Jump to content


Photo

McLaren and Red Bull have pivoting front wing?


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#151 medeni73

medeni73
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:50

Fia helping Ferrari. So what's new?


New is that large tin foil hat on your head...

Advertisement

#152 Tuxy

Tuxy
  • Member

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:53

Fia helping Ferrari. So what's new?


I hope you are aware that the Fia holds which ever team's hand that influence stronger championship for ratings.

It exists in everything (sports, news, organisations, politics etc), it's the norm and there's nothing we can do about it except turn off the TV and walk away.

Let's just stick to the topic ok?



#153 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 14:54

Fia helping Ferrari. So what's new?

Comments like these sure aren't.

I hope you are aware that the Fia holds which ever team's hand that influence stronger championship for ratings.

It exists in everything (sports, news, organisations, politics etc), it's the norm and there's nothing we can do about it except turn off the TV and walk away.

Let's just stick to the topic ok?

Marussia could have brought this up with the same result.

Edited by Seanspeed, 04 October 2012 - 14:55.


#154 JimiKart

JimiKart
  • Member

  • 443 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 15:22

I hope you are aware that the Fia holds which ever team's hand that influence stronger championship for ratings.

It exists in everything (sports, news, organisations, politics etc), it's the norm and there's nothing we can do about it except turn off the TV and walk away.

Let's just stick to the topic ok?


It seems you have a real problem with comprehension, so I'll suggest you try to do better next time, perhaps by starting with the understanding that if you have moveable areo devices that will pass a test for same - you might have to remove said device if the test is strengthened, then your car gets slower - I know it's hard to deal with thought that your teams recent speed might be not from a drivers input, but from a moveable areo device - but you'll soon learn to live with it...

#155 revmeister

revmeister
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 October 2012 - 18:05

Fia helping Ferrari. So what's new?


Yes everyone know that Jean Todt just loves Alonso and would do anything to help him win! :rolleyes:


#156 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 18:12

Is anybody asking why the FIA don't seem to be able to make a solid test for all these front wings?

How many times have they had to change their tests now? It's getting a little ridiculous that the teams keep finding ways around it and the FIA takes months to find a test that will stop them.

#157 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,474 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 18:28

Is anybody asking why the FIA don't seem to be able to make a solid test for all these front wings?

How many times have they had to change their tests now? It's getting a little ridiculous that the teams keep finding ways around it and the FIA takes months to find a test that will stop them.


If you have any ideas on a foolproof test please share them...

#158 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,220 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 19:25

If you have any ideas on a foolproof test please share them...


I don't claim to have any understanding on the subject, but it seems to me that teams will test whether their wings are working the way they want them to by putting them in wind tunnels or applying sensors or other such things. Surely the FIA could mandate testing along these lines with the teams forced to provide datato prove that their wings are compliant?

#159 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 19:31

If you have any ideas on a foolproof test please share them...


What about throwing the "bringing the sport into disrepute" article at the infringing teams? Whenever FIA has applied that article, teams have behaved themselves and have stopped doing whatever they were doing.

And after all, it is a shame that in the pinnacle of motorsports teams are not able to mount a front wing in a way that does not tilt with increasing speed.

Edited by e34, 04 October 2012 - 19:32.


Advertisement

#160 BelgianRaceFan

BelgianRaceFan
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 19:37

Give everybody the same front & rear wings provided by the FIA, the easiest solution. :)

#161 kpchelsea

kpchelsea
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 04 October 2012 - 20:24

The original AMuS article didn't though. They said the FIA took offence in Singapore when RBR overdid it (again)

Would that be yet another race win for Red Bull to be told they need to change the car afterwards?

#162 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 04 October 2012 - 20:27

it is a shame that in the pinnacle of motorsports teams are not able to mount a front wing in a way that does not tilt with increasing speed.

Its really not that big a deal.

#163 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 20:52

If you have any ideas on a foolproof test please share them...


Well for a start if the wings aren't allowed to flex at all then why aren't they tested under racing loads instead of the comparatively lightweight tests the FIA has been using in the past...

That would have quickly put a stop to most of the flex wing controversies over the last couple of years.

Maybe it could be included alongside the nose cone crash tests the FIA does each year.

#164 Cool Beans

Cool Beans
  • Member

  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 04 October 2012 - 21:36

If you have any ideas on a foolproof test please share them...

Place standard FIA mandated distance sensors on wing, drive it one lap around a track at normal race speed during any practice session to get it approved. Only a certain amount of flex is allowed.

Any mechanism, activity or structural design intended for increasing this flex during race will be met with serious punishment. It is solely the teams' responsibility to ensure they do not exceed this approved amount of flexing during the race.

If a rival or FIA officials provide evidence showing a team's wings flexing more than allowed during the race, the team will be asked to explain themselves to the stewards; if they fail to provide sufficient evidence showing it was out of their hands a race ban will be issued.

Edited by beancounter, 04 October 2012 - 21:45.


#165 e34

e34
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:48

Its really not that big a deal.


I know, I know.

But what I meant was that FIA got it wrong when it accepted the "infinite whatever is not possible" argument. If it is not possible from a technical point of view, it should be scrapped from the regulation, or enforced to the absurd, so teams do make their best effort to comply with the regulation.

Taking the understanding stance FIA seems to have taken after the flexifloor in 2007 leads to what knucklesagain said the other day: as infinite stiffness is not possible, let's put here a hinge and we'll be race legal anyway. FIA should take exactly the opposite stance, and if teams have to use a heavy duty steel beam as front wing, attached with two dozen high grade rivets, so be it. Because, let's be frank, everybody and his dog know that front wings flex and tilt not because teams cannot do better, but because they can get away with it.

However, it is indeed telling (both about FIA regulations and about this forum debating) that you thought that it was a serious proposal to be taken verbatim.

#166 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:31

Place standard FIA mandated distance sensors on wing



There's no such thing, you 're confusing it with ride height sensors but they measure distance to the ground, flex is a different thing. The only way to measure flex is these dudes

Posted Image

#167 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:10

There's no such thing, you 're confusing it with ride height sensors but they measure distance to the ground, flex is a different thing. The only way to measure flex is these dudes

Posted Image


Looks like a Predator UAV :lol:

#168 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:26

There's no such thing, you 're confusing it with ride height sensors but they measure distance to the ground, flex is a different thing. The only way to measure flex is these dudes

Posted Image

Walrus nose.....Shark fin.......octopus exhaust.......and now dolphin head

#169 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 13:43

There's no such thing, you 're confusing it with ride height sensors but they measure distance to the ground, flex is a different thing. The only way to measure flex is these dudes

Posted Image


I may be confused, but how is measuring flex so much different to ride height? If, say, the FW end plates are 5 cm from the ground in the pits and 1 cm at the end of a straight, can't this be measured by distance to the ground?

#170 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,089 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 13:45

I may be confused, but how is measuring flex so much different to ride height? If, say, the FW end plates are 5 cm from the ground in the pits and 1 cm at the end of a straight, can't this be measured by distance to the ground?

suspension is moving as well?

#171 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:00

They can hardly make a glitch-free DRS activation system, imagine what a mess it will be with such sensors giving false readings.

#172 JonathanProc

JonathanProc
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 15:39

I may be confused, but how is measuring flex so much different to ride height? If, say, the FW end plates are 5 cm from the ground in the pits and 1 cm at the end of a straight, can't this be measured by distance to the ground?


You also have to take into consideration bumps, camber of corners, elevation changes etc...which could skew the results.

#173 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 October 2012 - 15:50

Walrus nose.....Shark fin.......octopus exhaust.......and now dolphin head

Don't forget MercGP's platypus from a couple of years back.

#174 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 16:53

suspension is moving as well?


You also have to take into consideration bumps, camber of corners, elevation changes etc...which could skew the results.



True, but isn't it the same when measuring ride height?

#175 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,220 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 19:16

Just put a whole bunch of sensors all over the car. Surely it would be possible to analyse the data and determine which parts were moving, and by how much, with relation to other parts.

#176 wonk123

wonk123
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 October 2012 - 23:44

Just put a whole bunch of sensors all over the car. Surely it would be possible to analyse the data and determine which parts were moving, and by how much, with relation to other parts.


Yeah it really shouldn't be that hard. It could be as simple as a laser pointer under the centre of the wing, and if the wing bends or twists too much, it hits a sensor. Obviously small readings from instantaneous fluctuations would be different to the sensor being tripped for 3 seconds along the straight.

#177 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 00:15

I may be confused, but how is measuring flex so much different to ride height? If, say, the FW end plates are 5 cm from the ground in the pits and 1 cm at the end of a straight, can't this be measured by distance to the ground?


No, there's suspension movement, tyre compression, road camber, kerbs, all those things influence the distance to the ground without actually meaning there is any flex in anything. A distance sensor for example will tell you there is flex on the left side of front wing in the picture below, but it's actually just road camber and load on the left side tyres/suspension. Same applies when running over kerbs etc (half the car on the kerb, half on the road, clearance is different)

Posted Image

#178 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,859 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 October 2012 - 00:48

True, but isn't it the same when measuring ride height?


FIA gave up trying to measure ride height, that's why they brought in the plank.



#179 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 01:16

No, there's suspension movement, tyre compression, road camber, kerbs, all those things influence the distance to the ground without actually meaning there is any flex in anything. A distance sensor for example will tell you there is flex on the left side of front wing in the picture below, but it's actually just road camber and load on the left side tyres/suspension. Same applies when running over kerbs etc (half the car on the kerb, half on the road, clearance is different)


Yes I know all these things exist, but they also exist when measuring ride height, and after all it was you, not me, who said someone is measuring ride height with lasers:

There's no such thing, you 're confusing it with ride height sensors but they measure distance to the ground, flex is a different thing. The only way to measure flex is these dudes


So I don't understand why one would be able to measure ride height under the influence of suspension movement, tyre compression, road camber, and kerbs - but not wing flex.

FIA gave up trying to measure ride height, that's why they brought in the plank.


That's what I thought until Engel talked about laser ride height sensors.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 06 October 2012 - 01:20.


Advertisement

#180 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,623 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:01

You need 6 ground sensors, 3 front 3 rear, 2 of them in the middle and 2 at each end. Then you record some laps and the 6 sensors would give you enough for a model of the major wing behaviour including pitch, roll and flex across. If you used a few more you would measure flex back to front also, but 2 is enough to measure any mounting flex.

It would show the behaviour of a mechanism like the one used here in great detail.


#181 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:06

No, there's suspension movement, tyre compression, road camber, kerbs, all those things influence the distance to the ground without actually meaning there is any flex in anything. A distance sensor for example will tell you there is flex on the left side of front wing in the picture below, but it's actually just road camber and load on the left side tyres/suspension. Same applies when running over kerbs etc (half the car on the kerb, half on the road, clearance is different)

Posted Image


Not saying I think they should measure flex, but I would think that considering the technology involved in the world today - let alone F1 and other motorsports - they could easily develop software that would take into account readings from all sensors and track data such as camber/bumps etc and work out whether something is flexing or not. MotoGP uses GPS to alter the engine mapping based on what corner the bike is at, computer games developers 'map' the tracks through laser scanning/gyroscopics to reproduce the tracks in almost perfect detail. Hell, even almost 20 years ago F1 was using sensors to control active suspension systems on cars at full race speeds. Should the FIA want to it could be done...

#182 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:23

computer games developers 'map' the tracks through laser scanning/gyroscopics to reproduce the tracks in almost perfect detail.


And the teams do it themselves (or have it done by someone) - probably in even higher detail - for their simulators.


#183 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:27

And the teams do it themselves (or have it done by someone) - probably in even higher detail - for their simulators.


Exactly...

#184 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:42

Yes I know all these things exist, but they also exist when measuring ride height, and after all it was you, not me, who said someone is measuring ride height with lasers:



So I don't understand why one would be able to measure ride height under the influence of suspension movement, tyre compression, road camber, and kerbs - but not wing flex.



That's what I thought until Engel talked about laser ride height sensors.


ride height is just a completely different issue. You don't care if the left side of the tub is 20mm off the ground and the right side is 25mm off the ground, so long as you are not wearing off the plank you are golden. And there is no regulatory requirement to have an x mm ground clearance at all times, nor is there a regulatory requirement to have the same ground clearance at standstill in the pitlane and the same under full load out on track. If the right side of the wing is 25mm off the ground and the left is 20mm then you have "flex" even though there is no flex. And similarly you don't care if the wing is 1mm of the ground, so long as it's not getting down there by flexing

Not saying I think they should measure flex, but I would think that considering the technology involved in the world today - let alone F1 and other motorsports - they could easily develop software that would take into account readings from all sensors and track data such as camber/bumps etc and work out whether something is flexing or not. MotoGP uses GPS to alter the engine mapping based on what corner the bike is at, computer games developers 'map' the tracks through laser scanning/gyroscopics to reproduce the tracks in almost perfect detail. Hell, even almost 20 years ago F1 was using sensors to control active suspension systems on cars at full race speeds. Should the FIA want to it could be done...


That's interpreted. You want to filter sensor data though 10 different parameters to establish flex, and then use it to regulate. So the FIA at the end of the race has to run a simulation of say 70 laps worth of sensor data times 24 cars to establish if anybody's front wing is flexing.It's just silly. That's like using smoots to measure distance, sure it can be done but ... is there a point? If you want to measure flex you use tension sensors, that's the only accurate way to measure it.


#185 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:49

for instance you could run lower tire pressures and fool the whole system into thinking your wing flexes too much..

There's a reason they don't directly regulate ride-height.

#186 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:56

for instance you could run lower tire pressures and fool the whole system into thinking your wing flexes too much..

There's a reason they don't directly regulate ride-height.


a slow puncture would have the same effect. Or just changes in track temperature.

Teams use ride height sensors as a setup input, a way to establish the minimum clearance they need to not wear off the plank. My reply was to someone who suggested using the same sensors to measure flex from a regulatory point of view.

#187 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:05

That's interpreted. You want to filter sensor data though 10 different parameters to establish flex, and then use it to regulate. So the FIA at the end of the race has to run a simulation of say 70 laps worth of sensor data times 24 cars to establish if anybody's front wing is flexing.It's just silly. That's like using smoots to measure distance, sure it can be done but ... is there a point? If you want to measure flex you use tension sensors, that's the only accurate way to measure it.


No need to simulate all 24 cars for 70 laps. Randomly select cars for data 'testing' - although I doubt the Marussias, HRT's and Caterhams are going be an issue. Obviously the cars that are under suspicion would be selected - in the current case that would be McLaren and RBR, but you might also select Ferrari, Merc and Lotus for instance.

They also don't have to run 70 laps worth of data, they could randomly choose say 5 laps from the 70 - it is likely that if a wing is flexing it will be doing it on almost every lap under full race speed ie. not including SC laps. There are also ways of reducing the data they have to trawl through by probably disregarding data from sections of track that aren't fast enough to cause any flexing - so that counts out hairpins etc - although they will need some data from these sections to use as a baseline to obviously compare possible flexing against.

Like I said could be done all depends on how much the FIA/teams/Bernie want to do it...



#188 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:08

for instance you could run lower tire pressures and fool the whole system into thinking your wing flexes too much..

There's a reason they don't directly regulate ride-height.


a slow puncture would have the same effect. Or just changes in track temperature.


But they have sensors to read tire pressure so 'in theory' the flex measuring software could take that variable into account - same for track temp - and allow for that in it's calculations.

Not saying they should do it, just saying they could if they wanted to...

Edited by krapmeister, 06 October 2012 - 03:10.


#189 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:18

But they have sensors to read tire pressure so 'in theory' the flex measuring software could take that variable into account and allow for that in it's calculations...


ok then, what about fuel load? Ride-height is too dynamic compared to the track surface and whatever predictable measurements they can collect. That's why there's a plank under the car.

IMO it's not worth the effort to be so pro-active about flex, with the current static tests it prevents teams from doing really crazy things, and as long as the test is passed it's probably not worth making a shitstorm out of it..

#190 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:22

But they have sensors to read tire pressure so 'in theory' the flex measuring software could take that variable into account - same for track temp - and allow for that in it's calculations.

Not saying they should do it, just saying they could if they wanted to...


They could also dunk the cars in a giant water containers then measure the mass of water they displace. But instead they just use scales to weigh them.

#191 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:32

ok then, what about fuel load? Ride-height is too dynamic compared to the track surface and whatever predictable measurements they can collect. That's why there's a plank under the car.

IMO it's not worth the effort to be so pro-active about flex, with the current static tests it prevents teams from doing really crazy things, and as long as the test is passed it's probably not worth making a shitstorm out of it..


Again fuel load would be another variable the system could take into account. I really don't see what would be so hard about creating software that would take into account all sorts of these variables that the teams already monitor and track characteristics (which are already monitored/mapped) - you can be sure that if active suspension were currently allowed they'd be running software that in effect does the same thing, and in essence were almost 20 years ago.

Agree that it probably isn't required atm, and I doubt the FIA/teams/Bernie would really be wanting such a thing anyway - just saying that IMO if they wanted to it could be done...

#192 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:34

They could also dunk the cars in a giant water containers then measure the mass of water they displace. But instead they just use scales to weigh them.


Not really a relevent comparison now is it?

#193 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:04

Not really a relevent comparison now is it?



yeah it is

you are dreaming up a scenario where the FIA employs 10 engineers to sit down and analyze tyre pressures, suspension loads, overlay gps tracks to account for variances due to different racing lines, factor in environmental changes and differing fuel loads to conclude whether a wing flexes. In a theoretical bulletin board situation sure, they can do all that and use military satellites to measure the car's rear wing dimensions, why not, it can be done, the CIA has analysts that do similar things. In practice it's the same thing as dunking cars in giant vats of water instead of using scales.

#194 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:17

That dolphin head thing is the only realistic way to do it, otherwise you measure against the track surface and you introduce all sorts of variables that are too fickle to be reliable.

You'd have to take in fuel load which means you need to know about precise fuel consumption from the moment the car gets going, you need to know exactly why the suspension deflects X amount at any given time... It's actually easier to turn shit to gold with alchemy than penalizing someone with that system.

#195 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:38

yeah it is

you are dreaming up a scenario where the FIA employs 10 engineers to sit down and analyze tyre pressures, suspension loads, overlay gps tracks to account for variances due to different racing lines, factor in environmental changes and differing fuel loads to conclude whether a wing flexes. In a theoretical bulletin board situation sure, they can do all that and use military satellites to measure the car's rear wing dimensions, why not, it can be done, the CIA has analysts that do similar things. In practice it's the same thing as dunking cars in giant vats of water instead of using scales.


I'm not dreaming up anything of the sort - where did I say the FIA would be employing a team of engineers to pore over the data? I was suggesting that considering the amount of variables already monitored/measured, someone (the FIA, although perhaps using one of the teams ala McLaren and the common ECU) developing software that takes these into account to monitor for potential flexing of the front wing wasn't an impossible task. Can be mandated and perhaps tagged onto the common ecu. And IMO wouldn't be a hugely expensive undertaking either - no need for the hiring of military statelites and all that...

As for your dunkig cars in water analogy - if you're going to insist on using that you've got it the wrong way around. Why use scales when you can dunk cars in giant vats of water?



#196 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:40

That dolphin head thing is the only realistic way to do it, otherwise you measure against the track surface and you introduce all sorts of variables that are too fickle to be reliable.

You'd have to take in fuel load which means you need to know about precise fuel consumption from the moment the car gets going, you need to know exactly why the suspension deflects X amount at any given time... It's actually easier to turn shit to gold with alchemy than penalizing someone with that system.


So do you think that an active suspension system wouldn't be workable on today's F1 cars then?

The dolphin head thing is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to do it, and is why the teams use it for testing.

Edited by krapmeister, 06 October 2012 - 04:42.


#197 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:50

Uhh, are you guys serious? There are very easy ways to measure movement of the wings. The problem is that it's too intrusive and it's really not worth it. The teams already have a ton of stuff they need to test and do in practice sessions, there is no time to be bothering with pointless ideas like this.

The rules just needs to be clear, so everyone is on a level playing field.

#198 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:54

I'm not dreaming up anything of the sort - where did I say the FIA would be employing a team of engineers to pore over the data? I was suggesting that considering the amount of variables already monitored/measured, someone (the FIA, although perhaps using one of the teams ala McLaren and the common ECU) developing software that takes these into account to monitor for potential flexing of the front wing wasn't an impossible task. Can be mandated and perhaps tagged onto the common ecu. And IMO wouldn't be a hugely expensive undertaking either - no need for the hiring of military statelites and all that...

As for your dunkig cars in water analogy - if you're going to insist on using that you've got it the wrong way around. Why use scales when you can dunk cars in giant vats of water?


Because in your data array you have no data for wing flex. You are using other data to ascertain wing flex. Which is also known as interpreting data. Which requires a human being to do. And you are suggesting using an interpretation of indirect data as a regulatory framework. A computer model will not tell you if a wing is flexing by design or oscillating because you just hit a bump or a kerb, it can't tell you if wing A is X mm off the ground while stiffer sprung car B has a a wing y mm of the ground and raked car C has a wing z mm off the ground at the same point in the track, you need a human to do that. Hence the dunking in water thing. Trying to establish something without actually measuring it directly. When there is a way to measure it directly.

And the ECU is just a database, it's not a cray supercomputer running models on the fly. The ECU just dumps data on your lap which you (the engineer) have to analyze. You should check out the supercomputers the teams use to run their models and simulators on to get an idea of how "simple" it is to do.

So do you think that an active suspension system wouldn't be workable on today's F1 cars then?

The dolphin head thing is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to do it, and is why the teams use it for testing.


an active suspension system is perfectly doable today, because its job is to keep the car a set distance off the ground. The car (tub+engine+gearbox). Its job isn't to measure if the second element in the rear wing deforms by 3 or 5 mm under load by measuring wind pressure at the exit of the diffuser.

Edited by engel, 06 October 2012 - 04:59.


#199 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,140 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:50

Teams use ride height sensors as a setup input, a way to establish the minimum clearance they need to not wear off the plank. My reply was to someone who suggested using the same sensors to measure flex from a regulatory point of view.


Ok that clears it up then, thanks

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 06 October 2012 - 05:51.


Advertisement

#200 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 06:53

If you did want to use sensors to measure the flex, you wouldn't bother with ride height sensors. That's just adding in a huge set of variables. You'd want something that could just measure the relative positions of the points on the wing to a fixed part of the car such as the nose. Basically you'd want to be using a less intrusive version of the dolphin nose thing up there.

KISS Keep it simple, stupid.