New wing tests

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

It's just common sense. The rules are that movable aerodynamic devices (including intentionally flexing wings) are banned. To quote Rick Astley, you know the rules and so do I. The rules also say that the FIA can tweak the tests to make sure that we don't get flexiwings. That's what the FIA have done.

That's got to be a good then.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe Red Bull's front wing is electrically heated (think about it)?

Yep, thats what I've also been thinking, there have been some interesting developments made in the aerospace industry with wing morphing, a wing containing heating element with the c/f woven with a shape memory polymer that can soften/change shape within seconds of being heated and return back and stiffen as it cools. I wonder...

See the 2nd part of page 4 in particular on this link.. http://www.aer.bris.ac.uk/research/f...cMorphSkin.pdf

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Zico

Yep, thats what I've also been thinking, there have been some interesting developments made in the aerospace industry with wing morphing, a wing containing heating element with the c/f woven with a shape memory polymer that can soften/change shape within seconds of being heated and return back and stiffen as it cools. I wonder...

See the 2nd part of page 4 in particular on this link.. http://www.aer.bris.ac.uk/research/f...cMorphSkin.pdf

Thanks for this Zico, great stuff!

The most damning evidence that somethig is weird with this wing was the cockpit footage posted earlier showing how much the wing flexed when Vettel crashed into Button.
That was strange indeed!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thanks for this Zico, great stuff!

The most damning evidence that somethig is weird with this wing was the cockpit footage posted earlier showing how much the wing flexed when Vettel crashed into Button.
That was strange indeed!

So, Red Bull gives you rubber wings.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So, Red Bull gives you rubber wings.

Did look a bit like that.

Have you seen the footage?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Did look a bit like that.

Have you seen the footage?

I tried the link but it didn't work, though I thought I'd pre-empt the Rubber Wing take as a good advertising gimmick.

[wnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4

Try this

[phoenix]

Thing is, the wing moves just as much when Vettel is along side Button, out of the airflow you seem to believe is causing the effect. As Vettel yanks the wheel left the wing appears to dip on the right and as he yanks the wheel right the wing appeasr to dip on the left. All the movement you can see is due to suspension movement/chassis roll

[ASCII Man]

All that chassis/suspension movement while the nose remains perfectly stable in relation to the tyres?

I'd love some of that stuff yer smokin'.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Thing is, the wing moves just as much when Vettel is along side Button, out of the airflow you seem to believe is causing the effect. As Vettel yanks the wheel left the wing appears to dip on the right and as he yanks the wheel right the wing appeasr to dip on the left. All the movement you can see is due to suspension movement/chassis roll

Er, to state the obvious the camera is fixed to the car, if it was chassis roll the horizon would roll and the wing stay level.

I think the movement you see is caused not by downforce (not directly anyway) but by the very abrupt steering inputs, incidentally it looks to me as though the wing is not bending much, mainly it is the wing uprights moving allowing the wing to rock, as it is going down at one end it is going up at the other..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBxNVoMXHz4

Try this

Thanks. If anything it looks like the wing has come loose; not rubbery at all.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

All that chassis/suspension movement while the nose remains perfectly stable in relation to the tyres?

I'd love some of that stuff yer smokin'.

I'm just glad you're not my race engineer.....

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Er, to state the obvious the camera is fixed to the car, if it was chassis roll the horizon would roll and the wing stay level.

I think the movement you see is caused not by downforce (not directly anyway) but by the very abrupt steering inputs, incidentally it looks to me as though the wing is not bending much, mainly it is the wing uprights moving allowing the wing to rock, as it is going down at one end it is going up at the other..

Ditto

I'm just glad you're not my race engineer.....

You are so obviously wrong... You are allowing your eyes to see the wheels as the horizon... there being no other obvious fixed point to look at as the nose is too narrow, the car is moving so you can't tell if the track is horizontal or cambered, and there is no other reference point. Even though you can't easily see the suspesnion movement, what you are seeing is the suspension moving up and down in bump/rebound (the small movements) and roll (the larger movements) relative to the bodywork - including the wing. This means the wheels are moving up and down relative to the wing, not the wing relative to the wheels. As the wheels are (more or less) fixed to the track, this means the body, including the wing, has to move relative to the track - which is what you can see - because the wheel movement isn't at all so obvious.

I guess you could describe the sun and the moon as a disc - which is what they appear from the distance we look at them - but believe it or not they are in fact approximately spherical.


Find one decent bit of external video to support your argument - I am confident you wont - (no-one else has in several days...... though threatening to a number of posts further up the thread)

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Ditto

I'm just glad you're not my race engineer.....

You are so obviously wrong... You are allowing your eyes to see the wheels as the horizon... there being no other obvious fixed point to look at as the nose is too narrow, the car is moving so you can't tell if the track is horizontal or cambered, and there is no other reference point. Even though you can't easily see the suspesnion movement, what you are seeing is the suspension moving up and down in bump/rebound (the small movements) and roll (the larger movements) relative to the bodywork - including the wing. This means the wheels are moving up and down relative to the wing, not the wing relative to the wheels. As the wheels are (more or less) fixed to the track, this means the body, including the wing, has to move relative to the track - which is what you can see - because the wheel movement isn't at all so obvious.

I guess you could describe the sun and the moon as a disc - which is what they appear from the distance we look at them - but believe it or not they are in fact approximately spherical.


Find one decent bit of external video to support your argument - I am confident you wont - (no-one else has in several days...... though threatening to a number of posts further up the thread)

Lets find some reference points we can agree on. Just watch the mirrors and the wing and try to ignore everything else in the video, there is very substantial relative movement even though they are both supposedly fixed rigidly to the bodywork.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Lets find some reference points we can agree on. Just watch the mirrors and the wing and try to ignore everything else in the video, there is very substantial relative movement even though they are both supposedly fixed rigidly to the bodywork.

Compare the wing flex and the wheel bound/rebound position with body position reference points on the 2 alternating pics, one at high speed and the other at lower speed, here..
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ls-front-wing/

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Zico

Compare the wing flex and the wheel bound/rebound position with body position reference points on the 2 alternating pics, one at high speed and the other at lower speed, here..
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/0...ls-front-wing/

It's plain to see that in one pic the suspension is in droop and the other in compression. It is therefore completely understandable why the wing appears to move - but it's not, relative to the chassis - only to the wheels/suspension links. I can see the change in angle of the top wishbone, but if you can't look at the green line on the inside of the front tyres relative to the top red line instead..........

scarb is obviously no engineer either - just a journo eager for an exclusive.... or a fan club

[Zico]

Originally Posted by phoenix

It's plain to see that in one pic the suspension is in droop and the other in compression. It is therefore completely understandable why the wing appears to move - but it's not, relative to the chassis - only to the wheels/suspension links. I can see the change in angle of the top wishbone, but if you can't look at the green line on the inside of the front tyres relative to the top red line instead..........

scarb is obviously no engineer either - just a journo eager for an exclusive.... or a fan club

Have another look, If you look at the lines crossing the chassis reference points (not the wheels or wishbones) the wing does move, yes the wheel and wishbone exagerates it but if you place a rule on the screen on the wing, it is moving.. or am I going mad?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Zico

Have another look, If you look at the lines crossing the chassis reference points (not the wheels or wishbones) the wing does move, yes the wheel and wishbone exagerates it but if you place a rule on the screen on the wing, it is moving.. or am I going mad?

I'm no saying you are mad, but maybe not being rational and scientific about what you are seeing.

Scarb descibes the deflection of the wing as anhedral - i.e. the tips of the wings get closer to the ground than the central mounting point under load.

Now look at the wing through the upper left wishbone - you can see it pretty close to where it attaches to the nose (you cannot see it through the right upper wishbone, seemingly because the camera is on the left hand side of the engine cover/roll hoop)

You will see that the whole wing moves up and down in unison with the nose, not just the tip.....

The right hand wing tip might seem to rotate a bit - more so than the left - but the toe-in seems to change too - whch is nonsense. However, if you have ever used a wide angle lense on your camera you would understand why this appears to be happening.....

[ASCII Man]

The wing actually is moving relative to the chassis in that picture.
You'd have to be pretty blind not to notice it.

[phoenix]

I will leave you all to your own, grandiose dellusions..........

Good night.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Zico

Have another look, If you look at the lines crossing the chassis reference points (not the wheels or wishbones) the wing does move, yes the wheel and wishbone exagerates it but if you place a rule on the screen on the wing, it is moving.. or am I going mad?

He's not saying that youre mad, he's just saying that youre dumb

[Zico]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I'm no saying you are mad, but maybe not being rational and scientific about what you are seeing.

Scarb descibes the deflection of the wing as anhedral - i.e. the tips of the wings get closer to the ground than the central mounting point under load.

Now look at the wing through the upper left wishbone - you can see it pretty close to where it attaches to the nose (you cannot see it through the right upper wishbone, seemingly because the camera is on the left hand side of the engine cover/roll hoop)

You will see that the whole wing moves up and down in unison with the nose, not just the tip.....

The right hand wing tip might seem to rotate a bit - more so than the left - but the toe-in seems to change too - whch is nonsense. However, if you have ever used a wide angle lense on your camera you would understand why this appears to be happening.....

Fair points, Scarb may be talking about the wing flexing anhedraly , I was meaning the wing movement as a whole, so I get what you mean now. The vetel/button crash footage as well as the comparison shown by Scarb certainly shows the whole nose flexing/twisting.

"the linear flexing might only be a part of what the Red Bull nose is doing.
There is a theory among engineers, based on looking at the whole front wing when it’s loaded up, that there is some kind of spring loaded device in the crash structure to deflect the whole wing down, over and above what the wing tips do.
This theory was given some added impetus when Sebastian Vettel’s wing snapped in practice at Silverstone.
This theory goes beyond grabbing a bit of extra downforce from wing endplates being close to the ground, it brings a gain of lowering the front of the car, which is very attractive under the 2010 rules."


http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...Allen&id=49021

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I will leave you all to your own, grandiose dellusions..........

Good night.

That's the best post on the subject so far.

[Zico]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's the best post on the subject so far.

Are you saying that anyone who thinks the wing is moving is deluded?

Pheonix stated

Originally Posted by phoenix

It is therefore completely understandable why the wing appears to move - but it's not, relative to the chassis

The chassis reference horizontal line clearly shows that the wing does move in relative to the chassis by either the nose or wing mount deflecting under load.
The Red Bulls even initially failed the revised test at scrutineering at Spa before they made some alterations and passed on the 2nd attempt.

Its so blatantly obvious that I cant believe Im even bothering to point this out.. again. ASCII man, fourWheelDrift and myself are not the deluded ones here.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Zico

Are you saying that anyone who thinks the wing is moving is deluded?

No.