F1technical.net

"A" is what droops ..well the whole thing droops really... and "A" seals the wing to the track . On Speed they showed it and also how the bottom outside of "A" gets shredded by contact with the track...I assume we will soon have titanium rub blocks making nice sparks...be great at the night races...

Perhaps I am imagining things here, but what is that black worm-like strip between section A and B?

Optical illution ..it is I believe,,the leading edge of "B"

strad wrote:"A" is what droops ..well the whole thing droops really... and "A" seals the wing to the track . On Speed they showed it and also how the bottom outside of "A" gets shredded by contact with the track...I assume we will soon have titanium rub blocks making nice sparks...be great at the night races...

Yes, "A" must droop too, but whole sequence of drooping is initiated by "C" I think.

strad wrote:Optical illution ..it is I believe,,the leading edge of "B"

I'm not so sure strad, looks the same from two angles, could it be a cleverly applied support-rib of sorts,
stiffening the wing only when loaded at the FIA-testing position, but flexing for forces applied outside of there?

Like stiffening the wing for forces applied in front of it, while weakening the same for forces behind it?

Think about it.

I think I'm right

strad wrote:I think I'm right

A talent you share with other prominent members of this here forum.

Me on the other hand, I think I've found it, look at that crooked reinforcement-rib, probably going thru the entire wing as a rope, and imagine what happens when you load the wing in front of it (FIA-test) vs behind it (reality)?

Eureka.

xpensive wrote:
Me on the other hand, I think I've found it, look at that crooked reinforcement-rib, probably going thru the entire wing as a rope, and imagine what happens when you load the wing in front of it (FIA-test) vs behind it (reality)?

Eureka.

You can't be sure of that. It's not that simple I'm afraid, but good point. We don't know the exact size (long/width) of each section of the RB wing, and we can't see the famous "adapter" which the team must provide for measurement. So for now nobody can tell where the (FIA) load is applied exactly on this wing. I wish someone can. Pictures anybody ?

This position will surly be ahead of or in line with the RBR reinforcement "rope", which the way it's designed, look at the curve, will act as a lever, tilting the wing up or down depending on which side of it the load is applied, very clever indeed;

3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

on this pic you can clearly see wing section B is reducing in thickness considerably
towards the hinge point allowing it to bend /almost buckle upwards as soon as
speed is pushing section c downwards.this will allow the whole outer section first to
rotate down an to bow down .

But what you also can see if you look closer to the enplate, is that section A and B is really one piece, only separated by this "lever-rope", which to my mind does the magic. A load applied behind it, like in reality, will tilt the wing downwards, just like we predicted from the beginning, the wing is anisotropic.

A talent you share with other prominent members of this here forum

marcush. wrote:
on this pic you can clearly see wing section B is reducing in thickness considerably
towards the hinge point allowing it to bend /almost buckle upwards as soon as
speed is pushing section c downwards.this will allow the whole outer section first to
rotate down an to bow down .

Ahh!, Ive read too many comments like this now. You can read NOTHING into the bending stiffness of the wing at this point without knowing what the change in wall thickness is. I can almost guarantee that the layup increases here so there isn't such obvious bending, otherwise they would not be passing the vertical load tests.

In short, theres more to a composite structure than the visible outer surface. This is the whole point of composites. You put material only where you need it.

Tim

I´m aware of this ,but still it is rather striking to see the material slim down in areas were you would expect the bending...
And of course a profile with a lot of section height will not bend as easily as a slim one ,no matter how much material you put there its not all material shape is just as important.

marcush. wrote: ...And of course a profile with a lot of section height will not bend as easily as a slim one ,no matter how much material you put there its not all material shape is just as important.

This is not true, this is what I'm trying to say.

A section with a slimmer section height can have the same bending stiffness a taller section by increasing the wall thickness until the area moment of inertia is the same.

Therefore without knowing the wall thickness, we cant say things like 'clearly the wing is bending at point X'

If you read some beam bending theory you will see you can have a beam with lots of different external section sizes but the same bending stiffness throughout by add more internal material where the section size reduces

Tim