F1technical.net

wesley123 wrote:

Hail22 wrote:Well its a multi billion dollar beverage/drinks company afterall maybe they built a new safety school for the FIA *cough cough*

May the Flex be with you...

Oh yeah, the other teams arent doing it at all, we saw the ferrari wing flexing like crazy last year and other teams were doing it too. Together with that Red Bull passes with every test so get your facts right instead of this bogus.

Oh I know they passed, as it was a bench test. Lets see if the FIA borrowed the Toyota wind tunnel and tested it, guarantee you it will fail the 20mm gap threshold.

Also Ferrari, Mclaren would not of bothered if the FIA proceded with a wind tunnel examination thus proving it illegal.

anything that does not hold up to the loads it is subject to is potentially a danger ...if it´s going to be lethal is more or less depending on circumstances and energy levels involved.

Gridlock wrote:Flexible bodywork is banned because if it fails at speed, you can kill people.

Please bear this in mind when accusing someone of deliberately using it. Think about what you're accusing someone of doing, and what respect that someone should in fact be given based on the past 20 years.

Let me know if this image oozes you with confidence in safety, regardless of the parameters taken last year to protect the car and prevent failure of the component there is a chance she could grip the surface then what? an airborne disaster?

If the FIA was about "Safety" the photos would warrant enough to call for revision of the wing for public observer, driver and marshal safety.

I do understand your concern, however I do not understand why to only blame red bull, McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes were doing it too, and I believe others also. Apart from that, McLaren's actually pivots during speed, which was confirmed by scarbs later that weekend. Red Bull however is not, you have no idea how much it flexes or how it flexes. To then put the blame in their hands is just wrong. Great that it pivots, but pivoting is something way different than flexing.

Gridlock wrote:Flexible bodywork is banned because if it fails at speed, you can kill people.

Please bear this in mind when accusing someone of deliberately using it. Think about what you're accusing someone of doing, and what respect that someone should in fact be given based on the past 20 years.

Surprisingly, something that flexes is stronger than something that is not flexible.
A flexible object can absorb changes, whilst a rigid object cannot, leaving it more vulnerable to shattering.

gilgen wrote:

Gridlock wrote:Flexible bodywork is banned because if it fails at speed, you can kill people.

Please bear this in mind when accusing someone of deliberately using it. Think about what you're accusing someone of doing, and what respect that someone should in fact be given based on the past 20 years.

Surprisingly, something that flexes is stronger than something that is not flexible.
A flexible object can absorb changes, whilst a rigid object cannot, leaving it more vulnerable to shattering.

It is not beyond the wit of man to make the front wings rigid under load and it's only because of clever manufacturing the wings flex under load.

I'm pretty sure Vettel spearing Button was down to the unintended side effect of the flexing front wing. Coming out of Button's tow into air unbalanced his front wing leading to the crash. This is the area that is unsafe about the flex-wings IMHO.

Anyone who doubts the rule is as much for safety as for fairness should imagine losing a front wing in Degna 2, or Turn 8, or more aptly Tamburello.

That there is flex is almost beyond argument at this point, but I think to attribute RBx's speed entirely to it is to accuse a great man and a great team of engineers of risking driver's lives for the sake of results. 30, even 20 years ago, yes, but now?

Gridlock wrote:Anyone who doubts the rule is as much for safety as for fairness should imagine losing a front wing in Degna 2, or Turn 8, or more aptly Tamburello.

That there is flex is almost beyond argument at this point, but I think to attribute RBx's speed entirely to it is to accuse a great man and a great team of engineers of risking driver's lives for the sake of results. 30, even 20 years ago, yes, but now?

What makes you think that a flexing wing is any more likely to break than a non-flexing one?

If it were for safety, don't you think the rule would say "when hit by a 100kg impactor at 100m/s the wing must not break*" rather than that they must not flex. Note the no flexing bodywork rule is in there along with banning systems designed to bridge the gap between the car and the ground – i.e. skirts. It's purely and simply to ban wing in ground effect devices.

* Numbers made up on the spot, and obviously way too high.

beelsebob wrote:

Gridlock wrote:Anyone who doubts the rule is as much for safety as for fairness should imagine losing a front wing in Degna 2, or Turn 8, or more aptly Tamburello.

That there is flex is almost beyond argument at this point, but I think to attribute RBx's speed entirely to it is to accuse a great man and a great team of engineers of risking driver's lives for the sake of results. 30, even 20 years ago, yes, but now?

What makes you think that a flexing wing is any more likely to break than a non-flexing one?

If it were for safety, don't you think the rule would say "when hit by a 100kg impactor at 100m/s the wing must not break*" rather than that they must not flex. Note the no flexing bodywork rule is in there along with banning systems designed to bridge the gap between the car and the ground – i.e. skirts. It's purely and simply to ban wing in ground effect devices.

* Numbers made up on the spot, and obviously way too high.

Ageed, Beelsebob. If a rigid wing is previously damaged, it would be more likely to snap off due to molecular deterioation (fatique) A flexible wing is less likely to break off. It is more likely to flex.
Yes, Vettels accident with Button was caused by the wing flexing as it came out of the slipstream, just as Webbers accident with Kovalainen. However, following these accidents, and probably because of them, the aero rules were changed so as to minimise that problem. Since then, there have been no such problems.

gilgen wrote:

myurr wrote:

Adrian Newby wrote:
Whatever...

The FIA have also changed the front wing rules, very late in the game according to Adrian Newey, to allow even less flex this year.

And yet as far as I'm aware the nose is still tested on a bench supported at the middle, so that any flex or movement in the nose itself / pillars remains untested. There's still a LOT of scope for 'bending' the rules.

In the middle of the controversy, last year, Newey offered to let the FIA carry out a test on his wing, to double the existing test. Now, this year, FIA have gone with double the old test, so if Adrian was happy last year, with a doubled test, I cannot see him being too worried this year either.

Newey only had a problem with the timing of it, because he had already designed the new nose/wing which weighed less while meeting the (then) existing rules. He said the new wing would need to be heavier, which would change the balance of the chassis, which he had already designed as well. The weight probably isn't that much more in actual terms, but it gets magnified since it is on the far end of the vehicle.

Hail22 wrote:

Gridlock wrote:Flexible bodywork is banned because if it fails at speed, you can kill people.

Please bear this in mind when accusing someone of deliberately using it. Think about what you're accusing someone of doing, and what respect that someone should in fact be given based on the past 20 years.

Let me know if this image oozes you with confidence in safety, regardless of the parameters taken last year to protect the car and prevent failure of the component there is a chance she could grip the surface then what? an airborne disaster?

If the FIA was about "Safety" the photos would warrant enough to call for revision of the wing for public observer, driver and marshal safety.

If anything, these photos show the nose bending, or where the fangs meet the nose (both are relatively meaty, if flexible, structures unlikely to be be failure points), not the wing itself, or its attachment to the fangs.

Also, they are close, but not directly comparable photos. The reference lines are at different locations relative to the wheel nuts.

gilgen wrote:What makes you think that a flexing wing is any more likely to break than a non-flexing one?

If it were for safety, don't you think the rule would say "when hit by a 100kg impactor at 100m/s the wing must not break*" rather than that they must not flex. Note the no flexing bodywork rule is in there along with banning systems designed to bridge the gap between the car and the ground – i.e. skirts. It's purely and simply to ban wing in ground effect devices.

* Numbers made up on the spot, and obviously way too high.

Ageed, Beelsebob. If a rigid wing is previously damaged, it would be more likely to snap off due to molecular deterioation (fatique) A flexible wing is less likely to break off. It is more likely to flex.
Yes, Vettels accident with Button was caused by the wing flexing as it came out of the slipstream, just as Webbers accident with Kovalainen. However, following these accidents, and probably because of them, the aero rules were changed so as to minimise that problem. Since then, there have been no such problems.

Flexing checks came originally for safety reasons. The were a series of major accidents with car loosing wings at the end of '90s, Sauber had to withdraw from one GP after rear wing failed on both cars in practice.

Off topic, but I think flexing bodywork and safety are directly related. Remember Raikkonen's flexing rear wing detatching at high speed at Hockenheim in 2004; Newey was at McLaren at the time (surprise surprise )

I wouldn't rule out a front wing failing in a high speed corner, getting stuck under the car, causing a big crash.

Other than that, I don't agree with the idea that a flexing part would be safer than a rigid one because it would flex under force and not break. It'd maybe be true for a part that was subjected to a big force just one time. But remember that flexing body parts stretch and contract many many times, I think that's a recipe for failure through fatigue, much in the same way a paperclip would break if folded and opened many times over. Okay maybe modern composite materials are a lot less prone to fatigue compared to say -metals- but I'd still say a part that stretched and contracted many times over would be a lot more susceptible to a fatigue failure compared to a rigid one.

Adrian Newby wrote:

Hail22 wrote:

Gridlock wrote:Flexible bodywork is banned because if it fails at speed, you can kill people.

Please bear this in mind when accusing someone of deliberately using it. Think about what you're accusing someone of doing, and what respect that someone should in fact be given based on the past 20 years.

Let me know if this image oozes you with confidence in safety, regardless of the parameters taken last year to protect the car and prevent failure of the component there is a chance she could grip the surface then what? an airborne disaster?

If the FIA was about "Safety" the photos would warrant enough to call for revision of the wing for public observer, driver and marshal safety.

If anything, these photos show the nose bending, or where the fangs meet the nose (both are relatively meaty, if flexible, structures unlikely to be be failure points), not the wing itself, or its attachment to the fangs.

Also, they are close, but not directly comparable photos. The reference lines are at different locations relative to the wheel nuts.

MIKEY! had a similar concept.

MIKEY_! wrote:This is a simplified example, in reality the vertical supports would have to deform outwards or inwards at the flex point for this to work. If the supports could be horizontal for part of their length this would not be necessary.

This system lowers wing height and increases AoA much like RBR's flexy nose.

I had a similar thought but different...

that the back portion of each of the two "fangs" would bow outward, which would effectively shorten them (in the Y dimension), allowing the back part of the front wing to rise. At the same time, the front portions of the two fangs are forced to twist inward, straightening them, and lengthening them (in the Y dimension), lowering the front ride height of the wing, getting a better seal, and creating more downforce.

We would need head-on photos of the RB7 at rest and at speed to verify this.