Jump to content


Photo

RBR flexible front wing


  • Please log in to reply
3141 replies to this topic

#201 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 884 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:33

http://www.darrenhea...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...man10_002ii.jpg


That is incredible. There is no argument to the flexing issue. McLaren will have to work out what is going on and build the same wing. I am surprised Ferarri beat them to it (unless there were backhanders going on).

Advertisement

#202 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:36

Seriously, why is it that a bunch of forumers can work this shit out but the FIA can't?

Geez you only have to watch the incars to get a clue and this isn't the first time Journo's or Forumers have picked up on illegal things, maybe the FIA should just read more forums - and thats not a joke.


From the mac thread:


Well, there is 3.17.8 but Bauer said it was OK on sunday, so it is OK to use for the remaining races.


3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to
introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of),
moving whilst the car is in motion.



#203 argiriano

argiriano
  • Member

  • 904 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:37

http://img44.imagesh...t8mclfrbrfw.jpg

I made this comparison on the last corner at Hockenheim. First I have to rotate the pics a little bit to make RW`s horizontal, then connect the endplates with lines - red for Ferrari, blue for RBR, and white for McLaren. I know we may see, what we want to see, but still there is difference.

#204 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:38

Seriously, why is it that a bunch of forumers can work this shit out but the FIA can't?


Well, it's not really their job. They test the cars according to the rules and if it's OK, it's OK.
The teams have to provide evidence that there is something more going on than meets the eye.


#205 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:50

Its emminently possible to design a wing that just scrapes inside the FIA flex test, but continues to flex further as the load increases. What would be interesting to know is how repesentative of the real life vertical downforce component is the FIA load and moment test? I guess Andy would be the guy to know, but doesn't seem to do requests....

Some more questions...could the manual wing angle adjustment be cleverly designed to adjust 'rate' of flex mechanically? And is there a way to achieve a turn-in dip in the wing, if so is there a benefit?



#206 Monad

Monad
  • Member

  • 399 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:51

From what i see. This flexy wings resold in the wing's right or left side falling slightly down depending if the corner is left or right. I'm i right?

#207 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:53

Well, it's not really their job. They test the cars according to the rules and if it's OK, it's OK.
The teams have to provide evidence that there is something more going on than meets the eye.


Why would the teams do that, it's now a race to spend a pile of money to get on track quickly and show a result before too many get onto the bandwagon.

As has been shown many times the FIA will act upon it after it gets near to making them look bad - it's not the first time they have changed the test mid year.

But hell who cares, MS comes back, Ferrari makes a team order and Red Bull cheats - which gets the least coverage but is the most important .... ?


#208 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 27 July 2010 - 09:17

So, this obviously has much to do with the quali pace of the RBR's all season and now the Ferrari's improved pace I would assume.

Could this have been the real reason behind all the whispers about RBR having the ability to run lower when required? I mean those rumors all started because some people said they could hear the red bull scraping on the ground in places (am I right in remembering this?) looking at the pics the end plates look as if they are almost touching the ground - could it be those that were heard scraping the track?

They have been deemed legal, so does that mean they are not flexing? If they are not flexing then can someone explain what is happening here?

FIA say this...



Now, I am not an engineer, nor an expert in aerodynamics, but I am also not stupid and it is clear as can be from these photographs that the front wing end plates are somehow moving closer to the ground, regardless of what angle the pics have been taken from or how much fuel is in the car. The idea that these pics do not indicate anything suspicious is astounding, Though I gather the FIA have tested them, so they are legal, although one suspects it is more likely to be that RBR have found (and Ferrari worked out) a very clever loophole in the regs.

Surely every other team knows exactly what is happening here by now? I don't understand why McLaren have not worked this out already to be honest. Hopefully they will have a new wing this weekend.

Good post :up:

What an odd thing for the FIA to say:

The FIA was happy that the explanations [...] did not indicate anything suspicious.

It is not a question of whether the explanations indicate somethign suspicious, it is a question of whether the photos do. And, yes, the explanations could be correct but it seems to be the pictures themselves generate enough of a suspicion to test whether those explanations are correct or not - ie invoke this procedure:

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

It wouldn't be that difficult to increase the load applied and see what kind of movement you get. If you discovered a very non-linear flex - ie the wings stayed pretty still with loads up to XN, then moved a significant degree with just a small additional load, then remained relatively static again - then I think you could be pretty clear that this was an attempt to pass the 3.17 tests without respecting 3.15.


#209 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 698 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 09:38

Red bull cheating? I'd call it using the regulations effectively. If it passes the FIA's scrutineering on this issue and if the FIA give the clear then its not cheating. Some people here seem to have a very peculiar definition of 'cheating' in that its confused with the concept of innovation or engineering genius.

Seriously, why is it that a bunch of forumers can work this shit out but the FIA can't?

Geez you only have to watch the incars to get a clue and this isn't the first time Journo's or Forumers have picked up on illegal things, maybe the FIA should just read more forums - and thats not a joke.


May I ask, how have you done your comparisons?

#210 Rockets

Rockets
  • Member

  • 146 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 09:50

A few more DarrenHeath flexi wings pics... Lol, Mr. Heath always uncovering technical irregularities!
Seems to be quite obvious...
http://www.darrenhea...man10_008ii.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...n10_050ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...man10_009ii.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...an10_003i_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...n10_001ii_0.jpg
http://www.darrenhea...man10_002ii.jpg


omg, flexing very clear. thx for pics

#211 wdh

wdh
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 10:00

Autosport reported

The FIA was happy that the explanations – which included the fact that photographs were not guaranteed to have been taken from the same angle, that the cars may not have been running the same amounts of fuel, or had different rear ride heights that would affect the front wing design – did not indicate anything suspicious.


None of those explanations explain why the ground clearance at the endplates would be less than in the middle of the wing for Ferrari and especially Red Bull.
Those wings are showing much more deflection ("flex") than the others.


Is there any indication whatsoever that the FIA have applied anything other than their standard tests? (And the wings are clearly carefully designed to pass the standard tests.)

Edited by wdh, 27 July 2010 - 10:01.


#212 BrendanMcF

BrendanMcF
  • Member

  • 537 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 July 2010 - 10:21

Boeing 787 wings flex too...

25 feet apparently :eek:

#213 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 July 2010 - 11:19

Red Bull do have a history of flexing wings. Remember when they had their entire rear wing assembly flexing back in Spain 2/3 years ago? Anyway, I was willing to write it off as differences in angles from where the photos were taken and the car was positioned, but this photo does show the the FWEPs being much closer to the ground than the central section of wing. Of course, this is clever engineering that passes the rather lax load tests under the rules and regulations.

#214 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 July 2010 - 11:26

The load test is nothing, 10mm deflection per 50kg/500N means 50+ mm -infinite- bending is allowed in theory at racing speeds.

There has to be another reg somewhere, surely? Can't see it though.

#215 raiseyourfistfor

raiseyourfistfor
  • Member

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 13:02

Isn't this a bit similar to the Michelin tires from a while back? In Parc Ferme they are legal but when the car is moving it becomes illegal.

It amazes me how FIA keep uncontrollable things like that legal but they don't want the controllable F-duct in F1.

#216 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,966 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 July 2010 - 13:16

Here's an onboard shot of the front wing lowering on the straights.


Yeah it's more obvious if you just watch the wing under braking, you can see it rise up again quite clearly.

#217 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 13:27

so ??

So wing can be lower under aero load because of suspension. This means wing height on stationary car remain under allowed values.

#218 smintzo

smintzo
  • New Member

  • 2 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 13:28

I'm no engineer, but surely you could create a structure that doesn't flex much under a vertical load but does flex quite a bit under a load which is diagonally downwards and towards the rear of the car? These wings must be under a fair amount of front-to-back pressure (although the designers will be trying to limit this as much as possible as it implies a certain amount of drag), and if the "plane-of-greatest-flex" (I've just made up that term but hopefully self-explanatory!) is diagonal they could pass the FIA tests but still flex considerably under real-world forces, regardless of the magnitude of the force (which I accept would also be greater in real-world circumstances)?

Just a thought ...

#219 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,654 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 13:41

Yeah it's more obvious if you just watch the wing under braking, you can see it rise up again quite clearly.

Yeah I know. :) I said it that way as under braking, it's actually 'legal' again. On the straights it's too low. I think, at least.

Advertisement

#220 Anonymous

Anonymous
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:27

Do you people remember when Red Bull tested this back in December?
Clearly they're testing something here in regards to the front wing flexing.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



#221 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,966 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:36

All makes sense now. I guess they were testing the flex and measuring how much give they had on the materials perhaps? McLaren caught napping on this one.

Edited by pRy, 27 July 2010 - 14:37.


#222 ocp

ocp
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:49

It would good to know where the FIA tests for flexing precisely on the wing.

Good pics from december.

#223 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:53

It would good to know where the FIA tests for flexing precisely on the wing.


795 mm either side of center, it's in the regs

#224 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,040 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:57

A few years ago 2003? Williams had to revise the diffuser they were running as it had been deemed to contravene some part of the tech regs. I can't remember but had there been complaints from rival teams that it had been flexing to allow greater airflow?
My understanding is that flexible wings and aerodynamics are illegal, however underload practically any part of the car will flex to some degree making the rule difficult to enforce. The static load tests on the FWEPs were introduced to help control the flexible front wing issue, but clearly we can see teams are now circumventing that restriction. So considering what we are seeing at the moment, do you think teams (if they haven't already) will begin designing flexible floors and other aero components despite what the current regs state?

Edited by Obi Offiah, 27 July 2010 - 17:15.


#225 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,809 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:57

if it passes the tests its legal, but those wings do look lower at speed. how much downforce are they getting from the front wings now?

Im presuming a couple of things but 1)wing test is probably the same as a few years back to the last era

2) now wings make all/most of the downforce at the ends, and the center actully produces lift?, so it will naturaly want to bed more than the old era wings which made downforce across there entire length

#226 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,843 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 14:59

The regs.. 3.17 onwards

#227 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,809 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:04

i guess the wings would be 1800mm, so the load would be applied 105mm from the edge, im guessing thats quite close to the vertical bit of the endplate then...

#228 ocp

ocp
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:07

I see.
Make a wing that will hold 500N applied verticaly and not move over 10mm.

I see enginers going around that.

There is some difference running a car or just puting weight on it.

Edited by ocp, 27 July 2010 - 15:08.


#229 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,843 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:32

Re this image;

http://static.f1hire...941_10_1000.jpg

Assuming all the cables start of with the same level of slack, the left front here is quite tight but I can't make out whether the left rear is also tight. I wonder if what we have here is a wing that twists?

#230 wdh

wdh
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:37

ISTR, that last year, when the current wing regs were introduced and we were all moaning about how ugly the cars were ... at Ferrari's very first test at Mugello, didn't they have problems with the front wing 'drooping' ("flexing") too much at speed? I'm sure I recall pix of their wing bending at that time ... and it broke quite early on.


The engineering problem might not be passing the FIA test and yet drooping nicely at speed, its probably passing the FIA test and drooping nicely and then stiffening up when it has just the right amount of droop so it doesn't wreck itself against every kerb ...
I wonder - if you had a stiffening member towards the bottom of the wing, which was in sections, then once the wing had drooped, the gaps between the sections would be closed up (by the compression of the underside with the droop) and the wing would be 'stiff' in its 'drooped' position. Hmmm. Those gaps would have to be tiny ...

#231 wdh

wdh
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:39

Re this image;

http://static.f1hire...941_10_1000.jpg

Assuming all the cables start of with the same level of slack, the left front here is quite tight but I can't make out whether the left rear is also tight. I wonder if what we have here is a wing that twists?



What that is showing is that the pylons have allowed the wing to move slightly sideways, towards the outside of the corner - not to twist.


#232 Sinister

Sinister
  • Member

  • 233 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 15:50

Good find on the Dec testing pic, folks.

But surely, EVERYONE would have picked up on that... all F1 engineers are clever people!

#233 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:16

Good find on the Dec testing pic, folks.

But surely, EVERYONE would have picked up on that... all F1 engineers are clever people!


Apparently not.

#234 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,040 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:20

Apparently not.

Or perhaps other engineers considered what RBR were doing and thought "Nah, that would clearly be illegal"?

#235 RichardF1fan

RichardF1fan
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:23

if the wing is made of say three layers - a rigid top layer then a semi rigid middle layer to which the end assembly is anchored to and a more flexible layer underneath, if a static force is placed on top of the wing it will act like a laminate and be rigid.

However with air at a lower pressure under the wing as found when moving, the lower layer would pull down and the laminations will separate and there will be an increase in flexibility.

Since the laminate effectively amplifies the stiffness this gives a lopsided performance. The regulations don't say the wings can't flex as much as they like - just they cant flex when a 500n load is applied on top.

I think it works, but I've run out of credit cards to keep trying it with...

Edited by RichardF1fan, 27 July 2010 - 16:29.


#236 Andy865

Andy865
  • Member

  • 2,447 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:28

About the Ferrari's front wing, i'm pretty sure they've been flexing to that extent since the start of 2009. In fact I remember them breaking a FW at the F60 shakedown just from the flexing.

also, that shot with the left hand cables loose and the right hand taut, surely thats just from the normal loadings on the wing??

Engineers. They never cease to amaze me.

#237 Sinister

Sinister
  • Member

  • 233 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:28

Or perhaps other engineers considered what RBR were doing and thought "Nah, that would clearly be illegal"?

Or maybe similar to the double-diffuser issue last year where, presumably, a lot of teams thought that it would be outlawed, but still put some dev-resources into it, just in case?

#238 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,843 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 16:37

Much chat on the Autosport forum about flexible wings. Very interesting RBR test shots bottom of this page: http://tinyurl.com/36sf3ed

Coo - we better do a good job.

#239 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,167 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:05

Test photos made everything clear! i cant believe FIA allowed that!

Advertisement

#240 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,654 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:10

Hmm. I can't remember those photo's at all. Perhaps it's the hindsight, but it looks pretty clear what they're testing exactly. :confused:

#241 Rapidfire75

Rapidfire75
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:18

I made a small gif:

Posted Image

#242 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:25

And what exactly this animation show?

Edited by Dragonfly, 27 July 2010 - 18:25.


#243 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,040 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:27

And what exactly this animation show?

Front wing flexing.

#244 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:30

I see the suspension working with a visible magnitude.

#245 TheArmchairCritic

TheArmchairCritic
  • Member

  • 1,035 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:33

I made a small gif:

Posted Image

Thanks but not quite sure that shows flexing the wheel is higher in the 2nd frame due to the suspension reacting to the track surface, also I thought the wing was flexing under loads in turn in anyway.

#246 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,040 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:36

I see the suspension working with a visible magnitude.

The front wing is not connected to the suspension. Compare the yellow reference line with the front wing cascades/end plate.

#247 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:55

- The camera dips down together with the body, hence drawing a line across one and the same place cannot be a reliable reference. Actually it should follow the vertical movement of the body. That's why the supposed flex is exaggerated too.

- Unless there is a common and constant referense to the vertical movement you cannot asses the relative movement of the wing tip.
- And last but not least, where in the rules it is said how much a wing must flex under race loads? There is an approved test procedure. Every wing which passes the test is legal to the last carbon fiber.

#248 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 9,040 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 27 July 2010 - 18:59

- The camera dips down together with the body, hence drawing a line across one and the same place cannot be a reliable reference. Actually it should follow the vertical movement of the body. That's why the supposed flex is exaggerated too.

- Unless there is a common and constant referense to the vertical movement you cannot asses the relative movement of the wing tip.
- And last but not least, where in the rules it is said how much a wing must flex under race loads? There is an approved test procedure. Every wing which passes the test is legal to the last carbon fiber.

The camera, yellow line and chassis are all consistent and move together as one. The only part on the car in the gif that doesn't obey that principle is the suspension & wheel as well as the front wing.

#249 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,505 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 July 2010 - 19:00

Whatever amount it flexes, the FIA have declared it legal so it is up to others to copy and gain the benefits of it.

#250 Talryyn

Talryyn
  • Member

  • 839 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 July 2010 - 19:02

The angle change in that gif shows me that the wing is dipping regardless of what the suspension is doing.