F1technical.net

what do you think about adjustable ride hight?

From the pics published you cannot see evidence of the nosecone wedging away from the tub .this would require a gap to develop but in the pics thats not obvious
maybe one could interpret this into soem onboard footage...

But I have seen weird things in my life ...and i would not be surprised if there was
indeed some tensional flex in the nosecone of Redbull...tilting the nose by the required amount.

ther is an awful lot to find about ADAPTIVE wing flex to be found,
for example:
http://velos0.ltt.mech.ntua.gr/ERCOFTAC ... 082027.pdf

just imagine have the spars be high or low section in areas of interest ,and you get the flex where you want it.It is really damn easy to built, if you can build a wing ,you can tailor the stiffness real easy by the design of the spars .
you could strt in the middle with a conical tube (very stiff leading into a tube section go to a flat section and expand toward a conical shape towards the endplate..this would create a hinge or a bending section without and by problem .

A far cry that, isn't it marcush? But as Whitmarsh said, they don't understand the flexing either so we are in good company.

marcush. wrote:From the pics published you cannot see evidence of the nosecone wedging away from the tub .this would require a gap to develop but in the pics thats not obvious
maybe one could interpret this into soem onboard footage...

But I have seen weird things in my life ...and i would not be surprised if there was
indeed some tensional flex in the nosecone of Redbull...tilting the nose by the required amount.

I believe we are in the same page
the matter is that the whole wing "dives" not only the end plates which eventually dive more

marcush. wrote:
just imagine have the spars be high or low section in areas of interest ,and you get the flex where you want it.It is really damn easy to built, if you can build a wing ,you can tailor the stiffness real easy by the design of the spars .
you could strt in the middle with a conical tube (very stiff leading into a tube section go to a flat section and expand toward a conical shape towards the endplate..this would create a hinge or a bending section without and by problem .

Just some kind of anti roll bar mechanism present in F1 for more than 50 years

of course a mechanism is not allowed...
the principles have to be integrated into the construction..no separate parts.

well yes and NO
I suscribe 80% the idea they are using something legal, but may be they are not
anyway we already have a divice to adjust the front wing flaps
it would be easy
talking in general "dinamic aero" is not a bad idea as the birds do it cars can do it
the best example came out from the BMW concept car , which changes the exterior
shape as per driver wish.
Or Concorde nose!!!!

An adjustable wing, has a rod inside of it to allow a "pivot" for adjustment and support for the wing. This is a "common" construction to literally all adjustable wings. Additionally there is a mounting point, at the trailing end of the wing for securing the wing (to the endplate) in it's adjusted spot.
With F1, you have a winglet that is adjustable with a driver adjustable angle. This would not have the secondary mounting spot and would rely solely on the main wing rod to hold the wing in place. This rod would need to be stronger than a "normal" wing, as all support for the adjustment and the wing "pressure" would be here. The endplates support any twisting forces and need to be of higher strength as well.
The actuator would merely rotate this rod, but also must be strong enough to "support" the wing angle.
If this rod were to have a slot or tab in one position, it could "lock" itself to the endplates and thereby locking the distance between them due to weight or air pressure on the wing. To describe this, envision a board with a handle mounted to it at both ends, preventing any flex of the board below it. Remove one mounting point of the handle and the board would be free to flex pulling the handle away from it's mounting point.
Now add in a scalped wing (main plane) that is meant to flex, except that the secondary winglet rod in the locked position prevents it (by locking the endplates together), and meets the stationary weight test.
Once the driver takes off, hits the driver controlled adjustment and unlocks the endplates and bingo you have flexing wings.
IMHO...this could explain the bending of the ends of the mainplane on the Red Bull,(James Allen has some terrific photos from Hungary showing the RB bending the ends of the mainplane by some 24mm) but not the closer distance of the center of the main plane. That would be coming from some other mechanicism.

Prehaps it would be possible to have a torque wrench style mechanism inside the wing, yet somehow design it to have more freedom of movement when the pawl pops out.

How a torque wrench works:

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/torque_wrench/index.html

mariano.torre.gomez wrote:the best example came out from the BMW concept car , which changes the exterior
shape as per driver wish.
Or Concorde nose!!!!

I'm afraid that Concorde's nose does not droop for active aerodynamics; it was built to droop for visibility whilst on the ground. The test pilots found that the long nose obscured their view whilst taxiing and during take-off, so they built it with the ability to drop the nose when they aren't in flight.

As for the red bull wing, I think that having the wing adjustment system built in a way that affects the structural rigidity is the most likely scenario : the rules covering a wing's flexibility were written prior to the flap adjustment system being introduced, so the testing regime will not have been designed to take all wing positions into account. It seems plausible that this has provided a grey area in the scrutineering process, as I doubt that they will have been explicitly instructed to carry out the wing test in all possible positions and will thus have just tested the wing in the flap position that the car had upon arrival.

Is the new test 200kgs? If so then have red bull already passed it?? Look at what they say on the official F1.com site...

Although TV footage has shown the Red Bull front wing appear to almost touch the track surface at speed, the rules demand that when static it has to stay 75mm above the ground. Even so the car has passed all the necessary scrutineering checks, including a rigorous one on Saturday in Hungary with 200 kilogrammes applied to the RB6's underbody and the plank.

Link http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 5/780.html

thestig84 wrote:Is the new test 200kgs? If so then have red bull already passed it?? Look at what they say on the official F1.com site...

Although TV footage has shown the Red Bull front wing appear to almost touch the track surface at speed, the rules demand that when static it has to stay 75mm above the ground. Even so the car has passed all the necessary scrutineering checks, including a rigorous one on Saturday in Hungary with 200 kilogrammes applied to the RB6's underbody and the plank.

Link http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/ ... 5/780.html

No that test is applied to the underbody splitter (T-tray) not the front wing, this has been at 200kg for 5mm deflection since Spain 2007.

Ah yeah sorry my bad! I just totally failed to read the underbody plank bit Sorry!

I'm afaid that 500 or 1000 N vertical test won't chance much really, the Neweys and Simons are way too smart for that.

This is something else, involving horizontal loads on an anisotrop body,

Belive me.

does anybody know if te F1 cars have any kind of system to control the ride gap with the ground?