F1technical.net

In the video of the button/vettel incident, the wing doesn't just seem to unflex but it it appears (at least to me) that it tilts around an axis somewhere under where the support pylons meet the nose.

With one wingtip much closer to the ground than the other, could the asymmetrical downforce generated by the wing itself (and the vortices it sheds) have a correlative effect downstream that led to the sudden instability at the rear end that resulted in the accident?

Just my two cents ...

gridwalker wrote:In the video of the button/vettel incident, the wing doesn't just seem to unflex but it it appears (at least to me) that it tilts around an axis somewhere under where the support pylons meet the nose.

With one wingtip much closer to the ground than the other, could the asymmetrical downforce generated by the wing itself (and the vortices it sheds) have a correlative effect downstream that led to the sudden instability at the rear end that resulted in the accident?

Just my two cents ...

As you can see he was sideways almost before he tried to move out from behind button.

kackhanded overtaking try ... you can clearly see that Button is hitting the brakes at the board (on the right)wich is his normal braking point.
I guess Vettel needed to brake as well there so i think his idea was to dart to the left and in positioning himself hits the brakes as well,unfortunatelly the rear is on the walk already and so he can´t really brake where he needs to but instead of accepting to overshoot the chicane he tries anyways ,.you can see the
tyres stop and then its T-bone time

I read somewhere Horner saying that McLaren front wing was flexing more than RB's one at Spa. Anyone noticed that? Video? Pictures?

vall wrote:I read somewhere Horner saying that McLaren front wing was flexing more than RB's one at Spa. Anyone noticed that? Video? Pictures?

some pages back is a photo comparsion from Spa

747heavy wrote:

vall wrote:I read somewhere Horner saying that McLaren front wing was flexing more than RB's one at Spa. Anyone noticed that? Video? Pictures?

some pages back is a photo comparsion from Spa

Have to say though Jumbo, that image, when you get in close looks like it's been doctored quite a lot. Not sure if it's just the compression that's been used on it, but it doesn't look right to me. Just my tuppence.

forty-two wrote:

747heavy wrote:

vall wrote:I read somewhere Horner saying that McLaren front wing was flexing more than RB's one at Spa. Anyone noticed that? Video? Pictures?

some pages back is a photo comparsion from Spa

Have to say though Jumbo, that image, when you get in close looks like it's been doctored quite a lot. Not sure if it's just the compression that's been used on it, but it doesn't look right to me. Just my tuppence.

dunno, it´s possible.
I did not took them, and I did not modified them.
On the original side/blog it was mentioned, that they put some dot´s into them, so
that you can count the pixles.

they come from this side.
http://hunnylander.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... omparison/

but looking at them again, I would agree that at least the McL wing looks a bit photoshoped

At least we can say it doesn't looks closer to the ground than RBR's. It's flexing for sure, but not that mutch like RBR's.

It looks like the contrast has been adjusted on the front wing so we can see the detail.

Comparisons of a low downforce track like Spa aren't really relevant. Little force on the wing will result in little deflection. Lets see what happens at a high downforce track

richard_leeds wrote:It looks like the contrast has been adjusted on the front wing so we can see the detail.

Comparisons of a low downforce track like Spa aren't really relevant. Little force on the wing will result in little deflection. Lets see what happens at a high downforce track

+1
A lot of comments have been made based upon the RB wings used at Spa, but your point is very appropriate. One would expect even a very flexible wing to be less "bent" if it's running significantly lower AoA.

However, just to continue the speculation... Had the more stringent test NOT been enforced at SPA, might RB have run a wing which is even more flexible to accomodate this?

horse wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4[/youtube]

I just re-watched this clip and noticed something. Look at the image around 21-22 seconds, and you will see Vettel running off the circuit after the smash with Button. As he begins to catch up with his front wing which is sliding along the ground in front of him, you can quite clearly see a stiff cable (looks like high-tensile steel), standing up approximately one metre out of the remaining wing pylon.

If this were a cable for adjusting the FW flap, it would be an electrical cable, probably featuring at least three cores, which would more than likely be a flexible cable, which would not stand up on it's own (if you don't believe me, grab a 1 metre flex from the back of your PC and try and make it stand up on the palm of your hand!).

What on earth is this cable for? Could this be the key to their flexi-wings? I know others have suggested the RB6 wing might feature a cable concealed within it which could be tightened or slackened to allow the wing to remain stiff (for the test) or flex (for the race), but I've never seen any evidence of such a cable actually existing before now!

forty-two wrote:

horse wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4[/youtube]

I just re-watched this clip and noticed something. Look at the image around 21-22 seconds, and you will see Vettel running off the circuit after the smash with Button. As he begins to catch up with his front wing which is sliding along the ground in front of him, you can quite clearly see a stiff cable (looks like high-tensile steel), standing up approximately one metre out of the remaining wing pylon.

If this were a cable for adjusting the FW flap, it would be an electrical cable, probably featuring at least three cores, which would more than likely be a flexible cable, which would not stand up on it's own (if you don't believe me, grab a 1 metre flex from the back of your PC and try and make it stand up on the palm of your hand!).

What on earth is this cable for? Could this be the key to their flexi-wings? I know others have suggested the RB6 wing might feature a cable concealed within it which could be tightened or slackened to allow the wing to remain stiff (for the test) or flex (for the race), but I've never seen any evidence of such a cable actually existing before now!

i had that theory way back in the thread, looks similar sweet!

delsando wrote:Do the FIA , test the front wing flexibility, whilst the wing is in an adjusted position +/- 6 degrees. I'm asking this because teams might find a way to make it rigid during the tests and flexible on track.

Could this be a loophole, anyways made another sketch explaining how teams might be able to get away with it if the tests are not as thorough.

The sketches are not scaled/ proportional but you get the idea.

delsando wrote:
i had that theory way back in the thread, looks similar sweet!

delsando wrote:Do the FIA , test the front wing flexibility, whilst the wing is in an adjusted position +/- 6 degrees. I'm asking this because teams might find a way to make it rigid during the tests and flexible on track.

Could this be a loophole, anyways made another sketch explaining how teams might be able to get away with it if the tests are not as thorough.

Apologies deslando, I actually remember having seen your sketches before but they didn't immediately come to mind when I made my last post.

Perhaps the FIA need to re-word their test to ensure that the load test on the wing is carried out at a number of the available FW angles (perhaps one at either extreme to "ensure that the adjustment is not greater than allowed" and one somewhere in-between? If RB are using this sort of idea, that could explain a lot including:
- The wing flexibility
- The lack of a chunky endplate to house their FW flap actuator
- The unexplained "pylons" apparently seen on the front of the monocoque during a RB pit stop for a new nose (although, I confess that I have not seen any images of this myself).
- The "cable" which apparently got in the way when Vettel made a pitstop after his incident with Button. I still don't believe they would use a flying lead arrangement for an electrical connection to the FW actuators.

The plot thickens!

I think, that it could be/is the cable used for the FW adjustments (electrical).
If it was a cable to stiffen/tensioning the wing, why would you have it only in one of the pillars, and not in both?

But surely it leaves some room for speculations.

not all teams have the adjuster in the endplates.
this is Brawns solution from last year:

747heavy wrote:I think, that it could be/is the cable used for the FW adjustments (electrical).
If it was a cable to stiffen/tensioning the wing, why would you have it only in one of the pillars, and not in both?

But surely it leaves some room for speculations.

not all teams have the adjuster in the endplates.
this is Brawns solution from last year:

To answer the points in the above post:
1. If it is an electrical cable, why is it quite so stiff? Even solid core, 2.5mm flat twin and earth cable (as would comfortably carry 4Kw) would be difficult to make it stand upright over a span of 1 metre.

2. Why only one cable? If the theory is correct about the tensile cable acting as stiffener, I think they might well use only one cable, attached to the flap actuator at either extreme of the wing, and looped through a central "pulling device" within the nosecone. I think what you're seeing there is one end of the cable having been yanked free from it's anchor point near the flap and pulled out through one half of the wing. Why has this not happened before when RB have lost FWs? I don't know, but perhaps they had the cable set a lot tighter than at previous races for fear of failing scrutineering, which caused it to fail in a different way?

I think I might need to do a quick sketch to illustrate what I mean!