New front wing design's safety issues?

Riciardo in first race, then vettel in this race.  Just falls off and goes under the car whilst driving wtf?

Ricciardo's wing failed because he hit a hedge of grass. Vettel's failed because he had massive vibrations that rocked the entire car. Neither did "just fall off".

Actually I was surprised to see Hulkenbeg practically drive over Ricciardo's wing today and it didn't fail.

Edited by Topsu, 31 March 2019 - 17:38.

They still just fell off damaged or not, we have had damaged wings in previous years and I have never seen them fall off like these ones are, usually parts fall off instead.

I think the way Vette's wing failed because of flat spots in less than 1 full lap is very worrying, but I don't think that says much about the new size specs, it's more about the Ferrari's wing specifically,

I do find the wings dangerous because it's easy to touch with another car like with Ricciardo and Hulkenberg, but also I think Sainz tire was damaged by a front wing (?)

They still just fell off damaged or not, we have had damaged wings in previous years and I have never seen them fall off like these ones are, usually parts fall off instead.

I felt it was unusual too. Take Kimi's infamous flat spot back at the Nurburgring in 2005. The suspension buckled first, and it took a number of laps rather than a number of corners.

They still just fell off damaged or not, we have had damaged wings in previous years and I have never seen them fall off like these ones are, usually parts fall off instead.

Edited by Eff1, 31 March 2019 - 17:47.

Plenty of wings have fallen off without contact too over the years. It's in their nature.

Riciardo in first race, then vettel in this race.  Just falls off and goes under the car whilst driving wtf?

Toni Cuquerella (ex-Ferrari engineer and now TV commentator) explained on Spanish TV that the front wing has around 26Hz resonance frequency. If the flatspots happen to reach that frequency, it becomes very unstable and can break, like it happened today.

Edited by prty, 31 March 2019 - 18:17.

Ricciardo hit the grass, so you've only got one example. In the absence of any other evidence that the front wings may be dangerous, you'll need a pattern of incidents before you'll have a noteworthy claim.

I don’t see anything that makes the current wings more dangerous than any other configuration. These things happen.

Yes but it seems to be happening a bit more often recently, weirdly. Not sure if coincidence or if it's the beginning of a pattern emerging with some reason behind it.

Is it? Today's was a weird one, but Australia was just accident damage.

In one of the practice sessions a haas wint was comming lose as well.

Wings have been falling off F1 cars since 1968

Of course the wing got bigger so more probability of hitting something and getting damaged, and the stress on joints is greater so more probability of breaking and falling off. So over the long run there should be correlation and connection between wing size and the number of wing damage/failure. Whether that warrants a concern over its safety is another matter though (my point being it does not, altho I dont like wide front wing itself).

Vettel's wing would have stayed on if he hadn't driven like a muppet.

There is nothing especially dangerous or even different about today's tyres or wings. Any slick tyre is prone to flat spots when the car spins or the brakes lock. It's happened to every racing tyre ever manufactured. 

There is nothing especially dangerous or even different about today's tyres or wings.

Surely there should be a rule to require a ductile aluminium or steel structure inside the front wing, in order to prevent the catastrophic brittle failure of carbon-fibre reinforced plastic material?

Toni Cuquerella (ex-Ferrari engineer and now TV commentator) explained on Spanish TV that the front wing has around 26Hz resonance frequency. If the flatspots happen to reach that frequency, it becomes very unstable and can break, like it happened today.

26Hz would be reached at about 200km/h so that probably fits the speed Vettel was going when the wing broke.

Just get rid of front wings - problem solved.

Just get rid of front wings - problem solved.

Vettel is way ahead of you.

Steve.

They still just fell off damaged or not, we have had damaged wings in previous years and I have never seen them fall off like these ones are, usually parts fall off instead.

We need HistoryFan or Statman to give us a count of how many front wings have fallen off in the last ten years. Must be double figures. I seem to remember a rash of them in 2016, Hulkenberg and Grosjean amongst those affected.

And why the whole wing rather than a part? Probably the mounting failed rather than the wing itself. Ferrari will be double checking their stress calculations at this very moment.

Surely there should be a rule to require a ductile aluminium or steel structure inside the front wing, in order to prevent the catastrophic brittle failure of carbon-fibre reinforced plastic material?

Wings rarely fail mid-span. It's usually at the mounting points or the connections between different components. The wing structure is definitely strong enough. When they do fail it's in a brittle mode rather than a ductile bending, but the strength of the material is clearly up to it.

And why the whole wing rather than a part? Probably the mounting failed rather than the wing itself. Ferrari will be double checking their stress calculations at this very moment.

The mounting points are the stress raisers in the design. The wing structures themselves are incredibly strong and rarely break before the components fall apart. Whenever we see wing failures they're either where flaps or endplates join or where the wings meet the nosecone.

I do think the FIA should increase the area of the front wing mounting, it's getting close to the limits of engineering stability and if you apply a little too much force/vibration it fails.  Vettel had a Front Wing Mounting failure, Ricciardo had a impact cause the damage.

It does need to break in an impact, as part of the crashworthiness of the car.

It does need to break in an impact, as part of the crashworthiness of the car.

Not really, crash tests are made without the front wing cause it doesn't have a significant influence on the impact accelerations.

Not really, crash tests are made without the front wing cause it doesn't have a significant influence on the impact accelerations.

Yeah because it is assumed to have broken off in the impact. It it hadn't then it would affect the nose crash structure.

Maybe not necessarily safety issues, but they are certainly not making the racing any better....like it took away from fans a potential good fight between two ex-teammates with no love lost between them and a Honda and Renault engine. It could not have been scripted better but Brawn, Todt and co. apparently know something or have some interests we don't...

It does need to break in an impact, as part of the crashworthiness of the car.

If you compare how the front wing was mounted 8, 9, 10 years ago you'd see the mounting is a much larger surface area, those wings still came away from the car but were more resilient to vibrations.

If you compare how the front wing was mounted 8, 9, 10 years ago you'd see the mounting is a much larger surface area, those wings still came away from the car but were more resilient to vibrations.

Vettel's wing mounts failed at the top, where they meet the nose. Just want to make sure you're comparing the right part.

https://www.youtube....e=youtu.be&t=42

Vettel's wing mounts failed at the top, where they meet the nose. Just want to make sure you're comparing the right part.

 

https://www.youtube....e=youtu.be&t=42

Both ends of the mounting have shrunk over the last decade, they are not sufficient for the loads they are put under when driving on a 50p tyre.

Actually impressed by the front wing not falling of here:

Both ends of the mounting have shrunk over the last decade, they are not sufficient for the loads they are put under when driving on a 50p tyre.

You can be assured that the mountings have always been strong enough to survive the loads expected of them, and never stronger than they needed to be. Surviving a excessive vibration like Vettel had, where it's so bad you can see the car vibrating, is never going to be a design consideration.

That said, I'm taking your word for it that the mounting points are smaller, that you've got some measurements of cross-sectional areas to work from and that you know the relative strengths of the particular layups of carbon fibre.

Actually impressed by the front wing not falling of here:
 

That was such a great catch from the broadcast. It's like the F1 version of someone side swiping your wing mirror.

Is it? Today's was a weird one, but Australia was just accident damage.

Not just Ricciardo and Vettel. Also Kubica's whole front wing seemed to go under his car very easily when he touched Gasly's rear wheel.

Vettel's wing mounts failed at the top, where they meet the nose. Just want to make sure you're comparing the right part.

 

https://www.youtube....e=youtu.be&t=42

Given that it is accepted that there is a real danger if the wing gets stuck under the two front wheels, maybe the should mandate that this part of the wing should be the strongest part of the whole thing.

I felt it was unusual too. Take Kimi's infamous flat spot back at the Nurburgring in 2005. The suspension buckled first, and it took a number of laps rather than a number of corners.

I feel its a different kind of vibration compared to vibration on one tyre and all four tyres being flat spotted. One tyre stresses the suspension on that corner where as 4 flatspots pitch the whole car back and forth. No wonder a resonant frequency was found somewhere on the car.

I don’t see anything that makes the current wings more dangerous than any other configuration. These things happen.

No the tyres are pure crap. One small spin and they are completely destroyed. Kimi did the 2005 'ring race in damaged tyre and almost won it. After driving almost half

of the race on the damaged tyre. Cant quite imagine that happening now.

Actually impressed by the front wing not falling of here:

 

This is what I call impressed:

No the tyres are pure crap. One small spin and they are completely destroyed. Kimi did the 2005 'ring race in damaged tyre and almost won it. After driving almost half

of the race on the damaged tyre. Cant quite imagine that happening now.

They are crap, but you're not really comparing apples with apples there are you? The tyres were supposed to last a full race distance by regulation in 2005. FIA/Liberty have asked Pirelli to create 2-stop races (at least) with these tyres.

I do think the FIA should increase the area of the front wing mounting, it's getting close to the limits of engineering stability and if you apply a little too much force/vibration it fails.  Vettel had a Front Wing Mounting failure, Ricciardo had a impact cause the damage.

it's up to the teams to make sure stuff doesn't fall off their cars. They're the first ones to lose. Why should the FIA do anything?

Actualy Vettel just spinned without touching anything. It shouldn't be causing that. I found it strange to. Ricciardo's case in aus is diferent. 

Ricciardo's wing failed because he hit a hedge of grass. Vettel's failed because he had massive vibrations that rocked the entire car. Neither did "just fall off".

 

Actually I was surprised to see Hulkenbeg practically drive over Ricciardo's wing today and it didn't fail.

The fact that Vettel's wing fell off after a spin and a flat spot is quite surprising, rather than "meh" in my book, I wouldn't have expected that ordinarily, he never left the track or hit anything.  

One thing I noticed in Bahrain is that Ricciardo I think it was basically ran over Hulk's front wing and rather than it exploding into a shower of carbon fibre, it basically sprang back as if it were made of rubber or something. Anyone else notice?

Just add tethers inside the pillars that connect the wing to the nose, like the tire tethers that stop them from deattaching completely.

Just add tethers inside the pillars that connect the wing to the nose, like the tire tethers that stop them from deattaching completely.

Interestingly enough, in days gone by there are examples of both front and rear wings being tethered to the chassis, e.g.

Interestingly enough, in days gone by there are examples of both front and rear wings being tethered to the chassis, e.g.

Edited by Beri, 02 April 2019 - 13:12.