Flexible wings?

In terms of the rear wing it is clear that the materials involved in their construction will not provide a fully rigid device. But why don;t they just introduce a method of preventing the effect of the movement? Why not, for example, insist that the lower front edge of all top wing elements must have a 10mm block of carbon fibre affixed to prevent their coming together? That would prevent a stall.

It might be more difficult to legislate against a rear wing assembly that tilts backwards of course but I'm sure that even that is possible is some sort of titanium rode were to be specified to ensure that it can';t move in relation to, say, the engine block.

The closing gap is easy to do, and can be done tomorrow (much like the change to BAR's shark fins) so should be done. The tilting wings, unless someone else can come up with something simple, might need to be legislated against for next year instead.

Either way, I just can't see why the FIA is holding back in this case.

Excellent work Tomecek! No wonder Williams are feeling a bit left out.

As I'm a final year aeronautical engineering student (5th year) I've refrained from entering the debate about legality of the wings, however I'll make a couple of points.

1 - Aeroelasticity: Stuctures resist loads by deforming. At 200mph there is a significant loading on the wings, thus some flexibility is required to prevent the wings failing.

2 - Aeroelastic tailoring: Composites can be made to do many magical things. Most new helicopters have composite elements in the hub/root of the main blades that are used to replace functions usually done by hinges on older designs. When a certain loading is applied to the composite it will deform in a certain way. It isn't beyond the means of an F1 composite designer to design a layup such that the wing will deflect under an aerodynamic load, but remain within the laws when a static load is applied to the rear wing (the test is prescribed, so can be designed around).

There may be an abvious answer here - but why should it be illegal to have flexible wings?

if it's not dangerous - whats the issue?

Just seems to be some smart cookies pushing the envelope to me - and sure thats what it is all about?

Originally posted by Cplus
if it's not dangerous - whats the issue?

It's probably a cost thing - composite design and testing's not a cheap process.

There's also a small safety aspect. If flexing is allowed you can be sure at least one team will take it to dangerous extremes and risk failures.

That's great work Tomecek, thanks!

No wonder Midland are slow: that rear wing is hardly moving compared to the rest you showed!

Its interesting how some (one?) of the car's has a lengthwise spar which bends and the whole wing set goes down.

Concerning composites bending, in yachting, the spars are designed to bend. The ultimate concept is in a gust of wind, the top of the mast lays off away from the wind (to leeward) and the edge of the sail, which is a wing, opens ("twists off") and lowers "wing" power during the wind gust. This is the concept of the "automatic rig", one which is much pursued.

Many boats use carbon spars. Some are entirely rigid (such as with the boom which is a spar which holds the bottom of the sail), others bend by design. Similar to F1.

As another example of things bending under aerodynamic loads, look out the window of a plane at the wings. They bend loads, and yet large parts of them are composite and it's perfectly safe (I hope!). I suppose it's like Ally says - it has to be limited, as one of the teams is bound to take it too far if there's no rules stopping them.

if it's not dangerous - whats the issue?

Movements what you see in those pics are just tiny and even they make big change, think about parts that would move 90 degrees. Brake distance, corner speed, straight speed, these cars would become very life threatening.

After looking at the Renault front wings, I now understand why, when the FIA raised the front wings, the cars soon got back the lost downforce which the FIA wanted reduced by having the wings further fromn the ground. Heck, those front wings on the Renault just bend down don't they ...

And the Renault cannot keep its mirrors from vibrating, due to the side of the car bending. Some say its only one side that bends. Sheesh if the whole side of the structure is bending, all the wings would bend also ... I had not realised the bending was such a wholistic concept.

Wow!

No wonder Honda want their 100% tunnel - you need one to work on the flex with the actual car, a scaled version would not give the precise bend characteristics you now need if the whole car is flexing and its attachments - such as the wings - are also moving even more.

Originally posted by Andy Donovan
As another example of things bending under aerodynamic loads, look out the window of a plane at the wings. They bend loads, and yet large parts of them are composite and it's perfectly safe (I hope!)

Most current airliner wings have very small composite usage, still mainly being made from aluminium (or aluminium alloy) with some titanium components, although this will change with the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350. However one use of composite tailoring in aircraft wings has been for forward swept wing fighters and demonstrators (used to increase the divergence speed). To my knowledge none of these have crashed because of this, infact they wouldn't be able to fly without the use of such composites.

Tomecek kinda killed this thread, didn´t he?

Originally posted by Rainking
Tomecek kinda killed this thread, didn´t he?

He really has shown that there's more going on than just the wings flexing.

I had thought OK, so the guys are getting a bit clever. But, its way over the top. Its ridiculous how the flex issues will increase beyond even where they are now, which is huge.

If one looks at those beams which the wings are mounted on, they are flexing a lot too. They are moving aero parts IMO. Its the air which trigger their movement though ... if they were being moved by mechanics, they would have to be instantly illegal ( I need to read the rules again, but moving aero parts were made illegal back in the 1950s with MB's air brakes weren't they.

The Renault's chassis moves from a combination of aero and mechanical stress. One can see it moving with the mirror vibration. Tomecek's photos showed the Renault front wings moving away from the nosecone, which means IMO that the front wings move from aero forces, without any mechanical contribution.

But those struts at the rear of the car, if they were attached to the engine/gearbox, or the body - well, they are attached - then to some degree, they are moving due to mechanical input.

Its a fine line, but its naive to think that the teams don't know exactly what they are doing. Carbon flex is not rocket science - its ancient history. The teams are exploiting a huge loophole, that will get much bigger this season unless the FIA steps in and stops carbon flex.

It would be easy to stop it - there's tons of ballast the cars carry. But to limit is far more difficult. Better to just ban it down to the cars shape and wings must be within .001% when racing as when stationary, and that video evidence is permissible. Forget abitrary weights and such ancient methods: put the onus on the teams to make their cars sufficiently strong. I know that carbon can be immensely rigid if you want it to be. they just don't want it to be.

Tomecek should be employed by the FIA to clean up the teams.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


He really has shown that there's more going on than just the wings flexing.

I had thought OK, so the guys are getting a bit clever. But, its way over the top. Its ridiculous how the flex issues will increase beyond even where they are now, which is huge.

If one looks at those beams which the wings are mounted on, they are flexing a lot too. They are moving aero parts IMO. Its the air which trigger their movement though ... if they were being moved by mechanics, they would have to be instantly illegal ( I need to read the rules again, but moving aero parts were made illegal back in the 1950s with MB's air brakes weren't they.

The Renault's chassis moves from a combination of aero and mechanical stress. One can see it moving with the mirror vibration. Tomecek's photos showed the Renault front wings moving away from the nosecone, which means IMO that the front wings move from aero forces, without any mechanical contribution.

But those struts at the rear of the car, if they were attached to the engine/gearbox, or the body - well, they are attached - then to some degree, they are moving due to mechanical input.

Its a fine line, but its naive to think that the teams don't know exactly what they are doing. Carbon flex is not rocket science - its ancient history. The teams are exploiting a huge loophole, that will get much bigger this season unless the FIA steps in and stops carbon flex.

It would be easy to stop it - there's tons of ballast the cars carry. But to limit is far more difficult. Better to just ban it down to the cars shape and wings must be within .001% when racing as when stationary, and that video evidence is permissible. Forget abitrary weights and such ancient methods: put the onus on the teams to make their cars sufficiently strong. I know that carbon can be immensely rigid if you want it to be. they just don't want it to be.

Tomecek should be employed by the FIA to clean up the teams.

Great post.

What I meant was that as soon as Tomecek presented his excellent post, which showed the flexing from other teams than Ferrari, the need to discuss the rigidity of the bodywork, mainly Ferraris, disappeared

http://www.fia.com/m.../050505-01.html

"...

SUSPENDS the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the next two events in the FIA Formula One Championship,

SUSPENDS the team for a period of six months after the above-mentioned two events, with this penalty suspended for a period of one year,

..."


2005 Monaco Grand Prix (the last BAR missed) was held on 22 May. I didn't realise the suspension was suspended for a year. I don't think Honda can wait a year, and since it is now common practice, some flexi-wings will no doubt be appearing soon. Of course if the FIA decide they don't like Honda's version of the flexi-wings, the team will be in lots of trouble ...

Originally posted by Rainking
What I meant was that as soon as Tomecek presented his excellent post, which showed the flexing from other teams than Ferrari, the need to discuss the rigidity of the bodywork, mainly Ferraris, disappeared

Oh, OK ... I did not realise that some people thought it was just Ferrari.

Originally posted by jokuvaan


Movements what you see in those pics are just tiny and even they make big change, think about parts that would move 90 degrees. Brake distance, corner speed, straight speed, these cars would become very life threatening.

An additional scrutineering device: make a torsion tester for the wings, or a combined torsion + load deflection tester:

get a (field) hockey stick, hook it over the front of the wing element at any position and rest it on the rear edge of the wing element so that it is parallel to the length of the car, hook 10 kg to the end of the hockey stick and if the end deflects downwards by more than say 20mm then they fail.

Simple and effective.

For rear wings add a backwards pull of 150kg on the top at each side of the wing at the same time the hockey stick test is applied to the foil or foils.



An old idea for making F1 cheaper: Have an added requirement that with wheel hubs on axle stands of a certain height and with 200kg placed on the car in line with front wheels and 300kg in line with rear wheels, the plank must touch the ground, then free up the aero design to allow flexible or movable wings.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


He really has shown that there's more going on than just the wings flexing.

I had thought OK, so the guys are getting a bit clever. But, its way over the top. Its ridiculous how the flex issues will increase beyond even where they are now, which is huge.

If one looks at those beams which the wings are mounted on, they are flexing a lot too. They are moving aero parts IMO. Its the air which trigger their movement though ... if they were being moved by mechanics, they would have to be instantly illegal ( I need to read the rules again, but moving aero parts were made illegal back in the 1950s with MB's air brakes weren't they.

The Renault's chassis moves from a combination of aero and mechanical stress. One can see it moving with the mirror vibration. Tomecek's photos showed the Renault front wings moving away from the nosecone, which means IMO that the front wings move from aero forces, without any mechanical contribution.

But those struts at the rear of the car, if they were attached to the engine/gearbox, or the body - well, they are attached - then to some degree, they are moving due to mechanical input.

Its a fine line, but its naive to think that the teams don't know exactly what they are doing. Carbon flex is not rocket science - its ancient history. The teams are exploiting a huge loophole, that will get much bigger this season unless the FIA steps in and stops carbon flex.

It would be easy to stop it - there's tons of ballast the cars carry. But to limit is far more difficult. Better to just ban it down to the cars shape and wings must be within .001% when racing as when stationary, and that video evidence is permissible. Forget abitrary weights and such ancient methods: put the onus on the teams to make their cars sufficiently strong. I know that carbon can be immensely rigid if you want it to be. they just don't want it to be.

Tomecek should be employed by the FIA to clean up the teams.

What we see in Tomocek's excellent pics is aeroelastic interaction, something very well known in modern aero engineering. Any material will flex under heavy loads -- plain physics. So you can't ban flexing any more than you can ban physics. The only reasonable thing to do is to prescribe tight tolerances on how much a given structure will yield under som standard load. As I understand it, that's exactly what the FIA is doing. We can discuss what the tolerances ought to be, but that's all. And I think that "0.001%" (of what?) is just not attainable. These bits will continue to flex.

Just put the Midland wings on every car.

2008 : spec wings as well as a spec engine

AH well, it's nice to see the "FIA are biased towards Ferrari" crowd highlighted as the paranoid bunch they truly are.

I doubt they'll learn their lesson though...it's just that their next "FIA favour Ferrari" rants will be even more feeble the next time.

f1-live

"After finishing a minute behind the leaders at Barcelona, and lagging behind Ferrari in the speed traps, it is now suggested that engineers at Woking based McLaren are intending to possibly debut the dubious design at soon as Monaco.

The FIA's lack of action in banning the Ferrari wing - and declaring it legal - means that others now feel more comfortable in exploring the alternate interpretation of the rules."

Originally posted by K-One
f1-live

"After finishing a minute behind the leaders at Barcelona, and lagging behind Ferrari in the speed traps, it is now suggested that engineers at Woking based McLaren are intending to possibly debut the dubious design at soon as Monaco.

The FIA's lack of action in banning the Ferrari wing - and declaring it legal - means that others now feel more comfortable in exploring the alternate interpretation of the rules."

And McLaren's current rear wing doesn't flex anyway? lol

Originally posted by Impulse^
Just put the Midland wings on every car.

Just in case you haven't noticed Midland's wing flexes visibly too, albeit considerably less than other designs. But if the other designs comply with the FIA reg on flex under load, then what's the problem?

Seems people here are upset because you can see the flex, and that this is proof of criminal intent ("against the spirit of the rules").

Tyres flex too. That means they're not constantly of the proper diameter. Cheating? Of course not. As long as elastic materials are used there will be flex.

Originally posted by RDM
AH well, it's nice to see the "FIA are biased towards Ferrari" crowd highlighted as the paranoid bunch they truly are.

I doubt they'll learn their lesson though...it's just that their next "FIA favour Ferrari" rants will be even more feeble the next time.

I feel part of the problem here is that when BAR brought out their flexible wing, the FIA were all over them like a rash. Ferrari now have one, and the FIA deem it to be legal. It may be perfectly proper, but it gives the appearence of bias.

The pictures of other teams wings is interesting, but is there a bit of chicken and egg here? Are these wings in response to the FIA ruling, or before it?

Originally posted by RDM

And McLaren's current rear wing doesn't flex anyway? lol

Maybe the current one does but probably it didn't in the first place. Ferrari had a flexi wing, other teams supposed that it was illegal(after BAR wings), then suddenly it wasn't and now they are getting their own flexiwings.

Originally posted by Clatter


I feel part of the problem here is that when BAR brought out their flexible wing, the FIA were all over them like a rash. Ferrari now have one, and the FIA deem it to be legal. It may be perfectly proper, but it gives the appearence of bias.

I think FIA should come out and say what was illegal about BAR wings and how they differ from current legal Ferrari flexi wings as this is causing some controversy.

Originally posted by RDM
AH well, it's nice to see the "FIA are biased towards Ferrari" crowd highlighted as the paranoid bunch they truly are.

I doubt they'll learn their lesson though...it's just that their next "FIA favour Ferrari" rants will be even more feeble the next time.

Originally posted by K-One




I think FIA should come out and say what was illegal about BAR wings and how they differ from current legal Ferrari flexi wings as this is causing some controversy.

Guess you were right...

Originally posted by hyperbolica


Just in case you haven't noticed Midland's wing flexes visibly too, albeit considerably less than other designs. But if the other designs comply with the FIA reg on flex under load, then what's the problem?

Seems people here are upset because you can see the flex, and that this is proof of criminal intent ("against the spirit of the rules").

Tyres flex too. That means they're not constantly of the proper diameter. Cheating? Of course not. As long as elastic materials are used there will be flex.

The fact that wings flex do not really upset me. What upsets me is that people seem not to bother. As I said in previous posts, a flexion is a movement and movable aero devices are not allowed. The fact that Midland`s wings flex less than the others is the proof that wings could be made in such a way flexion were reduced to almost imperceptible levels, however it seems that making them more rigid than other, makes Midland look like the laughing stock of the makers, as if they were stupids for not making their wings as flexible as the ones from other teams. That is what really worries me. There is no way to stablish rules forcing people to be honest, but those preventing people from cheating should be vigorously applied. IMHO, making flexible wings is a way of breaking the rule.
Regarding tyres, once they flex... they are no longer round, so there is no diameter to measure and therefore no cheating.

Heh heh, I guess the Ferrari flex is just MORE illegal.

Personally I am more interested in how Flavio's lot can deliver better drag reduction than the moneybags teams with a budget of £3 and wind tunnel made from Fred's old hairdryer. They are getting the whole car to vibrate on demand.

Originally posted by WHITE
The fact that Midland`s wings flex less than the others is the proof that wings could be made in such a way flexion were reduced to almost imperceptible levels...

Invisible budget, invisible flex, invisible points.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
But those struts at the rear of the car, if they were attached to the engine/gearbox, or the body - well, they are attached - then to some degree, they are moving due to mechanical input.

The ridiculous part is that McLaren's rear wing is attached to the car by a SPRING-LOADED MECHANISM, and no one says ****. If that isn't designed to allow the wing to lean back them I don't know what is.

Oh, and add me to the list of people listening to the deafening sound of silence from the anti-Ferrari posters after Tomeck layed the smackdown on all the other teams.

Originally posted by WHITE
a flexion is a movement and movable aero devices are not allowed.

Because all aero devices flex, your interpretation of this rule implies that aero devices per se are not allowed, with the possible exception of venturi tunnels (but they are already banned).

Originally posted by WHITE
The fact that Midland`s wings flex less than the others is the proof that wings could be made in such a way flexion were reduced to almost imperceptible levels

It's not a matter of what is "perceptible" or not. Look again at the Midland wing. It certainly flexes visibly. It is of course impossible to judge from the pics exactly what the deformation is, but to me it looks like the flap clearly deforms backwards, and there may even be a small change in the angle of attack of the whole wing. What is the drag reduction? 1%, 2%, 5%?

Originally posted by WHITE
Regarding tyres, once they flex... they are no longer round, so there is no diameter to measure and therefore no cheating.

Right. You measure the tyres when the car is parked. Likewise, you measure wing flex in the garage, by applying a standard load to the wing and checking what the defelction is. Simple as that. Ok, go for tighter tolerances if you wish, but why pretend that there is a completely rigid wing that doesn't flex? There's no such thing in this world.

Originally posted by Rainking




Guess you were right...

If BAR wings were banned and Ferrari's+now other teams not, some clearance on the matter would be approriate.

Plus teams having flexi wings is very risky if they happen to fail, at least compared to single tyre rule.

Hopefully no one will get hurt or killed when everybody has to start using these dubious wings.

I doubt they'll learn their lesson though...it's just that their next "FIA favour Ferrari" rants will be even more feeble the next time.

Let's be flexible on this one, the FIA IS favouring Ferrari. There is nothing what does tell us they don't. Only things that they do.

But get this; after 1 or 2 races into the season, some teams complain about the Ferrari-flexible wings.

Ferrari wins races again. (sjeez, I wonder.... did they flex that win?;) )

a race later MANY teams have them.
result:

Ferrari stopped winning.

so.... wanna do a guess when the flexible wings are banned again. ?? (probably when Ferrari will have discovered another way to gain advantage over the others.... hehe)

Originally posted by JForce
The ridiculous part is that McLaren's rear wing is attached to the car by a SPRING-LOADED MECHANISM, and no one says ****. If that isn't designed to allow the wing to lean back them I don't know what is.

Surely you could have given us somekind of idea about where this information came from?

--
mjsv

Originally posted by JForce
[B]

The ridiculous part is that McLaren's rear wing is attached to the car by a SPRING-LOADED MECHANISM, and no one says ****. If that isn't designed to allow the wing to lean back them I don't know what is.

/B]

I'm sure that other teams would have raised their concerns about this if it's true, Ferrari for sure being the first one ;)

In my opinion teams are complaining about ferrari's wings not because ferrari were first to introduce flexing wings (since they all flex) but because they obviously managed to make them flex in away such that drag is reduced in a very efficient way at high speed.
and my guess (I am just speculating here) is that the teams which first protested against ferrari's rear wing (renault,Maca,Honda) after investigation came to the conclusion that there is no obvious way to modify the rules, to prevent ferrari from using their current wing design, without affecting their own wing designes (i.e. making wing tests more demanding would have made their wings just as illigal as ferrari's).
and I guess that's why we don't here them complain any more about ferrari wings (a part from Honda)

Originally posted by hankalis
. making wing tests more demanding would have made their wings just as illigal as ferrari's).
and I guess that's why we don't here them complain any more about ferrari wings (a part from Honda)

I thought this was already sorted out. Honda has asked the FIA for clarification because, seeing as it is still on the FIA shit list it didn;twant to do something that the FIA frowned upon. It was not a complaint. If it was a complaint, it would have been signed by a number of teams like they tried at Sepang.

It seems clear that, unlike the BAR shark fins from 2004, the interpretation of the rules relied on by Ferrari is acceptable.

That's it. Whether you like it or not, whether it is fair or not, Ferrari's innovation is fine.

So now it's up to everyone else to try and catch up.

Originally posted by Rallimies Kujala
Hopefully no one will get hurt or killed when everybody has to start using these dubious wings.

Everybody already use them and have been using them all along.

Originally posted by K-One


If BAR wings were banned and Ferrari's+now other teams not, some clearance on the matter would be approriate.

As hiporbolica says, there is no wing 100% rigid, so I do not mind whether they flex or not, but if they flex... lets allow all teams to use flexible wings. Rules are supposed to be applied equally to everybody, or are there teams more equal than others ?. Besides it seems odd to me that FIA do not demand more robust structures, which surely would dramatically reduce present flexion, knowing cars carry about 100 Kg, of ballast. So, make them use part of this weight to build stronger wings and suspensions, for example. I imagine cars would be safer by doing this. We have already seem some cars having their wings and suspensions broken. Fortunately, without serious consequences... but there is no need to keep running risks.

Originally posted by Frans


Let's be flexible on this one, the FIA IS favouring Ferrari. There is nothing what does tell us they don't. Only things that they do.

But get this; after 1 or 2 races into the season, some teams complain about the Ferrari-flexible wings.

Ferrari wins races again. (sjeez, I wonder.... did they flex that win?;) )

a race later MANY teams have them.
result:

Ferrari stopped winning.

so.... wanna do a guess when the flexible wings are banned again. ?? (probably when Ferrari will have discovered another way to gain advantage over the others.... hehe)

your logic is great, are you einstein?
now really frans, do belive all this Bshit?

Yes of course, SOMEone has to. Right?

Ever heared of the 100-monkeys' theory? ...... same here.
when 100 monkey's have read it, it will be treu, no matter what.

and yeah, all teams have flexible wings to gain advantage on high speeds without losing grip in the slow corners, because the FIA didn't ban Ferrari's flex wings. OBVIOUS.

it has been banned before, in another season, when wierd crashes were happening during tests, it was in 1998 I believe it was, could be 1999 as well (that was Ferrari's flexible bottomplate season) ...... but back then it was forbidden and banned to use. Because of the level of safety it gave, plus the increased possiblity of high speeds unsteerable crashes.

oh well. just wait and sit back in the bank to see the 1st driver to lose his wings at high speed. Gotta be a laugh, is gonna be a huge crash, I hope it will be Michael. nuff said.

Originally posted by Frans

oh well. just wait and sit back in the bank to see the 1st driver to lose his wings at high speed. Gotta be a laugh, is gonna be a huge crash, I hope it will be Michael. nuff said.

Too late. It was Kimi.

Originally posted by Frans
...
oh well. just wait and sit back in the bank to see the 1st driver to lose his wings at high speed. Gotta be a laugh, is gonna be a huge crash, I hope it will be Michael. nuff said.

Your blind hate towards MS is amazing.

How many rear wing failures have we had in a race wekend this year? Didn't Kimi's fail?

Edit: Buttoneer the quick draw.

Originally posted by Rallimies Kujala
Hopefully no one will get hurt or killed when everybody has to start using these dubious wings.

That's a problem that needs to be considered. For example, Kimi's rear wing collapsed at Hockenheim, didn't it? Spectacular, but most likely due to material fatigue caused by many load cylces.

Originally posted by tifosi4life


Your blind hate towards MS is amazing.

How many rear wing failures have we had in a race wekend this year? Didn't Kimi's fail?

Edit: Buttoneer the quick draw.

This year? None. Suspension failure it was for KR in Bahrain.

Originally posted by peroa


This year? None. Suspension failure it was for KR in Bahrain.

correct me if i'm wrong, but it the rear wing get ripped off at the base?

wing got hit from tyre if I remember right

Originally posted by tifosi4life


correct me if i'm wrong, but it the rear wing get ripped off at the base?

Well, the rearwing broke because of the suspension failure.


Do you really want to tell me that if a rearwing collapses it thakes the whole gearbox with it, because that is where the suspension is mounted on.