The myth of the flexi wing.

[irishgreen]

OK.Before we start,all I know about aero is,that it's a nice bar of chocolate.

RBs wing has met all tolerance levels so far,in terms of the wing flexing.

What I would like to know is,could the nose of the car rotate,giving more down force to one side of the wing ?

Scoff if you wish but just watch a fighter plane turn.

 

[cosicave]

I wouldn't dream of scoffing at you Irish but a rotating nose sounds a bit curly-wurly, at least in this galaxy.

The answer is no, since it would constitute a moveable aero-device (and would also be very easy to check). The nose of the car must be mounted rigidly and undergoes extensive scrutinization in crash-testing too. It may not be 'hinged' in any manner whatsoever.

 

[genjigonzales]

I wouldn't dream of scoffing at you Irish but a rotating nose sounds a bit curly-wurly, at least in this galaxy.

The answer is no, since it would constitute a moveable aero-device (and would also be very easy to check). The nose of the car must be mounted rigidly and undergoes extensive scrutinization in crash-testing too. It may not be 'hinged' in any manner whatsoever.

Likewise, any system that pushed the unloaded (outside) tyres into the ground would contravene the rules banning active ride height systems, right?

 

[Bob Bobbinz]

Even if it was allowed the loss of downforce on the side that would rise would unbalance the car, just look at what happened to Vettel in Spa last year when he moved out from behind Button into the airflow.

[video]http://youtu.be/Dt87VZZzdd8[/video]

The wing essentially does what you suggest. Last years RB wing appeared to flex much more than this years from the look of things.

 

[Big Ern]

I wouldn't dream of scoffing at you Irish but a rotating nose sounds a bit curly-wurly, at least in this galaxy.

The answer is no, since it would constitute a moveable aero-device (and would also be very easy to check). The nose of the car must be mounted rigidly and undergoes extensive scrutinization in crash-testing too. It may not be 'hinged' in any manner whatsoever.

ah, but surely a flexing wing is also a 'moving aero part' in the same way?

 

[Bob Bobbinz]

The FIA allow for structural flexing as in their eyes no material can be free from flex or totallt solid. To create a device that moves around a joint or hinge would definatly be deemed movable rather than flexible, which is why McLarens Valencia moving front wing has come under scrutiny from the stewards.

 

[cosicave]

Likewise, any system that pushed the unloaded (outside) tyres into the ground would contravene the rules banning active ride height systems, right?

I see what you're getting at Genji, although in fact it is the inside tyres which are unloaded. However, your point still stands - albeit in reverse - since Formula 1 requires a longitudinal symmetry of aero parts. Of course there is also a degree of body roll which results from compression of suspension on the 'outside' wheels, which actually does result in one side of the wing to be closer to the ground. Bearing this in mind, it is perhaps worth noting that if a car has soft pre-loading of its front springs, aerodynamic pressure will result in lower ride heights as speeds increase because the springs are less resistant to the increased pressure. In this sense, the whole car is of course a moveable aero-device!

ah, but surely a flexing wing is also a 'moving aero part' in the same way?

I completely agree Miggins. And yes, in this sense, it is a moveable aero-device if - and only if - flexing exceeds the parameters in the prescribed testing procedure.

 

[genjigonzales]

I see what you're getting at Genji, although in fact it is the inside tyres which are unloaded.

Of course. I know that! It was still early in the morning. That's my excuse.