Flexible wings controversy 2010

[RH1300S]

I would like to understand why every time RB goes to pits, they lift up the front of the car before to move into the garages
i belive is the only team doing that
any reasonable explanation?

I haven't noticed this, I will now have to review some footage to see this for myself.

Do you mean that when they come into the pits during FP or Quali, they lift the car on the front jack, then let it down before letting the driver pull away and roll the car backwards into the garage, even if they're not changing tyres?

If so, I suppose they might be doing this for perfectly rational "procedural" reasons, but if they and they alone are the only team doing this, then perhaps there's something in it.

Perhaps they have a mechanism which, when the wing gets upwards force relative to the chassis (which obviously would not normally happen while running) which engages the "stiffener" for the FW and Splitter, just in case of a surprise visit from a scrutineer

Yes exactly it works like you desribe it.
I believe they are the only team doing that, that hapens in friday 1&2and saturdays #3 sessions only not in qualifying and race.
of course is so ovbius That I can not belive that people on the padcok clever than us noticed , but I still dont understand why?

That's a good spot......but my question would be - surely the team would then be exposed for the spot-checks they do. I think I am right to say that during qualifying (practise?) cars are randomly pulled into the scrutineering bay for checks - the team couldn't lift the car for that check as they drive straight in when called.

[mariano.torre.gomez]

both things are right
they use to lift up the car
and they can not lift the car after qualy or race
but my question remains why they use to do that?
i am 100% sure of the process I have seeing during many practise sessions along different races

[lolzi]

both things are right
they use to lift up the car
and they can not lift the car after qualy or race
but my question remains why they use to do that?
i am 100% sure of the process I have seeing during many practise sessions along different races

Maybe their front jack man is a bit like Schumacher, useless without endless training?

[gibells]

Was it my imagination or were the Red Bulls wings flexing less this weekend? I thought that Interlagos would be one of those types of circuits where they would be on the floor, but alas I didn't notice. Anyone?

[mariano.torre.gomez]

I was clear to me( I live in brasil) that FW was not so close to the ground as other races like HUNGARY

[forty-two]

I was clear to me( I live in brasil) that FW was not so close to the ground as other races like HUNGARY

I agree, during the race and quali at least, it looked significantly higher than it has before.

And yet, during one of the practice sessions, Ted Kravitz in the pitlane reported that RB were grinding down the strakes on the underside of mark webber's FW with an angle grinder.

Was this to "reprofile" something which got damaged running over a kerb, or because they were concerned it was bending too much and running too low?

I guess, if the latter were true, being a practice session, they could have tightened up the stiffening cable a little before Quali?

[forty-two]

Courtesy of a fellow member of this forum, something interesting has been published in the tech data for the singapore event at the following link:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... eport.html

Which states that the following components were replaced during the Parc Fermé:

Red Bull Racing Renault:
Car 05: LHS and RHS exhaust temperature sensors Front brake friction material Power steering rack assembly Water radiator
Car 06: LHS and RHS exhaust temperature sensors Plank temperature sensor contact switch

- Does anyone know what a "Plank Temperature Sensor Contact Switch" is?
- Why would the plank require a temperature sensor?
- Why does a temperature sensor require a contact switch?
- Does the presence of a contact switch as part of a temperature sensor assembly imply that:
a) It's normal to have a sensor to detect if the plank is scraping the ground
b) and/or have they cleverly combined the temp. sensor and contact switch into a single component?

[forty-two]

I know I've mentioned this before ad-nausium to those of you who regularly read this thread, so I apologise in advance, but on the matter of the RB front flap adjust mechanism, I have noticed something interesting while reading some of the FIA Technical Delegate's Reports.

Most of the time, when a component is replaced during park fermé, if it is a part which has one for each side of the car, it's position on the car is mentioned (rhs/lhs) while things which only one is present (eg. Steering wheel) are mentioned without any reference to their "side", but I noticed in the report from the Italian GP (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1 ... report.pdf), that Car 5 (Vettel) had it's "Front Wing Flap Actuator" replaced.

As no "side" was specified for this part, does this mean that the RB6 has a single, shared front wing flap actuator for both halves of the front wing?

If so, does anyone else think that this might add a little weight to my suggestion that maybe the "stiffener" seen after Vettel's collision with Button was also used as a part of the FFA mechanism?

[shamikaze]

Was it my imagination or were the Red Bulls wings flexing less this weekend? I thought that Interlagos would be one of those types of circuits where they would be on the floor, but alas I didn't notice. Anyone?

Intersting symtpon is that I posed the exact same Q 3pages back with no replies to it, although this specific thread hadn't been active for a few days.

Anyway, I'm happy to read my eyes wheren't deceiving me. McL's FW's where also moving/flexing more then before in contrast to the FW's of the RB's and Fr'swho where moving less then before, but still significantly more then the McL's.

GReetz,

S.

[shamikaze]

As no "side" was specified for this part, does this mean that the RB6 has a single, shared front wing flap actuator for both halves of the front wing?

If so, does anyone else think that this might add a little weight to my suggestion that maybe the "stiffener" seen after Vettel's collision with Button was also used as a part of the FFA mechanism?

You might be right on your sugggestion rgarding the lack of "side" on the actuator, but also reading too much. it could be something simple as an oversight in the documentation.


If RB has a single actuator, it could perfectly perform as you suggest winding the cable to increase flap angle but also attached to the cable "other" pieces to slide a blocking piece sideways to allow flexing. When cable is pulled back (to "rest" position - ie unpowered) the slides would move back into place making the wing "firmer". This would allow them to pass the flex-testing (unpowered, FW-only).

Does anyone know if the flex-tests are performed with winglets at max. or at Min. angle ? This might be a way to find the holy-grail of flexi

Although, the above would probably disctract attention from the (now absent) bis-stay. Probably (if existing as assumed and operating as we suspect)both are very complimentary to each other.

Thing that striked me most at the end of the race was the large difference in tire-qulaity (or what was left) between the RB's and all other cars with similar laps on them. The RB's looked like they could have lasted quite a few more laps, unlike most other car's tyres who looked to be nearing their running-cycle.

[forty-two]

I'd be happy to send an email to an FIA technical delegate to ask about the test procedure, and whether any thought has gone into forcing the tests to be performed at all available wing angle settings. Even if RB, or any other competitor has no "mechanical" system for stiffening their wing at wing angle x, there's presumably plenty that could be done in the layup process which would have a similar effect.

Does anyone have any clues where I might find an email address for such a person?

[kalinka]

It's characteristic how FIA doesn't live in this world. I found only this :

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE
8, Place de la Concorde
75008 Paris
France
Telephone: +33 1 43 12 44 55
Facsimile: +33 1 43 12 44 66

Services Administratifs / Administration :

2, Chemin de Blandonnet
1215 Genève 15
Suisse / Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 544 44 00
Facsimile: +41 22 544 44 50 (Sport)
Facsimile: +41 22 544 45 50 (Tourisme et Automobile)

Any technical problems regarding this site should
be addressed to the site administrator.

Only tel/fax and site admin's email. Nice. Hey, we live in 21st century. Wake up !

[shamikaze]

It's characteristic how FIA doesn't live in this world. I found only this :

Only tel/fax and site admin's email. Nice. Hey, we live in 21st century. Wake up !

The reason probably is not to overload their spam-filters and open their internal e-mail boxes for virusses etc... Remember certain IT-skilled fan-boys might always be willing to starting targetting them specifically.

Apart from this reason, probably they want all communication to happen on paper since (if I remember correctly) e-mail is not a recognized official means of communication in Switzerland for official communication (invoices, disputes, legal papers etc...) - Yeah I know , 21st century thingie, it's why in most countries the legal systems over overloaded with paper and any court is a large potential fire-hazard. (bit off-topic though).

Now, how about that cable-actuators ?
Yesterday I spent a few hrs searching for detaileld pic's of the end-plates of RB's FW, and none of the pics I could not find any place/space where they could hide /stack the electronic actuator. They just have too many flaps, winglets and curved openings for it to be placed in. Unles they did put in the bottom-plane of the FW (which I doubt). So here, I feel it does support this cable-theory, as well as the comments made earlier in this thread that in Spa where SV lost his FW, the ripped-off cable was still standing straight-up after the FW got removed from the car. A small cable (remeber that they shave wieght off everything so I doubt they'd use a multi-core cable with a section more then 0.75mm² or even 1.25mm². I haev such cables at home, each with different rubber-casings. None of them was able to stand up straight like shown on the pics (approx 75-100cm), highest I managed was with a full core 5*1.25mm² and it stood straight up for 40cm. Again this would suggest a close-woven stainless-steel high-tensile strnegth cable. That would only be necessary if there was 1 actuator in the nose-cone and not in the FW end-plates.

But like, stated here so many times, only a few people really know. We can only use whatever braincells we have to speculate / reverse-engineer based on the little available info how it actually works. Me, I'm still intriged adn would like to know from an engineering perspective. However (and this wpouldn't make me score points), I would consioder it still a moveable area-device and as such would be illegal under the current regulations. They don't play by the rules but by the limitations of the testers so unworhty WDC. ut that's just my humble opinion. I still give credit to AN for being able to device these things and build a car that outshines all others in performance.

[forty-two]

Well, it looks like we may never get to the truth about this issue, which is a shame. Not for any sinister reason, just that I'd have loved to find out what exactly they were up to.

I've no doubt that there will be contentious issues in 2011 and beyond, so I guess I'll have to make do!

[marcush.]

FIA Tech regs as from the FIA site:
"ARTICLE 21 : CHANGES FOR 2012
21.1 Changes to Article 3.12.1 :
3.12.1 With the skid block referred to in Article 3.13 removed all sprung parts of the car situated from
330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from
underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the
step plane. This does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible, provided each of
these areas does not exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the car, or to
any parts of the panels referred to in Article 15.4.7 and 15.4.8.
The step plane must be 50mm above the reference plane.
21.2 Changes to Article 3.12.6 :
3.12.6 To help overcome any possible manufacturing problems, and not to permit any design which may
contravene any part of these regulations, dimensional tolerances are permitted on bodywork
situated between a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and the rear wheel centre
line. A vertical tolerance of +/- 5mm is permissible across the surfaces lying on the reference and
step planes and a horizontal tolerance of 5mm 3mm is permitted when assessing whether a surface
is visible from beneath the car. In addition to this, an absolute vertical tolerance of +/- 3mm is
permissible across the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes between a point lying
330mm behind the front wheel centre line and the rear wheel centre line."

Judging from this Bernies Spannerman has figured out what Adrian did with the floor...using the available tolerance to create not quite paralell reference and step planes and not even a flat bottom(there is a kink in the flat centre section to create sort of a rocking chair) , the perfectly parallel skidblock is mounted to it....if its not flexible at least it´s a flexible interpretation of rules to achieve more downforce and lower front rideheights.