F1technical.net

Sorry to just jump in here. As we all know when the suspension moves the wing will be closer to the floor. RedBull usually rides with a relatively soft suspension. So the wing doesn't have to flex beyond the regulations to benefit. It seems Newey is 100% confident that the wing flexes within the newly regulated limits.

As to what Pup said: the wings will always flex like similar (not exactly though) to a cantilever on either side.

http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy33 ... gcombi.jpg

what strikes me is that vertical thingy connecting the cascade to the mainwing ..it clearly can only work under tension ...but then would you expect the cascade to pull
on the main wing ?

the discussion about suspension stiffness in the front is useles as a stiff suspension will allow you to run closer to the ground.
If it were a rake thing the rear would have to go up dramatically to produce that front wing groundclearance...as on the pics you can clearly see the splitter is scraping the ground anyways.

Hi Marcus,

I mean the flap connection (in light green), which is quite solid/massive, to
pull the "kink" out of the top plane of the main plane of the FW.

If the flap moves backwards due to drag it will "pull" on the top plane IMO
straighten it out.
I see the main plane as a double beam, where the top half is (pre)bend to resist a given force.
if the force is overcome, you have two straight beams in parallel -> easier to bend.
OTOH. if you pull this "kink" out you make the top beam longer --> help bending the bottom beam downwards.
Probably at the point where the "cascade" wing stay is connected to the lower plane.

But I could be completly wrong, it just crossed my mind. And I went back to see if under load the upper part of the wing straighten out. To me it looks like this, but it´s hard to tell, as the resolution of the photo is not that great.



http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy33 ... mbimod.jpg

marcush. wrote:


the discussion about suspension stiffness in the front is useles as a stiff suspension will allow you to run closer to the ground.
If it were a rake thing the rear would have to go up dramatically to produce that front wing groundclearance...as on the pics you can clearly see the splitter is scraping the ground anyways.

Really visualise it. The soft suspension can have you at the legal height when the car is not moving, but at a very low height when the car is up to speed. Also some front body roll can get the outer wing lower to the ground as seen in the pictures.
You can see that the car is under roll, the wing is not parallel to the ground.

The 2nd element could be straightening out. Probably is, the geometry of the bend almost requires it to. And yeah, I think the upper element could be used to bend the lower one in such a way that it actually bends up, straightening it. Since this is the separate flap, it will certainly be producing a bending moment where it connects to the lower element. And thinking about it, this could push the wing down like I described, bending at the point where it connects to the FIA section.

But it could also just be the angle of the pic making the 2nd element look more bent than it is. It does sweep back a lot at that point.

Yet another possibility along those lines - notice in the pic below how the fixed portion of the top element overlaps the flap. This one is way out there, but I wonder if a flap mechanism could be strong enough itself to bend a wing like you're saying, using the fixed portion of the top wing as leverage.



Also, the 2nd arrow is pointing to a bump in the FIA center section where the '2nd' element connects. How are they getting by with this and what would be its purpose? Is it just an illusion of the reflections?

n smikle wrote:The soft suspension can have you at the legal height when the car is not moving, but at a very low height when the car is up to speed. Also some front body roll can get the outer wing lower to the ground as seen in the pictures.
You can see that the car is under roll, the wing is not parallel to the ground.

The problem with this is, as always, the FIA legality plank, since it has to be bent up out of the way for the car to get more rake than any of the other guys are running. That's why the wear pattern on Webber's crashed car is so suspicious. The wear is greatest where the splitter meets the tub, meaning that the plank is being bent.

The worn parts of the plank are the darker parts?

I know the floor can bend, because the pressure distribution over it is not uniform.

n smikle wrote:The worn parts of the plank are the darker parts?

I know the floor can bend, because the pressure distribution over it is not uniform.

My guess is the worn bits are lighter. I think its a wood particle board construction. So the dark bits are parts covered in crap from the track and the light bits are worn away sections exposing the wood.

Tim

n smikle wrote:The worn parts of the plank are the darker parts?

I know the floor can bend, because the pressure distribution over it is not uniform.

The worn bit are lighter - it implies that the leading edge of the plank is not striking the ground as frequently as the area ~1 foot back i.e. the area where the plank and tub join. This could be explained by the plank being raised at the leading edge - kind of like Ferrari in 2006.

That means the plank under the front splitter is bent upwards then. Maybe the front splitter was set bent upwards (even fixed like this) to move the "vena contracta" rearwards.

On the bending of the wings, I think we must remember that the wing bends asymmetrically. Collectively the cross sections of two lower elements of the wing that are joined to the central section is not uniform. Non uniform bending.
So there will be some twisting when the wing flexes.

I still don't think there is any trick to the wing. maybe I am wrong...
It still passes the F1A tests. But if it was really intended for the wing to bend I think with this the wing will vibrate like a spring anytime you have turbulence especially with the large percieved displacement. Almost like a plane wing fluttering.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... id=3452299

So I think there will be some form of dampening material in the wing. So its interesting.

Here is why I don't think there is any special trick to it.



You just make it so it passe the load test. You have to also make sure that the wing can make enough down-force to bend itself.

n smikle wrote: It still passes the F1A tests. But if it was really intended for the wing to bend I think with this the wing will vibrate like a spring anytime you have turbulence especially with the large percieved displacement. Almost like a plane wing fluttering.

Well some people argue, that they just see this "wing flutter" or "buffeting" of the RBR front wing when in runs in the down wash flow / vortiece of the Ferrari in front.
Webber travels in a straight line.
It is also noteworthy, that the RB& is appartenly struggleing a lot when running in traffic, behind another car. See Vettel in Hungary, really struggeling to overtake.
So I do think, that the front wing of the RB6 is affected by running not in "clean air", and when in front, they just make max. use of it and disapear into the distance.
Even in Touring cars (DTM) running in traffic affecting the cars quite a lot.

I believe that is a combination of things, eventually may include some kind of trigger that when suspension goes down under load . reduces and lockthe gap with the asfalth and that is why the push up the car when arrives to pit .

just to add some comparsions
different plank wear pattern

Torro Rosso (China):



Ferrari (China).



Monaco


Renault (Australia)

RBR front wing Spain/Catalunya
note the much smaller connection from the flap to the second/upper element
also, the flap (C) is not connected to the second/upper element (B) at the inside
IMO you can see that the second/upper element is slightly bend upwards, has a small "kink"



compare to Hungary front wing
where the connection bracket (black) is much stronger, and connects to the middle of the flap(C)insted of the bottom --> more leverage
also not the small service cap/opening at the left side of the bracket, where it connects to the upper/second element (B)



to me it looks like, that RBR have repositioned the actuator for the 6° Flap adjustment in the new wing. Seems to be inside that much bigger bracket now. I like the line of thought from Pup. What would happen if the flap (C) "bottoms out"/hit a stop, but the actuator keeps pulling?
But maybe now, I really start to see things (unicorns) - It´s late