:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Printable View
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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...g/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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
Touche with my forum name too, eh? Quid Pro Quo and all that....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Thanks, I didn't believe it would be such an interesting subject to study but I'm enjoying it imensely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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.
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 .
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
That would engender lift which is not what they want, especially such a big load.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
true, it would rather contradict the intended outcome wouldn't it?
^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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
I hope the same happens here if they are really serious about cost cutting.
^We've got KERS back, does it look like they're serious about cost cutting?
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.
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
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 .
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
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 ?
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!
:)
Message to McLaren: Get smart or get lost!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
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 .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia 01
Maclaren is very close or perhaps for now faster than the Bulls with their flex wing. Itīs the driver that makes the differece, Seb is better than Lewsi and Button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
Ross Brawn's take on this:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90581Quote:
Originally Posted by autosport.com
copy the Byulls and hold our thumbs!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/12996753.stm
Quote:
"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.