Virgin Racing VR-01 Cosworth

[xpensive]

you can see in the pictures of the original wing ,there is a cover plate closing the middle section of the wing between the pillars....

Ah, I got it now, with the cover plate now covered with reinforcement, they had to cut the tip of the nose in order to get the lead-pellets down the hollow pillars into the hollow wing mid-section? Cute.

[SZ]

That's what I mentioned first time around. Basically all teams run it.

[horse]

Thanks for all the input. I've tried to summarise the discussion in the original comparison post.

[marcush.]

you can see in the pictures of the original wing ,there is a cover plate closing the middle section of the wing between the pillars....

Ah, I got it now, with the cover plate now covered with reinforcement, they had to cut the tip of the nose in order to get the lead-pellets down the hollow pillars into the hollow wing mid-section? Cute.

In a measure of cost cutting they do not use Tungsten pellets.

In all honesty the nose cone insides should be accessible from the other side ?

[Richard]

Presumably that reinforced section is now illegal as is does not conform to the prescribed cross section (see Diagram 7 of the tech regs)? Should be back to normal at the next test session?

If the problem was underestimation of the irl loadcase, which seems likely

Why do you dismiss a manufacturing error? ...apologies if I missed a statement to that effect by the team ...

[horse]

Presumably that reinforced section is now illegal as is does not conform to the prescribed cross section (see Diagram 7 of the tech regs)?

I'm really struggling to read off any regulation for thickness here. The pillars thickness are determined by regulation 3.7.2 but I don't see such a regulation for thickness in regulation 3.7.3 or in diagram 7. It just seems to give positional information.

This is my first attempt at interpreting F1 regs, so please correct my ineptness.

EDIT: AH! It's prescribed by the table of coordinates in drawing seven, gotcha. I suppose they must have to do something else now to reinforce the wing (should the problem be more than a manufacturing error). If they did want to add more strength, would they change materials?

[godlameroso]

Interesting if I were wirth I would use this opportunity to create an aero device on the "neutral" part of the wing and say it was done for "safety"

[marcush.]

would you prefer a manufacturing error or a misjudging of the real loads ?
both will be heavily discussed at Wirth research ,that is for sure if it were one or another.
To me this looks like they did not have the proper test for the wing /nose assemply
in place ,and got cought out by the sheer forces on the part.
If you have manufacturing issues ,a few plies of Carbon will not solve this .
If you can do wishbones out of CF you should not be at troubles with an open wing section ....does not make much sense to me.

[imightbewrong]

Guys, remember this?


Happens even to the big guys, so lets not draw too big conclusions from this..

[axle]

After all. What is testing for but to find out where you have gone right and wrong with your assumption...

Again VR are likely to have teething trouble and the learning curve will be steep...but at least nlike some they aren't testing at the first GP!!!!

[xpensive]

Presumably that reinforced section is now illegal as is does not conform to the prescribed cross section (see Diagram 7 of the tech regs)? Should be back to normal at the next test session?

If the problem was underestimation of the irl loadcase, which seems likely

Why do you dismiss a manufacturing error? ...apologies if I missed a statement to that effect by the team ...

Because, as I laid out my hypothesis upstreams, Virgin should have made sure that every produced front wing was load-tested in the shop, all according to the design loadcase, prior to taking to the track. Standard QA if you ask me.

Looking at Diagram 7 in the regs, that was obviously not assembled by an Engineer, coordinates given with three decimals, followed by a +/- 1 mm tolerance!

[horse]

Another poor show from Virgin today, only ten laps completed. In comparison Lotus got 76 laps in. Also, I didn't see a good picture of the front wing from today for comparison to the repairs made last week.

[marcush.]

you have to assume that now after a little running the true issues are beginning to pop up and prevent them from working on those things that need sorting at this time of year.
You would not assume that this sort of mileage has anything to do with parts shortage or no running because of weather issues?

[RacingManiac]

Presumably that reinforced section is now illegal as is does not conform to the prescribed cross section (see Diagram 7 of the tech regs)? Should be back to normal at the next test session?

If the problem was underestimation of the irl loadcase, which seems likely

Why do you dismiss a manufacturing error? ...apologies if I missed a statement to that effect by the team ...

Because, as I laid out my hypothesis upstreams, Virgin should have made sure that every produced front wing was load-tested in the shop, all according to the design loadcase, prior to taking to the track. Standard QA if you ask me.

Looking at Diagram 7 in the regs, that was obviously not assembled by an Engineer, coordinates given with three decimals, followed by a +/- 1 mm tolerance!

I doubt the other teams do load test every part that comes out of the shop. Although knowing the nature of composite material that probably should not be a bad idea, in most cases that probably is just not feasible since you are under time constrain. I'd guess they may test the first one, and assume the rest should be the same.

[czt]

Stuff like pushrods are proof-loaded so it's conceivable a similar process may be undertaken with wings