FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1ea]

By the way, I think the 10mm deflection is absolute so includes any suspension movement and bodywork twisting while the load is applied. The reference point is the point in space occupied by the unloaded wing tip.

Don't think so, because what about suspension? what if you have VERY soft suspension... your wing could show an unrealistcally large deflection.

Everyone is focusing on the wing's deflection. BUT i dont think this is the most important part. I think the main issue is:

-must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom);
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

If the "sprung part of the car" is allowed to move with the wing... you got yourslef a moving wing. Immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. While it may also flexing within the regulations.

[smokin]

By the way, I think the 10mm deflection is absolute so includes any suspension movement and bodywork twisting while the load is applied. The reference point is the point in space occupied by the unloaded wing tip.

Don't think so, because what about suspension? what if you have VERY soft suspension... your wing could show an unrealistcally large deflection.

Everyone is focusing on the wing's deflection. BUT i dont think this is the most important part. I think the main issue is:

-must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom);
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

If the "sprung part of the car" is allowed to move with the wing... you got yourslef a moving wing. Immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. While it may also flexing within the regulations.

I wondered about whether to include the suspension when I wrote the post. If the suspension is out of the equation I wonder how they support and clamp the bodywork before applying the load?

[nish2280]

I wonder if it even has to do with the wing bending but instead to do with the whole car lowering down. What i mean is that all the pictures used as reference do not strictly indicate weather the nose/wing actually physically flexes (which in opinion is extremely dangerous purely because flex of such a vital component of the crash structure can bring harm to the driver) and as a result moves closer to the ground or weather the splitter (which is designed for two reasons, one being to split airflow and the other to limit the ride height a car can carry as a very low ride height will cause the splitter to make contact with the floor) allows the car reduce ride height while under load and as a result gives the impression that the front of the car is riding lower to the ground, prompting many internet aerodynamics experts to put the blame on flexing front wing.

The splitter can allow the car to reduce ride height through the use of hinges which deflect the splitter as it makes contact with the ground. This was used by Ferrari a few years ago and subsequently banned. Though they are most probably using some other innovative way

[Martin g]

chill

[smokin]

I wonder if it even has to do with the wing bending but instead to do with the whole car lowering down. What i mean is that all the pictures used as reference do not strictly indicate weather the nose/wing actually physically flexes (which in opinion is extremely dangerous purely because flex of such a vital component of the crash structure can bring harm to the driver) and as a result moves closer to the ground or weather the splitter (which is designed for two reasons, one being to split airflow and the other to limit the ride height a car can carry as a very low ride height will cause the splitter to make contact with the floor) allows the car reduce ride height while under load and as a result gives the impression that the front of the car is riding lower to the ground, prompting many internet aerodynamics experts to put the blame on flexing front wing.

The splitter can allow the car to reduce ride height through the use of hinges which deflect the splitter as it makes contact with the ground. This was used by Ferrari a few years ago and subsequently banned. Though they are most probably using some other innovative way

Some of the shots show one wing tip significantly lower than the other while the attitude of the nose remains almost parallel to the track surface. It doesn't look like the whole front is lowering, just one side of the front wing. See Diplomatic's post on the first page, for instance. And the previously shown animations show the wing tips deflecting separately from the front of the car.

[nish2280]

I wonder if it even has to do with the wing bending but instead to do with the whole car lowering down. What i mean is that all the pictures used as reference do not strictly indicate weather the nose/wing actually physically flexes (which in opinion is extremely dangerous purely because flex of such a vital component of the crash structure can bring harm to the driver) and as a result moves closer to the ground or weather the splitter (which is designed for two reasons, one being to split airflow and the other to limit the ride height a car can carry as a very low ride height will cause the splitter to make contact with the floor) allows the car reduce ride height while under load and as a result gives the impression that the front of the car is riding lower to the ground, prompting many internet aerodynamics experts to put the blame on flexing front wing.

The splitter can allow the car to reduce ride height through the use of hinges which deflect the splitter as it makes contact with the ground. This was used by Ferrari a few years ago and subsequently banned. Though they are most probably using some other innovative way

Some of the shots show one wing tip significantly lower than the other while the attitude of the nose remains almost parallel to the track surface. It doesn't look like the whole front is lowering, just one side of the front wing. See Diplomatic's post on the first page, for instance. And the previously shown animations show the wing tips deflecting separately from the front of the car.

From the picture that Diplomatic posted you can see that the Red Bull's full front wing is lower than the one on the mercedes, this includes the middle section where the nose connects the front wing.

If this was due to a flex the nose would also be receiving pressure and as a result being pulled down as well. Though this is possible i really doubt Red Bull would put their driver's life at risk just for a few tenths of a second because having the whole nose flex downwards would make the crash structure, which the nose cone is, much weaker.

Therefore i believe that the whole forward ride height is being lowered rather than the nose adapting due to the load on the front wing.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Therefore i believe that the whole forward ride height is being lowered rather than the nose adapting due to the load on the front wing.

I doubt it. Not that it's what you believe, I mean, but that that's what's happening.

You see, we went through that phase once this year already. Adjustable suspension (to include ride height) is prohibited by Articles 10.1.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the TR. RBR ran some clever (passive) trick in the first few races that they thought skirted the rules but that gave them a lower ride height in qualies than the other teams (light fuel load). Yet they still had a proper ride height on the start grid (heavy fuel load). Then Charlie Whiting had a heart-to-heart with them and they (seemingly) removed it. No penalty was imposed but its a certainty Charlie and the FIA would not be so kindly disposed if they pulled that again.

And compression of the suspension during the wing deflection testing has no impact because measurements are made to/from the car's reference plane, not the ground (as per Article 3.2 of TR).

[nish2280]

...Therefore i believe that the whole forward ride height is being lowered rather than the nose adapting due to the load on the front wing.

I doubt it. Not that it's what you believe, I mean, but that that's what's happening.

You see, we went through that phase once this year already. Adjustable suspension (to include ride height) is prohibited by Articles 10.1.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the TR. RBR ran some clever (passive) trick in the first few races that they thought skirted the rules but that gave them a lower ride height in qualies than the other teams (light fuel load). Yet they still had a proper ride height on the start grid (heavy fuel load). Then Charlie Whiting had a heart-to-heart with them and they (seemingly) removed it. No penalty was imposed but its a certainty Charlie and the FIA would not be so kindly disposed if they pulled that again.

And compression of the suspension during the wing deflection testing has no impact because measurements are made to/from the car's reference plane, not the ground (as per Article 3.2 of TR).

I wasnt actually refering to the ride height being reduced before the race via suspension, if you look at my previous post i mention the use of the splitter allowing the car to ride lower while under load without the car bottoming out.

[stonemonkey]

I wasnt actually refering to the ride height being reduced before the race via suspension, if you look at my previous post i mention the use of the splitter allowing the car to ride lower while under load without the car bottoming out.

How would that account for the apparent deflection of the front wing relative to the camera mounted on the airbox?

[nish2280]

I wasnt actually refering to the ride height being reduced before the race via suspension, if you look at my previous post i mention the use of the splitter allowing the car to ride lower while under load without the car bottoming out.

How would that account for the apparent deflection of the front wing relative to the camera mounted on the airbox?

That could be down to a vibration due to uneven tarmac. But to be honest i dont know.

But if you watch the onboard of Vitaly Petrov on Formula1.com you will notice the same thing except, admittedly at a lower level.

[smokin]

I wasnt actually refering to the ride height being reduced before the race via suspension, if you look at my previous post i mention the use of the splitter allowing the car to ride lower while under load without the car bottoming out.

How would that account for the apparent deflection of the front wing relative to the camera mounted on the airbox?

That could be down to a vibration due to uneven tarmac. But to be honest i dont know.

But if you watch the onboard of Vitaly Petrov on Formula1.com you will notice the same thing except, admittedly at a lower level.

That's what all the fuss is about - the amount of deflection visible on the Red Bulls. All the cars front wings bend but RB's wing bends more.

[nish2280]

I wasnt actually refering to the ride height being reduced before the race via suspension, if you look at my previous post i mention the use of the splitter allowing the car to ride lower while under load without the car bottoming out.

How would that account for the apparent deflection of the front wing relative to the camera mounted on the airbox?

That could be down to a vibration due to uneven tarmac. But to be honest i dont know.

But if you watch the onboard of Vitaly Petrov on Formula1.com you will notice the same thing except, admittedly at a lower level.

That's what all the fuss is about - the amount of deflection visible on the Red Bulls. All the cars front wings bend but RB's wing bends more.

Yeah but my opinion is that RedBull would never put their drivers at such a risk because having the front wing bend under that load (as i have said many times before, and sorry for sounding repetitive) the crash structure would be heavily compromised.

But we are all entitled to our own opinions and i guess thats what this forum is for eh?

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Yeah but my opinion is that RedBull would never put their drivers at such a risk because having the front wing bend under that load (as i have said many times before, and sorry for sounding repetitive) the crash structure would be heavily compromised....

I'm not sure how you're getting from drooping nose to endangering the driver but Vettel's nose falling off at Silverstone is res ipsa loquitur evidence RBR did put their drivers at risk.

[stonemonkey]

Yeah but my opinion is that RedBull would never put their drivers at such a risk because having the front wing bend under that load (as i have said many times before, and sorry for sounding repetitive) the crash structure would be heavily compromised....

I'm not sure how you're getting from drooping nose to endangering the driver but Vettel's nose falling off at Silverstone is res ipsa loquitur evidence RBR did put their drivers at risk.

It would depend on the cause of the failure, they were confident enough to keep using the wing on one of their cars.

Nish2280, parts have to pass the appropriate safety tests before they can be used and as far as I know there is no evidence that Red Bull have compromised crash safety in their design.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

It would depend on the cause of the failure, they were confident enough to keep using the wing on one of their cars....

The cause of the failure does not change the risk it posed to the driver.