Mercedes W12

[siskue2005]

Now the main plane. It’s supposed to be secured. There are no tests nor limits. It cant be moving independently.

Could u give a source or link for that.
I couldn't find anything anywhere
Thank you

What do you mean? The whole wing is supposed to be a rigid unit, you can’t have moveable aero. If the mainplane bends like the scratches and the images of the car under speed seem to show, than that is movable aero. There is no limit or margin for that.

Do you dispute the wing should be a solid unit (excluding the DRS flap movement allowance) or have I misunderstood?

I was talking about "the main plane is not tested" claim, which I cannot find any reference

[Sieper]

Could u give a source or link for that.
I couldn't find anything anywhere
Thank you

What do you mean? The whole wing is supposed to be a rigid unit, you can’t have moveable aero. If the mainplane bends like the scratches and the images of the car under speed seem to show, than that is movable aero. There is no limit or margin for that.

Do you dispute the wing should be a solid unit (excluding the DRS flap movement allowance) or have I misunderstood?

I was talking about "the main plane is not tested" claim, which I cannot find any reference

In your own post you show the test procedure. The whole wing is pulled back. By the end plates end the drs flap. The mainplane is not touched in that test. Then you have the drs gap, must not exceed 85mm and is tested by pulling a ball with that diameter through the wing (between main plane and underside drs flap. Pull force 10nm. If it slips through you are out of spec.

I am not aware of any other tests. They are also not needed:

The main plane is supposed to be solidly connected with endplates by screws. Toto was saying 2 of these were loose on the wing that got inspected for the DRS gap in Brazil in the Pressconference today. If these were the two uppermost what is to stop the mainplane from flexing downwards per the gif posted today (that would match the scratch pattern exactly).

[siskue2005]

What do you mean? The whole wing is supposed to be a rigid unit, you can’t have moveable aero. If the mainplane bends like the scratches and the images of the car under speed seem to show, than that is movable aero. There is no limit or margin for that.

Do you dispute the wing should be a solid unit (excluding the DRS flap movement allowance) or have I misunderstood?

I was talking about "the main plane is not tested" claim, which I cannot find any reference

In your own post you show the test procedure. The whole wing is pulled back. By the end plates end the drs flap. The mainplane is not touched in that test. Then you have the drs gap, must not exceed 85mm and is tested by pulling a ball with that diameter through the wing (between main plane and underside drs flap. Pull force 10nm. If it slips through you are out of spec.

I am not aware of any other tests. They are also not needed:

The main plane is supposed to be solidly connected with endplates by screws. Toto was saying 2 of these were loose on the wing that got inspected for the DRS gap in Brazil in the Pressconference today. If these were the two uppermost what is to stop the mainplane from flexing downwards per the gif posted today (that would match the scratch pattern exactly).

The link I posted, there is nothing in it which says it's only done on the flap and not done on the main plane... these tests were deviced long ago when there was more than 2 components on the rear wing.
I can't find any article explicitly state that only the flap is tested and rest is left alone.

Toto was not talking about main plain
He was talking about the drs flap which had 2 screws which came loose and it opened more than 85 mm

[Sieper]

I was talking about "the main plane is not tested" claim, which I cannot find any reference

In your own post you show the test procedure. The whole wing is pulled back. By the end plates end the drs flap. The mainplane is not touched in that test. Then you have the drs gap, must not exceed 85mm and is tested by pulling a ball with that diameter through the wing (between main plane and underside drs flap. Pull force 10nm. If it slips through you are out of spec.

I am not aware of any other tests. They are also not needed:

The main plane is supposed to be solidly connected with endplates by screws. Toto was saying 2 of these were loose on the wing that got inspected for the DRS gap in Brazil in the Pressconference today. If these were the two uppermost what is to stop the mainplane from flexing downwards per the gif posted today (that would match the scratch pattern exactly).

The link I posted, there is nothing in it which says it's only done on the flap and not done on the main plane... these tests were deviced long ago when there was more than 2 components on the rear wing.
I can't find any article explicitly state that only the flap is tested and rest is left alone.

Toto was not talking about main plain
He was talking about the drs flap which had 2 screws which came loose and it opened more than 85 mm

It is not only the flap that is tested. The diagram you showed shows how they apply the pull force on the entire wing. They clamp the endplates and the attach material to the flap and from that then pull backwards with an X force. The wing may then move X amount backwards.

There is nothing attached to the mainplane when this test is done. The only other test is the 85mm ball pull test.

There is also no reason to test the mainplane, it is supposed to be solidly connected to the wing endplates. Are you aware of other tests being done?

[siskue2005]

In your own post you show the test procedure. The whole wing is pulled back. By the end plates end the drs flap. The mainplane is not touched in that test. Then you have the drs gap, must not exceed 85mm and is tested by pulling a ball with that diameter through the wing (between main plane and underside drs flap. Pull force 10nm. If it slips through you are out of spec.

I am not aware of any other tests. They are also not needed:

The main plane is supposed to be solidly connected with endplates by screws. Toto was saying 2 of these were loose on the wing that got inspected for the DRS gap in Brazil in the Pressconference today. If these were the two uppermost what is to stop the mainplane from flexing downwards per the gif posted today (that would match the scratch pattern exactly).

The link I posted, there is nothing in it which says it's only done on the flap and not done on the main plane... these tests were deviced long ago when there was more than 2 components on the rear wing.
I can't find any article explicitly state that only the flap is tested and rest is left alone.

Toto was not talking about main plain
He was talking about the drs flap which had 2 screws which came loose and it opened more than 85 mm

It is not only the flap that is tested. The diagram you showed shows how they apply the pull force on the entire wing. They clamp the endplates and the attach material to the flap and from that then pull backwards with an X force. The wing may then move X amount backwards.

There is nothing attached to the mainplane when this test is done. The only other test is the 85mm ball pull test.

There is also no reason to test the mainplane, it is supposed to be solidly connected to the wing endplates. Are you aware of other tests being done?

This link below has many other tests, including testes for the wing elements
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-b ... 29890/amp/

[dans79]

Gentleman, it's in the rules.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-28.pdf

3.9.4

Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied
simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the
car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at
the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm
which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost
horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre
of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.9.6

The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
870mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.9.7

The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies
more than 630mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when
a 200N load is applied vertically. The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the
element at any point across its width.

The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which:

a. May be no more than 50mm wide.
b. Which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge.
c. Incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

[siskue2005]

Gentleman, it's in the rules.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-28.pdf

3.9.4

Bodywork may deflect no more than 3mm vertically when a 500N load is applied
simultaneously to each side of it 250mm behind the rear wheel centre line, 375mm from the
car centre plane and 890mm above the reference plane. The deflection will be measured at
the outer extremities of the bodywork at a point 395mm behind the rear wheel centre line.

The load will be applied in a downward direction through pads measuring 200mm x 100mm
which conform to the shape of the bodywork beneath them, and with their uppermost
horizontal surface 890mm above the reference plane. The load will be applied to the centre
of area of the pads. Teams must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.

3.9.6

The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more
than 7mm horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied
870mm above the reference plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre plane
and 270mm either side of it. The loads will be applied in a rearward direction using a suitable
25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the relevant team.

3.9.7

The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies
more than 630mm above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when
a 200N load is applied vertically. The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the
element at any point across its width.

The loads will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which:

a. May be no more than 50mm wide.
b. Which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge.
c. Incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.

So the uppermost (DRS flap) and forward most (main plane) are tested for deflection

[dans79]

So the uppermost (DRS flap) and forward most (main plane) are tested for deflection

That's correct with very specific adapters that must be supplied by the teams.


The following is were the cross bars come into play.
3.9.3

Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is
applied simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 825mm above the reference
plane and 20mm forward of the forward edge of the rear wing endplate at 825mm above the
reference plane.

[RZS10]

Is it fair to say that the T shaped section (red) would normally prevent flexing of the kind that is suspected to some degree?
And that if it was to flex as far back as the supposed scratches indicate, it would almost certainly have to fold somewhere in the green area, most likely at the 'pivot point' (blue) ... so the material there would have to be very soft (in relative terms) and elastic, no?


Are there any high quality shots available of the car going down a straight that would show that area in great enough detail to draw any conslusions from them?

_____________________________________

Then you have the drs gap, must not exceed 85mm and is tested by pulling a ball with that diameter through the wing (between main plane and underside drs flap. Pull force 10nm. If it slips through you are out of spec.

Not really related to the car but i guess a short correction ain't too bad ... it's a disc that gets pushed between the wing elements from the rear of the RW (video) ... not that it would make much of a difference for the test result, i guess ...

[siskue2005]

Is it fair to say that the T shaped section (red) would normally prevent flexing of the kind that is suspected to some degree?
And that if it was to flex as far back as the supposed scratches indicate, it would almost certainly have to fold somewhere in the green area, most likely at the 'pivot point' (blue) ... so the material there would have to be very soft (in relative terms) and elastic, no?
https://i.imgur.com/Pm3TZxm.png

Are there any high quality shots available of the car going down a straight that would show that area in great enough detail to draw any conslusions from them?

It could just be a flow viz kind of flow separation


same as this below

[ringo]

Would something like this even be feasible from a carbon/material standpoint?
https://i.imgur.com/mVFwkFC.gif

It is possible if it were aluminum sheet, but there would be oscillations. The shape of the airfoil would also have be very flappy with almost no rigidity for the underside to sink in and the tail to bend down from the air pressure; again resulting in lots of oscillation and flopping.
Also if the air has to push it down, the air would be doing work to bend it, and so the drag wake would probably be very different than if the wing was set in that position.
I do not think anything interesting is going on with this wing. Redbull are guilty of something and they are wondering if Mercedes are doing it too. We can look to their taped up wings that were cracked.

[ferkan]

Got to say, that doesnt look like flow wiz leftover.

[Big Tea]

Got to say, that doesnt look like flow wiz leftover.

But could it be abrasion by material carried in the same airstream that moves the flowviz

[ringo]

What it can also be is that these endplates can also hold many wings. As Mercedes say they race with many wings.
That mark could be from another longer, more shallow wing that was fitted in these end plates.

[henry]

What it can also be is that these endplates can also hold many wings. As Mercedes say they race with many wings.
That mark could be from another longer, more shallow wing that was fitted in these end plates.

Very true. It could be a registration mark to help during fitting. There are vestiges of a similar mark where the wing in the image attaches to the end plate.