Flex in non-flexible wings
 

How do the Bulls grind off the front wing endplates and still pass the 100kg static load tests ?

Or , perhaps more appropriately , how is it that nobody else can copy this trait ?

Charlie is saying they're ok .
Horner is sounding all bored with the questioning .

And , everyone else is left wondering how Newey is flexing the rules , enough to grind the endplates so much .


It seems kinda weird that nobody else has worked a way to do this , as the downforce at speed must be far more weight than 100kg .
Surely , these brains should be able to configure things such that they would not flex until they were above the required weight applied , and only then to a certain amount .


So , what's really going on here ?
If they aren't flexing the front down , the only other way is to lift the rear end , and that doesn't seem likely .

But , Horner seems a bit too happy with talking about the mysterious front end .
And Vettel said earlier he liked the rear .

Are folks looking at the wrong end of the car ?

Most probably a combination of:

1. front wing CF layering allowing the wing to flex more after the 100 kgs load is passed
2. the front wing is under much more than 100kgs of load when at full speed on the track, also the aero load is distributed on the whole surface of the wing unlike the FIA punctual static tests which means the wing will behave differently then under static testing
3. suspension setup
4. Excellent aero means that they can run much more front wing then the rest without unbalancing the car, which in turn means that they will do great on medium and high speed twisty tracks

Conclusion is that the rest of the grid need a lot more than KERS to beat them to the flag.

i was going to say something not quite so clever and technical as Ioan, so i'll say i agree - to me it would seem if the static load is on the end of the wings that doesn't replicate the uniform pressure across the wing imposed by the downforce. i'd imagine that there is something very clever in the construction that menas when the load is distributed it flexes, but when subjected to a load at the ends it remains stiff. plausible?

I'm enjoying it immensely. No one's got a clue - after 18 months or so - how the Bull's are doing it!

Just a small correction, it can not remain stiff when subjected to a different load, it will only behave differently, like flexing less or along a different plane/axis.

It is not the endplates of the wing that are flexing more compared to the center of the wing then on other cars, it is the whole wing that is tilting forward and getting closer to the ground.
Very clever solution by Newey, and most probably difficult for other teams to implement without a large change in design philosophy, cause I do not believe for a second that Ferrari and McLaren could not build a wing that behaves similarly, it's just that their cars would not be any faster with it cause it would most probably unbalance their cars (front to rear downforce).

I would say yes, plausible. Whether it's practical or not I couldn't say, but I can imagine how it might work mechanically. Aero load applied near the centre might alter the shape of the wing, squeezing it from a curved cross section to a flatter one. That would then be less stiff, allowing the aero load at the ends to bend the wing down.

I imagine every bit of incorrect speculation about what Red Bull are doing inflates Newey's ego just a little bit... his head must be the size of a hot air balloon by now.

It's just that sort of thing which makes Newey cars difficult to beat. Sure he comes up with trick designs, but then the rest of the car is designed around them too, so you can't just copy it without re-designing everything else too. Teams will get there eventually, just as they learned to beat Williams and learned to beat McLaren, but it'll be some time and probably after Newey has gone!

Just a theory, ironically enough I was actually thinking about this today at work (shut up, works boring) and I'm wondering, the static load test pulls the wing end plates straight downwards right? What if the wing doesn't flex straight downwards? Maybe they flex on an angle, down AND backwards? So they only flex when it has windspeed of 150km/h plus pushing the wings backwards as well as downwards with the downforce do they flex, rather then just straight down as in the static load test???

Newey can outsmart himself, he has done it before at Mclaren, designing cars that are just too out there to actually work, but RBR have enough good OTHER people around to keep Newey's feet on the ground.

I guess in a strange kind of way, its not just about letting Adrian do his thing, but its also about holding him back a bit as well

1 - Too simple .
All the rest would have thought of that . They make all the parts of the car to ride just above or below the required spec .
And , as you say , the whole wing appears to be flexing .

2 -That's a fact or two , but not a word about how they achieve the flexing .

3 -I guess it's possible , that the suspension might be involved , but that would have to also be an area worked hard by all the teams , so to be so far ahead seems implausable .

4 -The "excellent aero" seems to be the advantage they gain by getting the wing closer to the ground , so they can channel more of the incoming air to the right places .
I think , though , that part of that advantage is that they can actually run slightly less , not more front wing , as they seem to be flexing down , increasing the angle of attack .
This might explain why they haven't needed the KERS at the start , because they have a slipperier car at lower speeds off the line .
Once the car is at a speed that's equal to the speeds and downforce created in those medium and high speed twisties , the nose is somehow able to squat down and create more efficient downforce .

This , coupled with better weight distribution , due to optimizing the weight of the missing KERS , had them miles ahead , figuratively .

Forget about about weight distribution improvement, it is fixed by the technical rules for this season.

Some interesting pics here, but still no explanation!

http://translate.google.com/translat...agione-2011%2F (Italian -English translation)

Well , if there is a space for KERS , and you replaced this weight with a flat plate that weighed the same , it would mean that weight has much less height , offering a much lower CoG .
That would be better weight distribution , would it not ?

On the vertical it would, yes, but not on the horizontal. What the stipulation re front/rear weight rule attempts to achieve is to negate the benefit of not running KERS.

Anyroad, I would hazard a guess that the Red Bull will chew its tyres with KERS in regular use......

I thought it was more to do with the tyres - to give Pirelli a fixed spec to design to, and prevent some teams lucking into weight distribution that particularly suited tyres while others got it wrong.

Just as Lewis splitter, RB dont need the use of the front wingor KERS in the race or even at the start, They will vin anyhow.

Ofcourse, MacLaren will protest as usual, why are they faster then us whitout a frontwing!!

I know it's not on the horizontal .
That would be why I stated that it would have a lower CoG . Pay attention , Wilco .

You may be right about those tires , but I think the roll , due to the higher CoG when they do run KERS , will have greater effect .
That nose section is bending down equally across the wing , and the endplates are dragging .
Drag just the outside and you have , firstly , friction outside , where you don't want drag , as it tends to keep you going straight .
Then , you have the inside lifting , and the loss in comparison with the outside downforce .

The suspension will need to be harder to deal with the roll .

And that's harder on tires .

Im in the middle of studying for my Aeronautical Engineering HNC, part of which covers aerodynamics and wing morphing using various means..
For talking sake.... would a morphing nose cone or wing containing either a veritex (Tm) composite layer also containing a heating element for softening or piezo electric ceramic layer (PZT) activated by an electric pulse to shape change still be technically within the rules considering it would not be actively adjusted.. merely softened?

The advantages are obvious.. on the straight at high speed the drag of a simple flexable nose would be eliminated yet when softening or morping, directly or indirectly (brake activation?) activated the means of providing the extra downforce you'd have the best of both worlds. (May also explain the Red bulls start line only Kers?)

Its probably something far, far simpler than that but thats probably an area Id explore if I was Mike Gascoyne.. but then thats probably why Im not!.. http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...es/biggrin.gif

Opinions on the possibilities and bending (pardon the terrible pun) of the technical regs ?

Interesting ideas.

Not sure about the heating element idea as that would mean quite a few heating - cooling cycles per lap and I do not know if it would be practical.

The PZT would need to be adjusted in real time otherwise the car's aero performance would be compromised, and real time adjustment is forbidden.

Well it all depends on the weight and placement of KERS. And unless Kers is placed very high, which it isn't, I think we can not talk about ' a much lower COG'.