FORUMula1.com

[vaptin]

From Legards twitter:

Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren cars inspected by FIA re flexi front wing. No clarification yet. Paddock reeling from Red Bull advantage..

http://twitter.com/legardj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@paolomcmillan FIA doing comparison between wings on different cars

[smokin]

From Legards twitter:

Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren cars inspected by FIA re flexi front wing. No clarification yet. Paddock reeling from Red Bull advantage..

http://twitter.com/legardj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@paolomcmillan FIA doing comparison between wings on different cars

FIA have already passed the RB wing as legal. They're going through the motions to appease the disgruntled teams who didn't think of it first.

[Flux]

i doubt its illegal i would image that the test is not up to scratch as that kind of flexing should show up but yet gets passed to be legal, so theres a big black hole somewhere in the test that rbr and ferrari have been able to make the most of.

its far fetched but some form of thixotropic carbon weave that when driving loosens and flexes ? hell i don't even know if thixotropic is the correct term.

[RA Dunk]

I had to LoL at EJ's out burst towards Ron Dennis at the end of qualification today, DC,s face said it all

[darwin dali]

or allow every other team on the grid to be able to design a wing that does exactly the same thing.

Nobody's stopping them for the moment...

[What's Burning?]

or allow every other team on the grid to be able to design a wing that does exactly the same thing.

Nobody's stopping them for the moment...

In the rule there is the aspect of the rigidity test that has to resist a given force without flexing, but in reading about it today there is also the much more nebulous aspect of the height of the end plate from the ground which is a fixed number and easy to see that it's not happening yet there is not real world test for that since the FIA tests assumed that the rigidity test would assure the height of the endplate is maintained.

So we get to the point where it is legal by the rules, but not in the spirit of the rules. So I guess it all depends on what happens if it's agreed that everyone can exploit the loop hole, or if we'll see not flexible wings but I think in Spa everyone will be running the wing either with or without.

[Martin g]

Ive looked at the pics,
in my opinion its been designed to put maximum down presure on the very edge of the wing,
the downforce isnt spreading out evenly over the hole surface but concentrating on the edges,
resulting in a 10 mill gap not 75 mill.
It may of passed the test but unless the test is done in a wind tunnel there no way to check the amount of flexing in real life performance.

Im no expert im just a tool maker


They should test them in this manner in my opinion.

[What's Burning?]

That's the problem/loophole. They're tested by putting a weight on them, not in a wind tunnel. The height is measured while the car is stationary. So the spirit of the rule is being broken but nothing wrong with breaking the spirit, just means you're more clever than the other teams.

Just curious as to when Ferrari had theirs and if it coincides with their competitive resurgence.

[f1ea]

The mclaren guys say that can't be linear deformation, hinting to some material that does not abide to Hooke's law. But i think its more tricking the test than some super different material.

[MAD MAX]

Has McLaren declared when they will go with this type of wing?

[McLaren]

Has McLaren declared when they will go with this type of wing?

I would be shocked if they didn't have at least a trial version at the next race.

[vaptin]

The mclaren guys say that can't be linear deformation, hinting to some material that does not abide to Hooke's law. But i think its more tricking the test than some super different material.

If we assume the test conditions are similar enough to the real conditions with the way loads are applied - even if the loads are less it won't be Hookes law if the FIA are finding no flexing.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

3.17.8 of the TR say:

"In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."

So if Martin Whitmarsh complains loudly enough to sway them, the FIA now have a month to test the RBRs in a wind tunnel.

Just a far out thought but could the movable section of the front wing be used to affect the stiffness of the wing?

That is quite the astute observation. What if the drooping only can occur if the wing is adjusted to the high downforce position. What if when it is in the low downforce position, the springy bits receive additional support and cannot flex?

[Mr.Conte]

The Red Bull Team is quite innovative and that innovation is being seen.
The wing thing will be worked out soon.
If it were me, I would integrate the bendable metals technology into the carbon weave.
For those who are not aware of what it is, it is a metalurgy matrix that when a given electrical current is applied, it bends.
After the current is removed, it goes back to it's original shape.
The thing that should be scaring Ferrari and the like is the information Red Bull found out about the green spec tires.
Running that long at that lap speed on them is incredible and worth a few wins all by itself.
Either they have some unique gas combination in the tires that heats them up quickly and evenly or the somehow stumbled on some geometry of alignment which I do not believe.
If you subscribe to the simplest answer is usually correct mind set, then the Renault motor produces a tremendously wide power curve that is perfect for high speed / low speed corners.
It looks like the Red Bulls run more wing angle than the Ferraris do and that explains the lack of straight line pace Red Bull looses to Ferrari, but they gain it back in all corners.
The next race will expose this possibility.

[What's Burning?]

3.17.8 of the TR say:

"In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion."

So if Martin Whitmarsh complains loudly enough to sway them, the FIA now have a month to test the RBRs in a wind tunnel.

Just a far out thought but could the movable section of the front wing be used to affect the stiffness of the wing?

That is quite the astute observation. What if the drooping only can occur if the wing is adjusted to the high downforce position. What if when it is in the low downforce position, the springy bits receive additional support and cannot flex?

I would bet that it's a much simpler solution than that. I agree that it would be a clever way to turn it on and off, but because of the weight and complexity and other design issues to implement something like that, think nature, simple design without a wasted gram of material. I would thing that it's simply a way to pass the test yet retain the flexibility under higher . You don't need the wing to work all the time, the biggest benefit is under high speed cornering when you need the downforce the most.