Front wing deflection ,was it just Redbull?
Discussion
Crafty_ said:
Wings are allowed to deflect to a certain amount, as is most of the bodywork.
The Red Bulls failed the test.
According to Newey the tests are ad hoc based on complaints by rivals.The Red Bulls failed the test.
The tests aren't part of the regulations only that bodywork that is on the sprung part of the car isn't supposed to flex.
It was a design that flexed more at high speed than the usual design, so they could run a higher angle of attack in the slow stuff, and lower the angle of attack more in the fast stuff. The circuit had two distinct speed ranges, so it was of benefit to have more flex here than at the other venues to reduce drag in the high speed zones whilst retaining downforce for the tighter sections.
All the cars have flexing wings and bodywork, they just got it wrong in production and didn't make it stiff enough to pass the flex tests.
All the cars have flexing wings and bodywork, they just got it wrong in production and didn't make it stiff enough to pass the flex tests.
I thought it was more because the FIA discovered the adjuster had an internal leaf spring + rubber shround mechanism that had no other purpose than to allow the wing to flex. Since flexing bodywork is disallowed - with certain proviso's for load tests, have a component in there which only serves the single purpose of allowing the wing to flex was a rather silly idea.
PW said:
TheArchitect said:
It's a grey area
How? The Rules state NO movement of any unsprung part of the car AT ALL.Obviously that's physically impossible, so the tests allow for some movement.
At a guess the rule states "flex no more than Y" but the scrutineering test is "under a load of X deflection must be less than Y". So you build a spring in to your wing so at Y the deflection IS limited to X...but above Y it flexes more. So it passes the test but breaks the rule, unless the scrutineer thinks you're trying to pull a fast one and tries a test at X+1.
http://youtu.be/4XOkdtRaZ_g
According to Scarbs the front wing adjuster is deliberately designed to collapse allowing the top wing flap to drop down. Absolutely no way this was a mistake or just pushing the limits.
According to Scarbs the front wing adjuster is deliberately designed to collapse allowing the top wing flap to drop down. Absolutely no way this was a mistake or just pushing the limits.
The front wing shots in FP were of the Williams. I remember commenting to my wife that the upward/downward movement of the wings was very controlled and specific as the speed rose and fell.
As far as I understand, the distinction between Red Bull and the other teams is that Red Bull were the only ones to have a specific (and concealed) device whose sole purpose was to function the raising/lowering of the wings. Williams et al have laminated the wings in such a way there is bend at certain speeds, but that is considered to be in the nature of those laminated winglets.
You could devise and implement 'bend tests' for just about every structure on the car, however where do you draw the line?
In some ways I feel sorry for RB as they are correct by saying the other teams are striving for (and achieving) the same effect, however they are the only ones to have been caught involved in subterfuge over it.
Remembering that BAR Honda were some time ago banned for two races over their fuel tank affair, I would argue Red Bull got off rather lightly for their attempted cheating.
As far as I understand, the distinction between Red Bull and the other teams is that Red Bull were the only ones to have a specific (and concealed) device whose sole purpose was to function the raising/lowering of the wings. Williams et al have laminated the wings in such a way there is bend at certain speeds, but that is considered to be in the nature of those laminated winglets.
You could devise and implement 'bend tests' for just about every structure on the car, however where do you draw the line?
In some ways I feel sorry for RB as they are correct by saying the other teams are striving for (and achieving) the same effect, however they are the only ones to have been caught involved in subterfuge over it.
Remembering that BAR Honda were some time ago banned for two races over their fuel tank affair, I would argue Red Bull got off rather lightly for their attempted cheating.
allergictocheese said:
The front wing shots in FP were of the Williams. I remember commenting to my wife that the upward/downward movement of the wings was very controlled and specific as the speed rose and fell.
As far as I understand, the distinction between Red Bull and the other teams is that Red Bull were the only ones to have a specific (and concealed) device whose sole purpose was to function the raising/lowering of the wings. Williams et al have laminated the wings in such a way there is bend at certain speeds, but that is considered to be in the nature of those laminated winglets.
You could devise and implement 'bend tests' for just about every structure on the car, however where do you draw the line?
In some ways I feel sorry for RB as they are correct by saying the other teams are striving for (and achieving) the same effect, however they are the only ones to have been caught involved in subterfuge over it.
Remembering that BAR Honda were some time ago banned for two races over their fuel tank affair, I would argue Red Bull got off rather lightly for their attempted cheating.
Red Bull iirc correctly are/were the leaders in bendy wings as they had an exclusivity agreement with a stress analysis software company that allowed them to work the layering process. Said company also had a patent on the something with the software preventing others developing a rival. Seems like the others may be catching up now and they just pushed a bit too hard.As far as I understand, the distinction between Red Bull and the other teams is that Red Bull were the only ones to have a specific (and concealed) device whose sole purpose was to function the raising/lowering of the wings. Williams et al have laminated the wings in such a way there is bend at certain speeds, but that is considered to be in the nature of those laminated winglets.
You could devise and implement 'bend tests' for just about every structure on the car, however where do you draw the line?
In some ways I feel sorry for RB as they are correct by saying the other teams are striving for (and achieving) the same effect, however they are the only ones to have been caught involved in subterfuge over it.
Remembering that BAR Honda were some time ago banned for two races over their fuel tank affair, I would argue Red Bull got off rather lightly for their attempted cheating.
TheArchitect said:
Red Bull iirc correctly are/were the leaders in bendy wings as they had an exclusivity agreement with a stress analysis software company that allowed them to work the layering process. Said company also had a patent on the something with the software preventing others developing a rival. Seems like the others may be catching up now and they just pushed a bit too hard.
Don't believe a word of that. Patran Laminate modeller allows you to specify the composite layers (thickness and angle). Or you can do it on a spreadsheet. Like I do! Controlled flex of an aerodynamic surface had been around the aero industry for ages. Designs exist for warped surfaces, where cables/actuators buried in say a wing can change it's profile to control the flight of the aircraft. No flaps or aerilons. Probably another way would be to design a 'snap thro' mechanism, but his would only have 2 positions though.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 25th November 11:46
PW said:
You can't half-design it "some" to deliberately move in direct contradiction of a very specific rule.
Ah, but you can. Even if you milled it out of solid steel, it would move (flex) to some small degree under aero load.Given that making it stiffer adds weight, and reduces performance, there is no incentive to build it strongly so it does not flex. The 'test' needs to specify how much flex (generally a distance under a specified load) is acceptable to meet the rule. This is what happened with the static wing deflection test.
As far as I know, there's (currently) no test for the 'flap' elements. However, when you stick a spring in the system you have obviously built a mechanism that is has no purpose other than to make it move, rather than simply exploiting the 'grey' area in between it being impossible to make it completely rigid, and making it entirely flexible.
As I understand it, that is what caused red bull to be dq'ed. I'd be quite certain that the 'old' wing they put back on also has flexing winglets, if no spring..
But there is (as I understand it) no specific rule.
There's a wing bending rule, which specifies the amount (10mm?) that the ends of the *main plane* of the front wing may drop under a specified load.
There is no rule that says how much the wing flaps may 'flatten' under aero load. It does say that they must be rigid, but there is no such thing as absolutely rigid. Hence, the whole thing is a grey area - in so much as it is accepted that they flex. How much is acceptable? By what mechanism?
It seems that in this case the difference is that red bull built a mechanism to control movement, whereas the rest 'just' built it light/weak, which happened to have the rather convenient side effect of allowing it to flatten off. RB presumably felt that in achieving the same thing (just in a more controlled manner), they were doing nothing 'wrong', whereas the stewards saw differently.
There's a wing bending rule, which specifies the amount (10mm?) that the ends of the *main plane* of the front wing may drop under a specified load.
There is no rule that says how much the wing flaps may 'flatten' under aero load. It does say that they must be rigid, but there is no such thing as absolutely rigid. Hence, the whole thing is a grey area - in so much as it is accepted that they flex. How much is acceptable? By what mechanism?
It seems that in this case the difference is that red bull built a mechanism to control movement, whereas the rest 'just' built it light/weak, which happened to have the rather convenient side effect of allowing it to flatten off. RB presumably felt that in achieving the same thing (just in a more controlled manner), they were doing nothing 'wrong', whereas the stewards saw differently.
Edited by upsidedownmark on Tuesday 25th November 14:00
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff