Mercedes W12

[WaikeCU]

Is this what turbulent air does to aero elements?
+ the bumpy track of Interlagos?

[dans79]

Is this what turbulent air does to aero elements?
+ the bumpy track of Interlagos?

Yep, and Not just on an F1 car. Any fluid dynamic device is going to move around when the flow around it changes drastically!

[El Scorchio]

Is this what turbulent air does to aero elements?
+ the bumpy track of Interlagos?

Yep, and Not just on an F1 car. Any fluid dynamic device is going to move around when the flow around it changes drastically!

Ironically a KLM plane!

[f1jcw]

I would imagine if there isn't a slight bit of bend they could just break if too rigid

[Curbstone]

It may be dirt, it may be damage from a different positioned main plain, those are all possible explanations, but I haven't seen similar 'scratches' at other teams rear wings and that's what bugs me.

Have you seen any shots of the back of other cars rear wings that close? I haven't!

Nope, and that could imply it's not a common thing.

[Stu]

I would imagine if there isn't a slight bit of bend they could just break if too rigid

Don’t even go there! There are pages & pages around this in the thread on flexing rear wings.

[Marty_Y]

By the time the car comes out of the corner it's already doing more than 265 kph so much of the bending has already taken place behind the closed upper flap, that's why it's so hard to notice.

So now the claim is its hidden and no one can see it!.. then how do people know its there

It’s clear to see in this movie. Just like the other one. You do see the top bend down and also the gap on the side move. We have the scratch pattern to match, the high res pictures from behind, the incredible speed difference and the new wing test introduced.

You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.

[El Scorchio]

It may be dirt, it may be damage from a different positioned main plain, those are all possible explanations, but I haven't seen similar 'scratches' at other teams rear wings and that's what bugs me.

Have you seen any shots of the back of other cars rear wings that close? I haven't!

Nope, and that could imply it's not a common thing.

Or it could imply that no teams are throwing repeated and so far baseless accusations around about other cars, and so there's not a great deal of interest to photographers or the media in trying to capture or obtain them.

[dans79]

So now the claim is its hidden and no one can see it!.. then how do people know its there

It’s clear to see in this movie. Just like the other one. You do see the top bend down and also the gap on the side move. We have the scratch pattern to match, the high res pictures from behind, the incredible speed difference and the new wing test introduced.

You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.

Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!

[Marty_Y]

It’s clear to see in this movie. Just like the other one. You do see the top bend down and also the gap on the side move. We have the scratch pattern to match, the high res pictures from behind, the incredible speed difference and the new wing test introduced.

You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.

Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... -rear-wing

[dans79]

You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.

Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... -rear-wing

Geo blocked on that page as well! whats was the gist of the video?

[Marty_Y]

Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... -rear-wing

Geo blocked on that page as well! whats was the gist of the video?

Sorry about that, Paul explains what Red Bull think is happening, but he says there is no evidence of that happening, he says "I've had look a number of times, and I can't see anything"

[El Scorchio]

It's probably all just a genius guerilla marketing campaign for Ineos hygenics and Petronas. The amount of extra coverage their two brands are getting out of this episode....

[Tommy Cookers]

I would imagine if there isn't a slight bit of bend they could just break if too rigid

there is no such thing as too rigid (at least for 'subsonic' rates of change of input)
and eg the wings of biplanes were/are far closer to rigid than today's wings
(of course today's wings if attempting rigidity would be prohibitively heavy)

ie for any time-varying (but non-overshooting) input change to a steady input .....
the load response in a non-rigid structure can only have a higher peak (than in a rigid structure)
ie a 'non-overshooting' input can give an 'overshooting' response
eg the peak reading using a spring balance will always exceed the true weight
eg a child propels itself on a swing by movements (internal to the system) .....
matched to the swing's 'rigidity' (getting an 'overshoot' response) .... then completing the cycle with movements ....
mismatched to the swing's 'rigidity' (getting an 'undershoot' response)

this 'overshoot' response was too often ignored eg by booster design codes re the Challenger disaster (and in aircraft)
and in UK bridge design codes re the Millenium bridge
and too often ignored eg by universities awarding degrees in engineering

competent designers allow for it

[Just_a_fan]

I would imagine if there isn't a slight bit of bend they could just break if too rigid

there is no such thing as too rigid (at least for 'subsonic' rates of change of input)
the wings eg of biplanes are/were far 'more rigid' than today's wings
(of course today's wings if attempting rigidity would be prohibitively heavy)

ie for any time-varying (but non-overshooting) change to a steady input .....
the load in a non-rigid structure can only have a higher peak (than in a rigid structure)
ie a non-overshooting input can give an overshooting response
eg the peak reading using a spring balance will always exceed the true weight

this 'overshoot' response was too often ignored eg by booster design codes re the Challenger disaster (and in aircraft)
and in UK bridge design codes re the Millenium bridge

this 'overshoot' response was too often ignored by universities awarding degrees in engineering
competent designers allow for it

Rigidity in a very long cantilever such as an airliner wing is difficult to achieve. You can do it but you end up adding unnecessary mass. Long, high aspect ratio wings are always going to be less stiff than a short low AR wing such as an old bi-plane. It's also worth remembering that the airliner wing is exposed to a much larger load variation - on the ground it's carrying many tonnes of fuel and engine with a resulting downwards force, in the air, the weight of the fuselage and the lift from the wings totally reverses that force. The old biplane just had a bit of wing self-weight on the ground so most of the design case was in a single direction.

Making the wing stiff enough to show little deflection would mean lots of extra mass and also would give much higher instantaneous shear forces at the wing root when subjected to turbulence. You'd also get more sudden movement in the cabin affecting the squawking bags of water that pay to travel.

Basically, you want a flexible airliner wing.