Flex in non-flexible wings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.