Jump to content


Photo

Dangerous front wings


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:33

Seems a car just has to touch someone's front wing and there will be an immediate puncture as was very evident this weekend's British GP.

The front wing endplates have to be made curved or some other solution found before one of these punctures causes a serious incident, don't you agree?

Advertisement

#2 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,009 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:36

Racing is dangerous, leave it as it is.

#3 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:40

Seems a car just has to touch someone's front wing and there will be an immediate puncture as was very evident this weekend's British GP.

The front wing endplates have to be made curved or some other solution found before one of these punctures causes a serious incident, don't you agree?


No. :lol:

What's wrong with punctures ??

This is open wheel racing. And you are clearly kidding about these curved endplates :lol: . By the way, it is not a shape of the endplates, but the material that makes them so 'dangerous'.

#4 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:43

It's happening much more since last year when they made the front wings wider.

#5 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:46

I seem to remember that several years ago, it was mandated that the front wing end-plates be made much thicker to help prevent punctures. Is that not the case anymore?



#6 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,009 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:50

Hell, I say make them sharper, and we can add some nationalistic pride and ethnic diversity to F1. Replace Kamui Kobayashi's front wing with two katanas duct taped to nose :smoking:, Schumi can have a couple of old German daggers, that oughta liven up overtaking. Granted, your pit crew would all be about five feet tall after the first race but you don't really need shins anyway.

#7 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:51

I seem to remember that several years ago, it was mandated that the front wing end-plates be made much thicker to help prevent punctures. Is that not the case anymore?


Looking at some of the front wing's endplates, it is not. I doubt anyone would agree to this. FWs are simply too important in today's F1 cars (and following next year's DDDs ban they will become even more crucial) to hurt them with some anti-puncture regulations.

#8 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:52

I seem to remember that several years ago, it was mandated that the front wing end-plates be made much thicker to help prevent punctures. Is that not the case anymore?


It is, they are just wider now and stick out more so there's more chance of catching them.

#9 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:58

No. :lol:

What's wrong with punctures ??

This is open wheel racing. And you are clearly kidding about these curved endplates :lol: . By the way, it is not a shape of the endplates, but the material that makes them so 'dangerous'.

What a ridiculous post. :lol:

#10 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:10

What a ridiculous post. :lol:


And what's funny about it ??

Punctures are part of this sport.

They are using carbon fibre which is by it's nature, very sharp material.

Front wings are wider because of regulation changes which took place in 2009 and endplates are very important part of front wing. (even more important now, when all those aero toys are banned).

What You proposed is ridiculous. You can't command engineers to make endplates more curved.

BTW. Even if they were more curved, they still would have sharp edges :p . So maybe lets ban front wings to make racing safer :drunk: :)

EDIT:

So many kids joining here lately.. :(


I do appreciate your magical ability to estimate the age of man based on response to your own ridiculous statement. Can you teach me this??

Edited by TURU, 12 July 2010 - 07:29.


#11 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:11

Hell, I say make them sharper, and we can add some nationalistic pride and ethnic diversity to F1. Replace Kamui Kobayashi's front wing with two katanas duct taped to nose :smoking:, Schumi can have a couple of old German daggers, that oughta liven up overtaking. Granted, your pit crew would all be about five feet tall after the first race but you don't really need shins anyway.

Only beaten by this..

So many kids joining here lately.. :(

#12 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:16

Only beaten by this..

So many kids joining here lately.. :(

I thought it was pretty funny..

if ide ever came back they would probs attach the katana sword backwards so he would automatically have to commit seppuku if he messes up again..... ;)

#13 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,009 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:17

October 09, after lurking around here for four years, is hardly lately. And how are we supposed to make a serious response to the proposal that in the interest of ridding ourselves of punctures, and accepted part of racing that over the years has created tons of drama and is something that will never go away, ever, at all, no, they will always exist, we should stifle car designer's creativity even more by forcing them to to turn their front wings into safety scissors on the off chance that someone might pick up a puncture, when blunting the edge of that wing will result in damage more often than the current 'sharp' wings from the same kind of contact. Either way, one driver is limping back to the pits. It's just a part of racing, and if my mother squeezed me out 40 years too late for me to be able to talk about whether or not something is a part of racing, then my apologies.

Edited by andrew., 12 July 2010 - 07:18.


#14 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:31

When wings were narrower there were less such punctures.
In fact it is the half-steps that the people making decisions do all the time. The current FW width was set with the intention of making the car track wider - returning to the pre '98 car width. Then they feared they are too radical :well: and dropped the second part of the modification leaving the wing only.
TBH I personally expected more broken wings and punctures, which means drivers are careful. But if a wing is sticking outside the tire margins it's easy to misjudge some centimetres.

#15 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:15

Wider front wing is bad for racing because the car is more affected by turbulence. Puncturing another car is only secondary issue.

#16 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:24

The wide front wing was put in to help following -> overtaking, because the outboard parts get better air in the wake of the car in front than the central part (that they've made standard and neutral anyway).

It was an OWG thing, using the inwash.

Trouble is the wing hits the sidewall of the other car, and that's relatively thin and fragile. I don't think they can make the fwep's more sidewall friendly, whatever they do.



#17 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,899 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:44

These front winds are starting to resemble something a cartoon baddy would employ to slice his victims car in half!

I think that the outer vertical plan should have to be flat.

#18 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:50

The wide front wing was put in to help following -> overtaking, because the outboard parts get better air in the wake of the car in front than the central part (that they've made standard and neutral anyway).

It was an OWG thing, using the inwash.

Which is not working at all. To make the front wing, or front part of the body - which hit the air first and is crucial to the airflow to the whole aero - bigger is bad for racing. Plus the complex endplates as development goes on by teams makes it more sensible to subtle airflow change. It should be made narrower and smaller, and perhaps thinner, and the car should make more use of underground downforce, ie ground effect such as wing car, DDD etc.



#19 Fubar1979

Fubar1979
  • Member

  • 320 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:51

Remove the cars and let them do foot races, F1 cars are far too fast and dangerous, BAN THEM.

Advertisement

#20 Greem

Greem
  • Member

  • 324 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:07

FIA Tech Regs this year:

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

3.4.2 In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top, forward and outer edges of the lateral extremities of
any bodywork more than 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and more than 750mm from the car
centre line must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm.

So the idea is there, but in practice clobbering a piece of CF with an external radius of 5mm at 160kph with a tyrewall rotating at something like 1500RPM is pretty much guaranteed to cause *some* damage. If you're unlucky enough to get the little tiny vane against the rim then contact of any more than 1/25 of a second is going to run the tyre off the rim. Hence what happened yesterday.

Blink, and you'll miss it.

So no, I don't think the wings are dangerous. Vettel gambled yesterday and lost; another day he'd have got away with it. That's racing.

[maths corrected]

Edited by Greem, 12 July 2010 - 09:08.


#21 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:10

FIA Tech Regs this year:

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

3.4.2 In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top, forward and outer edges of the lateral extremities of
any bodywork more than 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and more than 750mm from the car
centre line must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm.

So the idea is there, but in practice clobbering a piece of CF with an external radius of 5mm at 160kph with a tyrewall rotating at something like 1500RPM is pretty much guaranteed to cause *some* damage. If you're unlucky enough to get the little tiny vane against the rim then contact of any more than 1/25 of a second is going to run the tyre off the rim. Hence what happened yesterday.

Blink, and you'll miss it.

So no, I don't think the wings are dangerous. Vettel gambled yesterday and lost; another day he'd have got away with it. That's racing.

[maths corrected]

The right answer :up:

#22 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,452 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:13

Get rid of the front wings altogether (And have Boadicea knives on the wheel hubs).

#23 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:15

Which is not working at all. To make the front wing, or front part of the body - which hit the air first and is crucial to the airflow to the whole aero - bigger is bad for racing. Plus the complex endplates as development goes on by teams makes it more sensible to subtle airflow change. It should be made narrower and smaller, and perhaps thinner, and the car should make more use of underground downforce, ie ground effect such as wing car, DDD etc.


Well it seems to work, to me. I think things would be worse with a narrower front wing, as far as following is concerned. We can see Hamilton for example being able to follow closely through a corner by taking a tighter line than the car he's attacking, getting better air over the inside half of his front wing.

The rear punctures are a downside though.

#24 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:28

FIA Tech Regs this year:

ARTICLE 3 : BODYWORK AND DIMENSIONS

3.4.2 In order to prevent tyre damage to other cars, the top, forward and outer edges of the lateral extremities of
any bodywork more than 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line and more than 750mm from the car
centre line must be at least 10mm thick with a radius of at least 5mm.

Imo more than that needs to be done, especially with the wider wings.

Like I said, a curved and covering endplate or at least something that allows cars to race close without a touch with the wing to tire automatically ending in punctures.

And how someone would not want safety to be improved is beyond me. I guess it's the same bloodthirsty crowd that didn't want seatbelts, covered track walls or the higher cockpit introduced. Shame they are spewing that lust here. :down:

#25 Greem

Greem
  • Member

  • 324 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:38

And how someone would not want safety to be improved is beyond me. I guess it's the same bloodthirsty crowd that didn't want seatbelts, covered track walls or the higher cockpit introduced. Shame they are spewing that lust here. :down:


It's a bit of stretch to put me (and others posting here) down as "bloodthirsty".

Ever been on a live racing circuit to deal with the aftermath of an open wheel racing car which has flipped over several times and bounced so hard the roll hoop snapped off? I have. I would suggest that the sort of people who get involved in track work - marshalling, recovery, rescue and so on - aren't "bloodthirsty" at all.

An acquaintance of mine has a signature on his email: Life is a sequence of risks, carefully choose the ones you want to take.

As I said above - you take a risk; sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. That's racing.

#26 rookie

rookie
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 July 2010 - 11:33

The front wing endplates have to be made curved or some other solution found before one of these punctures causes a serious incident, don't you agree?


No, I don't agree.

#27 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 13:20

The current FW width was set with the intention of making the car track wider - returning to the pre '98 car width. Then they feared they are too radical :well: and dropped the second part of the modification leaving the wing only.


I don't know where you read this...this was never planned to go back to 2meters wide cars under OWG studies. 2 meters wide cars are worse for wake effects.

The idea was simply (as pointed out) that the most affected part of the front wing in wake was the central part, thus they made it standard and widen the sides to reclaim the downforce lost by the standard central part.


Which is not working at all. To make the front wing, or front part of the body - which hit the air first and is crucial to the airflow to the whole aero - bigger is bad for racing. Plus the complex endplates as development goes on by teams makes it more sensible to subtle airflow change. It should be made narrower and smaller, and perhaps thinner, and the car should make more use of underground downforce, ie ground effect such as wing car, DDD etc.


I think honestly you don't know at all if its working or not neither you do know about the OWG studies results.

And i don't know where this "bigger wing= bigger wake" comes from...that's really a negation of physics...

#28 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 July 2010 - 13:25

Seems a car just has to touch someone's front wing and there will be an immediate puncture as was very evident this weekend's British GP.

The front wing endplates have to be made curved or some other solution found before one of these punctures causes a serious incident, don't you agree?

I thought about staring thread about this yesterday but it felt too complicated. Collect examples and so on. But in reality, it seems like the new, horribly ugly, wide front wings have some kind of James Bond mechanism built in. A slifht touch = puncture almost every time. Remember Sutil touching Kimi at Interlagos last season? It was hardly even visible in slow motion. We have plenty of examples of it. First of all - the front wigs are too wide. It looks like shit and they always cause trouble the first couple of laps. They should really do something about it.

#29 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2010 - 14:03

I think honestly you don't know at all if its working or not neither you do know about the OWG studies results.

And i don't know where this "bigger wing= bigger wake" comes from...that's really a negation of physics...

Course i'm no expert at all. Also I know the logic of 09~ aero rule. But fact is that it's not working. early 09 it looked like it was working, cars are following each other closer than ever. But since 2nd half of 09, things have started to look bad, and now situation is the same as it was ~08.

Bigger front wing = more likely to be affected by turbulence. Plus, now front wing endplates are used to feed air to the diffuser, rather than to generate downforce. Therefore the complexity of the front wings. The more complex, the more sensible to airflow changes.



#30 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 14:15

Course i'm no expert at all. Also I know the logic of 09~ aero rule. But fact is that it's not working. early 09 it looked like it was working, cars are following each other closer than ever. But since 2nd half of 09, things have started to look bad, and now situation is the same as it was ~08.


I guess will's power is above all. You don't probably watch the same races than me. Saying that cars can't follow each other is quite astonishing considering the recent races... And there's no wet, nor tyres in the equation, even leaders can follow each other closely without droping away.


Bigger front wing = more likely to be affected by turbulence. Plus, now front wing endplates are used to feed air to the diffuser, rather than to generate downforce. Therefore the complexity of the front wings. The more complex, the more sensible to airflow changes.


Sorry that's wrong. The sensitivity to wake of a wing depends on the wake itself and the geometry of the wing, not its size. And in the case of the 09 wings the have a higher aspect ratio than previous wings meaning not only do they produce less wake but also are less sensitive due to the downforcing section being outside of the core wake's effects zone.

Again..you have absolutely no material to say it works or not.

Please forget Aeros by the naked eye, not good at all.



The fact they are a problem for close racing (punctures) is a toll that was accepted when the 09 rules were done.

#31 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 386 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 12 July 2010 - 14:21

I thought about staring thread about this yesterday but it felt too complicated. Collect examples and so on. But in reality, it seems like the new, horribly ugly, wide front wings have some kind of James Bond mechanism built in. A slifht touch = puncture almost every time. Remember Sutil touching Kimi at Interlagos last season? It was hardly even visible in slow motion. We have plenty of examples of it. First of all - the front wigs are too wide. It looks like shit and they always cause trouble the first couple of laps. They should really do something about it.


+1



#32 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 12 July 2010 - 14:50

I thought about staring thread about this yesterday but it felt too complicated. Collect examples and so on. But in reality, it seems like the new, horribly ugly, wide front wings have some kind of James Bond mechanism built in. A slifht touch = puncture almost every time. Remember Sutil touching Kimi at Interlagos last season? It was hardly even visible in slow motion. We have plenty of examples of it. First of all - the front wigs are too wide. It looks like shit and they always cause trouble the first couple of laps. They should really do something about it.

+1
They must built parktronics into them as the drivers have to be supermen to not make small mistakes in their judgement about distance not seeing the wing :)

#33 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 July 2010 - 15:10

I guess will's power is above all. You don't probably watch the same races than me. Saying that cars can't follow each other is quite astonishing considering the recent races... And there's no wet, nor tyres in the equation, even leaders can follow each other closely without droping away.

I'm not saying cars cant follow each other. Just saying now apparently less so compared to early 09, and current situation overall looks not that different from ~08. You still see drivers lose control of the car following another car.

What have we seen in Valencia then, JB was at least 0.5sec faster than KK, or could go even more than a sec faster at one point, if not for entire race, but nothing happened. Kubica was apparently faster than Rubens too.

I'm not saying overtaking should be made too easy tho. Overtaking should remain sth that is difficult and requires skills.


Sorry that's wrong. The sensitivity to wake of a wing depends on the wake itself and the geometry of the wing, not its size. And in the case of the 09 wings the have a higher aspect ratio than previous wings meaning not only do they produce less wake but also are less sensitive due to the downforcing section being outside of the core wake's effects zone.

What i mean is bigger (and also more complex) wing is more likely to be affected by turbulence created by the car in front.

Front wing endplates are now used to feed the air to the rear of the car. Some teams, like Merc, Sauber etc, direct air to the outside while others, like Macca and RBR, lead air underside. Whatever it is, its complexity makes it more sensible to turbulence. Turbulence on front wing is affecting the diffuser downforce.


Again..you have absolutely no material to say it works or not.

Please forget Aeros by the naked eye, not good at all.


I'm ready to accept that I'm wrong anytime. So can you then tell me your idea on why it's not working, at least not as expected, and what can be done, instead of just attacking others like that.




#34 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 July 2010 - 18:51

I'm not saying cars cant follow each other. Just saying now apparently less so compared to early 09, and current situation overall looks not that different from ~08. You still see drivers lose control of the car following another car.

What have we seen in Valencia then, JB was at least 0.5sec faster than KK, or could go even more than a sec faster at one point, if not for entire race, but nothing happened. Kubica was apparently faster than Rubens too.

I'm not saying overtaking should be made too easy tho. Overtaking should remain sth that is difficult and requires skills.


There is a bit of misunderstanding of that n,n sec advantage and overtaking. When we talk about sec/lap advantage in aerodynamics vs overtaking topics it is to say that to the x sec/lap advantage of one car corresponds an amount of downforce advantage I.E if the car has the required sec/lap advantage, when he'll come close to the leading car he'll lose an amount of downforce(= an amount of sec/lap advantage) smaller than the necessary one, he will then retain enough grip to overtake.

But yet people when the see lap time advantage believe it is the downforce..of course not! It is all factors combined and then this leads to my remark: If you are driving a one way street at 50km/h and close in on a 40km/h car what will you do? ...Slow down to 40km/h then..
No matter how fast you were before, what matters is how fast you can be at a very close distance of him.

I happen to do timing on kart races, i've seen kart men with 1 sec/lap advantage (which for a kart track is huge) being completely stuck the whole race behind competitors. Sometimes you can't just overtake for there's no room for that.




What i mean is bigger (and also more complex) wing is more likely to be affected by turbulence created by the car in front.

And that is not true. I'm sorry.


Front wing endplates are now used to feed the air to the rear of the car. Some teams, like Merc, Sauber etc, direct air to the outside while others, like Macca and RBR, lead air underside. Whatever it is, its complexity makes it more sensible to turbulence. Turbulence on front wing is affecting the diffuser downforce.

This had been the case for 15 years now.
There's nothing new and the fact that the endplates are complex do not changes the fact that being wide they are less affected by the wake. As i've told you, the effect of wake on a following car depends on the wake geometry and the car's design.



I'm ready to accept that I'm wrong anytime. So can you then tell me your idea on why it's not working, at least not as expected, and what can be done, instead of just attacking others like that.


But the problem is that i disagree from the start, it is not working! I've told you from my very first reply.

And as attacking you...i think i've being using courtesy at a fine level. There's no other word than "wrong" when you think someone is wrong.



#35 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 01 August 2010 - 15:00

Another front wing causing SC. Time to react.

#36 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 August 2010 - 15:03

Another front wing causing SC. Time to react.


So you want to prevent carbon fibre from cracking ??
What about making them steel??

#37 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,798 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 August 2010 - 15:10

Another front wing causing SC. Time to react.


Ironically though the SC created even more danger than it solved considering what went on in the pitlane. Not that they should've send out a hapless marshall to retrieve it or something.. just how it worked out this time.

#38 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 01 August 2010 - 15:13

They should just make them smaller. 2008 length with 2009 regulations otherwise. They should make them a bit less efficient anyway as cars are becoming too quick once again.

#39 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,211 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 August 2010 - 15:18

Ironically though the SC created even more danger than it solved considering what went on in the pitlane. Not that they should've send out a hapless marshall to retrieve it or something.. just how it worked out this time.

They should have left it there. There was a great big airbox just off the line at Brands for half the race in 1983 and it didn't bother anyone.

Advertisement

#40 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:22

So you want to prevent carbon fibre from cracking ??
What about making them steel??

No, I want them narrower so they do not at any time are outside the radius of a turning car

Wrong:
_________
_________
\\-------\\

Right (almost)
_____
_______
\\-------\\

Edited by Hairpin, 13 August 2010 - 11:29.


#41 alecc

alecc
  • Member

  • 2,191 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:52

Aren't the wide front wings make the "front wheel-rear wheel catapult-contact" a little less probable?
IMHO a puncture from a front wing-wheel contact is safer than a direct front wheel-rear wheel contact.

#42 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:19

Aren't the wide front wings make the "front wheel-rear wheel catapult-contact" a little less probable?
IMHO a puncture from a front wing-wheel contact is safer than a direct front wheel-rear wheel contact.

How much force would a front wing withstand? If the speed difference is big enough to create a catapult effect, the front wing mounts would shatter in milliseconds. From a safety point of view, they can not be other than bad.

#43 alecc

alecc
  • Member

  • 2,191 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 13:00

How much force would a front wing withstand? If the speed difference is big enough to create a catapult effect, the front wing mounts would shatter in milliseconds. From a safety point of view, they can not be other than bad.


But IMHO there is a range of speed difference where the front wing is actually making the difference between to catapult, or not to catapult, however - I can be totally wrong :)

#44 simplyfast

simplyfast
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 13 August 2010 - 13:26

But IMHO there is a range of speed difference where the front wing is actually making the difference between to catapult, or not to catapult, however - I can be totally wrong :)

hows about thinking about the front of the front wheel moving downwards while it makes contact with the rear of the back wheel which is moving upwards for real velocity difference?
and lets not even start on contact adhesiveness and release forces combined with rebound effect.

Edited by simplyfast, 13 August 2010 - 13:28.


#45 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 13:41

But IMHO there is a range of speed difference where the front wing is actually making the difference between to catapult, or not to catapult, however - I can be totally wrong :)

The front wing can take only fractions of the force generated by a car coming towards it with higher speed from behind. A small fraction.

#46 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,422 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 August 2010 - 13:58

Remember that the middle section of the current wings is neutral. The working section is a similar width to what it was in '08, there's just a blank bit in the middle making the whole assembly wider. It was originally described to me that the centre section is not neutral but lift-producing. The idea being that when the wing loses it's force in the turbulence of another car, it loses lift as well as downforce so the overall reduction in downforce is reduced. However I can no longer remember who described it that way and can't be sure if it's correct.

The end plate thickness was increased in 1996 IIRC. Really I don't see how the '08 width would make that much differenct as it is still able to touch another car's rear tyre. The drivers should know where their front wings are now. I don't think any changes need to be made just yet.

#47 bladesblood

bladesblood
  • Member

  • 66 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 13 August 2010 - 20:04

+1



Agree, overcomplicated and too fragile.

#48 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 August 2010 - 13:56

Luizzi - Vettel. Was there any more front wing cuts today?

#49 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,768 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 August 2010 - 14:03

Bloody ugly overwidth things. The tyres must be a bit suss too as they seem to puncture very easily.

#50 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 646 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 August 2010 - 14:05

Bloody ugly overwidth things. The tyres must be a bit suss too as they seem to puncture very easily.


apparently the cars for 2009 were supposed to have a wider track, but they decided against it (WHY??!?!)