

4th August 2010, 15:35

Agreed. Excellent piece!

Marbles

4th August 2010, 22:22

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/08/why-new-fia-flexi-test-wont-clip-red-bulls-wings/

Another exceptional piece from Allen.

McLaren have a big gap to close and the front wing alone isn't all of it.

Thanks for this, I don't feel so silly after all. :)

From the article:

"This theory goes beyond grabbing a bit of extra downforce from wing endplates being close to the ground, it brings a gain of lowering the front of the car, which is very attractive under the 2010 rules."

CNR

4th August 2010, 23:51

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/08/why-new-fia-flexi-test-wont-clip-red-bulls-wings/

Another exceptional piece from Allen.

McLaren have a big gap to close and the front wing alone isn't all of it.

i still think this is wrong
The Darren Heath photo which sparked this issue
the photos are taken at different angles

http://i33.tinypic.com/2ufdopf.jpg

Marbles

5th August 2010, 02:29

i still think this is wrong
The Darren Heath photo which sparked this issue
the photos are taken at different angles

I didn't need any Heath photos to be convinced of the differences. Slo-mo video during the F1 qualifying of the three cars cars at the same corner was testimony enough for me.

Evidence of cheating? No. But you don't need calipers, Photoshop or a tape measure to see the difference. They ain't even in the same ballpark folks.

Maybe Mclaren set their wing high just to mess with us. ;)

Valve Bounce

5th August 2010, 03:02

I didn't need any Heath photos to be convinced of the differences. Slo-mo video during the F1 qualifying of the three cars cars at the same corner was testimony enough for me.

Evidence of cheating? No. But you don't need calipers, Photoshop or a tape measure to see the difference. They ain't even in the same ballpark folks.

Maybe Mclaren set their wing high just to mess with us. ;)

I thought that both RBR's and Ferrari's wings went very, very low at the sides compared to the other cars'. But what is the mechanism that makes them go lower? The 50 kg load test didn't pick that up, so the loads will be increased. It is my understanding that even McLaren cannot figure out how the extra defleection is achieved.

But it would be wrong to call either team cheats because the regs are clear that they maintain a certain clearance when tested under load. I don't think it is possible to specify what that clearance must be under moving conditions.

Don't ask me what the solution is; I havn't the foggiest idea.

I must say that I was astonished how much faster the Red Bull cars are than Ferrari although both have these voodoo wings. When Mark Webber got ahead of Alonso, the rate at which he increased the gap was unbelievable. Then after Vettel did his drive through, he took very little time to catch up with Alonso. Same with Mark Webber at Monaco after each Safety Car period - Mark simply romped away from the rest. We are looking at a phenomenon akin to what Colin Chapman used to achieve over the other cars.

Surely, there must be something more than just wings flexing.

markabilly

5th August 2010, 03:43

I

We are looking at a phenomenon akin to what Colin Chapman used to achieve over the other cars.

Surely, there must be something more than just wings flexing.
I

In Chapman's case, it was a guy named Jimmy Clark....and a number of years later, another driver named Mario Andretti (who Chapman said was much better at car set up then even Clark) who ran in F1 as though it were more of a hobby for when he had the time...

Since Vettel is not in the class of either, guess it must be "something more" than the drivers

Valve Bounce

5th August 2010, 03:57

mstillhere

5th August 2010, 06:34

donKey jote

5th August 2010, 20:44

120kg downforce spread over the whole front wing vs 2x50kg hung from the tips?
hmm... I'm a donkey - me brain 'urts :p

ioan

5th August 2010, 21:58

120kg downforce spread over the whole front wing vs 2x50kg hung from the tips?
hmm... I'm a donkey - me brain 'urts :p

Good donkey, well spotted! ;)

Retro Formula 1

9th August 2010, 13:38

120kg at what speed?

The faster the car goes, the more downforce generated. I would be surprised if a front wing only generates 120KG at top speed.

Saint Devote

10th August 2010, 03:08

I

In Chapman's case, it was a guy named Jimmy Clark....and a number of years later, another driver named Mario Andretti (who Chapman said was much better at car set up then even Clark) who ran in F1 as though it were more of a hobby for when he had the time...

Since Vettel is not in the class of either, guess it must be "something more" than the drivers

It is more than the wings which is why the probability that RBR will continue to dominate is high. It is not the wings only, but as usual is the integration.

F1 cars are about a holistic approach and besides the front wing there is also the teatray part of the floor that is apparently part of the aweo solution designed by Newey.

wmcot

10th August 2010, 07:07

The legality is also defined by rule 3.15, which says the wings "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." If it doesn't, then it's illegal.
Since it passes the tests in rule 3.17, no-one can currently prove that it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If you commit a crime but the police can't find any evidence against you, you still broke the law, even if you got away with it. I see these wings as, if anything, more of a "cheat" than the double diffusers.

There is a problem with the wording that the wings "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." All F1 cars have wings that flex. If they didn't, they would snap off. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that had wings with no flex!

The question is how much flex is legal and how do you measure it? If a car passes the current test, then it is legal - nobody is "committing a crime"if they are doing something that is defined as legal!

AndyL

10th August 2010, 12:30

There is a problem with the wording that the wings "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car." All F1 cars have wings that flex. If they didn't, they would snap off. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that had wings with no flex!

This is a fair point. But I look at it like this. When I see the pictures and videos of the McLaren car, the front wing appears in a visible and practical sense to remain immobile. When I see the pictures and videos of the Red Bull car, their wing clearly doesn't remain immobile. In fact they seem to have deliberately designed the wing to move enough to gain an advantage from it. Which is surely the sort of thing that rule 3.15 is supposed to outlaw, 3.17 notwithstanding.

ioan

10th August 2010, 13:22

But I look at it like this. When I see the pictures and videos of the McLaren car, the front wing appears in a visible and practical sense to remain immobile.

To be honest all team's wings are immobile on pictures, :p , also all move on videos, some less some more. And this is why the static tests have been devised.

mstillhere

12th August 2010, 03:26

And despite all the criticism, RB stick to their guns:
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=49034.
Way to go RB.

Hondo

12th August 2010, 22:47

The appearance of excessive front wing flex in photographs and videos is being caused by a device projecting a holographic, mirage effect that causes the wing to appear closer to the ground. This keeps everybody looking at the front of the car instead of at the rear where the real "go fast" is concealed.

I just made that up but I like the sound of it so I'm sticking to it.

Go Webber!

penagate

13th August 2010, 02:21

I think 120kg is an error — I have heard peak downforce quoted at around 1200kg overall.

Here's the quote from the scarbs' article linked above:

An F1 car makes its own weight in downforce at just 70mph, that’s ~600kg of load on the car, half of this load is from the wings and half from the diffuser, thus the wings create some 300Kg of load at this speed. With the cars centre of pressure being some where near 45% forward biased, this means the front wing is creating something like 140Kg of load, split between the left and right wing each wing is producing 70Kg of load at just 70Mph.

Obviously the figures are far greater at the speed the cars were doing where those photographs were taken.

Mia 01

14th August 2010, 17:28

Hypocrits, they must admit they lost to Ferrari and RBR. They cant even copy others solutions well.

And, Lewis cant drive whitout a stiff configuration at the car. Thats why MacLaren lost the whole season.

SGWilko

26th August 2010, 10:35

See the link below - c'est tres interessant!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86109

Robinho

26th August 2010, 11:25

saw that earlier, seems that the wing tests will probably do nothing as its not them that flexes, but the floor pieces, which wil therefore be tested differently from Monza. It seems some very clever people have been very busy analysing information from several teams to find out how the phenomena occurs and it seems that maybe they have figured it out.

Very clever exploitation of the rules it seems, and a loophole that sounds like it is shutting, it will be very interesting to see if this does have an effect of bringing Red Bull and Ferrari back towards the chasing pack, if so we could be in for a doozy of a finish to the season

Bagwan

26th August 2010, 13:36

Clever Newey .
The exhaust stickers kept them busy figuring out the blown diffuser , but they still weren't as quick .

All the while , the real speed seems to be linked to the car being able to hunch down in high speed cornering , due to flexing that they have yet to understand .

They aren't allowed to flex so much , and so , as per the rules , they will now try to make it harder to do so .
They seem unworried about the new tests , so the FIA and the others may not have it figured out yet .

I will not be surprised if it's only Ferrari that gets pulled back into the pack , as Newey has fooled them all this year at least once already .

mstillhere

28th August 2010, 06:45

RB passes new wing tested as expected :\ http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86162
Poor Mclaren. What's going to be their next more? Stop whining and get to work?

ioan

28th August 2010, 10:25

RB passes new wing tested as expected :\ http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86162
Poor Mclaren. What's going to be their next more? Stop whining and get to work?

Looks like McLaren are doing well this week end, which begs the question if RBR and Ferrari are using the same wings as 4 weeks ago?!

SGWilko

28th August 2010, 13:55

Looks like McLaren are doing well this week end, which begs the question if RBR and Ferrari are using the same wings as 4 weeks ago?!

Meatloaf!

motetarip

28th August 2010, 16:46

Looks like McLaren are doing well this week end, which begs the question if RBR and Ferrari are using the same wings as 4 weeks ago?!
:up:
Just because they say they're not worried about the tests doesn't mean there wasn't an identical looking stiff wing to bolt on instead. Be interesting to see any decent photos of cars cornering to check any flex this weekend.

mstillhere

28th August 2010, 22:27

Looks like McLaren are doing well this week end, which begs the question if RBR and Ferrari are using the same wings as 4 weeks ago?!

I would not discount the rain factor. As you know speeds are not going to be as high as they would have been in dry conditions.

christophulus

28th August 2010, 22:44

Looks like McLaren are doing well this week end, which begs the question if RBR and Ferrari are using the same wings as 4 weeks ago?!

Red Bull have moved the cameras on the front wings, but apparently it's for "aerodynamic reasons". Certainly much closer than it was in Hungary.

Zico

29th August 2010, 10:06

RB passes new wing tested as expected :\ http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86162
Poor Mclaren. What's going to be their next more? Stop whining and get to work?

From what Robinho says..

the wing tests will probably do nothing as its not them that flexes, but the floor pieces, which will therefore be tested differently from Monza.

I believe Its the new floor test that will be introduced at or after Monza that may be the real problem for RedBull.

e2mtt

29th August 2010, 20:06

From what Robinho says..

I believe Its the new floor test that will be introduced at or after Monza that may be the real problem for RedBull.

I'm sure they will pass the test... now we will just have to watch closely & see if the wings ride higher with a approved floor in place.

SGWilko

31st August 2010, 14:54

SGWilko

1st September 2010, 09:29

Go and watch an onboard re-play of the Vettel/Button crash - the Red Bull wing flexes way too much as it moves in and out of the dirty air from JB's car.

Is this a case of catching yourself out with your own tom foolery.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/09/analysis-of-red-bull-wing-flex-before-vettel-hit-button/

Well, there you have it - is there a link between all the RB6 incidents this year?

Zico

7th September 2010, 11:15

Go and watch an onboard re-play of the Vettel/Button crash - the Red Bull wing flexes way too much as it moves in and out of the dirty air from JB's car.

Is this a case of catching yourself out with your own tom foolery.

Yes, I think its a case of the flexable wings being a double edged sword, with them they have an overall laptime advantage in clean air but when they do not get on the front row of that grid that advantage can becomes a massive disadvantage in the slipstreams and dirty air from the pack in front.

If flexable front wings have a similar consequences to ground effect the FIA may consider allowing for 2013, then from what we have witnessed from the Red Bulls, I think it would be a massive step backwards, overtaking could quite possibly become a thing of the past again.

mstillhere

15th September 2010, 00:45

Do you think becasuse of this: http://www.onestopstrategy.com/dailyf1news/nieuw/article/12289-Red+Bull+initially+failed+new+floor+tests.html
Red Bull will lose their competitiveness? Is that explaining why theire race was a little below par?

Triumph

15th September 2010, 00:50

According to what I could see on the on-board camera views at Monza, the Red Bull front wings didn't appear to be flexing at all, or at least not enough to be noticeable.

mstillhere

15th September 2010, 05:28

According to what I could see on the on-board camera views at Monza, the Red Bull front wings didn't appear to be flexing at all, or at least not enough to be noticeable.

But according to the article the wings were not bending but the bottom was and so was McLaren's. Ferrari's was actualy good. SoI wonder if that's going slow down both RB and McLaren.

Valve Bounce

15th September 2010, 06:58

But according to the article the wings were not bending but the bottom was and so was McLaren's. Ferrari's was actualy good. SoI wonder if that's going slow down both RB and McLaren.

Well if dragging their bums on the ground won't slow them down, nothing will. :eek:

Retro Formula 1

13th October 2010, 14:08

So, this story isn't going to go away any time soon.

Ross is still unhappy and suggest the test is modified.

What I want to know is how is the test conducted? Is it a static test on a sample front wing or do they test it when it is actually on the car.

If it's tested on the car, surely this will show up if the floor is moving as well?

Or perhaps not?

ioan

13th October 2010, 17:57

I guess they will ask for the test to be changed until none of them passes it anymore.

The FIA went for 4 times the previous weight and still some are clutching t straws. Brawn better move his rear and push his team more if they want to keep up with Newey's team.

Daniel

13th October 2010, 17:58

I reckon there's some TTE turbo restrictor level ingenuity going on here.......

Zico

14th October 2010, 22:42

I reckon there's some TTE turbo restrictor level ingenuity going on here.......

Yep, there have been some interesting developments made in the aerospace industry with wing morphing, a wing containing heating element with the c/f woven with a shape memory polymer that can soften/change shape within seconds of being heated? or is it simpler and smarter than that?

See the 2nd part of page 4 in particular on this link.. http://www.aer.bris.ac.uk/research/fibres/morph%20pics/RoyAeroSocMorphSkin.pdf

Zico

18th October 2010, 16:01

Have a look at the alternating pics with the chassis reference lines here.. http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/aero-elasticity-%E2%80%93-red-bulls-front-wing/

The wing does deflect mostly as a whole in a linear fashion more than the wing flexing towards the wing tips which would suggest a spring loaded wing mount or nose. The Vetel/Button incident wing twisting also points to this but the soft set-up the Red Bulls have shows quite a lot of suspension travel which makes the wing deflection look a whole lot worse than it actually is, if you place a ruler over the wishbones on your screen it does't appear half as bad as when it is viewed with the wishbones as reference points.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/aero-elasticity-%E2%80%93-red-bulls-front-wing/