[Tech Issue] McLaren has 'spring' front wing

[Marbot]

Apparently, McLaren's new front wing is spring mounted. But, just like the Red Bull front wing, it passes the FIA test.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...wing-movement/

But is it rigidly mounted?

[wnut]

Thanks Marbot.

Would appear not to be rigidly mounted, if so, that would just be dumb!
Clear contravention of the regulations regarding rigidly mounted aerodynamics.
No points for that race at very least?

P.S. The RBR wing is rigidly mounted and passes the deflection test.

[phoenix]

All things bend/flex under load - it's a question of by how much the object deforms under what level of load. So rigid is a purely relative term, hence the FIA test(s) under specified loading.

Rigid, as in does not move at all whatever the magnitude of the load, is not something that exists in the reality.

In answer to your question Marbot: "rigidly enough" (according to the FIA)

[Marbot]

"- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;"

Spring/hinge devices were banned from being used on the front bibs of floors (flexible floors) IIRC, because they did not comply with the above part of the regulation.

Hinging Wing: Another device that will probably be taken to extremes before it's eventually banned.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by phoenix

All things bend/flex under load - it's a question of by how much the object deforms under what level of load. So rigid is a purely relative term, hence the FIA test(s) under specified loading.

Rigid, as in does not move at all whatever the magnitude of the load, is not something that exists in the reality.

In answer to your question Marbot: "rigidly enough" (according to the FIA)

If you look at the drawings the mountings are opening up under load, so this cannot meet the FIA's definition of a rigid mount. Note the regulation stipulates that the wing must be rigidly mounted, it may flex a certain amount under a given load, which would seem to mean that there should not be significant movement between the car and the mounting of an aerodynamic surface under load.
I believe McLaren have infringed here no matter how you interpret the legislation, incorporating a sprung mounting would seem to directly contravene the legislation!

[mattt]

Surely all that matters is that it passes the test.

Do we actually know how the Red Bull wings appear to flex.

Maybe using this wing, McLaren are trying to make the FIA tighten up the regs to affect Red Bull.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by mattt

Surely all that matters is that it passes the test.

True. But it could be argued that the springs are still a movable aero device.

Originally Posted by mattt

Maybe using this wing, McLaren are trying to make the FIA tighten up the regs to affect Red Bull.

Red Bull uses no moving device to cause flex in its front wing, other than the natural deformation of its front wing.

McLaren are doing something entirely different with this.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Another device that will probably be taken to extremes before it's eventually banned.

I'm sure you are right - the precedent has seemingly been set (with the blown diffusers) that transgression of the rules is permitted up to a point. Unfortunately, to quote scarbsf1, "The rules do not specifically state that such compliant mechanisms are banned" but I'm sure the FIA will find a way around that and tighten up the regulations.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by mattt

Surely all that matters is that it passes the test.

Actually I don't think that's how the rules are written although it seems to be how some are trying to interpret them. Aerodynamic surfaces must not move relative to the sprung part of the car. The load test was introduced as a way to demonstrate that certain things don't comply and get them stopped. Just becuase something passes the load test does not mean it doesn't move relative to the rest of the bodywork, if it does it is still illegal.

[Marbot]

Having looked at the video: http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1 It's fairly obvious that there is something not 'rigidly' mounted.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Actually I don't think that's how the rules are written although it seems to be how some are trying to interpret them. Aerodynamic surfaces must not move relative to the sprung part of the car. The load test was introduced as a way to demonstrate that certain things don't comply and get them stopped. Just becuase something passes the load test does not mean it doesn't move relative to the rest of the bodywork, if it does it is still illegal.

I think in the case of Red Bull they said they were able to demonstrate that their wing didn't move under the loads that the wing would see on track - so the test was devised to prove whether what other teams thought was happening was - or was not.

In this case I think that it has to be demonstrated somehow that the wing does move - it's very difficult to think of anything other than a load test that would show there was, or wasn't, movement. If the FIA are able to say "we believe it does move and that is enough for us to declare it illegal - we don't need a test" then maybe they should do that and the test would no longer be required. But I think that might be open to a legal challenge.

It should be noted that under the existing test, the wings are allowed to deflect 20mm at the outer edges under 100kg load, and this the FIA consider to be 'rigid'. From the video, the movement on the McLaren wing seems to me to be only one or two millimetres at most - albeit at a different position on the wing.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I think in the case of Red Bull they said they were able to demonstrate that their wing didn't move under the loads that the wing would see on track - so the test was devised to prove whether what other teams thought was happening was - or was not.

In this case I think that it has to be demonstrated somehow that the wing does move - it's very difficult to think of anything other than a load test that would show there was, or wasn't, movement. If the FIA are able to say "we believe it does move and that is enough for us to declare it illegal - we don't need a test" then maybe they should do that and the test would no longer be required. But I think that might be open to a legal challenge.

It should be noted that under the existing test, the wings are allowed to deflect 20mm at the outer edges under 100kg load, and this the FIA consider to be 'rigid'. From the video, the movement on the McLaren wing seems to me to be only one or two millimetres at most - albeit at a different position on the wing.

This. If the load test shows the wing is rigidly mounted then it is rigidly mounted, end of.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by luke g28

This. If the load test shows the wing is rigidly mounted then it is rigidly mounted, end of.

Rigidly mounted with respect to the rest of the bodywork.

As fourWheelDrift wrote

Actually I don't think that's how the rules are written although it seems to be how some are trying to interpret them. Aerodynamic surfaces must not move relative to the sprung part of the car. The load test was introduced as a way to demonstrate that certain things don't comply and get them stopped. Just becuase something passes the load test does not mean it doesn't move relative to the rest of the bodywork, if it does it is still illegal.

According to your definition a wing that has its angle of attack actuated by a hydraulic cylinder would be legal provided it did not deflect under the
the load test!

[wnut]

So flexible wing mountings are allowed now are they?
Or is this how the FIA thinks it may organise McLaren to win their home GP?

[luke g28]

All of the surfaces on the car will deflect under load. All of them. They will all move and all twist and im sure the cunning designers make the most they can of this. It is impossible to fix anything to the car that will not distort under load it is a physical impossibility.

Knowing that everything has to bend to a degree, the question becomes how much is it allowed to bend. Enter the FIA load deflection test which sets out exactly how much deflection is allowed and how much is too much.

I say again. Every car will bend under load, the track deflects as the cars drive over it, motorway bridges deflect under load and move in the wind etc. Everything has a degree of deflection.

[Marbot]

McLaren have been told to address the issue with their front wing.

Charlie Whiting: “The slight anomaly you refer to has been investigated and we have told the team improvements need to be made”.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...wing-movement/

[Spritle]

Based on their European GP results they may be delighted to "improve" or bin the whole wing.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

McLaren have been told to address the issue with their front wing.

Charlie Whiting: “The slight anomaly you refer to has been investigated and we have told the team improvements need to be made”.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...wing-movement/

I'd bet the response would have been massively different if the offending wing was on the front of the RBR cars!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I'd bet the response would have been massively different if the offending wing was on the front of the RBR cars!

Why do you say that? The Red Bull front wing has no such device.

You could also argue that the FIA have banned the hot and cold blowing of diffusers to mainly hinder Red Bull.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The Red Bull front wing has no such device.

You are assuming that "a device" is involved.........

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

You are assuming that "a device" is involved.........

If the McLaren front wing has visible movement between parts of its wing, then some sort of 'hinge' system is at work. It's a similar thing to Ferrari's separating front wing (remember that?), which was also banned.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If the McLaren front wing has visible movement between parts of its wing, then some sort of 'hinge' system is at work.

Pure speculation...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Pure speculation...

No. Whether intentionally or unintentionally (but the former is most likely), the wing is separating from its support.

http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1


And McLaren have made suitable modifications to their front wing.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

No. Whether intentionally or unintentionally (but the former is most likely), the wing is separating from its support.

http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1


And McLaren have made suitable modifications to their front wing.

So, used a stronger bolt then?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

So, used a stronger bolt then?

Ones without spring washers on them.