F1technical.net

Lindz wrote:

richard_leeds wrote:

forty-two wrote:allowing one team to get away with cheating as I see it.

There has to be some definition of allowable defection, zero deflection is impossible. The FIA have chosen a simple point load as their definition. All the teams work to that definition, and all comply when tested. So why is that cheating?

Exactly. Nothing will ever be completely rigid, it's up to the rules to set what the limit is. If you comply, you are legal.

I will repeat myself and ask why not put sensors to measure the flexing? If the regulations say things are not allowed to flex, then they should do that. It would have been another story of the regulations simply say the wing should not flex when tested in such and such way. However, the regulations say aero parts should not flex and describe how this should be tested. The test is widely considered inadequate and FAI should find a way control the flexing.

Ferraripilot wrote:It's cheating 3.15 as 3.17.1 is asinine in checking 3.15.

Well the two rules are in complete contradiction, really, aren't they?

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
....
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
....

By allowing any bodywork flexibility you are in breach of 3.15.

vall wrote:I will repeat myself and ask why not put sensors to measure the flexing? If the regulations say things are not allowed to flex, then they should do that. It would have been another story of the regulations simply say the wing should not flex when tested in such and such way. However, the regulations say aero parts should not flex and describe how this should be tested. The test is widely considered inadequate and FAI should find a way control the flexing.

They need small measuring lasers in each wing endplate, front of wing and back of wing that CONSTANTLY measures distance to ground. Until that happens, debating the legality of a flexing wing is a waste of time.

Truths:
Redbull's wing Flexes/pivots/moves/whatever
The FIA tests are inadequate to measure wing flexibility/pivoting/moving/whatevering

The onerous is on the FIA to create tests that enforce their rules, not Redbull. Until then, debating the legality of the wing is a waste of time.

horse wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote:It's cheating 3.15 as 3.17.1 is asinine in checking 3.15.

Well the two rules are in complete contradiction, really, aren't they?

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
....
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
....

By allowing any bodywork flexibility you are in breach of 3.15.

Which is precisely why 3.17.8 was created. Whiting knew teams would be 'creative' with their flexy bits and rather than go through a tribunal and a vote to recheck things, a rule was put in place to allow the Fia to check however they wanted and whenever they wanted. I am completely mystified they are not doing something about this.....

Not so horse.

There is a legal limit of flex, 20mm I believe. So flexing can occur, so long as it doesn't go beyond the permissable.
And from the pictures on this thread demonstrate, there is something flexing to allow red bull a lower front wing giving them a massive advantage.
Personally, I feel it's something in the nose and on the nose attachments to the wing. The FIA could be measuring the wrong part of the car.

Question:

What sort of structural engineering effort does it require to build such a wing and fashion such weaving to allow for desired flexibility?

Design time vs build time vs wind tunnel testing? 200 hours at the min?

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Not so horse.

There is a legal limit of flex, 20mm I believe. So flexing can occur, so long as it doesn't go beyond the permissable.
And from the pictures on this thread demonstrate, there is something flexing to allow red bull a lower front wing giving them a massive advantage.
Personally, I feel it's something in the nose and on the nose attachments to the wing. The FIA could be measuring the wrong part of the car.

The wing is basically rigid with one type of carbon fibre weave to the 800-900mm mark and then the weave pattern drastically changes I am guessing with a lighter weave patterned in a different direction. Aircraft wings are designed like this as well. I am sure they are doing something similar in the nose as well.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Not so horse.

There is a legal limit of flex, 20mm I believe. So flexing can occur, so long as it doesn't go beyond the permissable.

That's totally my point though, 20mm for 1000N. It doesn't specify that the bodywork should not flex beyond 20mm if the load is higher than that.

Ecapox,

Lasers would easily pick up on a flexing front wing. Sonic sensors too can pick up on minuscule movements. Prior to each grand prix, teams would have to run a their gp spec front wings in a windtunnel, to prove legality. Could even be done at their own factories under fia auspices.

Problem solved.

horse wrote:

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Not so horse.

There is a legal limit of flex, 20mm I believe. So flexing can occur, so long as it doesn't go beyond the permissable.

That's totally my point though, 20mm for 1000N. It doesn't specify that the bodywork should not flex beyond 20mm if the load is higher than that.

I see what you are saying. If this is the law, the law is an ass.

But I think the FIA should do something. Nothing against red bull, but how can whiting declare this legal with no case to answer?
This is what riles me.
There is something going on,be it ingenuity, cheating or fia incompetence. But it needs looking at.

horse wrote:

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Not so horse.

There is a legal limit of flex, 20mm I believe. So flexing can occur, so long as it doesn't go beyond the permissable.

That's totally my point though, 20mm for 1000N. It doesn't specify that the bodywork should not flex beyond 20mm if the load is higher than that.

not quite right. This is the description of the test. The regulations say no aero part should move, which excludes the wing moving by more than 20mm, IMHO.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Ecapox,

Lasers would easily pick up on a flexing front wing. Sonic sensors too can pick up on minuscule movements. Prior to each grand prix, teams would have to run a their gp spec front wings in a windtunnel, to prove legality. Could even be done at their own factories under fia auspices.

Problem solved.

Exactly. Therefore the only conclusion that we can come to is that the FIA doesnt care that the wing is flexing, or doesnt care enough to change the tests.

Please, guys, reread the best you can what have been written already in this thread.

I guess it's the fifth time somebody discovers wings have specified flexibility (you know, actually reading the rules on the subject you're hotly arguing about before going head over heels on it would help a bit).

It's also the fifth time somebody points out this happens because it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a cantilever that doesn't flex.

Yes, we know, the rule about nothing flexing anytime is ridiculous. It would be the umpteenth time someone concludes that. We already know, we agree, give us some rest.

It would be the third time we find a suggestion to use laser sensors for height checking, but that's not the current rule.

BTW, please, do NOT discover for sixth time that under 2,000 Newtons, that is, twice the load you'll get WAY more than twice 20 mm. Again, it is a cantilever, with a more or less distributed uniform load (yeah, yeah, I know it is not perfectly distributed, puleehze).

If someone discovers again that this flexing of the wings happens because RedBull uses non-linear composites, I'm going to report the post.

It will be the first time I report a post because it is repetitive.

If I can summarize the thread, it goes like that:

1. RB wing flexes and it flexes more than McLaren and Ferrari!
3. It complies with regulations
4. That's unfair!
5. No, it's a new way to make flexing wings that comply with regulations. It happens every year. Remember (insert all the list of gadgets that were used in the same way).
6. That's unfair. We should (insert gadget proposed) to make sure that RB doesn't have an advantage. Let me explain to you the spirit of rules.
7. Well, maybe, kind of spiritual to me. Take in account this is F1. You can find Mother Theresa orphanage's thread in other forum. FIA already has a way to change testing if they wish to do so. Read regulations, puleehze.

If you can provide another point, welcome. This monstrosity is over 30 pages long, for the love of Pete.

I do not like to menace people (first time in 6 years!) but if I see any other picture showing that wing flexes, I will copy/paste it in the Caption Competition thread and I will add a really CRUEL caption.

Especially for you Ciro ...

Look it moves! Isaac Newton was right after all!

Okay, I noticed a lot of vertical movement (shake) of RB7 rear wing compared to Ferrari F150 could it be due to the diffuser floor deforming/flexing , or stiff rear suspension or just a simple case to limited support of the rear wing attachment?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPdHTlvw90[/youtube]