Flexible wings

[Pink_the_Floyd]

It's been said that Ferrari uses illegal front wings, these have an extra flap which clearly changes at higher speeds. Everyone's telling it's been seen on TV pictures,


Anyone seen them?

 

[Blake]

Yes, but to me it looks as if it’s within the tolerances stated in the technical regulations. That said, the technical regulations also state that aerodynamic devices “must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.”

More on this later, but for now I have to eat dinner.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

It's been said that Ferrari uses illegal front wings, these have an extra flap which clearly changes at higher speeds. Everyone's telling it's been seen on TV pictures,

Anyone seen them?

The FOM feed from Malaysia clearly shows that the upper wing on the Ferrari was moving in relation to the bodywork. It is my opinion that the degree of movement was such that it was intentional, and that the upper wing was detaching from the nosecone in order to allow the main wing to flex.

See below:

 

[Kylehnat]

But how much flex is just due to the wing being subjected to the force of the air? Everybody's front wing flexes to some degree, it's just that Ferrari's design allows this to be seen from the front-mounted camera. If those elements were a few millimeters shorter (so that they did not touch the nosecone at all), the flex would be imperceptable to the naked eye, and nobody would be raising a stink about it.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

But how much flex is just due to the wing being subjected to the force of the air? Everybody's front wing flexes to some degree, it's just that Ferrari's design allows this to be seen from the front-mounted camera. If those elements were a few millimeters shorter (so that they did not touch the nosecone at all), the flex would be imperceptable to the naked eye, and nobody would be raising a stink about it.

The stink surrounds two technical regulations:

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane) 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.

and...

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 700mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 625mm 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.

3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size, Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 780mm above the reference plane and 20mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.

3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram, teams will be required to supply a suitable adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.17.5 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 800mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 250mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in an rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.17.6 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 600mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically.
The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which:
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

3.17.7 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.

The problem here is that 3.15 states that no aero device may be allowed to move in relation to any part of the car's bodywork, but that the tests described in 3.17 exclusively describe vertical motion on the front wing (which has controversial horizontal flexibility), and horizontal motion on the rear wing (which has controversial downward flexibility), and use fairly small loads. The test load of 500N is nothing in comparison with the 5000N of downforce that an F1 car can generate at as little as 100mph.

I expect that article 3.17.7 is being used as the justification for the FIA simply telling the three teams to bring revised wings to Australia. The FIA will work on the detail of any such revised tests in due course. I note that there is a three week break after Australia, for example.

 

[Nasadus]

That clearly shows that the entire front wing is flexing under pressure.The same happens with their rear wing.

Several other teams have to change their wings aswell. McLaren and BMW have to change their rear wing for the same reason. Other teams are still under investigation.

 

[Pink_the_Floyd]

Indeed,


I also read that Ferrari would have a disadvantage due to the vibrations the wing would make because it isn't attached while BMW and Mclaren also are suspected of use for illegal parts, WTF?

 

[BMWteamPTG]

personally, i think that regulations would keep a team from doing such a thing. also, dont the cars have to pass an "inspection" so to say before every race?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

personally, i think that regulations would keep a team from doing such a thing. also, dont the cars have to pass an "inspection" so to say before every race?

Well, this is the issue. The regulations offer some scope for "interpretation". Also, there is no question that the tests are inadequate. I don't think that that is a surprise to anyone, but this is the first time teams have been demonstrably building a car that passes the legality tests and yet is illegal.

 

[Kylehnat]

The FIA really needs to do a better job at writing regulations. Many of the rules are fuzzy and open to interpretation. I bet you could find an "illegal" part on each and every car on the grid, yet each of these cars passes inspection every race. When it comes right down to it, the legality or illegality of a car is determined by one person's interpretation of the technical regulations. The rules need to be black and white, and right now they're green. One thing that NASCAR does right is its template system for inspecting cars. If a part of the car does not fit the template, you're disqualified (unless you're Jimmie Johnson or Dale Earnhardt Jr. )

 

[Wolfe]

This sounds like a load of bull to me -- I mean, how can you not expect a thin piece of bodywork to bend downward while being subjected to loads of downforce...?

Methinks the requests for revised wings from the teams are either an overblown reaction to a simple fact (the wings on F1 cars are going to move a little), or a cover-up for the stupidity of making a fuss over the wings in the first place...

 

[GilesGuthrie]

This sounds like a load of bull to me -- I mean, how can you not expect a thin piece of bodywork to bend downward while being subjected to loads of downforce...?

Methinks the requests for revised wings from the teams are either an overblown reaction to a simple fact (the wings on F1 cars are going to move a little), or a cover-up for the stupidity of making a fuss over the wings in the first place...

Well, firstly, the regulation states that the bodywork must not move. If a "thin piece of bodywork [bends] downward while being subjected to loads of downforce", then clearly it's not thick enough. You can't rewrite the rules just because someone makes a part that's not strong enough.

I'm not sure that you understand the point of flexing wings. It's a very definite advantage to have a wing that flexes because it can use the airflow to optimise the drag/downforce/speed performance. It's an area of experimentation that the FIA have long sought to cut off, hence Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations.

The FIA really needs to do a better job at writing regulations. Many of the rules are fuzzy and open to interpretation. I bet you could find an "illegal" part on each and every car on the grid, yet each of these cars passes inspection every race. When it comes right down to it, the legality or illegality of a car is determined by one person's interpretation of the technical regulations. The rules need to be black and white, and right now they're green. One thing that NASCAR does right is its template system for inspecting cars. If a part of the car does not fit the template, you're disqualified

NASCAR is a completely different kettle of fish. The Template model wouldn't work for F1 because the aero pieces are subject to much greater forces. Indeed, this current controversy is absolutely because an in-garage method of scrutineering is incapable (at current levels) of accurately measuring on-track behaviour. Using a Template to measure wing construction would be exactly the same. Plus, as you allude, NASCAR is widely suspected not to be especially consistent with its application of the rules.

F1 is a sport that's intended to allow flexibility in car design, because this facilitates the season-long development that keeps different cars competitive. NASCAR operates much more as a spec-formula than this, and its rules are configured to prevent development. As to whether you could "find an illegal part on every car on the grid", well, you would definitely be able to find cars with parts that are outside of the spirit of the rules, but this is a sport which is attracting the very finest minds available. If they didn't push the boundaries, they wouldn't be doing their jobs, and they would be losing out to those who were.

F1 is an arms race between the aerodynamicists/engineers and the governing body, and always has been.

 

[Appie]

F1 is a complicated sport

 

[Schrodes]

P_t_F already said that McLaren and BMW are under suspicion for illegal parts and I just read in Auto Action that both teams are making changes to their wings for Melbourne.

 

[Flerbizky]

That clearly shows that the entire front wing is flexing under pressure.The same happens with their rear wing.

Several other teams have to change their wings aswell. McLaren and BMW have to change their rear wing for the same reason. Other teams are still under investigation.

That picture shows nothing.. It's clearly two different turns - one could be before braking from 250+, the other already has the turn-in started. The sun comes from 2 dfferent places creating VERY different shadows - You're so focused on the Cheat - did you notice the actual nosecone itself looks like it moving ?. What you're looking at is 2 different scenarios created by different circumstances. My bet is, whatever movement is in the picture is due to carcass and suspension doing their job...

Do you think FIA will look at that picture and go "Wooops - They Definitely Cheating.. It's a closed case".. ?... I doubt it..

 

[GilesGuthrie]

That picture shows nothing.. It's clearly two different turns - one could be before braking from 250+, the other already has the turn-in started. The sun comes from 2 dfferent places creating VERY different shadows - You're so focused on the Cheat - did you notice the actual nosecone itself looks like it moving ?. What you're looking at is 2 different scenarios created by different circumstances. My bet is, whatever movement is in the picture is due to carcass and suspension doing their job...

Do you think FIA will look at that picture and go "Wooops - They Definitely Cheating.. It's a closed case".. ?... I doubt it..

Look at the join between the upper wing and the nosecone. In the one picture the two are definitely together. In the other the two are definitely apart. It demonstrates a failure to comply with Article 3.15.

The whole point of the row is that, as you say, the one picture has the car at high speed (where the wing has flexed downwards, reducing the drag) and the other has it at low speed (where the wing is in its default, high-downforce position).

During the race, there was footage form that camera as the car proceeded along the pit straight. There was a very definite correlation between the speed of the car and the separation of the upper wing from the nosecone.

 

[xcsti]

I don't think they'll ever make aero parts that don't make any motion whatsoever, they just need to dictate how much is acceptible.

 

[Kylehnat]

NASCAR is a completely different kettle of fish. The Template model wouldn't work for F1 because the aero pieces are subject to much greater forces.

I didn't mean that F1 should have templates. I'm just pointing out that NASCAR regs are less fuzzy and have a tangible method of enforcement, whereas F1's regulations do not.

 

[ls2_297]

to me it just looks like a shadow making the a so called 'gap' appear

 

[DQuaN]

Look at the left side of the picture where the wing touches the border. You can clearly see that it moves up and down.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Look at the left side of the picture where the wing touches the border. You can clearly see that it moves up and down.

But that could be cause by the movement of whatever the spoiler is attached to; however when I look at the right, I can clearly see a gap showing.

 

[lokness]

surely you guys arnt basing anything from those "flash" made images? you can barely make anything from it.
Meh, i read that it gives you 12km/h extra on the straight, and that if Ferrai dosnt do anything about it, the big guns like Mclaren and BMW were going to use them aswell. Although i never knew the "flexi wings" were at the front of the car, but when i was watching the malaysian GP, i did happen to see the REAR wing move up and down, Commentators thought it was a wing problem, turns out, it is...well more of a regulations one for that matter.

 

[DQuaN]

But that could be cause by the movement of whatever the spoiler is attached to;

It doesn't matter what the movement is caused by. It's moving, therefore it is breaking the rules.

 

[Threshold]

It doesn't matter what the movement is caused by. It's moving, therefore it is breaking the rules.

Exactly. Some people say that it's natural for the wings to move, well make them out of carbon steel. Rules are rules. Although seeing team push the boundaries to their absolute limit is what makes F1 so interesting.