Technical Red Bull's Front Wing (Revisited)

[snowy]

It's not so much a case of front wing flexing, more a case of droopy nose syndrome.

I wonder if Mclaren are aware of this nasal elasticity?

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Sorry Chad, hope I haven't offended you.

Not at all snowy, I'm grateful for your help, and I was just acknowledging that I was the lazy one for simply posting the link and not putting the pictures up properly.
I have had problems doing it in the past, so I didn't bother this time. I am now running Google Chrome though, as recommended by Brogan, and when I did a test just now it worked fine using the 'insert image' tool (don't know if Google Chrome had anything to do with that or not).

 

[sportsman]

Wonder how they get around this one.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-publi...E/1-2011 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS 10-12-2010.pdf 3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 20mm vertically when a 1000N 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 to the centre of area of an adapter measuring 300mm x
150mm, the 300mm length having been positioned parallel to the car centre line. Teams must supply the
adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and
relative to the reference plane.

 

[snowy]

http://grid.f1arab.com/wp_ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/f1arab1.gif

http://grid.f1arab.com/wp_ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/f1arab.gif

These gifs show that McLaren are flexing their wing. But they probably don't have the floppy nose.

 

[snowy]

Defining legal is not simple because if a part of a car meets all the rules laid down and yet still achieves something that is not desired by the regulators, it is usually considered to be legal because the only way to establish rights and wrongs is to have tests. The Sauber rear wing was tested and was found to be wrong. This had no effect at all on the performance of the car, but the rules had been transgressed and thus Sauber lost its points in Melbourne. It was a tough call, but there is ultimately no argument. If one turns a blind eye to a few millimetres here and there, one must do the same when someone else turns up with something that may relate more to performance. Thus the rules must be applied.

In that case Sebastian Vettel's overtake on Jenson Button should have been punished.

Red Bull, on the other hand, has front wings that flex under loading. If a part must be rigid, there is a measurement to which it must conform and if the engineers manage to create a part that meets these stipulations then it is legal, whether or not it is able to do other things that the rule makers have not considered. Thus the regulators can change the rules if they wish to close down such loopholes, but they cannot simply declare a device to be illegal simply because they have not figured out how to police it.

Wasn't there a rule some time ago that talked about upholding the spirit of the regulations?

Also why have the FIA been trying to beef up the testing if they don't consider that Red Bull are in fact doing something outside of the rules?

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/bleating-and-being-beaten/

 

[Galahad]

Wasn't there a rule some time ago that talked about upholding the spirit of the regulations?

When the double-diffusers were protested in 2009, the appellants submitted the preamble to Article 3 of the Tech Regs as evidence: "One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 is to minimise the detrimental effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car", arguing that the double diffuser was illegal under the intention of the article irrespective of the specific detailed regs.

The Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation, stating that: "it is not possible for the Court to depart from or ignore the unambiguous text of the regulations to give effect to the general statement set out in the first sentence of the preamble. Nor is the first sentence of Art. 3 specific enough to be capable of enforcement on its own or of being regarded as a rule which can conflict with the explicit terms of the remainder of Art. 3."

Ergo, there isn't really a 'spirit of the rules'.

 

[sobriety]

I think 'spirit of the rules' was the euphenism for 'Ferrari Veto'

 

[snowy]

There is some discrepancy with the enforcement of regulations or manufacture of rules. Brawn's Double Diffuser was banned, McLaren's F-Duct was banned, Red Bull's Flexible Front Wing was....?

...actually that should read:
Brawn's Double Diffuser was copied by everyone and was banned, McLaren's F-Duct was copied by everyone and was banned, Red Bull's Flexible Front Wing hasn't been successfully copied by anyone and has as yet not been banned.

So once all the other teams have spent millions copying Red Bull I presume the Flexible Front Wing will be banned the ban on Flexible Front Wings will be enforced. Is this supposed to keep costs down or up I wonder?

 

[Pyrope]

Wonder how they get around this one.

I think the key is the last line...

The deflection will be measured along the loading axis at the bottom of the bodywork at this point and relative to the reference plane.

Coupled with the overhang regulations that state...

3.14.2 No part of the bodywork more than 200mm from the car centre line may be more than 1000mm in front of the front wheel centre line.

That means the front of the wing can be up to 20cm in front of the load point, and the deflection is only measured at the load point. If the deflection at the load point is the maximum permitted (i.e. 2cm), and the wing leading edge is translated by about 10cm (which is a guesstimate by photo inspection) then:

Deflected wing angle (relative to rest) = arctan ([10 - 2] / 20) = 21.8°

That places the centre of rotation about 5cm behind the loading point, or about 75cm ahead of the front wheel centreline. Careful tuning of the centre of rotation compared to the centre of pressure should make this very easy to do. Levers being what they are, if the centre of pressure is ahead of the loading point then you'd actually need quite a bit less less aerodynamic load to deflect the wing by that much than is applied during the test. From this, it is easy to see how Red Bull can have their wing dragging along the floor yet still pass the loading test!

Anyway, so much for detailed technical regs. The one that they are clearly breaking is...

3.15 Aerodynamic influence: With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) 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.

Ok, so it meets the first bulleted point, but the second and third are demonstrably not complied with. Fitting skid plates to the lower edges of the wing is also a tacit admission that they are breaking the final sentence too...

The easiest way for the FIA to counter this (which they obviously don't want to do, but let's go with the assumption that they actually care about the rules they write...) would be to move the load point forward and/or change the measurement location to "any part of the bodywork". Simples.

[/geek]

 

[F1Yorkshire]

There is some discrepancy with the enforcement of regulations or manufacture of rules. Brawn's Double Diffuser was banned, McLaren's F-Duct was banned, Red Bull's Flexible Front Wing was....?

...actually that should read:
Brawn's Double Diffuser was copied by everyone and was banned, McLaren's F-Duct was copied by everyone and was banned, Red Bull's Flexible Front Wing hasn't been successfully copied by anyone and has as yet not been banned.

So once all the other teams have spent millions copying Red Bull I presume the Flexible Front Wing will be banned the ban on Flexible Front Wings will be enforced. Is this supposed to keep costs down or up I wonder?

I think the main reason for the F-Duct been banned is that the DRS is effectively doing the same job but with a more marketable package.

 

[snowy]

A shot of McLaren apparently getting their wing to flex as much as Red Bull!

 

[Hamberg]

I don't doubt McLaren have got theirs flexing this season, but I think it's marginally less than Ferrari managed last season from the looks of things. I still think Red Bull's are lower, the endplates are practically touching the floor. There is still a fair gap here isn't there?

 

[Brogan]

I still think Red Bull's are lower, the endplates are practically touching the floor.

As the Red Bull engineers are constantly repairing the end-plates throughout a Grand Prix weekend due to excessive wear , I think it's safe to say they are actually touching the floor.
A lot.

 

[Porceliamone]

A shot of McLaren apparently getting their wing to flex as much as Red Bull!

Snowy - I think this is a shot of the McLaren at the end of one of the fastest parts of the circuit with the wing under full load. One would imagine that it (any wing) would be flexing a bit at that point.

The point is though; the Redbull apparently utilises the flexing in medium speed corners and to a far greater extent - it practically scrapes along the floor, hence all the repairing that's been going on.

I'm glad McLaren seemed to have got the grasp of the concept but they're nowhere near Redbull in the application of it, i.e. the whole nose flexing downwards as well as the tips.

 

[snowy]

Having reviewed those images of the flexing nose and some other images posted over at F1 Technical, I am not so sure the nose is flexing to any substantial degree. The side on silhouette emphasises the connection between the nose, pillars and end plate and we are tricked into believing that their movement corresponds. But if you look at the angle of the pillar it doesn't change dramatically if at all.

The end plate is turning, angling downwards separately from the pillar. The person who drew the outline hasn't allowed for the difference in the angle the photos were taken, has let his imagination exaggerate the movement in that pillar or both.


It is a good idea to review the outline as traced on the photos. You can see quite clearly where the artist has completely disregarded the actual profile in the photograph and created new angles that don't actually exist..

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9629

 

[Brogan]

 

[Hamberg]

I don't really understand what you are referring to snowy, is it the tracing in your post that's not an accurate reflection of the profile?

Brogan I'm afraid that photo means nothing - even though we can clearly see the wing [practically??] touching the floor in the this photo, the load tests say otherwise.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

Until a new test is devised we will have to put up with the redbulls floppy wings. Skidblocks added to the underside of the wings similar to the floor plank will be the easiest and lowest cost method of detecting movement.

If a team risks disqualification for having worn blocks I would predict they will turn upto the next race with a stiffer front wing. The only problem is getting the FIA to impose such a regulation. As it stands the RB wing is technically legal even though its not within the spirit of the rules and unless more teams complain about the problem then it will be here to stay.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

The trouble with skid blocks or wear indicators on the endplates is that, with the wings being both very wide and so far in front of the wheels, they might be too easily damaged by things other than straightforward wing flexure, such as riding over kerbs. So I would have thought that enforcement would be pretty near impossible.

As far as I can see, the rulemakers have three main options:

1. keep the status quo, leaving the other teams to try and come up with the same solution that Red Bull Racing have (it looks on some evidence that Mclaren are already quite close).

2. Devise a new test which somehow incorporates a horizontal element to the applied load, to try and replicate the actual forces on the wing.

3. Remove the regulation altogether, allowing all teams to make their wings as flexible as they wish.

Actually, I've just thought of a fourth, if they really wanted to be rigorous about enforcing the intent of the regulation (which it seems they are not):
They could re-write the rule so that it refers to the amount of allowable downward movement of the wing extremities relative to the centre portion, while at high speed. We have seen, in pictures posted here and elsewhere, how easily changes of position at the endplates can be demonstrated by reference lines superimposed on a photograph; also, just think of the technology used in cricket to adjudge lbw decisions, or 'Hawkeye' in tennis to rule on whether a ball hits or misses the line by as little as a few millimetres. So, given that the Red Bull wing endplates are clearly lowering by at least 50mm or so, it should be quite straightforward to use video or picture evidence to detect that amount of potential movement in the wings. They would just need to utilise a HD TV camera in a suitable location looking back down a fast straight at any circuit during the practice sessions. Job done.

Not holding my breath though.

 

[Brogan]

I expect what will happen is as soon as a few of the teams manage to replicate what Red Bull are doing, the rules will be revised and flexible front wings/noses will be banned.