F1technical.net

I have no doubt that McLaren nose have been flexed in Malaysia.
It seem McLaren nose flex as much as Redbul.

Ferraripilot wrote:

richard_leeds wrote:

Ferraripilot wrote:Therein lies the rub, legal. The component must not flex beyond the set parameter which all teams respect

Please humour us by quoting the parameter that is used to define acceptable, and then tell us where RB fail that parameter.

The actual rule is 3.15 - no flex. 3.15 is defined by 3.17 and is more of a bylaw than regulation as it ties in to an actual regulation built to govern something. It states they know they wing is going to flex a little, so no flex beyond 20mm at 1000N applied at the 800mm mark on the wing with an adapter. They pass 3.17 which currently governs 3.15. However, it's not a debate that 3.15 is indeed broken. The test is flawed and I can't imagine the teeth gritting in having to define a new 3.17 which can actually uphold 3.15.

This is not rhetorical debate regarding language used in a rule as the language is simple.

My field is litigation, and there is no way I would hang my hat on this bylaw which is currently contradictory to the actual law.

3.15 is impossible all bodywork flexes. Hence, we have 3.17, and if you pass 3.17 ,you've by proxy passed 3.15

Pierce89 wrote:3.15 is impossible all bodywork flexes. Hence, we have 3.17, and if you pass 3.17 ,you've by proxy passed 3.15

Err no. 3.17 just defines the FIAs current test that enforces 3.15. The FIA reserve the right to modify that test without warning or consultation if they feel rule 3.15 is being abused.

3.15 supersedes 3.17, the latter is just the FIAs current method of enforcing it.

this is in my personal view the main point of the discussion.FIA does not allow Bodywork flexing at all.
as we all know entirely rigid does not exist so they introduced that static load test and RB is using the test proceedure to claim their car is legal.
It´s the same as if your wings would gain surface area when not stationary....say adding 20% of wing surface area.Nobody would let you do this even when the car was perfectly legal in the pits ..The fact that they do not use mechanical actuators levers and the like to perform the trick is NOT giving them a free hand .As said before the wing and Nose behaviour on the track is aimed at enhancing downforce beyond limits set by the rules and this is illegal.
As the Fia is prepared to waive it through all the opponents have to stretch to accomodate as much as possible of it into their current designs....only to get it banned in 2012 or a year later.

The wing doesn't flex any more than any other wings i think.

I think the wing is simply placed at a certain ground height where it is overwhelmed by downforce, and any of the other wings would behave the same way if placed so low to the ground.

The catch is to get the wing at that level in the first place.

I think i mentioned this before the start of the 2010 season, but i think redbull designs their cars on a slope. Other teams may start with a horizontal line and refer their aerodynamics from that, and leave the rake changes up to set up preferences.
Starting on a slope is no different because all dimensions are relative to the reference plane, however the airfoils will differ greatly and also the shape of sidepods, diffuser profile among other angle sensitive things.



don't mind the drawing quality, my MS paint skills didn't peak at the time.

This way the front wing can run so close to the ground it is on the brink of a rising rate downforce increase due to ground effect.

I suppose any of the wings on the grid if run this close to the ground will experience a rising rate in downforce in such a position.

I think there is some flex, but not as much as we think. The ground effect is responsible for the excessive loading.
This could also be why the redbull wings aren't always on the ground, and why they may flutter a bit. It's hovering in that ground effect region daringly on the edge of the boundary layer.

Renault's answer - nobody managed to get FW THAT low:

I agree with ringo.
It's the whole car, not just one bit.
Car's rake, some flexing at many places, torque between center of pressure and mount points, running deeper in ground effect ...

One interesting detail:



Looks like wing-diffuser combo to me. Should shift actual center of pressure even more forward then anticipated.

I believe Ringo is right as well, but i disagree that his MS Paint skills are lacking!

Would it be possible to run a mini diffuser underneath the wing? To suck the wing closer to the floor at higher speeds and aid the flex?

I think that is a distinct possibility that is aided by the extreme rake of the RedBull. Dont know how much force a "diffusor" on the front wing could achieve, be it a very small length, but i'd say it's 100% possible.

So the wing in Parc Ferme being tested is strong, but because of this "diffusor" on the wing, it is also getting sucked down to the ground, and helped by the air pressure on the top of the wing.

Where are the Mythbusters.....

Just look at red line.
McLaren nose have been flexed.

You guys are indeed correct, the front wings do have mini diffusers, and they have always had them. Le Mans cars are the best vehicle to observe front diffusers on thoguh,since the are enormous on those cars.

raymondu999 wrote:

scotty86 wrote:Sorry if this has been mentioned (cba to read through 38 pages of argument to check, in all honesty), but exactly how possible is it that Red Bull use heat affected materials and the principle of aerodynamic heating to achieve the resulting wing bending that they do? I don't claim to have vast material knowledge, so am wondering if such a material can even be realistic in F1, not to mention the fact that the speeds they reach (relative to air and spacecraft) aren't necessarily high enough to even generate enough heat...

So softening by heating? Wasn't this one of the speculations regarding their suspension, around China last year?

It sure, was. I think I might have been the culprit there. I quoted an automatic greenhouse window opener which uses some clever wax to open the window when it's warm and close it when it's cold.

Some of this forum's esteemed members pointed out that doing so could be argued to be an active system if it took energy from heat.

The rake argument doesn´t hold up. Mclaren are running nearly as much.

Mclaren´s wing did not flex in any of the onboard videos i´ve watched from Malaysia.
RBR´s though flex until they hit the brakes.

Not much difference but for sure RBR has the most.