F1technical.net

After looking at the immense amount of guessing from last year and going back through the recent comments, here, I must present my own hypothesis.

It is thus (and please pardon me if this has been mentioned already before):

The wing isn't so much "flexing" as it is "twisting".

As mentioned before, having the wing pitch downwards under high-speed loads would be an immense challenge bar the "inserts" seen on the Mclaren and FI(?).

The new FIA tests are to apply a load, I'm guessing, to provide a pure bending moment to the wing. What I imagine is that the materials engineers at Red Bull have laid up the carbon fiber to provide maximum resistance to those loads, but perhaps provide less resistance to twisting (torsional) loads. This would allow flexing at high speeds, with the wings twisting, but can still withstand FIA loads.

If I haven't over-explained myself enough, it would be like the front-wing elements pivoting about a solid bar.

RB7ate9 wrote:After looking at the immense amount of guessing from last year and going back through the recent comments, here, I must present my own hypothesis.

It is thus (and please pardon me if this has been mentioned already before):

The wing isn't so much "flexing" as it is "twisting".

As mentioned before, having the wing pitch downwards under high-speed loads would be an immense challenge bar the "inserts" seen on the Mclaren and FI(?).

The new FIA tests are to apply a load, I'm guessing, to provide a pure bending moment to the wing. What I imagine is that the materials engineers at Red Bull have laid up the carbon fiber to provide maximum resistance to those loads, but perhaps provide less resistance to twisting (torsional) loads. This would allow flexing at high speeds, with the wings twisting, but can still withstand FIA loads.

If I haven't over-explained myself enough, it would be like the front-wing elements pivoting about a solid bar.

It sounds like you are saying you think the front wing twists from the mounting points in the middle to the end plates, in the plane of the road.

I am saying that the supports (I call "fangs") twist, in the plane of the tires, in a toe-in fashion at speed.

It will be fun to watch for photos to see if we can tell if either or neither of us is right!

Adrian Newby wrote:

RB7ate9 wrote:After looking at the immense amount of guessing from last year and going back through the recent comments, here, I must present my own hypothesis.

It is thus (and please pardon me if this has been mentioned already before):

The wing isn't so much "flexing" as it is "twisting".

As mentioned before, having the wing pitch downwards under high-speed loads would be an immense challenge bar the "inserts" seen on the Mclaren and FI(?).

The new FIA tests are to apply a load, I'm guessing, to provide a pure bending moment to the wing. What I imagine is that the materials engineers at Red Bull have laid up the carbon fiber to provide maximum resistance to those loads, but perhaps provide less resistance to twisting (torsional) loads. This would allow flexing at high speeds, with the wings twisting, but can still withstand FIA loads.

If I haven't over-explained myself enough, it would be like the front-wing elements pivoting about a solid bar.

It sounds like you are saying you think the front wing twists from the mounting points in the middle to the end plates, in the plane of the road.

I am saying that the supports (I call "fangs") twist, in the plane of the tires, in a toe-in fashion at speed.

It will be fun to watch for photos to see if we can tell if either or neither of us is right!

Yes! Precisely what I meant spoken in much better terms!

Adrian Newby wrote:
If anything, these photos show the nose bending, or where the fangs meet the nose (both are relatively meaty, if flexible, structures unlikely to be be failure points), not the wing itself, or its attachment to the fangs.

Also, they are close, but not directly comparable photos. The reference lines are at different locations relative to the wheel nuts.

It seems like the different camera angles are creating the illusion of the entire nose flexing. The actual pivot point appears to be somewhere in the "fangs" that connect to the front wing. (i don't know what their called some one tell me the proper term )

i totally agree with you.

I would call them the Front wing pillars.

The camera angles would probably be a bit of that. the pictures aren't scaled the same, and parallax is a hell of an issue. Look at how the pic on the right has endplates that don't even appear in line while the one on the left at least does vertically.

but parallax won´t bend the endplates mate.Of course bad people could photoshop everything you can shape claudia schiffer and you can do so with dirty kate or what´s her name..

scuderiafan wrote:
MIKEY! had a similar concept.

MIKEY_! wrote:This is a simplified example, in reality the vertical supports would have to deform outwards or inwards at the flex point for this to work. If the supports could be horizontal for part of their length this would not be necessary.

This system lowers wing height and increases AoA much like RBR's flexy nose.

Yea i mentioned this back when flexi wings were just started to come to the publics eyes

timbo wrote:

gilgen wrote:What makes you think that a flexing wing is any more likely to break than a non-flexing one?

If it were for safety, don't you think the rule would say "when hit by a 100kg impactor at 100m/s the wing must not break*" rather than that they must not flex. Note the no flexing bodywork rule is in there along with banning systems designed to bridge the gap between the car and the ground – i.e. skirts. It's purely and simply to ban wing in ground effect devices.

* Numbers made up on the spot, and obviously way too high.

Ageed, Beelsebob. If a rigid wing is previously damaged, it would be more likely to snap off due to molecular deterioation (fatique) A flexible wing is less likely to break off. It is more likely to flex.
Yes, Vettels accident with Button was caused by the wing flexing as it came out of the slipstream, just as Webbers accident with Kovalainen. However, following these accidents, and probably because of them, the aero rules were changed so as to minimise that problem. Since then, there have been no such problems.

Flexing checks came originally for safety reasons. The were a series of major accidents with car loosing wings at the end of '90s, Sauber had to withdraw from one GP after rear wing failed on both cars in practice.

Don't confuse failure of a rigid upright , with a failure of a flexible wing. I cannot remember a single occassion when a flexible part failed on an F1 car. Can you refer me to any information which shows or talks about a flexible wing self destructing? Now, if you can show me where an actual flexing part actually broke,without any impact damage, I might be impressed

When discussing safety we also need to look at how the wing is affected by turbulence, as in Vettel's crash into Button, and oscillations / flapping that can occur in flexible parts such as with Ferrari's front wing last year. Both are bad for safety and in both instances a stiffer construction would reduce the danger.

Since when is the "flexing" safety related? It is against the spirit of the rules.
They want to run the front wing lower than allowed from the regs, to gain downforce, to gain an unfair advantage.
It is maybe safety related because of higher speeds achieved but not because of wing failure.

myurr wrote:When discussing safety we also need to look at how the wing is affected by turbulence, as in Vettel's crash into Button, and oscillations / flapping that can occur in flexible parts such as with Ferrari's front wing last year. Both are bad for safety and in both instances a stiffer construction would reduce the danger.

Granted that Vettels wing flexibility caused an accident, but this was mainly to do with the aero behind a leading car. This was rectified by new rules, making slipstreaming safer.

Massas wing did flex alarmingly, however despite the serious flexing, it did not fail, and he even raced with it.

Something that flexes is safer than a supposedly rigid object, which can fail without warning.

gilgen wrote:Don't confuse failure of a rigid upright , with a failure of a flexible wing. I cannot remember a single occassion when a flexible part failed on an F1 car. Can you refer me to any information which shows or talks about a flexible wing self destructing? Now, if you can show me where an actual flexing part actually broke,without any impact damage, I might be impressed

http://f1page.com/archives/1999/03/61.html

timbo wrote:

gilgen wrote:Don't confuse failure of a rigid upright , with a failure of a flexible wing. I cannot remember a single occassion when a flexible part failed on an F1 car. Can you refer me to any information which shows or talks about a flexible wing self destructing? Now, if you can show me where an actual flexing part actually broke,without any impact damage, I might be impressed

http://f1page.com/archives/1999/03/61.html

I fully accept that the wings are banned, BUT...if you read the article, you will see that is talks about the rear wings coming off. It does not say that the flexible part of the wing failed. In Saubers case, it was down to a manufacturing error in the lay up of the rigid supports. I dont know much about the others, but it would be safe to say that the ENTIRE wing flew off, due to failure of the rigid supports.
By the way, the next time that you are flying, have a look at the wings when you take off. They have to be flexible, otherwise they would snap. Flexibility is a requirement in the aeronautical industry.

gilgen wrote: I fully accept that the wings are banned, BUT...if you read the article, you will see that is talks about the rear wings coming off. It does not say that the flexible part of the wing failed. In Saubers case, it was down to a manufacturing error in the lay up of the rigid supports. I dont know much about the others, but it would be safe to say that the ENTIRE wing flew off, due to failure of the rigid supports.

So, you say flexing played absolutely no role in the crashes? How come that after the checks were promoted the number of such accidents decreased?
Yeah, might be it was not the actual part that was flexing failed, but most likely such behavior lead to a concentration of stresses that wouldn't happen with a more rigid structure. And my point was to that the FIA enforced flex-check on the safety grounds.

By the way, the next time that you are flying, have a look at the wings when you take off. They have to be flexible, otherwise they would snap. Flexibility is a requirement in the aeronautical industry.

Flexibility is not a "requirement", ability to withstand stress is. How much structure flexes is a byproduct.