60 replies to this topic

[DiStefano]

How is that supposed to stop the wing from flexing?

It doesn't look legal to me.

The FiA said they wanted them to do what Renault did




What do you think?

[P1McLarenMercedes]

fia didnt say anything about renault....

[wonk123]

nice peice of lateral thinking. If for some reason it is deemed illegal I am sure they can quickly make something like the renault support. I must say this is elegant though.

[Mauseri]

I don think this should be flexing anymore. Maybe McLaren think it's more important to keep the underside of the wing clear.

[JForce]

Without putting in place specifics on the amount of flex and **** like that, I think it's a perfectly acceptable solution

[saudoso]

The fact that it looks taped to the nose cone bothers me a little, but seems good enough. And yes, they moved the setting screws to the top of the wing, likelly the lower airspeed area.

EDIT: looking at it a little more, this seems to be a lat minute fix. The setting screws and the tape... They must have something better set for Barcelona next week.

[saudoso]

Or... it's like that to keep the MB star untouched

[Melbourne Park]

The FIA should photograph the cars to remove any flex.

It's quite possible to have a composite than compresses too. McLaren must have decided it was easier to have it stretch though.

And again, the mounting point on the Renault for instance might give way itself. Ross Brawn said a year or so ago, that the cars were flexing all over now ... he did not see where it would end. The FIA really needs to get a photographic system that assures the car's profile is the same on the mainstraight at maximum speed, as it is under heavy braking at medium speed, and under a medium speed corner.

[JForce]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The FIA should photograph the cars to remove any flex.

It's a ridiculous notion though. You can't remove any flex. You can try and limit it by following the simple things the FIA does....slot gap seperators, this stay on the bridge wings, but you can't eliminate it.

When the new rules come in there will be less appendages which are freely able to flex in this manner, so it will be easier to spot things which could flex excessively, like the front and rear wings.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by JForce


It's a ridiculous notion though. You can't remove any flex. You can try and limit it by following the simple things the FIA does....slot gap seperators, this stay on the bridge wings, but you can't eliminate it.

When the new rules come in there will be less appendages which are freely able to flex in this manner, so it will be easier to spot things which could flex excessively, like the front and rear wings.

There are areas of engineering where flex is limited. I am talking about limiting the degree of flex, so that it is not visible to a time slot camera. The fact is that engineers have deliberately designed in flex, in order to benefit the car. I say stop it down to non visible changes. Put six cameras on the car, and have a computer program to sequence the car profiles - if one changes, then its illegal.

The fact is that F1 cars carry large amounts of ballast - let them put some of that weight into stiffer components.

When a yacht flexes, the rig looses power, so yachts are designed to be stiff. Yachts show how composites can limit flex. On a contrary tale, I remember Australia's Gordon Ingate telling me before the Kiel Olympic Games, that his Tempest yacht flexed, making him faster off the wind due to a change in its hull shape. As a teenager I said to him that flexing would be contrary to what makes boats fast because a stiff boat is a fast boat. Sure enough, Gordon was dead slow in Kiel.

Now boats are made of carbon fibre, they are super light, and they are immensely stiff. They don't flex, they just break. The masts flex, but they are designed too (which allows them to change the wing depth of the sail, so in stronger breezes the "wing" can become less powerful).

So - tell the teams to make everything stable and avoid flex and twist. Use cameras to ensure that parts are not being twisted or move, and use a pixel level for photographic comparisons to ensure flex really is down to less than one micron in movement.

This is all simple a- the problem is it would not suit the big teams, who like flex because it gives them a competitive advantage over other teams. Stop flex and twist this way and a lot of money in developing flex pars would be stopped as well.

[peroa]

Originally posted by saudoso
Or... it's like that to keep the MB star untouched

That`s more likely, IMHO ...

[J2NH]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


There are areas of engineering where flex is limited. I am talking about limiting the degree of flex, so that it is not visible to a time slot camera. The fact is that engineers have deliberately designed in flex, in order to benefit the car. I say stop it down to non visible changes. Put six cameras on the car, and have a computer program to sequence the car profiles - if one changes, then its illegal.

The fact is that F1 cars carry large amounts of ballast - let them put some of that weight into stiffer components.

When a yacht flexes, the rig looses power, so yachts are designed to be stiff. Yachts show how composites can limit flex. On a contrary tale, I remember Australia's Gordon Ingate telling me before the Kiel Olympic Games, that his Tempest yacht flexed, making him faster off the wind due to a change in its hull shape. As a teenager I said to him that flexing would be contrary to what makes boats fast because a stiff boat is a fast boat. Sure enough, Gordon was dead slow in Kiel.

Now boats are made of carbon fibre, they are super light, and they are immensely stiff. They don't flex, they just break. The masts flex, but they are designed too (which allows them to change the wing depth of the sail, so in stronger breezes the "wing" can become less powerful).

So - tell the teams to make everything stable and avoid flex and twist. Use cameras to ensure that parts are not being twisted or move, and use a pixel level for photographic comparisons to ensure flex really is down to less than one micron in movement.

This is all simple a- the problem is it would not suit the big teams, who like flex because it gives them a competitive advantage over other teams. Stop flex and twist this way and a lot of money in developing flex pars would be stopped as well.

The simplest way would be to just introduce spec cars into F1. Eliminate the engineering and you are done. What flexing there is would be universal across the board so no one team would gain an advantage. Tons of money would be saved but it would not be F1. F1 is part driver and part engineering, so the best driver, best team argument never gets settled but I for one am okay with that. McLaren did not bend the rules, they passed scrutineering and their cars were legal. FIA tightened the regs and McLaren have responded with a change.

[Nobody]

The title of the thread should read "McLaren adhering to the new rules"

McLaren get a win, and the FIArrari fills its pants again.

[DOHC]

My guess is that McLaren's solution allows a bit of lateral vibration without the central support failing. This could also be an advantage if your endplate gets a nudge in Turn 1. Should such an incident cause the central support to fail and you go on to finish the race in parc fermé you're probably going to be DQ'ed...

[JForce]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


There are areas of engineering where flex is limited. I am talking about limiting the degree of flex, so that it is not visible to a time slot camera. The fact is that engineers have deliberately designed in flex, in order to benefit the car. I say stop it down to non visible changes. Put six cameras on the car, and have a computer program to sequence the car profiles - if one changes, then its illegal.

The fact is that F1 cars carry large amounts of ballast - let them put some of that weight into stiffer components.

When a yacht flexes, the rig looses power, so yachts are designed to be stiff. Yachts show how composites can limit flex. On a contrary tale, I remember Australia's Gordon Ingate telling me before the Kiel Olympic Games, that his Tempest yacht flexed, making him faster off the wind due to a change in its hull shape. As a teenager I said to him that flexing would be contrary to what makes boats fast because a stiff boat is a fast boat. Sure enough, Gordon was dead slow in Kiel.

Now boats are made of carbon fibre, they are super light, and they are immensely stiff. They don't flex, they just break. The masts flex, but they are designed too (which allows them to change the wing depth of the sail, so in stronger breezes the "wing" can become less powerful).

So - tell the teams to make everything stable and avoid flex and twist. Use cameras to ensure that parts are not being twisted or move, and use a pixel level for photographic comparisons to ensure flex really is down to less than one micron in movement.

This is all simple a- the problem is it would not suit the big teams, who like flex because it gives them a competitive advantage over other teams. Stop flex and twist this way and a lot of money in developing flex pars would be stopped as well.

The amount of money saved on engineering flex (which is minor imho) would be vastly outweighed by the HUGE sums that would be needed to put in place the system you're talking about. It would be the biggest waste of time ever. Flexing isn't that big an issue, especially after next year.

[Mika Mika]

I dont see how it's any different, It's just held from the top rather then the bottom....

The under edge of the bridge wing (the important surface) is left unbastardised.

[jeremy durward]

Originally posted by DOHC
My guess is that McLaren's solution allows a bit of lateral vibration without the central support failing. This could also be an advantage if your endplate gets a nudge in Turn 1. Should such an incident cause the central support to fail and you go on to finish the race in parc fermé you're probably going to be DQ'ed...

not sure about the f1 rules but most race series i know of allow for race damage. i think the main reason would simply be the underside of a wing section is the important one in a race car downforce setup. not that the centre section is contributing much if anything. i can't see it flexing anymore than the renault solution.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by jeremy durward
i can't see it flexing anymore than the renault solution.

Good point about race damage

As for the flexing, I agree. The difference I mention is that McLaren's solution would in all likelihood be less prone to breaking because of lateral loads.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by JForce
The amount of money saved on engineering flex (which is minor imho) would be vastly outweighed by the HUGE sums that would be needed to put in place the system you're talking about. It would be the biggest waste of time ever. Flexing isn't that big an issue, especially after next year.

Checking flex by visual change could be computerized, and would engage one or two people, and not engineers. It would be cheap to run.

Its already been happening for several years, by people making stills of the broadcast videos.

Huge is a big word, but it just does not fit what would be a simple process. Law enforcement now uses pictures of people matched by computer images, you have your photo taken when entering the USA, matching changes in structures would be quite simple.

The only complexity would be around the margins of how much one will tolerate movement.

As to saving money - its being spent already.

I have a lifetime of aero involvement through sailing, at a high level, and that sport is much about adjusting aero to conditions. A good sailor will look at a sail and tell you if its working - you might have no idea. America's Cup yachts have stripes painted on their sails, so that computers via on board cameras can view the angle changes in the lines and assist with both on water and off water speed issues, due to the changes in the line angles affecting the shape of the sail. One could even paint very thin lines on the F1 cars and measure them - its all quite straight forward.

The biggest issue IMO is the need for photographing underside parts of the car to examine flex - and IMO now one has realized what is going on out of the camera's view.

On could even take an F1 car and put it into a wind tunnel and test it - but that would increase costs quite a bit. However, once you disqualified some cars, then teams would realize its not worth cheating the gaps in the measurement procedures.

Its unfair that a team can use more flex, which results in better braking, higher top, better grip out of corners and better cornering due to something which is essentially an active technology. There has been a continual attempt to slow F1 cars down, and high speed is seen as a major safety issue. Yet the flex of the cars is what facilitates the high speeds, hence resulting in smaller engines being put into F1 cars, and numerous changes to aero configurations. And also its the aero issues that have hurt overtaking.

Teams spend fortunes on fine tuning aero - and much of it is flex related, because its very complex (like sail shape is).

Simply cut down the illegal flex to tiny amounts, and we'd all be better off, and it would also save money, sure, but the teams would spend it somewhere else IMO.

But the flex issue is a measurement deficiency.

Teams that argue some flex happened due to an item being too light are not telling the truth.

Ross Brawn talked about this last year, and he said soon the whole car would flex. Maybe Honda are working on that right now. But it is in fact easy to fix, with some lateral measurement thinking.

[ViMaMo]

Max bent a lot of things. He bent mclaren, he bent ron, he bent a lot of teams, he bent blonds, he bent himself.

Mclaren isnt bending anything.

[jeremy durward]

Originally posted by DOHC


As for the flexing, I agree. The difference I mention is that McLaren's solution would in all likelihood be less prone to breaking because of lateral loads.

yep, agree with that. given the breakage and following accident with FA that LH had that would certainly be in mind when they designed it.

[jokuvaan]

Cant say from the picture alone how it operates, is it solid connection or are there hinge characteristics.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by jokuvaan
Cant say from the picture alone how it operates, is it solid connection or are there hinge characteristics.

It looks the same as the type they use ont heir Front and rear wings as spacers...

[Perigee]

Bend rather than break-and-deny. Is this a new period of (relative) honesty from McLaren?

If so, it is to be applauded. Relatively.

[bogi]

As usual bashing without thinking. There is huge difference between McLaren and Renault bridge wings. Renault have melted bw with endplates, McL have bw as stand alone component and they can change angle. That unusual strut allows angle changes.

[Owen]

Great solution by McLaren.

[JForce]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Checking flex by visual change could be computerized, and would engage one or two people, and not engineers. It would be cheap to run.

Its already been happening for several years, by people making stills of the broadcast videos.

Huge is a big word, but it just does not fit what would be a simple process. Law enforcement now uses pictures of people matched by computer images, you have your photo taken when entering the USA, matching changes in structures would be quite simple.

The only complexity would be around the margins of how much one will tolerate movement.

As to saving money - its being spent already.

I have a lifetime of aero involvement through sailing, at a high level, and that sport is much about adjusting aero to conditions. A good sailor will look at a sail and tell you if its working - you might have no idea. America's Cup yachts have stripes painted on their sails, so that computers via on board cameras can view the angle changes in the lines and assist with both on water and off water speed issues, due to the changes in the line angles affecting the shape of the sail. One could even paint very thin lines on the F1 cars and measure them - its all quite straight forward.

The biggest issue IMO is the need for photographing underside parts of the car to examine flex - and IMO now one has realized what is going on out of the camera's view.

On could even take an F1 car and put it into a wind tunnel and test it - but that would increase costs quite a bit. However, once you disqualified some cars, then teams would realize its not worth cheating the gaps in the measurement procedures.

Its unfair that a team can use more flex, which results in better braking, higher top, better grip out of corners and better cornering due to something which is essentially an active technology. There has been a continual attempt to slow F1 cars down, and high speed is seen as a major safety issue. Yet the flex of the cars is what facilitates the high speeds, hence resulting in smaller engines being put into F1 cars, and numerous changes to aero configurations. And also its the aero issues that have hurt overtaking.

Teams spend fortunes on fine tuning aero - and much of it is flex related, because its very complex (like sail shape is).

Simply cut down the illegal flex to tiny amounts, and we'd all be better off, and it would also save money, sure, but the teams would spend it somewhere else IMO.

But the flex issue is a measurement deficiency.

Teams that argue some flex happened due to an item being too light are not telling the truth.

Ross Brawn talked about this last year, and he said soon the whole car would flex. Maybe Honda are working on that right now. But it is in fact easy to fix, with some lateral measurement thinking.

So you think that every single piece of the car should be monitored by cameras from every angle, at every speed, over every kind of bump, in every wind condition, so that a specially designed computer program can trawl through it and find out if a tiny piece of carbon fibre somewhere might have jiggled a little bit at some speed, over some bump, in some kind of wind condition.

And that won't be an expensive exercise? An exercise in futility?

Someone above me was right, you just want them all to go to the same chassis or something. Dude there is supposed to be some pushing of the envelope, there's supposed to be smart guys thinking up ways to get the cars to do things a little differently.

What you're proposing is a huge overreaction to something which isn't as large a problem as you think it is.

[JForce]

I really don't see anything in this thread for McLaren fans to get upset about. Bashing? So far everyone thinks the solution is fine except the OP and we've all told him he's wrong.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by DiStefano

How is that supposed to stop the wing from flexing?

It doesn't look legal to me.

The FiA said they wanted them to do what Renault did



What do you think?

Try understanding how F1 works. You invent something, show it to Charlie, if he says its ok to use, you race it. If he says its not, you don't. The whole point of this series is to out think your competitors. The only problem is when the FIA renege on previously approved innovations, mid season.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The FIA should photograph the cars to remove any flex.

Not a pop at you at all, but unlike some of the 'experts' on this BB, I would hope they could establish the difference between wing flex and a car bouncing on its tyres and suspension....

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by bogi
As usual bashing without thinking. There is huge difference between McLaren and Renault bridge wings. Renault have melted bw with endplates, McL have bw as stand alone component and they can change angle. That unusual strut allows angle changes.

Exactly, McLarens solution is basically, just BETTER than the Renault solution, which is one of the many reasons why they are quicker than Renault. Until Renault can work with their brothers at Michelin again, I can't see them designing their way out of a paper bag quite frankly.

[kar]

Each of these designs should be subject to a 'Herbie Blash' test. If they can pass that without flexing all is fine and dandy.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by Rinehart


Try understanding how F1 works. You invent something, show it to Charlie, if he says its ok to use, you race it. If he says its not, you don't. The whole point of this series is to out think your competitors. The only problem is when the FIA renege on previously approved innovations, mid season.

That's not entirely the case and it's not how McLaren engineers consider it either. Remember the exchange in the WMSC about the Ferrari flexing floor?

Patrick LOWE: I think the issue is being blurred again by Ferrari. There were two stages to the clarification from the FIA. In the first, it was said that "you will remove illegal devices". An illegal device is a mechanism with pivots, springs, and degrees of freedom that allows one to cynically exploit the behaviour required in 3.17, in contravention of 3.15. There was a further later clarification that changed the understanding for the test. Those are two separate issues. That is clear in my statements.

Max MOSLEY: I do not think that anyone on the World Council would seriously consider that the Ferrari device was illegal at the time, any more than the Renault mass damper before it was eliminated.

Nigel TOZZI: I am very grateful for that. It was important that this be clear, as these proceedings are apparently going to be made public. McLaren has repeatedly asserted, wrongly, that the Ferrari car was illegal, and it is appropriate that the world knows that it was not.

Patrick LOWE: I find that an extraordinary positioned (sic): that something should be only illegal when it is clarified to be so.

So Paddy Lowe considers that showing a device to Charlie or passing the test does not make a part legal, it just means you've got it past Charlie or passed the test.

[airwise]

Originally posted by Rinehart
. The only problem is when the FIA renege on previously approved innovations, mid season.

Why exactly has something raced legally for a whole season suddenly become illegal? Have I missed something here?

[kar]

Originally posted by airwise


Why exactly has something raced legally for a whole season suddenly become illegal? Have I missed something here?

BMWs twin towers, BMWs rear wing, the Mass Damper, Ferrari's sprung floor there are plenty examples of things raced legally that subsequently became less so.

[Hippo]

Originally posted by kar


BMWs twin towers, BMWs rear wing, the Mass Damper, Ferrari's sprung floor there are plenty examples of things raced legally that subsequently became less so.

Yes, but none of them has been raced for more than 1 year or was as obvious as the flexing bridge wing. If Charlie says it's flexing too much i have no problem with that. It's just strange, that he didn't say something earlier...

[bogi]

This is second generation of bridge wing (Oz 08), first one don't have slits. This one produce much more down force and probably reason for more bending than last year.

[Mika Mika]

In fairness i thinkk it's only been raced for the same amount of time if not less than the mass damper,

It was introuced around the europian season last year,

[Hippo]

Originally posted by Mika Mika
In fairness i thinkk it's only been raced for the same amount of time if not less than the mass damper,

It was introuced around the europian season last year,

It was introduced in Spain iirc. What i meant was, that the mass damper was not visible actually. Thinking back of the time i remember lots of speculations, because noone was sure what this thing was and how it worked. With the bridge wing it is different. There was footage from last year showing the flexing already. Yet, it wasn't even commented on. Smells a bit fishy imho.

[Nitropower]

I wonder what's so wrong with flexible elements...
It's just another measure to be more aero efficient.
What's the risk? It's doesn't look like an expensive area for development such as engine. Or is it that cars may be not safe?

All in all, if noses have to be almost rigid, then it looks that holding the nose from the top with a bridge device won't probably prevent it from flexing as efficiently as if it held it from below. But if it does, then it's a really good idea to help air flow through it.

[roadie]

Aren't arches inherently strong? If so, then unless the mounting points are flexible, then the arch won't flex to allow movement of the centre of the bridge wing. Of course, as McLaren's bridge wing has a couple of elements, there could be flex between these to reduce drag at high speeds.

However, it's my view that if these bridge wings passed the FIA flexibility tests, then there should be no need for a central mount. I'm not sure why all the teams have to put them in place now?

[JForce]

Originally posted by Hippo
It was introduced in Spain iirc. What i meant was, that the mass damper was not visible actually. Thinking back of the time i remember lots of speculations, because noone was sure what this thing was and how it worked. With the bridge wing it is different. There was footage from last year showing the flexing already. Yet, it wasn't even commented on. Smells a bit fishy imho.

I think the ones last year didn't flex nearly as much as these ones. They were fixed in more rigid ways....they had a larger area where they joined the endplates or the rear wing, so by nature they were thicker, and less prone to flex.

With that season and the winter behind them, all the teams who run them have been able to run them for hours in the tunnels and on their computers to make this years ones, which are thinner, more in-tune with the rest of the car, and react better to the airflow. This makes them even more likely to flex as part of their design.

It seems to me that with a bridge-wing you first throw it on and it gives you downforce. You'd spend a little while tuning it to simply lessen the effect on the rest of the car, and overall drag.

Once you have that sorted, your fine tuning comes from getting it to flex at speed to give minor advantages.

That takes time, and so the ones this year are much more efficient and much flexier.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by airwise


Why exactly has something raced legally for a whole season suddenly become illegal? Have I missed something here?

Yes you've missed the last 10 years of F1.

Basically, Charlie and the FIA are not as clever as the teams. So when the teams show them something to get approved, they present it (quite fairly) in a fashion that shows its within the rules. And it gets approved.

Then over time other teams see the part, realise although its claimed to do X its actually intended to do or has the by product of Y. These teams then try to make a similar solution themeselves.

If they can't, they go to the FIA and grass up the other team about the actual intention or by product of the other teams invention, and campaign to get it banned. Sometimes this happens.

F1 politcs are both on track and off track, you know.

[Mika Mika]

McMerc prob did that "hook" centeral stay just to get people winging about it

[HSJ]

Originally posted by peroa


That`s more likely, IMHO ...

Possible, but obviously this arrangement allows (more) flexing than the Renault arrangement. It's like this: try to compress a metal or carbon fiber rod length-wise, you'll find it almost impossible. But try to bend it... The Renault support relies on resistance to compression, whereas the McL way relies on resistance to bending. Needless to say what the end result is. (Edit: seems like a few people need to brush up on their physics/mechanics. This case is obvious.)

Personally I hate it that teams (not just McL) so blatantly go against the spirit of the rules that say aero parts should not flex.

[JacnGille]

So, some people think McLaren is "bending the rules" with this new bracket. I guess a few people have short memories. A few seasons ago the FIA mandated a similar solution after some teams had their rear wings flex to close the gap between the multi elements. Ferrari used exactly the same type of bracket that is shown in the picture of McLaren's new bridge wing bracket.

[bankoq]

For you to compare, McLaren's bridge without the support:

http://fr.youtube.co...feature=related

And here's Renault with the support:

http://fr.youtube.co...PPYhuWNi1c&NR=1

IMHO McLaren bridge flexes like hell, it completely changes it's position (about 5cm, maybe more), especially the central part of it, when the the car is accelerating and braking.

[pingu666]

the main wing droops a fair bit at speed, moreso on the renault?

FIA dont want flexi stuff as its more likely to break, and it changes the handling of the cars....

on the free practise im watching, the williams one seemed really solid

[saudoso]

Originally posted by roadie
Aren't arches inherently strong? If so, then unless the mounting points are flexible, then the arch won't flex to allow movement of the centre of the bridge wing. Of course, as McLaren's bridge wing has a couple of elements, there could be flex between these to reduce drag at high speeds.

However, it's my view that if these bridge wings passed the FIA flexibility tests, then there should be no need for a central mount. I'm not sure why all the teams have to put them in place now?

They are when loading from the top. When loaded from the front they are as good as a fishing pole.

[JacnGille]

Ummmmmm, fishin poles bend by design. They can be designed and constructed not to just as easily.