Printable View
Something isn't right with hose front wings on the ferrari, they flex way too much and not in a good way.To me they look like a few more flexings from breaking off and creating a terrible situation.
The Scrutineers cleared them last night. but the way they are flexing and bouncing off the track can't be right
something needs to be done before something awful happens.
Going back to an older wing according to BBC coverage
Flexible parts do not break easily, in fact are less susceptible to break at yield stress than rigid parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Q: did they get hold of the front wing from the redbull when webber crashed the way they were talking on bbc tonight that's what i got from it
Who got hold of it? Ferrari? That would be stealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CNR
Depends whether or not they've been designed to flex in that manner. They are flexing, certainly, but is that deliberate? The fact that they're reverting to an older wing for qually and the race suggests otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Brundle was recounting a story which by admission was (at best) third-hand that the wing had been spirited away from Monza. The rest was conjecture and he said as much in the broadcast.Quote:
Originally Posted by CNR
That said, conspiracy theories have been based on far flakier "evidence" :rolleyes:
They sure designed them to flex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Even if the excessive flexing wasn't meant by design the danger for it to break is minimal. The biggest danger they have to deal with is unpredictable front end stability in turns.
In the end the question is if the excessive flexing is good or bad for their performance, and I guess it didn't do them as much good as they expected.
I was not aware that you were privvy to Ferrari design meetings. I stand corrected. :erm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It was about time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
They are desperate (Fred) but i´m afraid that he won´t get another WDC next year. Interesting.
There's a good explanation of Massa's dilemma from Adam Cooper here:
Massa
Revert to the old "safe" wing and start from the pitlane, or try another flappy-dappy-hope-don't-snappy version and risk not finishing the race?
Looks like the snappy wing didn't snap contrary to the snappy suspension!
Anyway, as I said yesterday, flexible parts don't break easily. Adam Cooper should take some physics lessons.
The BBC commentary suggested that they changed Massa's wing because it was flexing to the point that the FIA would have called them in, so maybe Adam Cooper and others have a bit more insight than you give them credit for.
Nice try turning words around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
If the FIA told them to take it off is because they were bending, or do you have information that the FIA knew that the front wing was dangerous?
Or maybe you want to rewrite the laws of physics trying to prove me wrong?
Anyway, laughable tries Dave.
Not at all laughable, when I clearly used the words "suggested" and "maybe". Unlike you I don't claim to know all the facts or make wild assumptions. What I do know is that Ferrari changed Massa's wing when it started oscillating again, which they wouldn't have done for no reason. It's a moot point anyway, as Massa failed to learn from his qualifying error and destroyed another suspension on the kerbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The vibration would be the worry rather than the static flex I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
CorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
They're not flexing the right way. The load is resonating the front wing.
Analysis: Ferraris Front Wing Flutter « Scarbsf1's Blog
That didn't stop you from taking the usual high horse while basing your claim on a journo's claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
And unlike you and your journo I do have a lot of scientific knowledge in material science, but then again when has knowledge meant anything around here.
So an article that uses phrases like "What might have happenned", "I can't explain", "I'm no expert", "my limited knowledge" is taken as proof, but Adam Cooper's opinion must be dismissed. Fair enough, if that's the standard of debate I have to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Indeed, then again the stiffest structure will shatter if the right frequency (resonance) is attained.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
I would guess that Ferrari engineers have enough knowledge of making sure this doesn't happen easily (it's after all impossible to fully avoid).
The standard of debate is that you base your view on journo's claims (who by the way do nothing but report rumors from the paddock) and than bash more knowledgeable forum users around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
If you think this is fine than good, but don't expect me to sit on my hands while you make fun of me. Hope it clear enough now.
Actually if you bother to read my posts properly you'll see that I used Cooper's reports as the basis of questions of my own. I've at no point claimed knowledge above my pay grade, but rather tried to stimulate debate by quoting from reports. In reponse I've been told catagorically that I'm wrong, with no stronger evidence offered that my own contrary sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The only thing we do know for a fact at this point is that Ferrari felt the need to change Massa's front wing during the race. Do we have an explanation for that yet?
Interesting and detailed analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I wonder how did they manage to make the wing do this wave movement.
One thing I hope is that teams aren't really doing it the way he says in the article that they spend weeks building CF parts by trying different laying directions for the CF. There is knowledge that allows for a fairly precise calculation and prediction of the deformation in a composite material part based on the carbon fibers direction of the different layers.
As for getting the grip on the vibrations the knowledge is readily available in the aeronautics field though I feel that the FIA will not allow the teams to go that far as it would mean a huge cost escalation that the smaller teams will not be able to support.
I guess they will claim his trip over the grass was the reason. Although I don't believe that at that point of the track the wing was behaving so extremely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Adam Cooper's knowledge is more limited compared to an ex-F1 engineer. And in Craig's defence he doesn't have access to raw data privy to Ferrari personnel. Besides, Gary Anderson and Pat Symmonds have done the same thing with the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Either way the wing wasn't right on Massa's car? Very odd vibration, did thre bit they fixed on the grid fail?
And what, then, of ioan's level of knowledge on the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Many a time one could think of many derogatory words for the dear ol' boy that is Ioan so whatever claims/assumptions don't particularly warrant much criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Clever interpretation of the rules , allowing wing flaps , has Ferrari flapping it's wings .
Birds do that , for propulsion .
Honk , honk .
Looks like Ferrari admits that there was a problem specific to the wing on Massa's car:
Ferrari to investigate Felipe Massa's front wing after Indian Grand Prix flexing issue - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com
Maybe someone made a mistake and forgot to lay a CF layer in the right direction? I doubt it but worse mistakes happened before.
Is Pat Fry still on the McLaren payroll? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
If that were Red Bull we'd have a 3-page thread by now about how Mark's being shafted... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Who thought Ioan was talking gibberish? A couple of interesting reactions' to Scarb's post:
Quote:
It isn’t actually resonance, despite what first year physics text books tell you, what we seem to be seeing here is aeroelastic flutter, something we see quite often in high speed racing model airplanes, the most famous example is probably the tacoma narrows bridge though
Quote:
Yup, that’s classic binary flutter. At high speeds the bending and torsional stiffness modes couple, and the change in angle of attack and position produce aerodynamic loads that feed the harmonic motion. The fact that the wing’s movement is limited by hitting the ground meant that the oscillations could not grow beyond the structural limits of the wing and cause a failure. Braking instantly reduced the velocity of the airflow, and hence the aerodynamic loads, meaning that structural damping could overcome the induced oscillations.
I have just finished an undergraduate thesis on composite tailoring for improved flutter response and aim to work in F1 in the future so seeing that on the TV made me very happy!
Ah, I understood all that completely = flappy wings! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
The massively vibrating front wing on Massa's car was indeed weird. I'm surprised it wasn't illegal, because as far as I know movable aerodynamic devices are prohibited?! (except the flaps on front and rear wings :p :)
I tell ya . It's about the birds .
Luca had some of his mechanics cleaning the turds off the hood of his Enzo , and he started thinking about the way birds fly .
Then he ran over a rodent on his way home that very night , and thought immediately of a guinea pig to test it .
Is there anything in the rules about the car needing to touch the ground ?
It passed the load tests, it's OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
PS: The flaps of the front wings are not allowed to move anymore.