Jump to content


Photo

McLaren and Red Bull have pivoting front wing?


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#51 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:40

Martin W. just said in phone interview that he's not aware of any complaints.


"I haven't given plan B any thought"

Advertisement

#52 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,985 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:48

Martin W. just said in phone interview that he's not aware of any complaints.

He never is.
He'll be singing a different tune come scrutineering...

#53 swiniodzik

swiniodzik
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:53

I of course fully expect them to try and circumvent the rules' intentions while staying within the letter of the law (edit: and within the actual tests). Fine with me, and at least part of the point of the whole exercise. But an argument along the lines of "hmm, I cannot make this joint infinitely rigid, so it should be just as fine if I put a hinge in its place" is IMHO nevertheless ridiculous.


I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

Thanks for drawing the story to our attention :up:

#54 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,722 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:53

You work for RBR right? The people suffering from an infliction which forces them so seek the most outrageous interpretation of every concept?
For people who do not have this problem it was always obvious that just because you cannot make something infinitely rigid does not automatically mean that unavoidable minimal movement is the same as designing a movable part on purpose trying to circumvent the rules.


I do not work for RBR (or any F1 team for that matter). I wouldn't be a very good engineer if I wasn't able to bend (see what I did there?) each restriction or regulation to its fullest.

The apparent facts are:

- The static front wing load tests require no part of the front wing to foul the minimum distance above RP with 100kg (981N) applied 750mm from centreline
- The vehicles show a fair amount of wing twist in operation, potentially fouling this minimum distance rule

The conclusions of this are that the tests don't replicate the real loads the wings experience during operation. The aerodynamic centre will be in a different chord position than where the loads are applied. If you wanted to update the rule, you could state:

The front wing will not deflect sufficiently for any part of the bodywork to be closer to the reference plane than 75mm when 100kg is placed on the Neutral Axis of the wing, 750mm from the centre-line.

This would eradicate the scenario we see on the cars.

#55 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:56

"I haven't given plan B any thought"

He must have a nose longer than pinochio's

#56 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:05

Didn't Scarbs talk/made drawings about something like this months ago?

Definitely rings a bell to me, maybe as early as 2010 when people were trying to figure out the flexing/rake/ride height of the Red Bull..

#57 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • Member

  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:07

I think it's about time the FIA were more aggressive. The way it is now teams flout the spirit of the rules if they can find a technical, literal loophole. That loophole gets closed 2-6 races after the team introduces said innovation/rule-flouting device. I think the FIA should tell the teams there will be less latitude. If you get caught breaking the spirit of the rules, for a very clear breach at least, then you will be penalised retrospectively.

This could have well cost Fernando Alonso the championship, and I don't think that's fair. I had wondered where McLaren and Red Bull were pulling their sudden pace from. [And no I'm neither an Alonso or Ferrari fan - I tend to follow Mark Webber, and Sauber].

#58 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:12

They seem to be denying any issue....that's for sure

McLaren not expecting issue with wing flexibility

http://en.espnf1.com...tory/90479.html



#59 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:13

Didn't Scarbs talk/made drawings about something like this months ago?

Definitely rings a bell to me, maybe as early as 2010 when people were trying to figure out the flexing/rake/ride height of the Red Bull..

Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.

Advertisement

#60 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:17

I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

Thanks for drawing the story to our attention :up:

I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.

I'm also ok with the FIA clamping down on this stuff if they find out, though. Thats also part of the game. :p

#61 OwenC93

OwenC93
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:27

Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.

I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.

Edited by OwenC93, 03 October 2012 - 12:28.


#62 superdelphinus

superdelphinus
  • Member

  • 1,483 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:29

Which was the race this season where both red bulls had that weird front wing failure? Catalunya?

#63 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:29

I'm with you. I'm perfectly ok with exploiting loopholes. Lots of people screamed 'CHEATS' at Red Bull and other teams before for doing similar things, but its part of the game.

I'm also ok with the FIA clamping down on this stuff if they find out, though. Thats also part of the game. :p

I am partially ok with them clamping it down, if they do it in a way that is consistent with the regulations... BUT if they are going to do so in such a way that a modification to the text of the rule (not the spirit, but the text) has to be included, then I would say is better to wait until 2013. IMO, it is similar to the flexing in the rear wings of the Ferrari in 2006: there was lots of talk about it, and the FIA never found anything unusual, but just one week before Canada (the first track on which such a flexing would have made a difference) the FIA chnaged the definition of rear wing, by forcing the teams to add an element in the middle. That, in my opinion, was wrong: they didn't change the test there. They change the rule halfway through to satisfy one team (Renault).


#64 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:34

Me too - I couldn't find anything when I searched but I'm certain this has been discussed before if not as an explanation of what was actually happening then as a possibility.

I think you maybe speak about the flexing tea tray on RBR car. Which principally is the same as approach to the rules. It was largely covered by Scarbs.

#65 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:40

I can't see anything ridiculous about such a mindest. Exploiting loopholes is the primary form of engineering innovation in the days of so strict and expanded regulations. All the teams up and down the pitlane try to circumvent the rules somehow - mass dampers, flexi floors, double diffusers, f-duct, flexi wings, now these pivotal wings - these are our equivalents of the fan and ground effect cars from the past. The extreme lengths the engineers seem to be going to in order to gain even the smallest advantage are indeed cool and impressive, if anything.

Thanks for drawing the story to our attention :up:


I agree with what you wrote. A legalese explanation makes sense from a tactical point of view in a legal argument, and it's one thing if, e.g., Horner uses it while knowing full well inside that he is bullshitting. However on the forum I sometimes perceive the opinion to be expressed that such an argument makes sense from a logical point of view, and that's what I meant. Sorry if I seemed to pin this on any one poster, it was meant more like a general comment.

#66 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,242 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:41

I possible a ban for McLaren-Red Bull??

What do you think?..


#67 bluffalo

bluffalo
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:41

Interview with newey
"regulation change with the deflection of the front wing"
http://www.gocar.gr/..._prin_apo_.html

#68 beeclown

beeclown
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:46

Interview with newey
"regulation change with the deflection of the front wing"
http://www.gocar.gr/..._prin_apo_.html


Great interview. Finally admitting the drooping flexi front wings... after all the lengths Horner went to at the time denying that they were flexing. :lol:

Edited by beeclown, 03 October 2012 - 12:46.


#69 bspec

bspec
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:46

Are you guys refering to this article?
http://scarbsf1.com/...-wing-movement/

#70 beeclown

beeclown
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:48

Are you guys refering to this article?
http://scarbsf1.com/...-wing-movement/


Something similar - the method they used last year in Valencia was spotted and banned I think, and for the rest of the year they went back to copying Red Bull's drooping flexi wing. This year with that method harder to acheive, McLaren have probably found a way to acheive the effect of the Valencia hinged wing without failing the deflection tests, and Red Bull followed suit.

Confirms what the FIA were looking at in scruteneering for ages after the Australia quali session too.

Edited by beeclown, 03 October 2012 - 12:50.


#71 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:51

I possible a ban for McLaren-Red Bull??

What do you think?..

No way. A rule change at most.

#72 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:59

The purpose of this modification, if true, is to reduce the angle of attack of the front wing at high speed thus reducing the lift co-efficient (less downforce and drag) and/or increase the lift co-efficient (more downforce & drag) at low speed. As such it would be clearly a movable aerodynamic device and is outside the letter as well as the spirit of the regulations.

In essence, no different, except perhaps number of degrees of change of angle of attack from the adjustable front wings of a couple of seasons ago.

On the other hand, I know of no comparable device fitted to aircraft which optimises the angle of attack of a lifting surface automatically due to airspeed, on the contrary, every such device uses mechanical/hydraulic/electric systems to work against the aerodynamic forces involved in order to change the angle of attack.

If true, the last time we saw such blatant contempt for the regulations was Ferrari's flexi floor


I think that's because the car has the track to push against and provide the force balance needed.

#73 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:09

There were pictures of Mercedes front wing pylons with visible gaps at the point of attachment to the wing but was commented as something to do with their passive duct system. Now I am asking myself are RBR and McLaren the only teams to exploit this.
http://www.formula1....12/d12sin31.jpg

Edit: Image too large, left link only.

Edited by sharo, 03 October 2012 - 13:14.


#74 Showty

Showty
  • Member

  • 1,304 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:10

Flavio Briatore ‏@BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva



#75 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:13

I think you maybe speak about the flexing tea tray on RBR car. Which principally is the same as approach to the rules. It was largely covered by Scarbs.

No, definitely the wing but the teatray was interesting too. This may be it...

I originally posted the McLaren pitching front wing to F1technical back in Melbourne and cross posted it here. McLaren also used a similar system in 2011 where a camera mounted by the wing supports showed it separating at high speed towards the rear of the pylon to achieve the same effect. Charlie told McLaren to stop doing that to such extremes and they reduced it after that.

...if we can find the post and subsequent discussion.

#76 bspec

bspec
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:19

F1 tech net ->

http://www.f1technic...c...&start=1890
http://www.f1technic...c...372244&f=12

#77 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:19

Flavio Briatore ‏@BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva

Can someone traslate the above???..................Please

#78 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:21

A simple solution to all this is for the FIA to mandate the teams to run with a sensor at the mounting point, one at the front of the end plate, and one at the rear of the end plate. If the sensors exceed the deflection test values during normal operation (running down straights ect, excluding hitting curbs or running wide) then the wing is illegal.

#79 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:21

Flavio Briatore ‏@BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva

Can someone traslate the above???..................Please


Japan, Mclaren will have to modify wing - will be less competitive

(he spelled Japan wrong)



Advertisement

#80 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:22

Oh come on...it took me all of two seconds with google translate

Gp jappone McLaren will have to modify wing will be 'less competitive

#81 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,271 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:24

Flavio Briatore ‏@BriatoreFlavio2 oct
Gp jappone la McLaren dovrà modificare alettone sarà' meno competitiva

Can someone traslate the above???..................Please


Using Google translate

GP jappone McLaren will have to modify wing will be 'less competitive

#82 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:27

I don't believe it will be so but if McLaren's performance advantage (or a big part of it) proved to be an "illegal gimmick"...oh my, the irony and hilarity.

#83 korzeniow

korzeniow
  • Member

  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:27

How does he know? FIA didn't even test them yet

#84 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,690 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:30

I think I'll wait for Eddie's confirmation :)

#85 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:34

A simple solution to all this is for the FIA to mandate the teams to run with a sensor at the mounting point, one at the front of the end plate, and one at the rear of the end plate. If the sensors exceed the deflection test values during normal operation (running down straights ect, excluding hitting curbs or running wide) then the wing is illegal.

Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.

#86 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:37

Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.


:rotfl:

Good one

#87 JimiKart

JimiKart
  • Member

  • 445 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:38

Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.


That's a good idea as it seems we need them.

#88 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:41

How does he know? FIA didn't even test them yet

Until he was kicked out of F1, he was in charge of Alonso's contract. Not sure if once the FIA lifted part of the sanction, he came back with the spaniard or not; but he remains a loyal supporter of Fernando.
If he can add his two cents to help his protegee (even in the mindgames against his rivals) he will certainly do so.

#89 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:42

Next year's big thing - flexi sensors.

I'm just stating that if the FIA wanted to clamp down they could, easily.

#90 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:43

Briatore opening his mouth on technical matters?!?! :rotfl:

As Frank Williams put it; "Flavio wouldn't recognize a diffuser even if it was stuffed with money!"

#91 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:51

How does he know? FIA didn't even test them yet

Good question. Also, the wing could have been designed to circumvent changes in weight loads, for example.

What I'm not clear on is whether the FIA can change the method of testing. We know they can change the tested weight, but can they change the direction or application points without a rule change?

The teams have to provide a jig for the purposes of checking for flex, which means a new test might require a new jig and surely you can't just spring that on them at the last minute?

As for Flavio, there's no way of knowing that he's tweeted something he has inside information about, or just a 140-character-limited version of the rumours discussed in this thread.

#92 asmodeo

asmodeo
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 13:59

Briatore opening his mouth on technical matters?!?! :rotfl:

As Frank Williams put it; "Flavio wouldn't recognize a diffuser even if it was stuffed with money!"


It's not about you known, it's about the people you known. And Briatore knowns a lot of people

#93 Talryyn

Talryyn
  • Member

  • 839 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:06

If they have an idea that it is a movable device, won't they be able to get around the normal test limits? If it flexes/pivots by only being mounted with one screw for example, it is obvious you are going to get deflection at speed. IMO this become a movable device.

Edited by Talryyn, 03 October 2012 - 14:06.


#94 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:08

Since the FIA seems to have failed miserably at policing the flexing of the front wing, migth as well just allow it to flex. Because the biggest advantage is not that it flexes but that it flexes while the other competitors dont. The original purpose of the rule was cost saving. I wonder how much money Mclaren and Red Bull saved on developing this ultra complex carbon fiber functional properties that cheats the FIA test.

#95 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:11

What I'm not clear on is whether the FIA can change the method of testing. We know they can change the tested weight, but can they change the direction or application points without a rule change?


From Charlie's Q&A:

"Q: How and why have the tests for front wing deflection changed?
CW: The rules state the wings (as well as all other parts of the bodywork) must be rigid. We have halved the permitted deflection. Previously the wing was tested with a 1kN load and allowed to deflect 20mm. As a result of this the teams were testing wings until they found a design that deflected 19.9mm under a 1kN load. Our allowances are only a guideline for us and we felt the teams were operating outside the spirit of the rules and clearly designing their wings with flexibility in mind. In our view Article 3.15 takes precedence over Article 3.17 where the deflection limits are quantified. Article 3.17.8 allows us to introduce new tests if we feel our guidelines are not being following in an appropriate manner. The new test therefore moves the pressure point rearwards by 10mm and inboard by 5mm with the permitted deflection reduced to 10mm. We have also told the teams that we may apply the load to just one side of the front wing, an asymmetrical test."

And article 3.17.8 says:

"3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 [which is about aerodynamic influence and rigidity of bodywork] 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."


So, to me this sounds like the FIA can test the bodywork for flexibility in whatever way they like to ensure the regulations.

#96 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:13

I don't believe it will be so but if McLaren's performance advantage (or a big part of it) proved to be an "illegal gimmick"...oh my, the irony and hilarity.

LOL indeed. That would be too funny.

#97 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:19

Since the FIA seems to have failed miserably at policing the flexing of the front wing, migth as well just allow it to flex. Because the biggest advantage is not that it flexes but that it flexes while the other competitors dont. The original purpose of the rule was cost saving. I wonder how much money Mclaren and Red Bull saved on developing this ultra complex carbon fiber functional properties that cheats the FIA test.


Are you sure? I always thought that the rule has existed for a very long time and was brought in as a safety measure after the bad security record of early F1 aero, which was seemingly created by amateurs with no understanding of engineering or math, who nevertheless started to dabble in movable aero quickly. But I failed at googling for evidence.

#98 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 14:28

Using Google translate

GP jappone McLaren will have to modify wing will be 'less competitive

:up: thanks

#99 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 15:11

..............
So, to me this sounds like the FIA can test the bodywork for flexibility in whatever way they like to ensure the regulations.

Yes, as long as they notify the teams about the new tests. Otherwise most if not all of them will be declared illegal :)

Advertisement

#100 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 15:28

Are you sure? I always thought that the rule has existed for a very long time and was brought in as a safety measure after the bad security record of early F1 aero, which was seemingly created by amateurs with no understanding of engineering or math, who nevertheless started to dabble in movable aero quickly. But I failed at googling for evidence.


At the end of the nineties, early zero's you had teams developing flexible rear wings for the straights on Monza and flexing front wings of course. They ware banned because, eventually someone would goof up and the flexible part could snap.

Simple solution to this pivoting is to have the front wing have four/six rigid mounting points front and back at least xx cm's apart on the struts so you cannot have a pivot.