Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Int'l Motorsport (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/intl-motorsport/)

-   -   2012 F1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand prix - Yas Marina Circuit (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/intl-motorsport/128505-2012-f1-etihad-airways-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-yas-marina-circuit-9.html)

Yeah, that was all that was happening in the gif, and I was left wondering whether that was the only thing you intended to show. But then you also said about a discussion on the topic, which was nowhere! :D


All right.

Read through all I could, tried to understand all I could, and my brain is quite saturated right now with all that information.

I can understand how this is happening, and how everyone is suspecting Red Bull to be in breach of the rules, that how natural flexing is okay but "an aero component DESIGNED to flex" is not.

Also how, by altering the layers of carbon fiber used in making of the outer shell of the nosecone, RBR have managed to have the whole nose assembly pitch forward RELATIVE to the rest of the chassis; and how they have managed to pass the newer tests in which the FIA has increased the static loading (doubled it almost); how the whole flexing of the front wing seems more than that of the other cars (direct comparison with a McLaren in one of the pics)....

All these things I can, to an extent, understand, but there is one question thats bugging me right now:
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS ACHIEVED BY THAT?? (Sorry for caps, but that's the question that's been ringing around in my mind)

I mean, all that the rules say is that you cannot have an aero component that is deliberately designed to flex. But in this issue, its seems, speculation though it is, that Adrian Newey has somehow managed to circumvent the rules and design a front wing assembly that deliberately flexes more than thay of the competition. That's the gist of it, as far as I understood (of course a lot of it went over my head!).

So why? Why have they designed it that way? What advantage does a flexible front wing provide? All that they say in that forum discussion is that "it alters the airflow". Arrey lekin in what way??? That's what I want to know.


I've probably taken a lot of words to put forth my simple query, but so be it. If anyone could shed some light, it'd be great.

Thanks,
Harshal.

Before anything about that could be answered, one thing must be cleared before all assumptions are made.

when was this pit stop ? Was it after a crash that involved the nose cone? Which race?

Everything will be easier to narrow down in that context.

Furthermore, the wing is being lowered by 2-3 inches. Lower the wing = more df right?

Afaik, this was after Vettel barrelled through the "DRS" board when he veered off the track @abu dhabi. Yes he hit the drs marker square with the nose (and a part of the wing). The nose assembly was replaced I think. I tuned in to the race after all of this happened, so I'm not sure.

Of course lowering it would mean more downforce, but is this stuff sustainable? I mean, the flexing of any part is like an oscillation...so the front wing will kinda oscillate, so wouldn't that lead to disturbed airflow under/over it?

Edit: By the way good to know that there are other tbhpians who are night-riders like me ;-)

Lowering the wing, not necessarily,but changing the angle of attack does.Some races prior,i had heard of two twists for half a degree(or maybe the other way).

the nosecone replacement on vettel happened for the disintegrated vertical slat on one side,no?

I have a feeling they were just trying to get the proper camera angle maybe. :)

A flexing wing would move closer to the ground with aero load, faster the car goes around a corner, higher the load on the front wing which dips the FW closer to the ground and also changes the AoA around a corner bringing more downforce in the front. If you look at Vettel's onboard, his entry into corners are very aggressive which better suits this trick to work and matches to Horner's quote in 2011 about the RB car suiting the driving style of Vettel more than Webber. May be this also explains the lack of top speed of the RB car on the straights where there is tremendous load on the front wing, higher downforce, increased drag and reduced top speed. RB is the only car this year to run a high rake setup which improves the downforce in front of the car, you lose a bit of downforce on the rear but its matched by the EBD effect that dominated F1 in 2011.

Look at this picture for an example, the wing moves up and down like its connected around a pivot changing the AoA rather than just bringing the whole front wing lower.

http://www.gaiaconscience.com/img/trucorb2.gif


There is another picture which tries to explain the concept better.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2...exiblenose.jpg

The rubbery compound around the nose cone stretches down under tremendous load and helping the movement of the front wing more closer to the ground.

From the same thread in AF1, there is a link to an article about RB investing a lot of money in R&D of aeroelastic effects in F1.

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2010/08...imulation.html

I dont know how the load test of the FIA works, but I am guessing its very difficult to simulate the aero load test on the front nose that could prove that its flexing.

I am very skeptical about this rubber nose business. For me, it seems like somebody has manipulated the images. I would like to see a real shot of this rubbery wing before I jump to anything. Also, the teams keep a much close eye on each other for any violations than any of us. They had the hole in the RBR floor banned earlier this year. Teams would be crying hoarse over this wing. I mean, in that second gif (which shows Webber's car) that thing is bouncing around like a crazy ball.

The whole world saw Massa's flapping wings at Indian GP last year (AFAIR) through replays over and over again. Missing this, is hard to believe.

Hmm..that's understandable, since to have faster moving air from under the car, you've gotta have at least some space for it!


Correct, he had slammed his right side portion of the front wing through the marker.

:D

Yeah I'd seen both these pictures last night while going through the other forum. The nose flexes ever-so-slightly, but its visible if one closely observes the infinity logo in the first pic. The second one is a rough idea of how the wing behaves under static loading, which is how the FIA tests the flexibility (rather rigidity).


That bit was interesting too. I didn't know prior to this that the nose is actually made up of two layers - the inner fiber-composite crash structure, and the outer flexible shell.

And no, they say it isn't rubbery as such. That was the whole debate going on there. Apparently its made by skimming of a few layers of carbon fibre, and making it just the right thickness so that it flexes according to their aero requirements.


Read that too yesterday. As I said earlier, my brain got saturated trying to cram so much stuff in. ;-)

In a nutshell, what they were trying to say was that you have an FEA and CFD analysis done in one module, simultaneously, which I'm not aware is possible. My understanding is that you go mesh the model first, ie the finite element analysis comes first, only after that you can go for CFD.


Exactly. And that is what the FIA are having trouble with. They can't inspect the Red Bull flex without thinking of a better test, and their current static one isn't helping matters. The most interesting bit is that Newey has gone to the grey line here, in that the FIA has no way to prove that he has designed the front wing to DELIBERATELY flex, since he can just go on to say that "we were just trying to make it lighter"!



Nope. You'll have to agree that the front wing at least laterally flexes (viewed from front, moment about centre point). The debate here is the RB7's forward-pitching ability (viewed from side, nose tilts relative to chassis).

They can't, and they won't. The rules specifically state "no flexi aero components" but the way Newey and his team have gotten around it is a remarkable stroke of genius. Even the FIA knows that any material, no matter how rigid, WILL flex, under the correct conditions, albeit minutely. RBR have just stretched themselves to just within the rules in this case.

More information here on how it may work.

http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...ulls-fall.html

No image manipulation. You can watch the video on Youtube which shows the pit stop when this flexing thing happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKm59ktOeI0

Watch closely from the 10 second mark onwards.

The nose is definitely flexing. Now the question that everybody is trying to answer is whether the flexing is by design or was it because of the damage caused when Vettel hit the DRS marker board. There is quite a big debate about this topic going on at f1technical.net and people are basically arguing if thermocol/polystyrene can cause this kind of damage to the carbon fiber nose of the car.

Isn't that flexi aero? What's the genius Newey has done here? I can't believe that the nose showed deformation when the mechanic grabbed it to take it off but passes of FIA's tests. I am aware that wings will flex but it's the limit to which it flexes that is under dispute.

Don't jump to conclusions so soon. We do not know if that flexing is by design. If it is by design then yes it is absolutely illegal. But if it was because of the accident, then it is not.

Exactly. At this stage, it is all just speculation.

The genius I was referring to. ^
It just isn't possible to prove that the flexing is by design. If the FIA officials ever question Horner or Newey about it, they can just express mock surprise and say "Gosh, we never knew saving weight would have this side effect!"

(The general consensus is that they have stripped a few layers of carbon fibre off the nose shell, making it lighter as well as a tad bit flexible.)

Edit: It is quite obvious that what I'm saying is also clearly just speculation, nothing more. ;-)

Which is what I said. If other teams don't suspect anything, then it's probably nothing.

Aren't all cars supposed to have minimum weight? Found this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula...r#Construction

I don't think saving weight argument holds any weight.

Nice pun there friend. ;-)

That was just in a lighter vein. I was joking about the Red Bull team's probable response. That's not the issue at all.
The discussion was, and still is, centred around the alleged flexi-wings.

In fact, there is a comment from a member in AF1 forum on this issue, saying that is this looks "perfectly normal" and is a "non-issue". Given that the member who posted the comment is supposed to be employed by a rival F1 team, I would guess that the rival teams already know what it is and are probably also employing some similar methods.