planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:39 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:17 pm
Posts: 454
Hamilton and Toto Wolff keep talking about "interesting tactics" and "tricks" by Ferrari. Are they possibly trying to deflect attention from their illegal "tricks" like their flexing rear wing? Ferrari have done a lot of the answering and come out clean, is it time that the FIA investigate Mercedes too?

https://www.planetf1.com/news/ferrari-n ... rear-wing/
https://twitter.com/Vetteleclerc/status ... 2216473605


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14222
Quark wrote:
Hamilton and Toto Wolff keep talking about "interesting tactics" and "tricks" by Ferrari. Are they possibly trying to deflect attention from their illegal "tricks" like their flexing rear wing? Ferrari have done a lot of the answering and come out clean, is it time that the FIA investigate Mercedes too?

https://www.planetf1.com/news/ferrari-n ... rear-wing/
https://twitter.com/Vetteleclerc/status ... 2216473605


Who knows. The rules don't say the wings can't flex though. They just have to pass the stress test.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:45 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4892
Didn't Ferrari have an issue with this in somewhere like Spain last year or am I going mad? Abut it dropping on the straights or something, I can recall a gif doing the rounds I'm sure.

Nothing came of it though as with most flexi looking things as what mikey says as long as it passes the test, it's legit enough.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2932
Location: UK
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:24 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4892
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.


Well to be fair it's going the same direction as the car is, right to left through the chicane so theoretically if it does the same on a straight at full speed it could squat by going back then down.

Or does that not make sense, I'm losing faith as I type tbh? Either way it's legit, it passed the tests.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2932
Location: UK
Lotus49 wrote:
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.


Well to be fair it's going the same direction as the car is, right to left through the chicane so theoretically if it does the same on a straight at full speed it could squat by going back then down.

Or does that not make sense, I'm losing faith as I type tbh? Either way it's legit, it passed the tests.

Possibly, but I think it would involve a different deflection mechanism.

What we're seeing is the entire wing assembly wobbling from side to side, which presumably is a result of the wing supports flexing in that direction. For the wing to squat down on the straight you'd need to ensure that either:
1)The two wing supports bend in the other direction so that the wing 'leans backwards'. Flexibility in one direction doesn't imply flexibility in another however so there's no evidence that this is happening.
2) The actual wing itself bends at high speed so that it straightens out to reduce drag. This is not what we are seeing here as it is a different component that would be flexing compared to what we are seeing in the video.
3) Have the two wing supports bow outward at high speed so that the centre of the wing section drops down a little. This is the most likely scenario if there is anything happening as it requires the wing supports to flex in the same direction as we are seeing in the video. However the mechanism by which it happens is very different (a downward force on the wing rather than a sideways excitation from running over the kerbs in the chicane) so the video does not imply that this is the case.


If there was anything going on it would be fairly easy to spot as I believe the cars have rearward facing cameras where you can see the wing. I don't think we can conclude anything from the video evidence that we have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:53 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4892
j man wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.


Well to be fair it's going the same direction as the car is, right to left through the chicane so theoretically if it does the same on a straight at full speed it could squat by going back then down.

Or does that not make sense, I'm losing faith as I type tbh? Either way it's legit, it passed the tests.

Possibly, but I think it would involve a different deflection mechanism.

What we're seeing is the entire wing assembly wobbling from side to side, which presumably is a result of the wing supports flexing in that direction. For the wing to squat down on the straight you'd need to ensure that either:
1)The two wing supports bend in the other direction so that the wing 'leans backwards'. Flexibility in one direction doesn't imply flexibility in another however so there's no evidence that this is happening.
2) The actual wing itself bends at high speed so that it straightens out to reduce drag. This is not what we are seeing here as it is a different component that would be flexing compared to what we are seeing in the video.
3) Have the two wing supports bow outward at high speed so that the centre of the wing section drops down a little. This is the most likely scenario if there is anything happening as it requires the wing supports to flex in the same direction as we are seeing in the video. However the mechanism by which it happens is very different (a downward force on the wing rather than a sideways excitation from running over the kerbs in the chicane) so the video does not imply that this is the case.


If there was anything going on it would be fairly easy to spot as I believe the cars have rearward facing cameras where you can see the wing. I don't think we can conclude anything from the video evidence that we have.


:thumbup:

I'm with you now, yeah.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1824
It's only Red Bull who do flexi-shit, surely we all know this by now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.

Agreed. Side-to-side wobble is normal, is more pronounced depending on how the car uses curbing. It has no benefit, and most important... ALL cars have flapping, wobbling wings, side-to-side in back, wobbly up and down in front.

I for one, am looking forward to the simpler front wing next year. The current designs are over the top ridiculous.

Actually, I would like to see FIA do away with wings altogether.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 973
MB-BOB wrote:
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.

Agreed. Side-to-side wobble is normal, is more pronounced depending on how the car uses curbing. It has no benefit, and most important... ALL cars have flapping, wobbling wings, side-to-side in back, wobbly up and down in front.

I for one, am looking forward to the simpler front wing next year. The current designs are over the top ridiculous.

Actually, I would like to see FIA do away with wings altogether.


I agree, I also felt the same about the front wings during the RBR Era, they were just wobbling. How can that be good for areo. But maybe the point is that those are the best shots to show the extent of flex, over curbs, because the real benefit that cannot be picked up on camera under more stable conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2378
Image

These wings are perfectly adequte, actually just make the cars look like this and I'll be happy.

I still wouldn't pay for Sky though... ;)

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1319
First off, there is no cheating going on. The regulations are either specific or vague. But each team watch each other in detail, and protest if they see anything not within the regulations. Witness Renault protesting Haas after Monza.

But what the teams do is push the boundaries of the rules. The intent is a joke, only the wording of the regulations is respected. And make no mistake, everything that happens on the car is by intent. If a wing wobbles or flexes, it does it for a good reason. If the Mercedes rear wing wobbles, maybe it is not to shed drag, but to increase the disturbed air behind, making it even more difficult for any following car.

For racing, if you are not innovating and leading the way, you are following and can never get in front. Thus winning teams must push the interpretations of the rules to the very limit. Anything less is just that, less.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1319
ALESI wrote:
Image

These wings are perfectly adequte, actually just make the cars look like this and I'll be happy.

I still wouldn't pay for Sky though... ;)


I would love to see simpler cars like that again. The sad irony is that cars like that (Keke Rosberg's 1983 Williams FW08C) are capable in being just as fast as the current cars. Sadly, today's cars are more complex and much more expensive.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2932
Location: UK
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
First off, there is no cheating going on. The regulations are either specific or vague. But each team watch each other in detail, and protest if they see anything not within the regulations. Witness Renault protesting Haas after Monza.

But what the teams do is push the boundaries of the rules. The intent is a joke, only the wording of the regulations is respected. And make no mistake, everything that happens on the car is by intent. If a wing wobbles or flexes, it does it for a good reason. If the Mercedes rear wing wobbles, maybe it is not to shed drag, but to increase the disturbed air behind, making it even more difficult for any following car.

For racing, if you are not innovating and leading the way, you are following and can never get in front. Thus winning teams must push the interpretations of the rules to the very limit. Anything less is just that, less.

You are absolutely right. But I would propose that the most likely reason that the Mercedes rear wing wobbles like that is that they've optimised the supporting struts to be as light as possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 148
AMG seem to be very quick to call out Ferrari or anyone else that seems to get close to their speed and act like they obviously have to be doing something "illegal", I guess the elephant in the room is that, why does someone have to do something "illegal" get get near your performance? (in other words, I don't think AMG is as squeaky clean as they try and act).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3204
Ennis wrote:
It's only Red Bull who do flexi-shit, surely we all know this by now.

Several teams have exploited the flexible wings over the years, I remember - I think it was Ferrari and Renault - in the mid 200Xs having rear wings that would bend down once the air pressure got strong enough on the straights. Ultimately, the rules say words to the effect of "no flexible bodywork" but then you have to define what constitutes flexible bodywork, because all materials will flex. That's the deflection tests come in. You have a way of measuring the flex in the same way you can measure the curvature of bodywork or diameter of the tyres and it's unambiguous.

Of course, what then happens is that teams look at how the test is applied and engineer materials that won't bend under those circumstances, but will bend under lesser conditions when under the real world stresses. I don't know how these work, but hypothetically it could be something like the fact they apply a 200kg point force on the edge of the wing and measure the deflection whereas in the real world that 200kg force is distributed across the wing - the material won't bend for the point force, but will bend for a distributed one.

This is certainly cheating the test, but as the test is the only way to measure the result while I can't say I like this type of behaviour, it's impossible to police and the only way to stop it is to improve the test.

The case of the Red Bull flexible front wing was different to all the other flexible wings we've seen though.

That's because there is a rule in the regulations that says it's illegal to have anything on the car that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung mass of the car and the ground. The Red Bull front wing was designed to do this, as its touching the ground was the key aerodynamic improvement it brought. As all the other teams would have loved to have had a front wing that touched the ground and passed the test, but it was impossible to engineer it, it was clearly evident the wing had been designed to perform this task. In that sense, while I would consider all cases of wings designed to cheat the test to be cheating, but in a way that is impossible to prove - the Red Bull front wing was cheating on two fronts, and one them is unambiguous.

I haven't seen enough of the Merc rear wing to determine whether its flexing is inconsequential, or it brings an aerodynamic advantage, but if it is, then it will have to be passing the deflection tests and it is unlikely to be in violation of any other rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 297
j man wrote:
The whole point of a flexing wing is that it changes its angle of attack to give less drag on the straights and more downforce in corners. In the video the Mercedes wing is not doing that, it is wobbling from side to side which from my understanding gives no aerodynamic benefit.

Nothing to see here.

My thoughts exactly. I think the wobble would reduce aero efficiency because the downforce is no longer being applied a 90 deg to the track surface.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1319
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Ennis wrote:
It's only Red Bull who do flexi-shit, surely we all know this by now.

Several teams have exploited the flexible wings over the years, I remember - I think it was Ferrari and Renault - in the mid 200Xs having rear wings that would bend down once the air pressure got strong enough on the straights. Ultimately, the rules say words to the effect of "no flexible bodywork" but then you have to define what constitutes flexible bodywork, because all materials will flex. That's the deflection tests come in. You have a way of measuring the flex in the same way you can measure the curvature of bodywork or diameter of the tyres and it's unambiguous.

Of course, what then happens is that teams look at how the test is applied and engineer materials that won't bend under those circumstances, but will bend under lesser conditions when under the real world stresses. I don't know how these work, but hypothetically it could be something like the fact they apply a 200kg point force on the edge of the wing and measure the deflection whereas in the real world that 200kg force is distributed across the wing - the material won't bend for the point force, but will bend for a distributed one.

This is certainly cheating the test, but as the test is the only way to measure the result while I can't say I like this type of behaviour, it's impossible to police and the only way to stop it is to improve the test.

The case of the Red Bull flexible front wing was different to all the other flexible wings we've seen though.

That's because there is a rule in the regulations that says it's illegal to have anything on the car that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung mass of the car and the ground. The Red Bull front wing was designed to do this, as its touching the ground was the key aerodynamic improvement it brought. As all the other teams would have loved to have had a front wing that touched the ground and passed the test, but it was impossible to engineer it, it was clearly evident the wing had been designed to perform this task. In that sense, while I would consider all cases of wings designed to cheat the test to be cheating, but in a way that is impossible to prove - the Red Bull front wing was cheating on two fronts, and one them is unambiguous.

I haven't seen enough of the Merc rear wing to determine whether its flexing is inconsequential, or it brings an aerodynamic advantage, but if it is, then it will have to be passing the deflection tests and it is unlikely to be in violation of any other rules.


One way to control how the wing bends is by "aeroelastic tailoring". With computer programs and composite construction,you can get a piece of wing to bend and change pitch contrary to metal, but rather in the desired direction. But only the rich teams can devote the resources to get this done. Witness when it became obvious that the narrow nose was more efficient. Early on, only the teams with money could devote the resources to design, build, and get those parts through the impact tests. Other teams such as Williams and Force India knew what was required and how to do it, but they did not have the money.


We can go down the rabbit hole in debating "cheating", but that would just lead to animosity between forum members. My position is that while such wing bending is outside the scope of the intentions of the regulations, they do meet the testing requirements. And IMO that is part of the DNA of Formula One, to push the limits, not only technically, but also within the enforcement of the regulations

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1720
Tbh nothing can be infinitely rigid, so flexing occurs all over the cars.

Have a look at the front wings lowering as cars speed up to 200+mph.

Ferrari had nice on boards just behind the front wing in Monza which was very obvious.

It's not cheating and as others have mentioned could just be because of all the lightweighting structure they are using.

_________________
Pathfinder


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnRs and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group