Is this what turbulent air does to aero elements?
+ the bumpy track of Interlagos?
Yep, and Not just on an F1 car. Any fluid dynamic device is going to move around when the flow around it changes drastically!
Ironically a KLM plane!
Don’t even go there! There are pages & pages around this in the thread on flexing rear wings.
You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.Sieper wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 15:47It’s clear to see in this movie. Just like the other one. You do see the top bend down and also the gap on the side move. We have the scratch pattern to match, the high res pictures from behind, the incredible speed difference and the new wing test introduced.siskue2005 wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 15:26So now the claim is its hidden and no one can see it!.. then how do people know its there
Or it could imply that no teams are throwing repeated and so far baseless accusations around about other cars, and so there's not a great deal of interest to photographers or the media in trying to capture or obtain them.
Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!Marty_Y wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 21:01You sound desperate to see something which isn't there, at least Paul di Resta is honest enough to admit that he can't see anything wrong no matter how hard he tries.Sieper wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 15:47It’s clear to see in this movie. Just like the other one. You do see the top bend down and also the gap on the side move. We have the scratch pattern to match, the high res pictures from behind, the incredible speed difference and the new wing test introduced.siskue2005 wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 15:26
So now the claim is its hidden and no one can see it!.. then how do people know its there
dans79 wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 21:25Have an alternative source of that video? It's geo blocked for me!
Geo blocked on that page as well! whats was the gist of the video?Marty_Y wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 21:29
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... -rear-wing
Sorry about that, Paul explains what Red Bull think is happening, but he says there is no evidence of that happening, he says "I've had look a number of times, and I can't see anything"
there is no such thing as too rigid (at least for 'subsonic' rates of change of input)
Rigidity in a very long cantilever such as an airliner wing is difficult to achieve. You can do it but you end up adding unnecessary mass. Long, high aspect ratio wings are always going to be less stiff than a short low AR wing such as an old bi-plane. It's also worth remembering that the airliner wing is exposed to a much larger load variation - on the ground it's carrying many tonnes of fuel and engine with a resulting downwards force, in the air, the weight of the fuselage and the lift from the wings totally reverses that force. The old biplane just had a bit of wing self-weight on the ground so most of the design case was in a single direction.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 13:14there is no such thing as too rigid (at least for 'subsonic' rates of change of input)
the wings eg of biplanes are/were far 'more rigid' than today's wings
(of course today's wings if attempting rigidity would be prohibitively heavy)
ie for any time-varying (but non-overshooting) change to a steady input .....
the load in a non-rigid structure can only have a higher peak (than in a rigid structure)
ie a non-overshooting input can give an overshooting response
eg the peak reading using a spring balance will always exceed the true weight
this 'overshoot' response was too often ignored eg by booster design codes re the Challenger disaster (and in aircraft)
and in UK bridge design codes re the Millenium bridge
this 'overshoot' response was too often ignored by universities awarding degrees in engineering
competent designers allow for it