F1technical.net

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

Now you have it! Flexibility can withstand stress.

My understanding was that the FIA were concerned that the quest for flexing wings would also result in weak wings. After all, the easiest way to make a stiff structure more flexible is to make it thinner and weaker (assuming the material and element section is sufficiently ductile).

The load test is an approximation of the stress:strain curve at low loads. By defining the bottom end of that curve there is an expectation that the extrapolated curve results in strong wings at full load with little deflection.

Clearly the test is pragmatic merging of stress and strain. Obviously one would design and test them separately in an ideal world. However there is something appealing in the simplicity of hanging 100kg off a point and seeing how much it moves with your pocket ruler.

You want to see some serious wing flexing? Just look at a helicopter blade in motion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug6W7_tafnc[/youtube]

richard_leeds wrote:My understanding was that the FIA were concerned that the quest for flexing wings would also result in weak wings. After all, the easiest way to make a stiff structure more flexible is to make it thinner and weaker (assuming the material and element section is sufficiently ductile).

The load test is an approximation of the stress:strain curve at low loads. By defining the bottom end of that curve there is an expectation that the extrapolated curve results in strong wings at full load with little deflection.

Clearly the test is pragmatic merging of stress and strain. Obviously one would design and test them separately in an ideal world. However there is something appealing in the simplicity of hanging 100kg off a point and seeing how much it moves with your pocket ruler.

Agreed on all points.

JimiJams wrote:

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 )

the correct term for them are nose pylons

Thanks Mate!

Thanks for the credit scuderiafan, I wondered if this would come up again, especially now that teams are trying so hard to get extra nose height it seems counterproductive to lower the nose tip by flexing the whole nose.

Also it is definitely possible to ban FW flexing completely, they could stick the nose section (you know, the bit they replace when the wing gets broken) in a portable wing tunnel, if it flexes to much at any point along it's length (measured by many lasers beneath the wing on the rig) the wing is not allowed. That deals with flexy wings, nose pylons and noses.

Mikey the scale involved for a wind tunnel big enough to house a font wing (2 meters diameter atleast) capable of 300 kph+ certainly wouldn't be portable.

MIKEY_! wrote:Also it is definitely possible to ban FW flexing completely, they could stick the nose section (you know, the bit they replace when the wing gets broken) in a portable wing tunnel, if it flexes to much at any point along it's length (measured by many lasers beneath the wing on the rig) the wing is not allowed. That deals with flexy wings, nose pylons and noses.

Can be done much easier, put some standard strakes underneath the wing to hang, say, 1cm below reference plane.

Or even easier is to mandate a stiff core to run through the centre of the wing supplied by the FIA.

Is changing the angle of attack helpful? Is this as effect has lowering the whole wing, not just the leading edge?

Brian

Just came across an interesting news piece by James Allen. Apologies if it has already been discussed, but a brief perusal of the forums hasn't indicated it as such.

According to JA, it has come to light that carbon composite can flex with the introduction of an electrical current.

The FIA will also apply tougher front wing flex tests, with loads applied in different areas on the wing. I learned before Christmas that there are some amazingly clever technologies at large from the aerospace industry which can get carbon composite to flex with the introduction of an electrical current. This would achieve the effect of getting the wing tips to dip for extra downforce…but would be illegal in F1.

I also recall a couple of Red Bull front wing smashes that revealed wires.


Electrical wires running current through the wings? And how would an improved load test be of any use when no current is running through the wing whilst it is being tested? Legal when tested, but fully flexing whilst racing.

Those wires go to the IR temp sensors.

Wasnt that the first thing discussed around the flexi wings?