16 replies to this topic

[Peterson]

Does anyone know for sure (no speculations please, i can do that myself ) what materials are used in modern rearwings?
Are there regulations about this?

cya

[random]

I have no 1st hand knowledge, but it's really not speculation to say the wings are made of carbon fiber.

Check out any of the photo libraries and you'll also notice the carbon-fiber grain in the unpainted sections of wings. Or recall any accident where a wing is destroyed, shards of carbon fiber are everywhere.

[Peterson]

Thanks for reply, but is carbon only one of the materials?
Is it composed of other fibres?

Ask a proffessional boatbuilder (Volvo Ocean race boats for example) and he will give you a full lecture about the differences between all the kinds of "exotic" fibres around.

[Timm]

While highly likely that CarbonFibre composite being the dominant material in a rear wing, I'd say that that the resin selection is vitally important. As with CFRP gearboxes, the rear wing would experience very high temperatures and that would weaken 'conventional' CFRP.

[Jezztor]

Yes indeed. Heat is a structural failure cause, as is fatigue. This weekend we saw a well distributed share of wing collapse, three times on the Minardi's (2 front, 1 rear), on KR's Mclaren (rear) and Ralfs (front, but it was impact provoked). Resin would be a large factor to consider, as would be cross ply, and general ply directions. Unlike fiberglass where all the fibers are randomly placed, CF has very neat inter-linking tows of CF, and depending how they are aligned with respect to the impact, general fatigue and withstanding tolerances increase or decrease.

CF is the sole (to my knowledge) material used for rear wing elements and endplates, although gold foil is often used on the lower elements for protection against exhaust gas heat. Ferrari are rumoured to be using SMA wire technology, maybe they're somehow using them in their wings?

Jezz

[Ben]

Fibreglass can be woven it's just chopped strand mat that isn't.

For the wing you're going to need a stiff skin to maintain the correct section under load (ignoring any deliberate deflections at this stage) so I would say carbon fibre with some form of honeycomb (probably nomex due to the curvature) reinforcement.

To transmit the load you're gonna need a spar at around quarter chord so some form of I-beam or box section (again in carbon fibre) is probably used.

Ben

[Peterson]

Considering the amount of regulations the FIA has towards safety its surprising that they havent checked into this.

CF is a very stiff and light material, and by having different direction fibres you can make it very light and extremely stiff at the right places. But the stiffness isn't very safe. In the Volvo Ocean Race CF is not allowed as a boatbuilding material because of safety reasons (its kevlar instead).

The same thing could be applied to F1 wings. By adding other fibres, dont have to be kevlar, you could keep it almost as stiff but much less likely to break and more flexible.

Anyone know the regulations regarding wing material (if any...)?

[Cory Padfield]

Peterson,

I think the FIA have used the correct approach to specify safety for the vehicles. They specify the forces that must be resisted, and allow the teams to find the appropriate solutions. Component geometry and material properties are highly interactive, so trying to specify them in the regulations would be fruitless.

Regarding the fiber material choices, carbon fiber is available in many different grades. It is possible to obtain grades that have sufficient strength + ductility to be useful for damage-resistant structural components. If the F1 teams are using ultra-high modulus fibers and resins with little fracture strain, then they have to live with the consequences.

Cory

[Fredrik Billig]

They specify the forces that must be resisted, and allow the teams to find the appropriate solutions.

I think this weekend proves it's not enough. Or the rules needs to be adjusted.

If the F1 teams are using ultra-high modulus fibers and resins with little fracture strain, then they have to live with the consequences.

The FIA have a habit of not letting the teams deicide too much for themselves if safety is a concern.
And in other forms of sports where "exotic" materials are used, they can specify both fibre and thickness. In boats, for example.
In F1 they could specify a "frame" for the rearwing that has to be of a specific material and thickness, and then the teams can make the downforce generating foils as they like (i mean, the rules can be as today).

I think they should put some bleeding kevlar in those wings
Or some other more modern fibre (kevlar is getting old actually).

Guess we will see what happends if the wing-breaking trend continues.


Fredrik

[Cory Padfield]

Fredrik,

Why do you believe wing structure should be regulated? This is a volunteer sport, so if I want to design a lighter, stiffer wing that has a 10% failure probability, then I may be inclined to live with the risks. I don't think the FIA should be involved in specifying any materials or construction for any component.

I agree that some other materials should be considered to add damage resistance. While you are correct that Kevlar is an established material, what is a newer material that is suitable for composite reinforcements? Spectra brand UHMWPE and Zylon brand PBO are newer materials, but have properties that make them difficult to use as composite reinforcements.

Cory

[Fredrik Billig]

Spectra and dyneema is two fibres used in ropes for sailboats that sprung to my mind.
But my knowledge about composites are far to limited to comment really.
I was just speculating.

Why do you believe wing structure should be regulated? This is a volunteer sport

Watch out, you could get the wrath of Max over you for that one ;)
I guess the FIA usually has something to say when things start breaking that is safety related.
And wings breaking of is certainly a safety matter.

I don't think the FIA should be involved in specifying any materials or construction for any component.

Don't they today?


But maybe Barcelona was a one off because of the high downforce and very long high speed straight.

Fredrik

[Cory Padfield]

Spectra, Dyneema, and Zylon all suffer the same problem - low surface energy, which makes it difficult for other materials to adhere to them, which makes it difficult to use them in composites with high mechanical properties.

You are right that Max would be upset at my ideas - I would like little FIA influence, he would like the opposite. Materials specification is a perfect example - they already specify too much, and I would like to see them get out of that area.

[Fredrik Billig]

Spectra, Dyneema, and Zylon all suffer the same problem - low surface energy, which makes it difficult for other materials to adhere to them, which makes it difficult to use them in composites with high mechanical properties.

Thanks, didn't know that

Wouldn't it be interesting to see what kind of cars a completely free formula would give us.
I mean, how fast can a human drive around a racetrack (they would still have to DRIVE the thing)?

In another thread someone said that F1 cars are like DC3's (the airplane...it's not one of Davids unknown kids... ) when it comes to aerodynamics. And in a way he's right. Do we see planes with wingstruts or wires and no retractable landing gear and so on? No, because the aircraft industry has had almost free hands to make the planes better and better. I would like to se that in racingcars...

Fredrik

[random]

Well, take a look at Le Mans prototypes over the past decade. They're probably the purist, fastest racing cars you'll find. Sure they have limits, but far less than most other series. They also look most like airplanes, with no extraneous bits hanging off.

[Fredrik Billig]

Well, take a look at Le Mans prototypes over the past decade

Are they faster than F1 cars? No? I knew something was wrong.

[jennerabc]

Hey all,

I was working with an F3 team when one of the wings was damaged, and inside they use polstyrene(sorry for spelling) for 'bulking' out the inside of the wing. And I am pretty sure the do in F1 also, but I should have the answer in the near future if anyone wishes to email me.

Jenner

[random]

Originally posted by Fredrik Billig
Are they faster than F1 cars? No? I knew something was wrong.

Faster? Over 24 hours the prototypes are much, much faster

But at times over the past decade (I believe) the top sports prototypes have been quicker than the top F1 cars. Certainly in the 60's and 70's they were faster. The real issue today is that the prototypes are more limited than they used to be and they do have to last longer than 1.5 hours.