The F1 Technical Developments Thread

Very nice. If that works out the McLaren would have tons of wings on its sides.
 
Last edited:
SchumacherM said:
Harder FIA tests my ass. 1 year later and it hasn't changed one bit.
Click to expand...

*insert <<deal with it>> meme here*

I suspect non-linear material deformation in the rear wing structure. In any case, as a non-supporting outsider, I love seeing that there's still some cleverness in rule interpretation nowadays.

Also, wasn't Ferrari's front wing doing the same thing (albeit on a somewhat smaller scale) last year? :raised eyebrow:
 
Last edited:
Yep...much smaller scale, like Mclaren. This on the other hand is just...disgusting.
 
SchumacherM said:
Yep...much smaller scale, like Mclaren.
Click to expand...

Wrong, McLaren's wing was rigid beyond all standards. Ferrari's wing was the middle ground between the two in terms of flexing.

And what's wrong with it? If RB found something which made their wing work like that while passing all the increased static load tests, it just means they have more brain power in the design and engineering department. It's up to the others to work it out for themselves. Or find something better.


I like innovation and I like diversity, to the absolute highest degree that can be cramped inside the regulatory frame.
 
Last edited:
This ''innovation'' caused the Vettel-Button crash. I never blamed the Finger for that one, but only the wing...there was a .gif somewhere on the interwebs showing the flexing..
 
SchumacherM said:
This ''innovation'' caused the Vettel-Button crash. I never blamed the Finger for that one, but only the wing...there was a .gif somewhere on the interwebs showing the flexing..
Click to expand...

Couldn't that have been caused by other issues besides just the wing? Like... a damp track? Over-enthusiastic move? Plus getting any front wing under another car's diffuser is bound to rob it of all its downforce.

Plus it was early in the race, full tanks, and a racing car on full tanks is generally tricky through Blanchimont.


In any case, as long as it's passed legal by the scrutineers through their tests, it's legal no matter what it does on the track. You can't scrutineer a car when it's moving at 200mph. If it's been passed legal, it's legal. End of story. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
vikiradTG2007 said:
In any case, as long as it's passed legal by the scrutineers through their tests, it's legal no matter what it does on the track.
Click to expand...

Won't know if it passed till the first race tech inspection, will we?

You can't scrutineer a car when it's moving at 200mph. If it's been passed legal, it's legal. End of story. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You can actually... ever heard of wind tunnels?
 
mpicco said:
You can actually... ever heard of wind tunnels?
Click to expand...

Not 100% equivalent to real-world conditions. As accurate as it may be, it's still a simulation of a certain set of conditions. You only simulate downforce there, you don't simulate lateral loads and stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
vikiradTG2007 said:
Not 100% equivalent to real-world conditions. As accurate as it may be, it's still a simulation of a certain set of conditions.
Click to expand...

It's still a damn well better simulation than just pushing the damn wing with a hydraulic piston or whichever method they're using :rolleyes:
 
vikiradTG2007 said:
I think I'm banging on closed doors arguing for as much creative interpretation of the regulatory framework as possible. <_<
Click to expand...

I think creative interpretation is McLaren's new side pods, or the double deck side pods, whatever. This comes from last year when they were trying to outlaw these flexing devices. The intention is to outlaw them, period, not to put some tests and see who can go around them.
But as I said before, we don't even know if those wings have actually passed scrutineering.
 
SchumacherM said:
Harder FIA tests my ass. 1 year later and it hasn't changed one bit.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that there's not much relevant flexing involved.
The first photo shows the car on the kerbs. I'd say, the loose wire is caused by the wing rocking about because of the bumps in the kerb. I don't consider high-frequent flexing on bumps to be of real relevance to the performance of the wing.
EXIF data on the image, especially the shutter speed, would shine some more light on that issue though, as I'm not entirely certain.

The second photo looks to me like there's a quite hefty amount of body roll going on. Well not actual body roll, but roll caused by very soft (as in: much deflated) tyres. The red lines lead you astray, because the wing actually seems to be shaped like an inverted v. What I mean is: the tips of the wing are lower than the centre, even when stationary.
This effect is further amplified by using the outer tip of the winglet as reference point for the line. From the picture I guess, the bottom edge of the winglet is about 20-30mm lower than the centre of the wing.

If you really want to proof wing flex, you'd have to compare a set of pictures of the wing, taken along a straight from the same angle and at the same distance. That way you'd get samples at different speeds and could basically create an animation to show the wing's behaviour under the influence of speed.


[edit]
Forget the above. I shall sand corrected, after watching this:
pfrocker said:
Click to expand...
Note the red/white stripe on the right half of the wing in the camera position after the 5:00 mark.
You can clearly see how the wing reacts to lateral acceleration on turn-in.
[/edit]
 
Last edited:
vikiradTG2007 said:
I think I'm banging on closed doors arguing for as much creative interpretation of the regulatory framework as possible. <_<
Click to expand...

I suggest just giving up, it's not even worth the time anymore.
 
screwdriver said:
Forget the above. I shall sand corrected, after watching this:

Note the red/white stripe on the right half of the wing in the camera position after the 5:00 mark.
You can clearly see how the wing reacts to lateral acceleration on turn-in.
[/edit]
Click to expand...

Aaa, I completely forgot about this vid. Now you can see why I'm semi-ranting. You have to be a seriously stuck up beaurocrat to pretend this is not a dubious wing. And don't bang on about FIA tests, I've got a better one. Eyes.
 
screwdriver said:
Note the red/white stripe on the right half of the wing in the camera position after the 5:00 mark.
You can clearly see how the wing reacts to lateral acceleration on turn-in.
[/edit]
Click to expand...

You realise that with the sort of loads applied to the wing and the size of the mounts it would be virtually impossible to make one that doesn't move around a bit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top