FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[mugen]

This might be interesting to look at,unfortunately i,m unable to post a direct link.................not very good with computers! Anyway the site is Scarbs, he is a technical wizard and writes some fascinating insights,i,ve looked at on board footage of Red Bull where the "flexi" wing is moving,but i also noticed how much suspension travel there was when braking,much more than i had previously thought,take a look and you,ll see what i mean.

[Martin g]

This is the link you mean mate,

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/


That guy prety well sums it up

[darwin dali]

This is the link you mean mate,

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/


That guy prety well sums it up

Hm, does this mean you retract your accusations about RB's flexing wings then?

[Martin g]

To be honest i dont know how you can say that,
If you read the link you woudnt of said anything,
It blows your argument out of the water.

No it dont it just prooves my point that redbull are bending the rules.
It infact backs up my accusations thankyou.

No other car out of the 24 on the grid have a flexable wing as theres has.
Dont deny what your eyes tell you to be true.

I know for a fact within a few mths you will have to retract anything you said to protect redbull.
Im sure of that.


This guy seems to know his stuff,
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/



Front wing Load cases
An F1 car makes its own weight in downforce at just 70mph, that’s ~600kg of load on the car, half of this load is from the wings and half from the diffuser, thus the wings create some 300Kg of load at this speed. With the cars centre of pressure being some where near 45% forward biased, this means the front wing is creating something like 140Kg of load, split between the left and right wing each wing is producing 70Kg of load at just 70Mph. this is the speed of the slowest turn at the Hungaroring this weekend and only slightly faster than the hairpin at Monaco! Thus the FIA limit of 50kg is vastly under specified for the actual load an F1 car sees at even the slowest circuits. Its not surprising a team can created a wing to beat the 50Kg-10mm deflection test and yet achieve far greater deflections, suggested to be as much as 25mm, at much faster corners.

How’s this done – is it legal?
An F1 front wing is a complex moulding of carbon fibre bonded to metal sections. Although the flaps and endplate are detachable, from a structural point of view a front wing is a single piece. Mounted at its centre section by pylons affixed under the nose cone, itself stoutly fastened to the front of the chassis. In the eyes of the rules and with the exception of the driver adjustable front flap, the front wing should meet the regulation 3.16 regarding aerodynamic influence:

-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.

Therefore the entire assembly can not be allowed to move in relation to the rest of the car. However no car can be 100% rigid and F1 cars are subjected to huge aerodynamic loads, hence the reason for the FIA to set the deflection test. If the wing can meet the test and still deflect above the test load, then the FIA deem it legal and the car can race. This could be achieved by accident or by design. Its possible that the carbon fibre lay up creating the wing will continue to deflect in a linear way all the way from zero load to 50kg and then for loads of 50kg upwards. It’s reasonable to assume most teams wing respond this way. However it’s possible to alter the layup of the carbon fibre or add some from of mechanical system (i.e. hinges or springs) to allow a non-linear repsonse to create the 10mm of movement at a 50Kg load, then create greater deflections above 50Kg. Thus the engineers could create wing that meets the deflection test, but would then deflect down to a desired ride height at a specified maximum speed.

While this is against the “spirit of the rules” which prohibit flexible bodywork they meet the test as defined by the FIA for flexible bodywork, thus the Red Bull and the Ferrari front wings are free to race in the eyes of the FIA.

[scotty]

This stuff makes me laugh my arse off.

If a car passes scrutineering it's legal.

There literally is no debate to be had against these flexi body parts. If someone wants to play that 'spirit of the rules' guff (which ironically pretty much every team has had history in, so why not slate them all?), then i would simply offer the argument of road relevant technology in return. This technology could save many, many gallons of fuel in motorway driving, for example.

Yet, that is all besides the point as here some engineering teams have simply completely outsmarted the others, and the others can only cry foul in despair.

[Martin g]

I dont think anypart of the aerodynamic package of redbulls car or any car for that matter is suppose to move anymore than 20mm.
statick hight is 75mill high,
damit man redbulls front wing scrapes the ground.
Your be eating your words soon enough.


ps: I think ferarri has the fia in there pocket anyways,
They know rebull are screwing the rules if they take them down ferari will go down with them aswell.
So realy this may never get resolved.
Only time will tell

[scotty]

How will i be eating my words? If they change the rules to make everything illegal? That doesn't quite add up in my book...!

[Martin g]

I think putting a camera on the nose cone to measure any flexing of the body or front wing is the only way to clear this up.

I can see this redbulls wing snatching the ground and riping itself under the front wheels some time soon.

There a danger in my opinion,
knickers to minimum hight gap thats there for the safety of others (redbull)
Its blatently ignoring the minimum hight thats there for safety reasons.

[billindenver]

I dont think anypart of the aerodynamic package of redbulls car or any car for that matter is suppose to move anymore than 20mm.
statick hight is 75mill high,
damit man redbulls front wing scrapes the ground.
Your be eating your words soon enough.

You are missing several key words in the definition of the rules. Go to dictionary.com and look up the word static. That in itself will help you see the silliness in your argument. And once again, the rules do NOT SAY the wing can't ever flex more than 20mm. In fact, by stating that they can bend a certain amount under a certain load...the FIA are setting a threshold...beyond which anything goes. The most pertinent part of the article much quoted by scarbsF1 is this:

they meet the test as defined by the FIA for flexible bodywork, thus the Red Bull and the Ferrari front wings are free to race in the eyes of the FIA.

If you can't comprehend why that is, then you have never built anything to a rulebook...which is pretty obvious. If the golden book says it must be XXXXXXXXX...and you can make it that and still get what you want...YOU WIN. It's legal...and you are smarter than your opponents. End of. Full stop. Cry somewhere else.

[Martin g]

edit deleted lol

[billindenver]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here. When I said dictionary.com I meant the meaning of the word static...not the spelling. I was saying you apparently don't understand what a static height requirement means. You say they are breaking the rules because there is a static height requirement and yet their wing hits the ground on occasion. What I'm trying to get through your two short planks is that with suspension travel, tire flex, body roll etc etc....the wing can indeed lower in height and a STATIC test does NOT mean it must be 75 mil high at all times. That is not the definition of a static test.

I could shorten all of that up by saying many people making quite a bit of money are trying to find a way to call the Redbull and Ferrari wing illegal....and are unable. That means it isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think it is. The reason you think it is cut and dry is likely because you think static height means height at all times no matter what...and what I was trying to get across to you is that you definition of static is 180 degrees out. Which is why everything seems simple in your eyes, when to the rest of the engineering world...it isn't.

[smokin]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here. When I said dictionary.com I meant the meaning of the word static...not the spelling. I was saying you apparently don't understand what a static height requirement means. You say they are breaking the rules because there is a static height requirement and yet their wing hits the ground on occasion. What I'm trying to get through your two short planks is that with suspension travel, tire flex, body roll etc etc....the wing can indeed lower in height and a STATIC test does NOT mean it must be 75 mil high at all times. That is not the definition of a static test.

I could shorten all of that up by saying many people making quite a bit of money are trying to find a way to call the Redbull and Ferrari wing illegal....and are unable. That means it isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think it is. The reason you think it is cut and dry is likely because you think static height means height at all times no matter what...and what I was trying to get across to you is that you definition of static is 180 degrees out. Which is why everything seems simple in your eyes, when to the rest of the engineering world...it isn't.

[darwin dali]

Ok, now that this is cleared up, could we be nice again to each other?

[Robert12010]

this is becoming personal

[Gaz]

Again, you misunderstand. I wasn't bagging on your horrific spelling or lack of sentence structure...that is actually against the rules in here. When I said dictionary.com I meant the meaning of the word static...not the spelling. I was saying you apparently don't understand what a static height requirement means. You say they are breaking the rules because there is a static height requirement and yet their wing hits the ground on occasion. What I'm trying to get through your two short planks is that with suspension travel, tire flex, body roll etc etc....the wing can indeed lower in height and a STATIC test does NOT mean it must be 75 mil high at all times. That is not the definition of a static test.

I could shorten all of that up by saying many people making quite a bit of money are trying to find a way to call the Redbull and Ferrari wing illegal....and are unable. That means it isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think it is. The reason you think it is cut and dry is likely because you think static height means height at all times no matter what...and what I was trying to get across to you is that you definition of static is 180 degrees out. Which is why everything seems simple in your eyes, when to the rest of the engineering world...it isn't.

Sorry but your obviously abit slow from all your xboxing.

If you stick a weight on the wing and the thing bends then its flexing.

they need bigger weights so thats why they changed the rules.

you can clearly see the thing bending they are breaking the rules and getting away with it