BTW, if anyone wants to read up on the reference plane... http://cliptheapex.com/threads/where-what-is-the-reference-plane-in-f1.1782/
FIA Massa's Front Wing
- Thread starter Westy
- Start date
In theory, yes. But in practice, according to some experimental CAD drawings I did a few months ago to test the principle out, in order to get the front wing endplates to touch the tarmac (with the car at rest, i.e. without the help of any downward flex of the wings) you would have to lift the rear wheels by about 400mm.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Personally, I'd like to see the rules re-written to include the statement that it must be a certain distance above the reference plane, AND a certain distance above the ground when the car is at rest.... Further, I'd like to see the FIA introduce a rule that any aero-component may be impounded by the FIA and tested in a wind tunnel to see if at speeds of 150mph+ there is more than a set tolerance of flex!
They should just force teams to use a system similar to light-gates in the endplates, that way if they flex closer to the ground at any point than is permitted the sensor will detect it and the car will be deemed to have moveable bodywork.
The teams use laser ride height gauges during testing, you have to wonder why the FIA can't have these permanently installed on the cars to ensure that they don't flout the rules during races. Parts of the car (other than the tyres) are bound to touch the track during a race but they should be able to work out where the car is and find out what the height of various parts is.
That would be difficult. Firstly, the team have to be allowed to change set-up items like front and rear ride height (and anyway there is variance between 'wet' and 'slick' tyre diameters), which is why a reference plane on the car is used rather than the ground. The height itself is not so much of a problem as the flexing, which makes the wing a moveable, and therefore illegal, aerodynamic device (regardless of whether it passes a clearly inadequate test). Secondly, the scrutineers must be able to check the legality of all components at the circuit on race weekends, so wind tunnel testing is not a feasible option.
How about a skid plate?
It is not fair to assume that the wing will never touch the ground, as there are bumps and curves to be avoided, so I thought of a skid plate, of a certain thickness mounted underneath the endplates, this could form a semicircle, with the radius being equivalent to the ride height regulations. This would reduce flexing uniformly, without itself providing a benefit. More than a certain amount of wear would be illegal.
It is not fair to assume that the wing will never touch the ground, as there are bumps and curves to be avoided, so I thought of a skid plate, of a certain thickness mounted underneath the endplates, this could form a semicircle, with the radius being equivalent to the ride height regulations. This would reduce flexing uniformly, without itself providing a benefit. More than a certain amount of wear would be illegal.
Good point!!
Wombcat
Podium Finisher
I guess to keep cornering speeds down.
As I understand that was also one of the reasons why the ground efffect cars were banned. Due to the high cornering speeds, it put too much stress on the drivers. Although the ground effect cars also had another serious danger. If the car hit too many bumps (or the krebs too much), or one of the skirts failed, the ground effect dissappeared and the car turned into a projectile.
As I understand that was also one of the reasons why the ground efffect cars were banned. Due to the high cornering speeds, it put too much stress on the drivers. Although the ground effect cars also had another serious danger. If the car hit too many bumps (or the krebs too much), or one of the skirts failed, the ground effect dissappeared and the car turned into a projectile.
I think flexible bodywork would mainly be used to reduce drag at high speeds, so although obviously the teams would offset this by running more wing angle, my belief would be that the speeds on straights would increase more than the cornering speeds would. Same principle as DRS.
I suppose there would probably have to be limits in certain areas, but in general I think the rulebook would be enhanced by removing items from it, not adding to it.
I suppose there would probably have to be limits in certain areas, but in general I think the rulebook would be enhanced by removing items from it, not adding to it.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Whilst I can understand this point of view, if you ask me, when it comes to allowing flexibility to be designed into bodywork, it will swiftly become a spending arms race! You get Red Bull layering up its carbon fibre cleverly, then another team ends up spending shedloads in order to catch up, and where does it all end? Much simpler to say that the bodywork cannot flex!
I know, but until it becomes a spec series I'm afraid F1 will be a spending arms race - it's just a question of where the money is spent. A rule that can't be enforced is no use to anybody, and all we've got at the moment is a game of cat-and-mouse where the FIA change the tests, the teams react to get around them, and on we go.
Mind you, anything that flexes will likey fail eventually.
This reminds me of an old black & white film called 'No Highway in the Sky' with Jimmy Stewart as an aircraft boffin who discovered a potential fatal flaw in an airliner that would make the tail fall off through metal fatigue after a certain number of flying hours. Of course no-one took him seriously, but he managed to persuade the crew of said plane, which he happened to be a passenger in, to land. Still no-one believed him so he raised the undercarriage with the craft on the ground to prevent the plane taking off again. They repaired it and flew again anyway, and tried to have Stewart declared insane. After another flight, but well past his predicted time for failure, the tail duly fell off. He later realised that he hadn't factored in temperature in his original calculations, so the tail lasted longer than he had predicted before failing.
Fatigue failure is a function of work-hardening through repeated stress/strain. Many materials have a certain amount of elasticity (even metals) - they can be deformed slightly under load, and will return to their original position/state when the load is removed - but even the most elastic material under repeated loading and unloading will start to stiffen and resist loading. Think of bending a cheap metal spoon repeatedly - at first it is easy to bend back & forth, but it gets gradually stiffer until it suddenly breaks - this is work-hardening.
As Chad points out in his excellent example, temperature is also a factor - extremes of heat or cold will produce very different results in fatigue-testing. Typically: very low temperatures induce embrittlement, higher temperatures induce softening (for metals, at least).
I do not know all that much about Carbon Fibre (being a mere metallurgist), but I would imagine that what is basically a series of fibres suspended within a cured epoxy resin will have much less elasticity than an aluminium or steel part - though it is certainly stronger and lighter, it is not as tough (i.e. resistant to deformation). Whereas a metal part may be able to go through several tens of thousands of deformation cycles to induce fatigue-hardening, I suppose a Carbon Fibre structure may be a few orders of magnitude less before failure occurs - no matter how cleverly the weave is laid-up during construction.
As Chad points out in his excellent example, temperature is also a factor - extremes of heat or cold will produce very different results in fatigue-testing. Typically: very low temperatures induce embrittlement, higher temperatures induce softening (for metals, at least).
I do not know all that much about Carbon Fibre (being a mere metallurgist), but I would imagine that what is basically a series of fibres suspended within a cured epoxy resin will have much less elasticity than an aluminium or steel part - though it is certainly stronger and lighter, it is not as tough (i.e. resistant to deformation). Whereas a metal part may be able to go through several tens of thousands of deformation cycles to induce fatigue-hardening, I suppose a Carbon Fibre structure may be a few orders of magnitude less before failure occurs - no matter how cleverly the weave is laid-up during construction.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
