FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[acosmichippo]

but if suspension was the cause, the movement wouldn't be as evident as it is in Vettel's on-board lap since the camera and wing are both mounted to the sprung body. In other words, any movement they have would be the same relative to each other. That doesn't appear to be the case in the video.

[Denthúl]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests...

I've had my own theory which may be way off as I'm no engineer but could the shape of the RedBull nose be playing a major part. It's shaped like a bulb so the front nose is wider then it shallows in before going wider again before the nose join to the chassis. Could this shape create a weak spot forcing the nose lower than normal? The carbon fibre wouldn't need to be made too differently.

This is perhaps possible, but like you, I'm not an engineer. If it was done this way, it would have to be terribly clever, but it does make me wonder if it would be possible to make it weak enough to do this without compromising its integrity during impact and, thus, pass the FIA crash tests. I would absolutely love to know how it's being done but something tells me that such information won't become available.

[texasmr2]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests....

Please refresh my memory as to why the Michelins were illegal, no really I have forgotten this debate ? Now concerning Vettels front wing (which the supplied pics clearly show it does not conform to the regs) why should we not be concerned? I see no other teams front wing 'duckling' the tarmac and as I emplied I think the testing procedure has flaws.

I know we all want clarification on this matter and I myself am neither wrong or right but there is definitely something fishy going on which needs explaning.

[Denthúl]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests....

Please refresh my memory as to why the Michelins were illegal, no really I have forgotten this debate ?

The grooves were the right width before being used, but as the race wore on the contact surfaces wore down and widened, leaving more rubber in contact with the track than was permissible.

[scotty]

I've had my own theory which may be way off as I'm no engineer but could the shape of the RedBull nose be playing a major part. It's shaped like a bulb so the front nose is wider then it shallows in before going wider again before the nose join to the chassis. Could this shape create a weak spot forcing the nose lower than normal? The carbon fibre wouldn't need to be made too differently.

This is perhaps possible, but like you, I'm not an engineer. If it was done this way, it would have to be terribly clever, but it does make me wonder if it would be possible to make it weak enough to do this without compromising its integrity during impact and, thus, pass the FIA crash tests. I would absolutely love to know how it's being done but something tells me that such information won't become available.

I'd say it's sheer material technology, perhaps allied to a slightly higher level of downforce generated (which would account for at least some of the extra force pushing the wing and especially the nose down at speed). I don't think a 'weak point' in construction is a likely reason though, because that increases the risk of a part failing. Elasticity is very relevant to all this and that is related to the materials, but as you say exactly how the material works we'll probably never know.

edit - just to add this (incredibly basic) graph that might help demonstrate the potential properties of whatever material they are using:

graph.jpg

Basically the elasticity of the material increases massively after a certain point. It's definitely possible but i don't know the mechanics of it. Of course, this is still just me speculating, but it makes sense.

I found it odd to read that Red Bull have invested in material technology where other teams hadn't, i'd like to know the reasons behind that given the nature of F1. It's also further evidence that they're more than just a drinks company now...

[vaptin]

I think its because of the standardising, things like the engine . and also minimum weight requirements means there's very little scope. Engines are fuel efficient if they run hotter, so unless the materials themselves are standardised, there looks to be potential there for improving the engines next time the FIA allow the teams to work on them.

[f1ea]

I'd say it's sheer material technology, perhaps allied to a slightly higher level of downforce generated (which would account for at least some of the extra force pushing the wing and especially the nose down at speed). I don't think a 'weak point' in construction is a likely reason though, because that increases the risk of a part failing. Elasticity is very relevant to all this and that is related to the materials, but as you say exactly how the material works we'll probably never know.

i'd say RB's front wing does give more downforce, and the wing is slightly more flexible, thus giving RB a bit more flex than the others; but the shocking bit is just HOW INCREDIBLY MUCH more the RB wing moves.............

edit - just to add this (incredibly basic) graph that might help demonstrate the potential properties of whatever material they are using:

Basically the elasticity of the material increases massively after a certain point. It's definitely possible but i don't know the mechanics of it. Of course, this is still just me speculating, but it makes sense.

sure, that would be it........ now show me which material could do just that: exponential deflection past a linear range, without permanent deformity. ahem, the material must be solid
Find any material, ever encountered... even in NASA stuff.... just find any (solid) material with similar qualities and i'd say that's likely what they're doing.

[i havent tried, but i'd bet you'll end up running into hydraulic/pneumatic/vapor operated devices such as shock absorbers, vapor mechanisms etc....]

After they find such a material, they'd have to control the downforce on the wing to not allow just a liiiiittle too much flex, or the wing hits the floor.... we're talking past a certain point, very little extra force will provide ever increasing deflection...... effectively giving the RBs a top speed.

hmmmmm if the wings show to be much stiffer in long-straight speed tracks such as Sepang i would say its possible they have this...... but would they give themselves a top speed to allow more flexing?? maybe this is why they keep struggling at straight line (and not the Renault engine)?? but then why did they go shopping for more power (merc engine)??

i'm not married to my ideas........ and i'm not even against anybody's, but someone must come up with a strong case........ c'mon FIA! just make the darned thing illegal so they can explain it

[What's Burning?]

now show me which material could do just that: exponential deflection past a linear range, without permanent deformity. Must be solid
Find any material, ever encountered... even in NASA stuff.... just find any (solid) material with similar qualities and i'd say that's likely what they're doing.

[youtube]hNbp9IL57hI[/youtube]

[scotty]

Like i said that's a very basic graph just used to give a graphical representation! The wings, in the grand scheme of things, probably move what, 50mm? Compare that to the permitted flex in the tests and it's not actually a crazily huge amount, so the limit of elasticity doesn't have to be unbelievably large. I'm sure there are materials out there that can do that.

A more left field suggestion is some heat-affected material, as air hitting a surface at high velocity will create heat. However, i am dubious because i can't imagine all that much heat is generated in this manner on an F1 car. Just a hunch though...

[killem2]

Like i said that's a very basic graph just used to give a graphical representation! The wings, in the grand scheme of things, probably move what, 50mm? Compare that to the permitted flex in the tests and it's not actually a crazily huge amount, so the limit of elasticity doesn't have to be unbelievably large. I'm sure there are materials out there that can do that.

A more left field suggestion is some heat-affected material, as air hitting a surface at high velocity will create heat. However, i am dubious because i can't imagine all that much heat is generated in this manner on an F1 car. Just a hunch though...

What if it channeled heat from the brakes? Like a heat pipe on a cpu but with a reverse effect. You might be on to something.

[f1ea]

now show me which material could do just that: exponential deflection past a linear range, without permanent deformity. Must be solid
Find any material, ever encountered... even in NASA stuff.... just find any (solid) material with similar qualities and i'd say that's likely what they're doing.

[youtube]

Are you sure that's not deforming linearly? i bet its still linear...

A more left field suggestion is some heat-affected material, as air hitting a surface at high velocity will create heat. However, i am dubious because i can't imagine all that much heat is generated in this manner on an F1 car. Just a hunch though...

yeah... temp would affect and modify the elastic properties.... they used to show thermal graphs, never while on the run though. The hottest were near the engine and tires..... dunno, i doubt there's that much heat generated at the front wing: Heat = friction = drag. i doubt they'd go for that.....

[scotty]

Like i said that's a very basic graph just used to give a graphical representation! The wings, in the grand scheme of things, probably move what, 50mm? Compare that to the permitted flex in the tests and it's not actually a crazily huge amount, so the limit of elasticity doesn't have to be unbelievably large. I'm sure there are materials out there that can do that.

A more left field suggestion is some heat-affected material, as air hitting a surface at high velocity will create heat. However, i am dubious because i can't imagine all that much heat is generated in this manner on an F1 car. Just a hunch though...

What if it channeled heat from the brakes? Like a heat pipe on a cpu but with a reverse effect. You might be on to something.

I can't see how that would work myself, and i can't see how they'd have implemented it on the cars to be honest. The tubing needed to channel heat would probably create more hassle than benefit (for aerodynamics).

Note that aerodynamic heating mostly affects the leading edge of the aero part in question. Say they are actually using such materials, then only the front edge of the wing would be closer to the floor. I genuinely don't know if it's the whole wing sections or just the front edges of these cars are dropping closer to the floor, i haven't studied photos all that carefully. But regardless, if it's only the leading edges flexing lower, that leaves a rake angle (ie it's 'leaning foward') across the wing, and angle means downforce...


All this thinking leads me to a seperate point. If this front wing is *so* effective, why were Red Bull able to use the DRS earlier on corner exits than anyone else? The adjustable wing moves aero balance forward, ie lowering rear downforce. Following this logic the RB's have superior rear downforce anyway, and any changes to the front wings will make little difference to overall performance, if any. Just speculating again...

[What's Burning?]

^^ doesn't lowering the front wing just improve the overall air flow and ground effects of the car? I don't think the direct benefit is increased downforce at the front... although the clearly photographed nose dip would change the angle of the wing and therefore also increase the downforce.

[CarBore]

The Red Bull has been aerodynamically the superior car since about mid 2009. The front wing is just 1 element, obviously it contributes but you don't get 0.8 sec a lap from your wing running a few mm closer to the ground.

I still have my doubt about it being a purely material issue. As others have brought up already an significantly non-linear strain in a material is in the permanent deformation region, and the wings don't droop lower at the end of a race otherwise they would clearly fail scrutineering.

[acosmichippo]

All this thinking leads me to a seperate point. If this front wing is *so* effective, why were Red Bull able to use the DRS earlier on corner exits than anyone else? The adjustable wing moves aero balance forward, ie lowering rear downforce. Following this logic the RB's have superior rear downforce anyway, and any changes to the front wings will make little difference to overall performance, if any. Just speculating again...

Assuming the front wing does flex, which i think we can all agree on, it would not be flexing very much at the point where they activate the DRS (right out of the corners) due to the lower speed of the car.