Flexible wings controversy 2010

[ringo]

Well the splitter thing explains the scraping sounds that we've been hearing from the redbull
What i must mention though is that i think the splitter only brings the wing down to a certain level. When it is at this level the downforce increases further and this increase then bends the wing even more.
It's like the Rear wing on the Mclaren mp4 12c road car. On the road car, the rear air brake is actuated by oil pressure, but it only moves to a certain point. The wing is so shaped that the air imparts to rest of the motion to bring the wing into the vertical braking position. This principle may be what redbull was using on he flex wing. A very pitch sensitive wing that has a certain behavior once it experiences an amount of suction underneath or an amount of angular pitch.

[myurr]

All im gonna say is i just wish that the FIA would just say; right, if theres any loopholes in the regs, its up to teams to develop their cars to incorperate such loopholes for the remainder of the season.

Basically meaning that once the rules for a season are aggreed, thats it, they cannot be changed untill the following season. Means teams have to play cattch-up, but also means if a small team stumbles uppon something and rocket to the front, the big teams have to spend resource to catch up.

For this; the F-Duct, Flexable Wings, EBDs and Leaky Damper systems would be areas that teams would have to catch up on.

Id rather that happens than stuff getting banned mid season, unless there is a specific saftey requirement is raised in the mean time.

Yes, but there is another view of these things, which I think FIA tends to follow : If one team develops a thing that uses a loophole in the regs, others must folow up , and it leads to enormous extra spending at each team. We can assume that the smaller teams would be less effective doing this....and here we are again in the circle. Bigger teams becomes bigger, smaller team become smaller...So why to spend that money for things that anyway will be banned next year. Then it's better to ban them ASAP. This is how I think FIA acts, but I very much blame FIA for not be able to produce clear rules.

On felxiwings : We saw pictures from winter testing when they run those front-wing supporting wires connected to nosecone. Maybe they were experimenting how much lap time they loose if the wing is not allowed to flex.Does it worth the money they will spend for develop the felxi-wing. Obviously it does.

The other thing to remember is that the flexi wing is not a loophole in the rules - they are explicit in banning any movable aero parts that form part of the car - it is a loophole in the testing procedures. Those same test procedures explicitly state that they can be modified if the FIA feels they are not adequately enforcing the flexi aero rules.

[myurr]

Well the splitter thing explains the scraping sounds that we've been hearing from the redbull
What i must mention though is that i think the splitter only brings the wing down to a certain level. When it is at this level the downforce increases further and this increase then bends the wing even more.
It's like the Rear wing on the Mclaren mp4 12c road car. On the road car, the rear air brake is actuated by oil pressure, but it only moves to a certain point. The wing is so shaped that the air imparts to rest of the motion to bring the wing into the vertical braking position. This principle may be what redbull was using on he flex wing. A very pitch sensitive wing that has a certain behavior once it experiences an amount of suction underneath or an amount of angular pitch.

Ooo interesting thought - if the splitter is bottoming out then that would presumably be bad for the aero as it would cut off air flow from that part of the car. Except Red Bull have the dual deck splitter that would allow airflow to continue even if the splitter was running along the ground.

[SiLo]

Ooo yes, the rake of the Mclaren is a lot less than both Ferrari and the Red Bull. In fact the Red Bull has a much higher rake than either of the two other cars, which would obviously help in reducing the height of the front wing.

By doing this they can lower the front ride height as this isn't affected as much by the fuel load as the CG for that is nearer the rear axle. It would also then generate more force on the splitter, further exacerbating the rake but pulling the entire car downwards, so the overall effect of the rake is reduced at the rear, but even more at the front.

Coupled with a slightly bowed plank this could reduce the height of the whole front of the car by some margin.

[ecapox]

Since the Ferrari and RedBull are running around and are still fast, does this mean that the cars passed scrutineering? Anyone have any pics from practice to see if the wings still flexed?

[Holm86]

when i watched P1 i tv it didnt seem like the red bulls wings was as low as usual. but offcourse the speeds wasent that high because of the rain and this could be why.

[SiLo]

Red Bull have changed their front wing slightly, I think the bottom slot isn't there any more.

[thestig84]

Red Bull have changed their front wing slightly, I think the bottom slot isn't there any more.

No the bottom slot is still there.

[marcush.]

the rain tyres have a different outer diameter-increasing the ride height.I´m not sure about the inters? anyone in the know?

[747heavy]

I´m not sure in regards to the diameter/height of the rain tires, but why I was looking to find information´s about it, I came across this:

>>>>
The wet and intermediate tyres have no significant changes apart from the width of the front intermediate tyre, which will now be the same as the new dry front tyre.
<<<<

http://www.bridgestonemotorsport.com/Br ... ations.htm

Does this mean the 2010 rain tyres are the same as the 2009 rain tyres?
Meaning they are actually wider?
This could/would explain something and make for some interesting strategies / set-ups.
But maybe it´s not correct stated on the website.

[marcush.]

Fia tech regs:

12.4 Wheel dimensions :
12.4.1 Complete wheel width must lie between 305mm and 355mm when fitted to the front of the car and between 365mm and 380mm when fitted to the rear.
12.4.2 Complete wheel diameter must not exceed 660mm when fitted with dry-weather tyres or 670mm when fitted with wet weather tyres.
12.4.3 Complete wheel width and diameter will be measured horizontally at axle height, with the wheel held in a vertical position and when fitted with new tyres inflated to 1.4 bar.


so as inters are WET weather tyres the rideheight will be as with the full wets 8on a new tyre ..the rolling diameter/radius is of course something else altogether.so we cannot simply say its 5mm added rideheight.
Interesting bit there ...the width of the wheels are not completely fixed by FIA ..

This brings up one question in my mind..

[forty-two]

A couple of points occur to me:

1. Watching FP2, the RB nose seems to be the pre-Silverstone specification (i.e. with the mandatory camera mounts on the nose proper, rather than inside the wing uprights). Have they moved back to an older spec wing because of the lower DF needed here, or because they knew the FIA would be looking closely at their car?

2. If the amount of flex on the FW is measured with reference to the "reference plane" (i.e. the line of the plank), if the car is raked downwards, presumably the FW could actually be touching the ground but still not actually flexing more than the allowed amount with reference to the plank. Could it be as simple as that?


42

[747heavy]

just some dimensions of the plank, and the points where the wear is measure.

>>>>
g) have seven precisely placed holes the positions of which are detailed in Drawing 1. In order to
establish the conformity of the skid block after use, its thickness will only be measured in the four
50mm diameter holes and the two forward 80mm diameter holes ;
<<<<<
>>>>>
3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram. Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
<<<<<


http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy33 ... nsions.jpg

[747heavy]

A couple of points occur to me:

1. Watching FP2, the RB nose seems to be the pre-Silverstone specification (i.e. with the mandatory camera mounts on the nose proper, rather than inside the wing uprights). Have they moved back to an older spec wing because of the lower DF needed here, or because they knew the FIA would be looking closely at their car?

or maybe they did not want a backwards facing camera, make some interesting shots of their floor, or the movement of the wing in relation to the floor/reference plane.
I´m relative sure, that they would anticipate such a move by FOM TV.

[segedunum]

1. Watching FP2, the RB nose seems to be the pre-Silverstone specification (i.e. with the mandatory camera mounts on the nose proper, rather than inside the wing uprights). Have they moved back to an older spec wing because of the lower DF needed here, or because they knew the FIA would be looking closely at their car?

Given the circuits they're now at I would expect their front wing configurations to change to something like they had at Turkey. However, other than the camera mounts it looks the same. It will be really funny if they are still able to run the wing at Singapore and it does the same thing.