Flexible Wings? More Stringent Tests for Monza

MajorDanby

Motorsports' answer to Eric the Eel
Contributor
As many of us are aware, at Spa this weekend the FIA are introducing further load tests on the front wings, after the scandal of the Red Bull and Ferrari flexible wings, with the endplates almost running along the ground. The load tests are being increased from a 100 N load to a 200 N load.

However, recent communicates sent out to the teams in the summer break have announced even further tests to be implemented for the upcoming Italian GP.
Autosport have reported that amid speculation that the teams in question have been making use of the floor flexing, rather than the wings themselves, that tests are being devised to combat this loophole.

The tests will specifically examine the 'tea tray' area of the floor. Furthermore, the skid blocks on the underside of the car may now only compromise of a maximum of 2 pieces, no less than 1m in length. This will definitely affect a number of teams, who are are using several sections of skid blocks. To further ensure teams are not deflecting the floor, from Monza all joints, bearing pivots and any other form of articulation must also be fixed.

The advantage of the flexible floor/wings seems to have been understated in recent weeks. Every mm closer the end plates run towards the floor is thought to give approximately 1 point of downforce, with the effect not localised just to the front of the car. Wings deflecting 25-30mm are therefore thought to give as much as a 1 second per lap advantage.

If this is actually the case, it could pose problems for Red Bull and Ferrari, as undoubtably McLaren have managed to claw back some of this advantage without utilising the flexible floor. Come Monza, we could see a reversal in positions of the top teams.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
MajorDanby said:
The advantage of the flexible floor/wings seems to have been understated in recent weeks. Every mm closer the end plates run towards the floor is thought to give approximately 1 point of downforce, with the effect not localised just to the front of the car. Wings deflecting 25-30mm are therefore thought to give as much as a 1 second per lap advantage.
I think this may be a somewhat misleading statistic - the amount of wing deflection is clearly correlated with speed; in the medium-speed and slow corners (i.e. most of them) the deflection is much less, and I suspect therefore that 1s/lap is a considerable over-estimate.

But, interesting times. Odd that this can't be done in time for Spa though. Wonder if we'll see any one-off "specials" this weekend?
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Galahad said:
But, interesting times. Odd that this can't be done in time for Spa though. Wonder if we'll see any one-off "specials" this weekend?
Considering there's been a 4 week break, the pre-announcement of the improved tests and the fact that they won't take place at Spa just stinks in my opinion.

Clearly they are giving Red Bull as much opportunity as possible to a) take advantage of their existing design and b) ensure they comply with the new tests.
 

cmotd

Rookie
MajorDanby said:
Wings deflecting 25-30mm are therefore thought to give as much as a 1 second per lap advantage.
McLarenSupremo said:
No doubt Red Bull will get around it somehow
Brogan said:
Clearly they are giving Red Bull as much opportunity as possible to a) take advantage of their existing design and b) ensure they comply with the new tests.


1) Getting one second per lap from the wing deflection is just girlish whiny nonsense, maybe 1/4 of a second at most.

2) Yes Red Bull will get around it because they keep coming up with new ideas instead of just stealing them from other teams - and yes i'm aware of the f-duct but other teams have stolen 6-7 concepts from the RB06 this year while RB only had that one they needed.

3) The FIA always announces any changes with this much lead time or more, your comment makes no sense
 

MajorDanby

Motorsports' answer to Eric the Eel
Contributor
cmotd said:
1) Getting one second per lap from the wing deflection is just girlish whiny nonsense, maybe 1/4 of a second at most.
Not my words, Martin Whitmarsh's.

cmotd said:
2) Yes Red Bull will get around it because they keep coming up with new ideas instead of just stealing them from other teams - and yes i'm aware of the f-duct but other teams have stolen 6-7 concepts from the RB06 this year while RB only had that one they needed.
Yes the other teams have copied the EBD, and maybe Ferrari have taken a few more concepts. Where did you pull 6-7 from? Out of thin air I think...

cmotd said:
3) The FIA always announces any changes with this much lead time or more, your comment makes no sense
Not true, the FIA bring in changes when and if they want too. In this cause though I imagine that it is taking them a longer time to a) decide what test to introduce to to test the flexibility of the floor, as this has never needed to before, and (b) ensure that these tests are fair, and will not disadvantage anyone one team, whose car may break the new regulations, but is not contravening the flexible bodywork regulations such as the RBR and Ferrari are.

Welcome to the forum by the way. Try and play nice :)
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
As always the people at Scarbs have an interesting piece on flexible floors, hinged splitters and mass dampers

Clickety click

One thing this makes me wonder is if the Red Bull EBD is as efficient as it is claimed it may allow them to run a higher rear ride height whilst maintaining the diffuser efficiency which, in turn, allows them to flex the front downward to bring the nose closer to the floor. The question from McLaren is how do they get the wings to flex and pass the FIA tests? Perhaps by raking the car, or flexing the nose, the wing moves lower. As a consequence the wing is more efficient as it is lower to the ground and therefoer is able to flex as the forces being applied to it are higher. The lower it goes, the more it will flex but in it's static condition it's not flexible.

Who knows? Adrian Newey does :D
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
It could indeed be any of those things.But the regulations state that at no time must any part of the car below the reference plane which is 85mm from ground level.
RBR are definitely getting their wing to run lower than that.
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
FB said:
It's 1981 all over again Sportsman...
Agreed such is F1 :censored: :censored: :givemestrength:But still we love it.

I refuse to Google it but IIRC that was Lotus with sliding skirts.Or was it Tyrell
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
That is one answer.What happens next at Monza


"In the wake of intense scrutiny about possible flexing of the teams' front wings, the Red Bull RB6 was - along with the McLaren MP4-25 - subject to the new tests during post-practice inspection by the FIA at Spa-Francorchamps on Friday.

A report from Formula 1 technical delegate Jo Bauer on Friday revealed that Mark Webber's car, as well as Lewis Hamilton's McLaren, were subject to both the new front wing test and a front floor deflection test.

Both cars were, according to Bauer, "found to be in conformity with 2010 FIA Formula 1 technical regulations."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86162
 

Chad Stewarthill

Champion Elect
Contributor
FB said:
As always the people at Scarbs have an interesting piece on flexible floors, hinged splitters and mass dampers
Great link FB. and it makes me feel less stupid than I did, given that I made the following comment on F1Yorkshire's 'Red Bull and Ferrari Front Wings' article earlier in August:

It seems clear that Red Bull are doing something more clever, as I have suspected for a while, than simply flexing the wings from the support posts. So to achieve this, rather than somehow flexing the whole nosecone downwards relative to the chassis, which seems to me to be something of an impossibility (but what do I know?), could they be doing a combination of three things when the car is travelling at speed:

1. Lowering the car slightly at the front suspension, either by slightly softer settings or some other means
2. Simultaneously raising the car at the rear suspension
3. Flexing the wings themselves so that they are able to get even lower at the endplates

I have no idea how they might achieve 1 and 2 (could it be done with clever aerodynamics?), but it would have the effect of 'tipping' the car forwards about an axis somewhere near the front end of the skid block, which would lower the whole front wing while not significantly lowering the skid block itself to the point where it would hit the track surface. The flexing wings would add an even more lowering at the endplates, explaining why they have been scraping the ground on occcasions.


As Red Bull by all accounts seem to be running very firm setups generally, not soft, perhaps they are not doing 1. They might not need to if 2. and 3. give the desired effect, combined with 4. (some sort of hinged or flexing splitter, as described in the Scarbs piece).
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I refuse to Google it but IIRC that was Lotus with sliding skirts.Or was it Tyrell
I was thinking more of Gordon Murray's pneumatic suspension Sportsman.

Cars in 1980 had sliding skirts but these were banned in 1981 and there was supposed to be a 10cm ground clearance. The regs stated something along the lines of "on entry and exit of the pit lane the cars must have a ground clearance of 10cm" so Murray put a lever in the Brabham which lowered the car down as it exited the pits and then raised it up when it entered the pit lane. When on the track the side pods scraped on the ground recovering all the ground effect.
 

sportsman

Sidecar racers have the biggest cojones
Contributor
FB said:
I refuse to Google it but IIRC that was Lotus with sliding skirts.Or was it Tyrell
I was thinking more of Gordon Murray's pneumatic suspension Sportsman.

Cars in 1980 had sliding skirts but these were banned in 1981 and there was supposed to be a 10cm ground clearance. The regs stated something along the lines of "on entry and exit of the pit lane the cars must have a ground clearance of 10cm" so Murray put a lever in the Brabham which lowered the car down as it exited the pits and then raised it up when it entered the pit lane. When on the track the side pods scraped on the ground recovering all the ground effect.
Your memory is somewhat sharper than mine FB.Yes indeed I rememember that incident now.Over the last 40 odd years there have been so many incidents of rule bending that the current one is just another one of many.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Martin Whitmarsh was speaking earlier and stated that "some teams" refused to put a rearward facing camera under the car as McLaren have done.

More fuel to the fire that some of them have some kind of flexible floor?
 

Jru

Points Scorer
Contributor
Interesting you say that Brogan - I was wondering about it given the use of the camera angle in qualification today. I thought the teams had to provide the camera mountings (and I assume allow their use) - why is it they can refuse to?
 

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
I imagine the teams have x number of cameras on the car but they can stick them where they like, but I'm not sure!
 

MajorDanby

Motorsports' answer to Eric the Eel
Contributor
It does seem that they have something to hide.

I think the whole thing is that the teams can choose where to put their cameras. After the success of the McLaren camera, with fans enjoying the shots, other teams where as to consider relocating their cameras. Red Bull and other have refused.
 
Top Bottom