Flexi-wings, blown diffusers, DD diffusers, F ducts...

There has been more really innovative stuff over the last 2 years than for a long time. After years of the development being dominated by megabuck incremental improvements which favoured the high spending teams, the removal of all the aero nonsense seems to have got the creative juices going, and I think the sport is better for it.

Yeah I wouldn't like to guess what they'll do. It's not a safety test atm, so it looks like the only reason to change it would be if it the flexi wing makes overtaking harder. Judging from the Red Bulls it does do that though.

I would agree with this but with a caveat.
If the FW flexes in a non-linear manner, it would cross the line between 'pushing the envelope' and breaking the rules, IMHO.

I posted this on another forum but this is my theory of how it could be done. I don't know how but in theory this works.

So you have a composite wing that has a bendy/elastic material in the middle, and a stiff material on the outside. They are bonded together in a way so they stick together under certain strain but then they snap apart after the wing flexes (like to bits of velcro), then when the strain is released and they bond back together.

So for the load test the strong material hold stiff and all is well, then under increased load the bond between the two meterials break and you just end up with the bendy material in the wing, then as the load decreases and the wing returns back to normal shape the materials snap back together again.

I always thought that the front wing directs the air on a very specific route along and round the car, so that the air hits the right aero/cooling components. If the front wing moves, the air isn't going to the right places surely?

are flexi-wings under threat for this race?? because of another FIA inspection planned after P2??

Well it uses the driver's hands and arms etc to negate the moving parts rules. But as flexi wings have been deemed illegal before I do find it strange that the FIA haven't taken a tougher stance on this issue.

Any sources?

I don't understand. 'Pushing the envelope' means nothing, whereas the rule is either broken or it isn't. The only line is legal and not legal.

I hope it's declared illegal.

Unless McLaren have it developed already. In which case it's definitely legal.

Me too. IIRC they've cracked down on flexi-wings quite hard before.

Scrutineering, and putting bodywork through the 3.17 tests, happens at every race.

It's only an issue for Ferrari or RB if the FIA decide to invoke 3.17.8 to introduce new tests, but I would expect plenty of advance warning for that.

Unless they think RBR is taking the piss, in which case they'll do a Honda '05. In that example they did a 'lifted drain' of the car to empty fuel and found it underweight when normally they wouldn't do such a thing.

I suppose the difference is the method of draining wasn't specified in the regs, it was simply a change from normal procedure.

AD was eluding to this. I don't know how they get round this issue .

Red Bull got flow-vis on their front wing...

All wings flex to some degree.

a) A wing that flexes substantially in a linear manner is merely taking advantage of this.
b) A wing that flexes in a non-linear manner can only be the product of a design philosophy that is intended to comply with a test but manipulate the degree of flex beyond the test parameters

The legal/illegal line can be changed.
As has been stated there are many regulations that deal with the definition of flexible aerodynamic devices which are conflicting.

The Ferrari flexible floor was legal when it was introduced but was later deemed illegal when the tests were changed because it was clear that Ferrari were doing what I have tried to describe in b)

I would stress that I have no idea whether the RBR wing does deflect in a non-linear manner.

There seems to be very little discussion about the original report.

The wings are supposedly tipping forward, I would love to see how they are doing that.



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85532

There has been some speculation that this is related to upward flexing of the bib/splitters.

The nose dips, I think. Check the gif.

Indeed. Instead of just the wing dipping, I think the whole nose dips somewhat, meaning the actual wing doesnt need to dip as much.

Send all gifs, info and ideas to McLaren HQ ;)

Do I get a bag of money if I have it right?

Interesting. But it's not like the FIA can pull a "surprise" test on them, even if they pulled the car aside immediately during a practice session or even in the middle of a race, it only takes a few seconds for the driver to press some buttons and tension will be restored, right?

I'm going to be perfectly honest here, these flexible wings give me a bad feeling inside, and it's mostly because the team I like (McLaren) don't have the advantage from them. Conversely, the F-duct, IMHO, is a marvelous and laudable invention!

So I can't fault RBR if I'm to be fair. After all, I'm a huge Smokey Yunick fan.

There's a RBR/Webber/Vettel joke in there somewhere...

Wasn't he the guy who had NASCAR pull out his fuel tank and then drive the car away? Something about massive fuel lines...

If I recall correctly there is some bit in the regulations which is practically impossible to achieve - it says that the aero parts must not flex or something to that effect. Then there are other bits in there which state exactly how much the parts can flex. So the regulations contradict themselves. And people in the audience may take the first one which says the aero parts must not flex literally. I suggest the FIA remove that part from the regulations if it is still there and just stick to the more specific regulations.

Seems like clmax is on the money, one of Andy's colleagues?
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/20...d_10073018.html

I think this sums it up well;

Well, it's a way for the FIA to interpret it as they wish... they could have interfered now with the front wings flexing just the same as they have done before for example with the floor of the Ferrari in '07 Australia. They could only ban it by changing the regulations and they could have decided to do the same now regarding the front wings.

I don't like this ambiguity and I would like to see such generic statements removed from the technical regulations and just stick to "if the pole is one metre long plus minus 1 millimetre then it's OK" and leave it at that. Now if someone is doing something the FIA doesn't like then more such explicit rules can be added to prevent it.

Personally I think the spirit of the rules is bollocks and I cringe every time it's mentioned

Perhaps their hole nosecone moves, not the wing?

doubt it, the center section stays pretty much flat

McLarens are making themselves look laughable IMO
The wing has been flexing for some time .. As long as McLarens were leading they were ok.
Now that they are under threat & cant figure it out themselves - talks about challenging and spirit of rules start.

Wings passed the test which FIA prescribes - End of Matter

I thought McLaren were the ones who decided not to protest?

It occurs to me that, whilst Ferrari made a decent step in Valencia when they introduced the EBD, their really big step was Silverstone where they leap frogged McLaren. That was put down to tuning of the EBD but it was also the race where they introduced the flexi front wing. So it seems that the maximum benefit from the EBD requires the flexi front wing.

It's the opposite - at high speed the wing is in it's 'correct' (illegal) position and low speed when aero is less critical (and scrutineering conveniently takes place) it is in a less optimal, legal position.

They are protesting to the press not the FIA.

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/13256625

Front wing balances out the downforce gains from the blown diffuser ... without it the car gets very understeery especially in fast corners, throttle wide open (ie max flow to the diffuser and max downforce generated)

Makes sense - They do well in flat out corners ( altho flatout only for RBs )

And maybe they suffer in straights because of too much DF especially when they were without the F Duct.

I totally agree that the entire front wing is low to ground, not just the endplates.

Excellent analysis, as always, by Craig Scarborough here:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/category/aer...y-wing-flexing/

Was just about to post that. It is really bang on analysis. Good work Scarbs.

Indeed. I think the conversation went like this:
NASCAR officials (after partially disassembling car, including removing the fuel tank): Smokey, we have found X number of rules violations in your car.
Smokey: Make that X+1 (gets in car, starts it, drives away)

He also once built an exact 7/8 scale replica of one of the series cars. All the relative measurements were perfect, it took NASCAR a while to figure that one out.

He's also entered one legal and one illegal car in a race, put the legal one through inspection, took it back to the garage, removed the decals and stuff and re-did it up in the other car's livery, and put it through inspection again. The illegal may have been the 7/8 car mentioned above.



Of course, that was in the cowboy days. Smokey Yunick is maybe the Colin Chapman of NASCAR?

Good stuff. His blog has been quiet as of late and I'd stopped looking for updates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport...one/8872761.stm
Whitmarsh said McLaren believed the wings contravened a rule that says the front wing has to stay 85mm above the lowest part of the body of the car, the underbody 'plank'.

It's kicking off. TBH I thought intentional flexing body parts was a no-no but obviously nowadays the FIA has a different stance, when you see the flexing in the wing you can't help but feel how it is legal. Fairplay to Red Bull though.

The thing is that will be hard to prove, as pictures aren't "reliable" enough to serve as proof.

The following is the key line from Whitmarsh:
"It's difficult for us to imagine how with any form of linear deflection you can be in any danger of those [endplates] hitting the ground"

The clear intimation is that the RB wing flexes in a non-linear manner which can only be the result of a deliberate design.


Rule 31.5
" any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

- 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".

In FP1 today they showed slo-mo shots of several cars at the same point in the same corner and it was amazing how much lower the Red Bull wing and how the McLaren one was and not just in relation to the Red Bull. About the only wing that looked as high as the McLarens was the Williams and the McLaren seemed the stiffest by quite some margin as well.

It's really easy to prove. Get one of the teams with a non-flex wing to provide figures about how much downforce there is on the outer edges of their wing. Then apply that force to the Red-Bull wing and measure the deflection. The current test is fine, but the amount of weight used is completely out of sync with the sort of forces these wings are under.

McLaren have been so vocal about this that when/if their wing begins to flex as well, the FIA will start thinking about the aspect of doing it on purpose and by design... I guess they better keep complaining about the legality of other teams' wings.

It's not very fair to isolate a single issue like that, but at this point in the season this thing seems almost a championship-deciding 'problem'