Red Bull Technology post-rig shaker - RB4

[DaveKillens]

Exactly, anything can fail if it's overloaded. The goal is to find that limit, and it is validated by this kind of testing.

The front wing is a good example, a certain amount of flex is allowed, and no team would be foolish not to exploit this to the maximum. And since you don't want to construct a part too heavy, you want to build it to last just one predicted amount of time/or certain cycles of stress.

I just adore the 7 post rig, it's functions and how it's utilized. What's really cool is that during a race weekend, the data from the cars on track is fed back to the factory, and that data is used with the rig to refine the setup for the car. Drive the car in practice, feed the data back to the factory, the technicians and engineers work all night on setups, feeed the new data back to the team, and in the morning, the team has all kinds of fresh data they can input into the car to enhance performance.

[Jersey Tom]

The fact that it's a repeating test is what makes it obvious it's a plain ol' durability (fatigue) test. As I said earlier, if it were me and I wanted to test a flexing carbon nose cone, why do it like this? Makes much more sense to do it as quasi-static on something like an Instron or in a tunnel (since ultimately that's how the loads are applied).

[lotus7]

And there's your flexi nose , right at the start of the vid .

There you said it, seemed to me like you meant the flex like we had seen on the front wings of Red Bull over the past 3 years, which is special compared to just regular flex, which everything does if you apply enough forces.

It is not in my text , and you "seemed" wrong. It which was made purely to evoke reaction following the discussions last year after the posting of the nose change vid .
And as Strad said, tongue in cheek was appliccable .

Of course they design the structure to flex to gain an advantage - within the rules . And I am sure they were testing that designed flex on the rig , which includes testing the structural integrity of the parts designed to flex

[wesley123]

And there's your flexi nose , right at the start of the vid .

There you said it, seemed to me like you meant the flex like we had seen on the front wings of Red Bull over the past 3 years, which is special compared to just regular flex, which everything does if you apply enough forces.

It is not in my text , and you "seemed" wrong. It which was made purely to evoke reaction following the discussions last year after the posting of the nose change vid .
And as Strad said, tongue in cheek was appliccable .

Of course they design the structure to flex to gain an advantage - within the rules . And I am sure they were testing that designed flex on the rig , which includes testing the structural integrity of the parts designed to flex

The RB5 nose did not flex in the way that was discovered(that started on the RB6). The 'flex' you are talking about is just a regular stress test, and they are not trying a flexing nose, like said before at least 3 times by forum members that actually know stuff.

[strad]

The 'flex' you are talking about is just a regular stress test, and they are not trying a flexing nose, like said before at least 3 times by forum members that actually know stuff

And is exactly what we said...they are testing,,in the first of the video, the point of failure from FLEXING.
Or do you think they're doing it just for fun?
Get over yourself dude. You're way off base here. You're reading into it what you want.

[wesley123]

The 'flex' you are talking about is just a regular stress test, and they are not trying a flexing nose, like said before at least 3 times by forum members that actually know stuff

And is exactly what we said...they are testing,,in the first of the video, the point of failure from FLEXING.
Or do you think they're doing it just for fun?
Get over yourself dude. You're way off base here. You're reading into it what you want.

The post first lotus7 placed gave me the suggestion he was talking about the flex we had seen in races, to which I replied it was nothing special. After that you replied 'Just testing how much the supports flex ' Which after my reply wasnt really needed if you talked about the same stress test and flex because of that instead of the flexi-wing. Also the rolling eyes smiley gives the suggestion you were talking about flex in the vid shown related to the flexiwings, instead of just flex.

I'm sorry, but I cannot make any other sense of it apart than you two talking about flexi wings, instead of flexing because of the stress applied.

[lotus7]

than you two talking about flexi wings, instead of flexing because of the stress applied.

I referred in my original post to the flexing nose , which IMO includes all structures attached to it , incl the wing and not just the wing.
Most if not all teams have been utilising the flexibility of these structures for aero gain . FIA belived that their flex test would contain it. It did not , so they increased the loads . But the FIA load tests, again IMO , only applied to a certain deflection , from direct top load on the wings, and not what we see in the OP's vid .
Ferrari , who tried to emulate , for example , Red Bull , got the designed deflection so wrong , it gave them that wobbly wing , but it still complied to the load tests appliccable at the time .
I agree with Strad in that what we saw in the vid was testing the flexibility (with stress applied ) to achieve the aero gain while still complying with the rules, simultaneously also testing the structural integrity of said flexing parts .

[Jersey Tom]

I agree with Strad in that what we saw in the vid was testing the flexibility (with stress applied ) to achieve the aero gain while still complying with the rules, simultaneously also testing the structural integrity of said flexing parts .

I suppose we agree to disagree, then. I am 99% certain that test was not driven by trying to get flexy aero gain.

Repeated cyclic testing screams fatigue test, period. I suppose you could say this is only my opinion, but if it were me trying to do some sort of aero-related test I think it would be a no brainer to do it as quasi-static load vs. deflection - and in a realistic load scenario (e.g. wind tunnel or CFD or something).

[Tim.Wright]

+1 to it being a durability/fatigue test. As Tom said, the fact that its oscillating suggests its testing fatigue.

Also;
1. there are no lvdt's or strain gauges on the part so they are not measuring any flex
2. Most of the input force/resulting deflection is laterally not vertically

[wesley123]

than you two talking about flexi wings, instead of flexing because of the stress applied.

I referred in my original post to the flexing nose , which IMO includes all structures attached to it , incl the wing and not just the wing.
Most if not all teams have been utilising the flexibility of these structures for aero gain . FIA belived that their flex test would contain it. It did not , so they increased the loads . But the FIA load tests, again IMO , only applied to a certain deflection , from direct top load on the wings, and not what we see in the OP's vid .
Ferrari , who tried to emulate , for example , Red Bull , got the designed deflection so wrong , it gave them that wobbly wing , but it still complied to the load tests appliccable at the time .
I agree with Strad in that what we saw in the vid was testing the flexibility (with stress applied ) to achieve the aero gain while still complying with the rules, simultaneously also testing the structural integrity of said flexing parts .

So they are testing the flex of the current rules on an RB5 nose. How does that make any sense to you?

[strad]

Disingenuous springs to mind..Are you just a troll or what?

[wesley123]

EDIT: nvm, not going to bother

[DaveW]

So they are testing the flex of the current rules on an RB5 nose. How does that make any sense to you?

I'm not at all sure you can conclude the first part. However, it might make some kind of sense if you recall the wide interest shown in the RBR nose, and also that revealing what appears to be a durability test scores no direct brownie points.

[DaveKillens]

Repeated cyclic testing screams fatigue test, period.

I could not agree more. The team designs and builds a nose piece, static test it to verify compliance within the regulations, then do a cyclic stress test to ensure it doesn't break under the rigors or racing.

And from the manner of testing, it appears they were just attempting to discover when it breaks. We haven't even begun to discuss harmonics.

[MadMatt]

On a side note here are briefly 2 more :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgJuF9x3YsQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dms5MSO800[/youtube]

I have seen also video of Renault's old rig during an extended video, but that video has not been released to the public yet unfortunately. It was however pretty similar to the RBR video !