Red Bull and Ferrari front wings

[sportsman]

Hi Gumshoe.Welcome.
Thats one hell of an introduction.That is the best view that I have seen of this wing, and it is clearly moving.
Look at the left hand side suspension damper mounting.You can clearly see this moving in unison with the wing.

 

[snowy]

A team like McLaren should have a group of investigators looking out for tricks, potentially illegal devices and anything that could possibly indicate an area of development. The onboard footage of the Red Bull car clearly shows the front wing flexing in Spain and it is fair to assume that it has been flexing all season.

The active ride height or suspension was a clever diversion or totally erroneous deduction, the Red Bull has just been generating huge amounts of downforce flexing the front wing. Something that should have been picked up on the first time onboard footage of this seasons car was broadcast.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

I'll post the link to Darren Heath's pictures again as the links seem to be broken in the earlier post from Enja (and I'm not sure if they're the same pics. Looks at image 17 onwards - it's quite useful to be able to compare different team's cars in the image gallery. A useful reference point is the undertray, though of course the front end could flex too (or the photographer may be in slightly different positions). But to my not-too-brilliant eyes, the Ferrari, and to a greater extent, RBR wings definitely look distinctly flexible. The wing endplate on Webber's car in image 19 is virtually touching the ground

http://www.darrenheath.com/season/2010/ ... ge-gallery

 

[snowy]

The rules regarding flexible wings:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- 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.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the
ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

 

[Brogan]

So effectively they're putting 50Kg on the end plate and they're not deflecting more than 10mm vertically.

However, as the video and images show, there is much more than 10mm deflection when under a higher load due to speed.
Now we know the reason for all the little horizontal surfaces on the ends of the wings, they're to generate huge amounts of downforce.

So the FIA will have to make an announcement as to whether the test will stay the same or be changed (as per 3.17.8), otherwise the other teams are going to be wasting a lot of time and money to make a similar wing.

 

[snowy]

Unfortunately it seems that a sort of precedent was set by the teams themselves when the DDD was introduced that they wouldn't necessarily challenge designs that circumvent the spirit of the law. The F-Duct could well have been officially challenged and a ruling demanded but the teams just voiced concerns, did they not?

McLaren have voiced concerns about RBR and Ferrari's front wings but have not challenged the legality of them, even though they have no idea how RBR are getting round the rules! Clearly there is some sort of gentleman's agreement allowing teams to flagrantly disregard the spirit of the rules.

Don't teams often ask Charlie Whiting for a clarification of the rules to get some idea of what another team is getting round them?

 

[Muddytalker]

In retrospect, this has to be a result of allowing the teams to decide their own technical regs (via both FOTA and the OWG), doesn't it?

 

[Brogan]

Well the F-Duct has been banned from next season so it would seem to me at the moment that only certain innovations are being prohibited.

Once again it's very inconsistent.

The F-Duct complies with the rules in the same way these flexible wings do.
So either prohibit all instances of devices which take advantage of loopholes or none.
What we have at the moment is a mess, as usual.

 

[sportsman]

Maybe I just being dense but this seems all back to front to me.Why have more downforce at high speed and have an F duct to reduce downforce at high speed thereby increasing top speed.

 

[slickskid]

Isn't there also a change to the front wing regs for next year? i thought i heard it somewhere.

 

[slickskid]

Maybe I just being dense but this seems all back to front to me.Why have more downforce at high speed and have an F duct to reduce downforce at high speed thereby increasing top speed.

The more downforce you can generate the quicker you can get round corners with the extra grip. The F duct is primarily for when traveling in a straight line where downforce is not essential but creating as little drag as possible to max top speed is.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Brogan said:
Well the F-Duct has been banned from next season so it would seem to me at the moment that only certain innovations are being prohibited.

Once again it's very inconsistent.

The F-Duct complies with the rules in the same way these flexible wings do.
So either prohibit all instances of devices which take advantage of loopholes or none.
What we have at the moment is a mess, as usual.

In fact, I'd say that the F-Duct is actually more compliant than the bendy wings, and does not rely on exploiting a loophole.
The F-Duct, as far as I can see, does not break or bend any regulation as such. The other teams' concerns were that the use of it broke an unwritten 'Gentleman's Agreement' not to go down that route, weren't they?
The bendy wing, on the other hand (if we are all understanding it correctly) is actually breaking the spirit of the Technical Regulations themselves, by being compliant with the required test only when stationary, while being designed with the deliberate intent of being non-compliant under the much greater loads exerted on it in race conditions. An argument could be made that it also breaks the wording of regulation 3.15 anyway, in that it could be said to be designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground (when the car is in motion).

 

[MajorDanby]

I believe that the loop hole in this set of regulations is because the rule relating to the flexibility of the front wing is given in regulation 3.17.1,

3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 800mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 795mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

The scrutineers have shown that the RBR and SF wings comply to this regulation. Obviously, at greater than a 500N the wings are flexing more. However, regulation 3.17.8 does allow them to introduce new tests,

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

However, as shown above, new tests are only brought in if they believe that 3.15 has been broken. The thing is, 3.15 has not been broken

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- 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.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the
ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

Again, - must comply with the rules relating to bodywork, i.e. the wings comply with the rules relating to bodywork, i.e. Article 3.17.1

A loop hole that they have both exploited excellently, even if I do not like it because I am a Macca boy

 

[sportsman]

Maybe I just being dense but this seems all back to front to me.Why have more downforce at high speed and have an F duct to reduce downforce at high speed thereby increasing top speed.

The more downforce you can generate the quicker you can get round corners with the extra grip. The F duct is primarily for when traveling in a straight line where downforce is not essential but creating as little drag as possible to max top speed is.

I know.Thats what I don't understand.Why have a wing that creates more downforce at high speed, when the place you need downforce is corners at lower speeds.

If the wing went up at high speed and down at lower speed then it would make sense.

 

[MajorDanby]

The thing is, that any configuration of wing always generates more downforce at higher speed than lower speed, thats just the nature of an aerofoil. At tracks with minimal straights, and lots of tight turns, the teams run a higher downforce configuration, allowing them to maximise the downforce they gain from low speed turns.

The f-duct effectively allows you to run more wing, as by stalling it in the straights you are able to maximise the downforce in the slow speed corners, whilst reducing drag and increasing top speed on the straights. All tracks are a compromise between the highest downforce it is possible to run (with its associated level of drag), and the top speed you require on the straights.

Its a balancing act, with the speed you can around the corners (more downforce) and the speed you can get along the straights (less downforce, less drag). The reason why the RBR are so fast is partially due to the EBD, that gives an increase in downforce, without an increase in drag, as well as the new front wings of course

 

[Brogan]

I know.Thats what I don't understand.Why have a wing that creates more downforce at high speed, when the place you need downforce is corners at lower speeds.

If the wing went up at high speed and down at lower speed then it would make sense.

I know exactly what you mean sportsman. On paper it doesn't seem to make sense on the straights.
However, it obviously works well for high speed corners such as turn 8 at Turkey.

Perhaps Red Bull run lower rear wing to account for the increase downforce from the front wing?
So in effect they go for a trade off/compromise setting.

 

[MajorDanby]

Sorry sportsman, misinterpreted your question, apologies

Increased downforce on a straight is not a problem, as long as you don't increase the overall drag. You can think of downforce as a force that only acts in the vertical plane (perpendicular to the track) with drag as a force working the lateral plane.

With pure downforce (no drag) the only detriment to top speed would be due to an effective increase in the weight of the car, almost negligible. Now the reason that teams run cars as low to the track as possible, is because the ground effect gives you more downforce for free. There is no increase in drag, but a big increase in downforce.

With the flexible wing, it doesn't matter that the teams are increasing downforce on the straights, because there is no extra drag, the reduction in top speed is minimal. However, as Brogon said, when you are travelling round a high speed corner, the extra downforce is extremely valuable and allows you to go a lot quicker.

Hope that answers the question

 

[snowy]

According to every sim I have ever raced, F1 technical briefing I have heard the front wing doesn't create any significant drag.

 

[sportsman]

Thanks for explanation.Incidently I was around F1 long before the Colin Chapman and Ken Tyrrell introduced the "ground effects" cars with the sliding skirts.

I can clearly remember when rear wings first appeared stuck up on a pair of broomsticks, until they banned due to their habit of falling off.

Certainly both RBR and Ferrari are amongst the slower cars in outright top speeds.They are geting their performance from better cornering speeds.

I am afraid that I am no aerodynamcist, engineering is my forte.But its curios that McLaren are scratching their heads trying to understand just how it works.

One thing for sure is I'm damned if I know.

 

[MajorDanby]

Yeah, sorry sportsman, I wasn't referring to the out and out ground effect that was used in the 80's, but you still gain some benefit from that effect with a lower running car, even without the skirts.