Flexible wings controversy 2010

[PlatinumZealot]

Sorry if someone's already said this RE the oscillation idea, but...

Is it entirely impossible that RBR have come up with a solution which employs an oscillation at the resonant frequency of the wing, whereby once the wing oscillates at that frequency, this "operates" a device which in turn allows the wing to go floppy. Once the wing is in the floppy state, it's resonant frequency will by definition/design change, meaning that whatever device was "operated" by the original frequency is no longer being stressed?

When the car comes to rest, the wing retains a degree of stiffness, allowing it and whatever the device which allows it to go floppy is, to ping back into place (when it isn't subject to either vibration or downforce).

If this were true, it could potentially explain Vettel's front wing failure at Silverstone while they were "tuning" the device. For example, perhaps in my example above, the wing did not change it's resonant frequency enough to stop stressing the "device" once it had operated?

I didn't say RedBull does it. Infact I think the RedBull wing is designed like a regular wing. I don't support the flexible wing accusations at all.
I am just putting forward an Idea separate and apart from the RedBull situation.
Such a system would not depend on the vibration of the wing, which is irregular, nor the natural frequency of the wing, what happens with large oscillations not just downwards but upwards too so I would actually use an active vibration device in the wing to vibrate the fluid but not the wing as a whole.

[avatar]

And what happens when it resonates at it's natural frequency? Which there is a very high chance of happening because of the large variations in vibrations. The thing would explode/fall apart because the carbon fibre makes it relatively brittle.

Hi SiLo,

As I said, if someone were running this I'd expect some failures on track, but the theory has been used in other applications & as Forty-Two said, it's not impossible to overcome the issues. The paper I linked to addresses this very problem, & you're absolutely right that it's one of the major challenges to this approach.

It describes pretty much exactly what you've just raised:
"Adaptive technology is especially important in the case of the vibration neutraliser since the low damping requirement in the stiffness element can raise the host structure vibration to dangerous levels in the mistuned condition."

I do still agree there are far simpler [legal] approaches.
(plus a few that would involve questionable use of the front wing actuator/related electrical system)

[PlatinumZealot]

A vibration goes up and down.

I don't think using vibration of the wing will work, but let me try to see it from your side.
In your case you want the wing to vibrate but stay on the lower side of the oscillation when the car is racing.

First off what is generating the vibration in you example?
The air moving over the car?

How do you tame this non-steady source of vibration and have the wing stay in one position instead of up and down. I heard you say damper ( a two way damper) but can you explain some more?

[SiLo]

I'm gonna laugh my tits off if the FW's of Ferrari and Red Bull fail the new tests run by the FIA. I know they probably won't but I like to imagine. What would they do then? Do you think they have backup wings which aren't flexible?

[Richard]

Interesting comments from McLaren's managing director Jonathan Neale:

Neale added that McLaren is no closer to understanding the situation with the flexi-wings of Red Bull and Ferrari.

"I've seen the footage and we can't explain why those cars operate in the way they do," Neale said. "We've spent a lot of time looking very hard at the cars, but it's just speculation on our part. It's a discussion for the FIA and those teams to have.

"We presume that because Charlie [Whiting, FIA race director] has issued a clarification for the coming races, there was an issue. We're all working with the FIA on it."

He seems to be shutting his eyes and hoping it will go away.

So either McL are bluffing and they have a flexible wing for Spa, or they expect the RB to need a stiffer wing for the new test

... or they haven't a clue as to what is going on. That would be a very worrying indictment on their technical capabilities.

[marcush.]

I´d say it has more to do with what they have found out to be the reason(s) for the dynamic behaviour of the front wing vs the referenceplane..
there is a very clear statement in the regs that your wing has to NOT move relative to that plane ...the pictures do tell a different story.
If there is flex in the chassis to help achieving a lower rideheight by pulling the splitter up ...that is a serious item as well as the bending front wings that definitely move in relation to the reference plane.

[SiLo]

What happens if RB fail the wing AND the splitter tests? And are found to have developed something KNOWING it would flex?

[wesley123]

then they will be excluded for the current gp and the case will be taken to the WMSC. They can then lose their points but not their results, as those are frozen after a time.

[marcush.]

is it a case as Brawn last year with their difusser but this time ..nobody can copy the splitter ?
Or may it be that a lot of teams have that moveable splitter...the base design was invented at Ferrari a long time ago.....they just needed to build flex into the tub under high vertical load for the splitter stay..

[747heavy]

What happens if RB fail the wing AND the splitter tests? And are found to have developed something KNOWING it would flex?

At present it is unlikely that they will fail the splitter test, as the test did not change. If they fail any test pre-race (pre race scruteneering) they will be not allowed to start the GP, unless they can modify the splitter/wing and pass the test.
If they fail a test after the race (post race scruteneering)they will be excluded from the GP and will lose the points for that GP if they have scored any.
Like Schumacher in 200? when his car failed the plank minimum thickness test after the race in Spa.

It won´t effect the results of the other GP´s unless the breach of rules is deemed very serious, then after a WMSC hearing/ruling they could get excluded from the WCD/WCC, like Toyota from the WRC in 1994, but this is unlikely at present.

They have past all pre and post race scruteneering tests so far, so until they fail a test, the car is "legal" and allowed to compete.
That different people have a different interpretation of the rules (spirit of the rules) is a different matter.

[marcush.]

Mateschitz is good for F1 and the title will make him happy...so they will not kick them out...

as long as the test loads do not represent what is going on on track there will be no excessive bending .

[Agerasia]

What if they have metal rods in the front wing?
These rods lay accross the wing and retract under speed. What was once a stiff rigid wing is now flexible.

[marcush.]

What if they have metal rods in the front wing?
These rods lay accross the wing and retract under speed. What was once a stiff rigid wing is now flexible.

what is obviously not allowed.

it was mooted that the rear bending action may disengage some interlocking of elements :
what about a cone shaped pin interlocking the wing elements to form a stiff structure but as the wing bends backwards with drag the conical pin gets freed up and suddenly a lot of downward bending movement would be possible.

read this again...they are using multiphysics coupling simulation technics to
optimise their layup technique to achieve legal optimised deformation...so it was official already last year...
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... y-q-a.html

[marcush.]

clear words by Martin Whitmarsh in Autosport:

I think we have to rename the thread into flexiwings and flexi tub bottoms now
that someone inside F1 has spoken out .
I ´m surprised that top f1 teams are not that much quicker in analysing the situation than us...


"Clearly no wing can be infinitely rigid, but there are limits to which they should be allowed to flex," he said. "If you try to explain what is happening, either you can explain it by hugely raked cars - but if you do simple geometry then the ride height would be over 100mm and there is no evidence of that being the case.

"Or you do it by some means of the outer edge of the wings lowering down by more than we expect. Or the front of the floor is moving up further than we expect, because that is another part of bodywork that is intended to be rigidly attached.

"In truth we don't understand it and maybe there is another way but I, as a fairly simple engineer, can't think of anything other than those three explanations. If there is another one then I will be happy to hear it. It is surprising.

"I think the FIA has got to take a view now of what is acceptable, and if it is acceptable, to get the endplates down. Every millimetre is about one point of downforce at the front, although it also improves the rear. So 25-30mm of vertical lowering of the endplates is one second [per lap], so it is fairly substantial."

[thestig84]

The flexible bodywork tests are being beefed up again for Monza. Surely these tests will cut it out more than the Spa tests.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86109