F1technical.net

maybe Red Bull are using the actuator to bend the wing

tim

Tim.Wright wrote:maybe Red Bull are using the actuator to bend the wing

tim

That's a good thought ....how about using the actuator to "pass" the wing weight test in tech, and then, in other positions (while running on track) to allow the wing to flex at a level below the weight test?
With a large enough and long enough shaft and an end that "provides" support for the weight of the front wing tests in one of the positions of adjustment. Leaving the other positions with no "wing" support and allowing it to flex.
Hungry has some great pictures of just how much the RB wings are flexing, with heavy fuel loads the endplates are dragging the ground

Sorry if already posted pictures:

A lot of people pointed to James Allen's blog. And there were lots of references to Darren Heath's photos. And that pretty much settled the discussion.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/p ... -yourself/

I am still puzzled by the aero stuff. How would that be done? Any aero guys who can give a quick tutorial on optimization for that kind of curving towards the edge?

Also, flexible aero parts were illegal, weren't they? If FIA has the right to adjust their testing as far as the flexing goes, why is there such a delay even though there is so much evidence pointing towards it?

Another thought to bear.

If the wing is passing the load tests, then maybe the vertical compliance isnt what is lowering the wing. The height of the wing also depends on the ride height of the front axle. There are still the unresolved suspicions of the ride height control on the RB6. In the case of a such a system, you don't need the front wing to flex at all.

Careful selection of the rebound damping rates could keep the front axle lower during the race duration and account for the low wing altitudes we see in the pictures

Tim

I think some of the comments about using different wing-angle actuator positions to change the stiffness of the wing are pretty clever. Also the comments about putting the actuators or ballast at the outboard edges of the wing to flex them down into another stiffness regime on track.

The James Allen post gives good figures for rough calculation. He says the controversial Red Bull sag is ~25 mm at the outboard edges. He says the FIA stiffness test is to load the wings with ~50 kg of weight and verify the wings don't flex more than 10 mm at the tips. He then mentions that downforce during high speed corners can be ~200 kg from the front wings alone. Therefore we could expect up to 40 mm droop in high speed corners from wings with linear stiffness that pass the FIA test. Why are we so confused by the ~25 mm droop in the pictures? It appears the sag can be explained by the allowable flexibility.

What is the speed and corresponding downforce level in some of the specific pics? How much droop could we expect in the pics based on the FIA-allowed 10 mm per 50 kg?

I would guess the small Ferrari sag could certainly be explained by linear droop within FIA guidlines. Red Bull could be doing some additional yaw mode stiffness trick as mentioned by someone else.

those 3picture are not showing the issues here as the cars are either not on the same path (using differnt lines or are in a differnt phase of their behaviour) we can clearly see the Mac front is unloaded ,just loo at the splitter height! ,wheras the ferrar is almost scraping the ground with the splitter although the inner front wheel is lifted of the ground by almost as much as the Macs..
The RB is barely touching the curb with the front tyre,but seems to roll a lot more...(look at the spltter angle vs ground)..so is this because the RB is very stiff in roll at the rear (with the rear tyre up due to moving over the curb)?
the effect we are discussing is a matter of high speeds .

the actuator mechanism is surely contributing to the stiffness..Webber got in one of the first races info from his engineer to not try and adjust the front wing as the mechanism got stuck according to the telemetry..comeon a new car barely a few hundred km done and the actuation is worn out???

The FIA test is 50kg. Allen says 200kg downforce is developed. So 100 kg per side spread across the span is not very different to a concentrated 50 kg at the outer end.

However the front wing has many more elements at the outside so it develops most of its downforce at the outboard section. So the FIA test is low.

Is the 200kg figure confirmed?

I must say that I suspect RBR are using the adjustable front wing flaps to help them here. Am I correct in thinking they are only allowed to change it a limited times per lap?

yes, there is a limit as how often they can change flap/wing position during a lap.
Therefore I don´t think that they use the actuator for this purpose, but everything is possible.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


I suspect the bending occurs in the blue highlighted section (the struts ends bend together when you load the wing tips)
When you weaken the section between them its more easily.

Anyway better have a bending wing than this stupid angle shift allowed by FIA.
We still don't know if Redbull uses the actuator at all. I would not.

747heavy wrote:yes, there is a limit as how often they can change flap/wing position during a lap.
Therefore I don´t think that they use the actuator for this purpose, but everything is possible.

They only need to change it twice in a race. Once at the start, once on the cooling down lap.

Tim.Wright wrote:

747heavy wrote:yes, there is a limit as how often they can change flap/wing position during a lap.
Therefore I don´t think that they use the actuator for this purpose, but everything is possible.

They only need to change it twice in a race. Once at the start, once on the cooling down lap.

it is not like they have only two wing settings they could possibly use... as this is a very precise mechanism you could define one setting within the allowed range that does produce the desired flex (or stiffness)...

If i understand right, some of you are thinking that via the actuator or in a passive way RB controls the wing twist at the tips?
It looks like a lot complicated to me...Or maybe that's something that is guided by the bodyroll in some way?(some links btw the body and the wingtips, as Wright brothers thought to steer the flyer,for example...)Or the stiffness like the rod insertion in a guitar fretboard???

Do you think the FIA guys are that stupid to not check the function of the actuator? I don't think this could be overseen or they allow such a misuse.

why not making a system whose secondary purpose is playing the angle of attack of the wing...