F1technical.net

You don't have to change angles of attack (even if they change) to get an advantage of the front wing bending. Just the diminished ride height is enough to provide you more downforce.

About why other teams haven caught up with RBR, I insist that the trick needs a wing that is not elastic, but plastic or thixotropic. That must be quite a trick and requires research.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:But there was all the hoo ha over the DDD, the point was it complied with written rule. Watching the end plates of a front wing touch the ground is a bit of a joke really, regardless of any static test it passes.

The difference between this and the double diffuser controversy is that the double diffuser didn't go away when the car was stationary and being scrutineered. It could be seen and analysed and measured. The decision to either outlaw or allow it was based on someone's interpretation of whether something was a slot or a hole. If you can't measure it it doesn't matter what you think you can see.

The point that many don't see to be getting is that you can quote all the regulations under the sun you like, but the only time those regulations actually apply is when the car is stationary and is scrutineered. Sauber have found that out.

To be honest, I agree with Ciro and think there is more going on here than anyone realises. It has to be more than just plain elasticity. I wonder what Rory Byrne the chemist would make of it?

Screenshots from the Aus GP



Why does not the FIA mandate a certain height for which the wings have to be above the ground, now that stress tests have "failed" to control the flexing?

They do mandate an 85mm clearance (I believe). But there is no way of proving that REd Bull has contravened that is there? Video and photos is messed up by perspective, and they can't be used as definitive evidence, I don't think.

They all lose ground clearance under aero load. So some of it comes from the car squatting. The rest is the nose drooping forward and the wings bending down, IMO.

Looking at anirudh's pic above, notice that even the center section of the wing is lower on the RB than on the Ferrari. The center sections of the wings are all the same height relative to the reference plane, on all the cars (the center profile is a spec geometry, and they place it as low as they can). I think this is more evidence that the nose itself is flexing down a little.

So you lose some clearance in the suspension compression (1), some more with the nose droop (2), and finally the rest in the transverse bending of the wings (pivoting about their intersection with the spec center section)(3). That's my guess.

also notice in anirudh's pic above that the red bull's front wheels have a lot more negative camber than the ferrari, I think that red bull have their front suspension a lot softer than any other team, which lets their wing get closer to the ground and still pass scrutineering. this would also put the outer edge of their wing closer to the ground through a turn.

Formula None, yes I appreciate that the clearance will change. What I meant, was, that they have a mandated minimum clearance.

There are so many clear pictures of the wing flexing. I perceive FIA would also have had a close look. Could it be that they did do some back ground checks or results from last years test did reveal something which was well within the regulations, hence no action.

While you can see the wings flex, they cannot conclusively prove this. I believe photographic/video evidence of a part's movement relative to the rest of the car is not conclusive enough to prove a breach of the regulations due to perspective etc

Sorry raymond I wasn't trying to correct you.

How about this for an FIA test rig: An array of small hydraulic cylinders which can conform to the shape of any wing, tipped with some medium durometer foam or rubber. Point of contact every 20mm^2 or so across the entire upper surface(s). Place it above wing, drop down the rams and set to position, lock them to prevent vertical travel (valves on the rams), then apply a realistic static load to the array that's nearer to actual conditions experienced at speed.

You could compare suspension travel, nose cone shell flex and wing flex all in one go.

Something like an industrial strength version of these:

raymondu999 wrote:They do mandate an 85mm clearance (I believe). But there is no way of proving that REd Bull has contravened that is there? Video and photos is messed up by perspective, and they can't be used as definitive evidence, I don't think.

Why not use proximity sensors (similar to the ones which help people park their car) with respect to the ground. Maybe increase sensitivity of those sensors and fix a mandated running height above the ground.

Mounting of sensors can be done, by placing sensors within the CF wing along the span. If the wing is closer to the ground than the desired height, the FIA can penalise the teams.

I think that's a bit too much as far as the front wings go. Besides, the front wings naturally flex so the static height would not be the reference when the car is running.

What I'm wondering is if the flexible wings provide RBR as much of an advantage as it is thought, therefore it would be interesting if they ran a normal wing to see if their pace in qualy and then the race would differ. Although I doubt it would make a significant impact, seeing how the car in general is just better than the rest for the time being. Perhaps cracking down on the FW shouldn't be the priority, this has proven to be perfectly safe and is just an outright ace piece of engineering.

Re: static height. Just measure relative to the reference plane then.

I think having the front wing closer to the ground is a huge advantage. Ground effect only gets better the closer you get. Well, until you hit the ground.

Agree though with:

mx_tifosi wrote:is just an outright ace piece of engineering.

Ciro Pabón wrote:About why other teams haven caught up with RBR, I insist that the trick needs a wing that is not elastic, but plastic or thixotropic. That must be quite a trick and requires research.

I support that. All wings have always been a bit flexible by virtue of being as light as possible, but if you pass the deflection tests that is going to give you, what, 10mm? 20mm more at speed? The bulls have found 50-60mm more and probably only stopped there because then there is tarmac. And McLaren also found most of it now...
But respect this being a difficult trick to research, I have this mental image of all CFD engineeres trying to make 3D models with plastic properties, and the wind tunnel guys using some play-doh in their 60% models. And with those high-tech tools I can see how this is hell to research, but actually this is a problem that could be conquered by simply making many real size wings with different construction techniques and a bunch of ramming rods. Fix your wings to a testing scaffold, put realistic loads in realistic places, and measure displacement. Cannot be that difficult. The models don't even need to be aero efficient, just use the same construction techniques as a real wing would.

What has me mystified is hat last year Ferrari seemed to have a flexing wing, although flexing less than the Red Bulls'. In the first preseason tests they still had it, I looked for it in many pics and one could see a lowish tilted wing occasionally. Then they changed to the giant pylons and the wing seems to have stopped moving at all. It is bizarre, if this is really a performance differentiator, they they have forgotten how to do it!

IIRC some other images show the front wing having some considerable rake when flexing, but this one shows that it's almost completely even front to back.



Even though this is a bit late, it is clear that the nosecone in fact never bended. The mandated central section is never close to the ground, only the sections to the side of it.


Part of me wants this flexible wing advantage to end, but at the same time I'm really interested and intrigued by their mastery of this concept. And it's striking how their wings have drawn so much attention, given their "RB gives you wing " slogan. Too good to make up.