Flexible wings 2011

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:00 pm

mclaren113 wrote:Image


Guys, I think the slot on the side of the front wing has something with the flexibility!




this is the link for the pic:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/f1photos/5 ... otostream/
mclaren113
 
Joined: 12 Feb 2011

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:52 pm

surely the only problem with the FIA test with putting weight onto the end plate & measuring the flex is the fact they are not putting enough weight on ! 100kg surely is not enough ?

I'm not sure what % of the car's overall downforce the front wing generates, but say it's about 30% for arguments sake ;) at 80mph the car is generating around 640kg and at about 120mph it's double this, so even in the slowest corners (not Loews hairpin at Monaco though :P) the weight being put onto the front wing is around 192kg and at 40mph more its 384kg

Now I know this force if spread over the area of the front wing, but most of the downforce surely is generated in the portions where all the cascades & double/triple wing elements are, so all they really need to do is put a bloody weight on in this area that's representative of the loads the wings actually are put under.
hollowBallistix
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2011

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:55 pm

Image

:shock:

Stunning flex of McLaren wing

It seems also the nosecone is going down
Javert
 
Joined: 10 Feb 2011

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:11 pm

I'll post it again for seg and ringo:

Tech Regulations 2011, article 3.15 wrote:Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
(...)


Tech regulations 2011, article 3.17.8 wrote:In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.



So what part of "prohibited under any circumstances" do you misunderstand?
The wing is clearly designed to get as close as possible to the ground, breaching rule 3.15.
No part with aerodynamic influence can be under the reference plane, again "under any circumstances". A front wing has aerodynamic influence, and unless the reference plane of the car touches the ground (which it does not), the front wing when bent is under the reference plane.

For those who have a hard time with the definition, "under any circumstances" includes when the car is moving.


The way Red Bull cheat the test at the moment is by having a wing that is (barely) stiff enough along its span. They do that with a reinforced part aligned with the axis of the test. Therefore, when the wing is test-loaded, that reinforcement takes the load.

But the real aero load acts further forwards on the wing, and the whole system pivots around the reinforcement's axis because of this, bringing the front of the wing as close to the ground as possible.

The FIA could easily make a new test to prevent this, by doing a triple test: one on the current axis, one 15cm further forwards and one 15cm further back for example. But they seem to stay passive at the moment for some reason.

Another element that might help the test be more accurate would be to do it with the plank in a fixed position instead of the front wing mid part, as is currently the case. This would take the bending of the nose and FW supports into account.

Also, increasing the test weight to a more realistic amount relative to current aero loads on front wings might help.

Designing a simple, practical test to catch the RBR wing or any other wing working on the same principle is fairly easy, I could come up with a proposal in half a day. Weird that the FIA don't think it's worthy to look at...
bot6
 
Joined: 2 Mar 2011

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:00 pm

mclaren113 wrote:
mclaren113 wrote:Image

Guys, I think the slot on the side of the front wing has something with the flexibility!


this is the link for the pic:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/f1photos/5 ... otostream/


Are you referring to the strake on the nosecone? That is for making the nose cone/wing stay profile legal. If the stays are wider than the nosecone, they add a line of material there to widen the nosecone. Mercedes have a similar detail.

hollowBallistix wrote:surely the only problem with the FIA test with putting weight onto the end plate & measuring the flex is the fact they are not putting enough weight on ! 100kg surely is not enough ?


Is it 100kg per side? I can't find any reference to the test in the regs. If so, this is another lapse of judgement on the part of the FIA.

bot6, if the FIA can't figure out how to reinforce their ridiculously worded rules, then the teams have every right to push the boundaries of said rules, if only to point out the FIA's ineptitude. The only thing the FIA are seemingly capable of is placing simple profile templates on wings to screw over mid-field teams when they are 1mm outside of their cryptic rules. Promising rookies and driver's mourning their countrymen given no respite in the pissing contest.
Formula None
 
Joined: 17 Nov 2010

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:27 pm

Bizarre observation time. All 3 wing flex pics here appear to show not only the wing & nose flex, but a change in the relation of the airbox cam to the cockpit surround.
The weird thing is the dynamic seems to be that the cam apears either closer to (dipping in relation to?) the cockpit along three car lenght or futher away vertically at high speed.

Appologies for the slight irrelevance, but its yet another dynamic your account for when atrempying any meaninful measurement.

avatar
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2009

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:35 pm

Is it possible that the DRS is changing the suspension loading on the Mclaren pictures there?
l4mbch0ps
 
Joined: 6 Aug 2008

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:38 pm

Makes sense, the camera housing is just as subject to deflection.
Formula None
 
Joined: 17 Nov 2010

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:14 pm

avatar wrote:
Appologies for the slight irrelevance, but its yet another dynamic your account for when atrempying any meaninful measurement.


This is exactly what I have been saying is why you can't setup any hard and fast dimensional measurement on a moving car. the data is far to noisy.
Not an engineer at Caterham F1
Tim.Wright
 
Joined: 13 Feb 2009

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:00 pm

I remember pointing out last year during the first flexiwing debacle, shimano make a carbon fibre fishing rod that is specifically designed to be stiff in one direction(up/down) and very flexible in the other(left right).
Image
This principle applied to the carbon structure of the front wing seems the most obvious explaination to me, as to how the wing passes verticle load tests but still bends the merry bend when a diagonal load is applied, ie: the air.
"I don't make mistakes. I make prophecies which immediately turn out to be wrong."
Murray Walker

"My biggest error? Something that is to happen yet."
Ayrton Senna
clarkiesyeah
 
Joined: 27 May 2010

Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:39 am

I still think the FIA testing for this is not representative of the loads that are actually generated out on track, they just need to increase the loading from 100kg to something more like 300kg
hollowBallistix
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2011

Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:51 am

I'm trying to image their reasoning for not increasing the test load. Seems simple enough.
Formula None
 
Joined: 17 Nov 2010

Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:18 am

I think the nose cone is flexing too. The wing itself is too narrow to pitch forward so much by itself.
"You can't change what happened. But you can still change what will happen.
Sebastian Vettel"
PlatinumZealot
 
Joined: 12 Jun 2008

Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:58 am

Image


If this type of nosecone construction is typical, then the outer structure might be acting independently of a separate, internal crash structure:


Image

The stays mounted to the outside would allow the everything to pivot down. They can develop both parts independently. The CS to pass the crash test, the skin to deform once a certain amount of force is applied.


Formula None
 
Joined: 17 Nov 2010

Post Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:08 am

...and as a result, as the nose pivots, the wing get in closer proximity to the ground, more downforce is created, sucking both ends of the wing down to get flex in the other direction:

Image

Image

Images from joie & williamsF1.
Formula None
 
Joined: 17 Nov 2010

PreviousNext

Return to Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yandex [Bot] and 11 guests