The FIA has placed ever stricter limits on wing flex and has in place this season even tougher tests. But crucially these tests are static. The theory goes that it's not the Red Bull wings that flex but the whole nose, to which the wings are attached, flexes at speed and alters the angle of attack of the wing assembly.
This is not specifically illegal under the current regulations and deformable component aero is a concept car companies obviously are well aware of, consider the deformable front spoiler element on the Ferrari 458 Italia, it certainly does not seem pass the "movable aerodynamic device" smell test.
How is it done is perhaps the bigger mystery. How is the flex controlled? Structural engineers out there will be able to advance theories of carbon sheet and polymer construction allowing it to flex the debate is open on the genius vs evil genius bit. For sure Adrian Newey is a champ at racing those gray areas.
This is evil genius level stuff. Alonso deserves the Championship if Vettel's been helped by this front wing all year. Sadly makes his run from last to third less impressive.
ReplyDeleteThis begs the question though...what's wrong with Mark Webber then? ;)
So as you say Alonso deserve the title because Red Bull is smarter than Ferrari? lol
DeleteRed Bull deserves the title more then ferrari. But alonso deserves the title more then vettel
DeleteThe car this Sunday has been modified (longer gears, ...) and that's why they started in the pits instead of the 24th place.
DeleteThis enabled them to set up the car for gaining places and speed, and not for a good qualification. So after all the result was more of a effort by the mechanics. But surely Vettel has driven one heck of a race too.
"This begs the question though...what's wrong with Mark Webber then? ;)"
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the car doesn't win the race but a combination of all variables in the equation.
Vettel/Red Bull should not be denied another championship just because the team found a creative way to design a car within the regulations. Each team does things slightly differently accentuating different features of their cars. Given how many different race winners their have been from so many teams it just goes to show that no one single way is perfect.
What about Massa? :)
DeleteIf the wing is rubbery then wouldn't this create more downforce on the straight which slows the car down? Did RBR change the wing for Vettel in the last race to a stronger, less rubbery, to help him get through the field?
ReplyDeleteI admit I am an Alonso fan and I think he deserves the championship because he is the best driver in the field. Even his fellow drivers have said this. Alonso is given a lesser car and gets the job done. Vettel on the other hand is given a car with superior ability than the Ferrari. I do want Alonso to win but if Vettel wins he deserves it. That doesn't mean the best driver won.
Could be why the rb8 is quick in the corners and slower on the straight.
DeleteThis is Newey doing Formula 1's version of a "checkmate." A slow clap is in order for sure.
ReplyDeleteRB's nose isn't a movable aero device how?
ReplyDeleteFrom a rule interpretation point of view it passes the static tests. I forget what F1 has for the "spirit of the rules" clause these days, but this seems like a violation of the spirit of the rules to me. To police this kind of crap they would need to change the measuring scheme in the rules every race in order to keep ahead of the engineers. Or Charlie Whiting could say "I see that your car has movable aerodynamic devices - you are DQ by the spirit of the rules" Of course all of the teams are undoubtedly flexing to some degree on purpose.
Deletein 2006 (?) renault's aka mclaren's tuned mass damper was ruled a movable aero device ostensibly via some interpretation of some reg. i can't recall the specifics anymore. imho RB's nose goes a touch farther than a mass damper.
DeleteBut what about Vettel's broken wing? When he pits on lap 14 when the wing is removed you can see the carbon shards were the endplate is missing.
ReplyDeleteSomeone much more technically savvy then me would know but don't the front wings have to pass crash tests like the nosecone in the event of an accident the front wing would break before it could cut a hole in a sidepod?
If nozzle that supports the wing goes down, the camera is fixed on it have your shooting angle changed. Is there any video of this camera that could prove this?
ReplyDeletegiven that this movement allows that angle of the front wing to change based on speed/pressure on the front wing...I'd say this constitutes a changing/moving aero device. Very clever, for sure, and we've all seen and heard the speculation that something, some part of the RB8, was changing at speed to allow a different angle of attack of the front wing.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I think it'll come down to the fact that this flex changes the reference plane of the front wing vs the 'flat' reference plane of the rest of the car in relation to the ground, and therefore would fall under 'movable aero device', if not specifically somewhere in the technical regs certainly in the spirit of those regs. A cartain amount of deflection has been accepted but this is clearly intentional.
Would there be such an uproar about this if it were Ferrari who had figured out such a clever work around......?
ReplyDeleteOh, most definitively and Red Zbull would be first in line to complain
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is that gif of the mechanic manipulating the nose of the car ... I always wondered what that front, stub-wing structure was for, but the way it moves under the mechanic's hands, it almost looks like it's some sort of mass damper to me; it seems heavy and solid, but it moves and rotates in really odd ways at really bizarre angles.
ReplyDeleteI realize that's not the whole thing, but it's clearly moving in a bunch of different very predetermined ways, and I can't figure out how it relates to what the main plane/rest of the front wing is doing.
Just came across this interesting explanation on the Speedtv.com site (link at bottom):
ReplyDeleteF1aero
There is a carbon fiber wing element molded w/ the rubber nose cone and there is the carbon fiber front wing fastened at the bottom of the nose cone struts. At high speeds lift is created at the winglet and nose tip causing the nose to tilt upward going back past the struts. The rake angle of the carbon fiber front wing attachment changes as a result reducing downforce. The cone and struts are rubber and you can see that both are bounding all the way back to the vent, the struts sway latterally.
Compare this solution with DDRS that AMG Mercedes is using to reduce drag at high speeds on their front wing.
Under breaking deceleration forces cause the nose to pitch downward and the rake angle of the front wing to change again, increasing downforce as the car slows.
It may be such that a carbon fiber "band" is embedded in the rubber cone creating a "diving board" like object. This would prevent the wing from flexing under lateral torsion tests, and would explain the "vibrating" that we see. Visualy if the rubber was see though it would look like a "T" shape from above.
Any questions?
7 hours agoReplyLike
alonfan08
alonfan08
So do you think that the rubber in the front cone will have the effect of a mass damper and that will help the car to heat up tires faster and wont let the tires bounce a lot helping this to the stability of the car and longevity of the tires ? besides many other positive things
5 hours agoReplyLike
F1aero
F1aero
alonfan08
Excellent analogy. Think of it this way, the nose itself is the mass damper and you have the effect of the wing rake changing in unisen with the damper motion. There would be effects to mechanical grip and tire performance.
4 hours agoReplyLike
F1aero
F1aero
The one missing piece in order for it to be a full blown "tuned mass damper" is a heavy weight. That could be hidden in the rubber somewhere.
http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-new-flexi-saga-questions-rubber-red-bull/
That's great and all, except the camera pod/stub wings on the front of the nose are non-lift generating. That is, they're just a basic teardrop shape with equal curvature on top and bottom, as mandated by the FIA.
DeleteThere may be some drag associated with a change in the overall angle of the stub wings relative to the airflow, but you wouldn't want to call it lift or downforce - it would really fowl up the airflow headin gback towards the barge boards and sidepods.
But if downforce makes the nose flex downward then the top of the tear drop is exposed more right? Creating a pushing down effect on the "top" of the tear drop shape. If the wing is flexing the angle of the tear drop with the ground changes. As I understand right now the tear drop is in a "neutral" flat plane with the ground on everyone's nose right?
DeleteIf it is helping the tear drop isn't helping much IMO but this whole damn nose just seems like 5-6 things added together to get 5-6 tenths and they all seem to feed off one another pretty cleverly.
On August 23, 2006, the FIA International Court of Appeal ruled Renault’s mass dampers illegal. They cited article 3.15 of the Formula One Technical Regulations – claiming the system constituted a moveable aerodynamic device.
ReplyDeleteThe mass dampers were inside the nose and their movement did not chance the profile of the wing. Sure seems like they are violating the current regulations?
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.
Yes but the FIA just ruled friday that RED Bull's nose is OK by them...
Delete